Quote from: ATMD on January 08, 2019, 05:16:32 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on January 08, 2019, 05:11:57 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 08, 2019, 05:00:17 PM

....

It also ignores the reality that simply funding thousands of sham studies over and over again does not constitute scientific consensus. It constitutes that scientists will say what they are paid to say by the people who fund them. ....

It's quite common that a scientific article will contain on the first page some type of "statement of faith" regarding climate change.

For example, I recall one that said "The findings are consistent with man-made climate change."

Now that ACTUALLY means anything and everything. The findings may be consistent with 1001 things, but here is mentioned one. Regardless, the authors have done their job, with a secret smirk, and gone ahead with their research.

This article would have been counted in the sham "consensus" but in fact has nothing at all to do with climate change cause or effect.

Science should be based on empirical evidence, facts, and numbers. To have personal agendas from corporations and private organizations skewing the data and making false claims makes it difficult for the rest of us to know what is going on.

That's exactly right, although for "climate change", to the list of "corporations and private organizations" we must add governments, political forces, non-profit advocacy groups, and similar things.

To the question of the OP, the ONLY scientific response to any belief system assertion such as those of the "climate change ideology" is skepticism.

Hello, Lysencho.