Replies

>>you keep using this phrase, or one similar, quite frquently. Are you speaking of journalists, or pundits? <<

No, scientists.

>>Who do you think “understands science?” Do you have the slightest idea what the word science means?<<

Scientists and those of us who understand science.

>>I ask this because you seem to be of the erroneous belief that consensus can play a part in science. Back in 1975-76 when I was working on the rebuttal to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Peripheral Canal, we had assembled a group of the very best real scientists in the state to analyze the assertions that the report contained. Biologists, Ichthyologists, Estuarine Sediment Engineers, mostly from local colleges and universities.<<

And yet, you learned nothing from this assemblage. How sad.

>> My goal was in a general way to establish a consensus in each area, and thereby present a basis for doubt on every assertion of the report. It turned out to be a difficult undertaking, because by their nature real scientists reject any attempt to get them committed to consensus. Even for such an important cause as preventing the destruction of the Califoenia Delta.<<

And yet, you cannot even fathom the simplest of scientific principles. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

>>You, on the other hand, as an observer seem to see consensus in every basket. Your vision seems to need correction.<<

I understand the diversity in science. And I understand the very real argumentation in the scientific community. But the argumentation is not about the ToE fundamentals.

Except for the very tiny number of non LS “scientists” who put theology over science.

You appear to be the latter, but this is the chance for you to clear your name.