No I am not. I am arguing that the opinion of the majority of scientists is the one to follow, not the opinion of the minority of scientists.
This is why I don’t engage in the argument about whether global warming is occurring or whether it was caused by human activities. These are scientific questions, not personal decisions of conscience or preference.
That is indistinguishable from the “authority of thousands” referred to in Gallileo’s quote - Those Astronomers WERE the “scientists” of their time and their authority was unquestioned and unquestionable. No doubt they too were earning their living from their science - Just as the hundreds of thousands of “Climate scientists” all churning out their own “Models” are today. - Oh NONE of those “Models” actually work - They ALL overstate the temperature FORECASTS (which is all they do predict ) - because the "Most catastrophic " of the models overstate the issue are the ones which attract most money into the INDUSTRY !
There is absolutely NO room for dissent and indeed anyone actually trying to do this properly would be responsible for DECREASED funding coming into the Club ! So why on earth would anybody “Rock the boat” by showing integrity ? Especially when they know full well that criticism or doubt expressed will result in their funding being cut off and them being sacked ? [Bearing in mind as well that anybody highly intelligent would be far more likely to specialise in REAL science - so these “scientists” are most likely to be second tier at best ! ]
{Actually there is apparently a single model which DOES work - but “they” studiously ignore that one - because it is not Catastrophic enough )
No. You’re again misrepresenting what Galileo said and stood for. He advocated scientific observation in order to support conclusions about the Earth. The authority he was opposed to were not thousands of brother scientists, they were the clergy.
Its not unexpected that less than 100% of the scientists in the world accept the same conclusions on global warming as an occurrence and as to its causes. I have said all along that I merely side with the conclusion of the majority of scientists. I don’t support them, I don’t look at their reports and find them convincing, I don’t weigh the scientific evidence, let alone take my own observations. I simply accept what the majority of the experts in this field say.
But let’s step back a little. You reject what the majority of climate scientists say. What is the basis for rejecting what the majority of the professional experts in a given field actually say?
So, on a medical question, what would cause you to reject the conclusion of the majority of doctors? Or on a legal issue, how would you decide to reject the conclusion of the majority of barristers? Or let’s say a question concerning flying a plane, what grounds would you have for rejecting the conclusions of the majority of pilots?
men just give it up already.
you are wasting your time by trying to open someones eyes who doesnt want to open his eyes. what good does that do to the world or you personally?
just do as i did with @Dennis3450 ; realize and understand that it isnt worth arguing simply by the point that youre arguing against someone who does not know and does not want to hear. those people just want to talk, they want to put out their “knowledge” and need an audience, therefore a conversation with such people will never end, will never come to a conclution and certainly will never make them understand. even when they cant prove their stand point or support with facts, they switch the focus on something you said, which can not be defended or actaully attacked, as it is a personal standpoint, a personal view, thereby distracting from the fact that they can not offer any logic or data that supports their theory with which the debate started.
or look at it this way:
you cant explain in chemical language to a cavemen that fire is the result of 2 chemicals (oxygen + any flamable chemical) reacting with each other. you can tell them a 1000 times, show pictures, graphs, profs etc but their answer to that will always be the same: “fire ouch ouch, fire made by god, ouch ouch, fire evil”. the person you try to explain something simply will never be able to understand it because out of 2 simple facts:
1st. he lacks the necessary background knowledge to draw the logical conclusion.
2nd. he thinks he knows more than you, that in itself stops him from learning/accepting anything from you.
That’s an interesting claim mate - Where are you getting the evidence for that statement ? How do you know what “they” say ?
See. He again switched the topic. @tommor
Now he is questioning your perception of facts while @eddieb already nicely wrote and proved what scientists think. Even thou he himself in nummerous posts (even the profoundly wrong post about gallilei) aproved of the fact that the majority of scientists think that way.
Its a never ending cycle.
Its hillarious.
I think your analogy here to the “caveman” shows the lack of depth of your thought patterns and indeed breathtaking arrogance at your own “Superiority” - There is no obvious evidence to lead us to believe that “we” are more intelligent or capable than stone-age humans and “superiority” to for example Neanderthals is far from conclusive.
Furthermore your “Caveman” was, in conjunction with his “female mate” from the materials around him - trees, stones, water, earth and fire, able to produce weapons and clothing, with which to feed themselves and their children entirely free of any “shop bought” items. Again you, your mate and kids would starve to death in short order under such circumstances.
However, I asked you something a few posts back ;
ANd eventually, you responded thus ;
I am surprised you are quite happy to admit that there is no positivity in any of your posts, as I suspected. Yet in your arrogance you seem to claim a somehow cryptic or magical “connection” to those who we assume you think may have the benefit of an intelligence quotient approaching your own high value.
However, I am somewhat surprised and indeed intrigued by @tommor 's position on this issue, since I have found him on several other issues to be quite an articulate chap one could have a meaningful conversation with. I sometimes wonder what his occupation was that he would benefit from the “steadfastness” of this type of communication and refusal even to consider looking at the evidence which may convince him to reassess or perhaps even modify his views.somewhat - Odd ! 
and here we go again. always the same cheme he is using.
reread my posts and find the spot where i said anything about “intelligence” 
you clearly fail badly at reading.
or you just try to put words in my mouth, also a very prominent tactic used by people who dont know what else to say.
knowledge and intelligence are two seperate things, and its of clear evidence you do not posess any of those.
how funny it is taking you in parts and revealing what cheap tactics you use to make people believe you know something while in truth you dont.
its funny how you come from me saying “no knowledge” to interprete “intelligence” and then waist 100 words on explaining how cavemen used to live. how do you know a cave mens life? from personal experience? 
is it possible that you have a tendency to ADHD and that results in you jumping from topic to topic without beeing able to focus on one thing at a time?
if any of feelings of superiority arise in me, it is the fact that i am talking to you. and tbh everyone feels superior when he/she is talking to you. the sheer arrogance here comes from your side. you are actually arrogant enough to claim to posess better knowledge of a field in which you are not educated at all.
your arrogance is of such a high level that you claim that 100.000 of scientists, who are educated in the field know less than you do, who on contrary for sure never had any connection (even if you did visit a college) with any environemtal sciences.
not only are you that arrogant to inflate your ego in the level of "i know more than 100.000 scientists who are scholed to know of a field in which i never have been schooled) but also to actually manage to stand here, write a 1000 words of “crap” and trying to convience people who are even less educated in the field to see the things exactly as you see them.
why? because your extreme arogance thinks it is right. and your extreme ego forces you to push your “opinion” on others, trying to force them to see things the same way you do.
here for everyone who is interested to know what cheap tricks falstaff is using i recomend this video:
im sure falstaff does not know of these tricks in his Consciousness (because he falls for them constantly by listening to nigel farage and trump and people of such styles) but that he merely subconsciously copies what he have seen somewhere else.
these tricks work pretty good, on people who do not know of such tricks.
but unfortunately (for falstaff), i know of such tricks. and many more 
which leaves us to you thinking to yourself “hmm why isnt anything working?”. im going to tell you why nothing is working, because you try to trick people, it works for many, for some it doesnt work, and im finding joy in taking you and your tricks apart into pieces. its fun. so please continue with your rubbish fact less talk, your jumping from topic to topic, your tries of putting words in someones mouth. ill happily be here and take your rubbish into pieces and all you will find at the end of the road is an audience thinking “wtf is wrong with this falstaff? he hasnt have all his teaspoons sorted right as it seem” 
You ask what was my previous occupation. I was an Environmental Health Officer for 25 years.
I didn’t actually “ask” - because I respect your privacy, but I did say I “wondered” - Thanks for the information though.
I was a Quantity Surveyor for 40+ years and still do some Freelance work.
I’m just watching a Channel 4 Documentary on the subject. Some of our readers might be interested. Maybe even yourself ?
It does contain many respected people whom you may regard as credible.
Thanks, no.
The end.
Ok mate ! 
And just what did you do to Dennis3450, all I see is someone who thinks they know everything and everyone else is stupid.
One thing I have recognized in the history of science, the mob never leads us to new ideas and breakthroughs, that comes from the individual scientist who goes against the mob often at the expense of their career and standing in the scientific community only to be vindicated after their death. It is for this reason I am always skeptical of accepted but unproven or unprovable science
Dennis, this is just superstition.
Once again you just project meaningless verbal diarrhea.
@Dennis3450 response seems perfectly adequate here ;
Especially when the depth of knowledge of the Troll was exposed here ; With reference to the “Caveman”
And having regard to your previous boastfulness
youre jumping in circles. you are repeating always the same thing, you even started quoting yourself. how silly is that? is there any way you could come up with something new and actually (for a change) something intelligent which has not been addressed several times already?
if you want the truth, i feel remorse talking to you. for some reason it feels like taking a kid its candy away, or to beat up a person in a wheelchair (both of which i have never done, so dont try to be smart and accuse).
cant u just stop working so hard to come out as dumb? do me that favor please.
taking quotes out of context, works in speaking, but in writing people just can simply read up the original and see that things are out of context.
Is this Your thought Tom ? - It has the whiff of Postmodernism about it - something which has gained prevalence after you, I and @Dennis3450 went through the education process.
Its just that if you only act on what the guy on his own in the corner says because he is the guy on his own in the corner, then you have abandoned all rational thought processes. You’re doing the modern equivalent of putting faith in the hermit who lives up the mountain or the seer who wanders in the desert. I’d say that’s as close to superstition as anything medieval.
Hi guys.
It’s a shame to see an interesting discussion get further and further derailed. I hope we could all get back on topic while we cleanup the thread.
Thanks,
Penelopip
I don’t fully agree @Penelopip. I see that we have indeed moved away from fine detail but into questions of rational thought and the value of scientific evidence v’s emotional bias and irrational superstition. These questions are the very basis of decision-making, and two of the biggest areas for decision facing us right now are Brexit and Global Warming.
If we can’t think about these things, then our answers will only be the right ones by sheer chance.