"The whole "science has been wrong before" angle has been answered very well by lots of scientists. The answer basically boils down to, "Yes, but it's usually wrong in a continuous cycle of refinement, not wrong in a 180-degree direction kind of way"."
Well I'm talking about scientific revolutions, which are 180's
"If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community, then you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data, and you have to get it peer-reviewed."
This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are against the scientific consensus.
Also, funding is 1000 times higher for pro-warming than against. If you want funding to study the blue-footed-boobie get in line, but if you want to study the effects of global warming on the blue-footed-boobie they throw money at you.
> > "If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community, then you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data, and you have to get it peer-reviewed."
> This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are against the scientific consensus
Supporting evidence please? Please give some examples that "happen all the time" but "we haven't heard about".
Frankly, you sound like a conspiracy nutter. Please provide some counter-examples to support your case.
I'm not going to play that game. If I gave you a list of papers to counter man made global warming, you'd say "they are sponsored by big oil" or "those scientists are shunned by the scientific community".
How about this, I think the burden of evidence should be for proving man made global warming. Has it been done? No, it hasn't, despite all the "consensus" noise. Buried under all the "concensus" you'll simply find computer models. Computer models that don't even agree with each other, of impossibly complicated systems.
Well I'm talking about scientific revolutions, which are 180's
"If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community, then you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data, and you have to get it peer-reviewed."
This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are against the scientific consensus.
Also, funding is 1000 times higher for pro-warming than against. If you want funding to study the blue-footed-boobie get in line, but if you want to study the effects of global warming on the blue-footed-boobie they throw money at you.
That's how it works.