>>2413670>there is scientific consensus behind the basic assertion I'm making - anthropogenic climate change is real and having a marked effect Anthropogenic climate change definitely is real but the rate at which they claim it is happening is wrong by magnitudes, and its pretty absurd to think that even if we tried our hardest to rape the planet in every way imaginable, that there would be a whole lot of impact in such a small period of time. Climate scientists got called on this in the mid 00's and responded by changing the models related to the runaway greenhouse effect because the data that was actually being observed didn't meet the conclusions they needed it to. These revised models have never correctly predicted a temperature yet. You have a scientific consensus among climate scientists but not among geologists, so your statement isn't entirely true. Also as someone who actually went to school for this stuff, there's just as much bad science as there is good science. Almost half of studies that get thrown in peer review journals can't be replicated by other scientists anymore. Peer review as a whole is largely dead because there's no profit in verifying other people's results, so people just see 1 or 2 people handwave a study and follow suit. A lot of the issue here is in how academics do and don't get paid for peer review. There's more motivation for slop work than anything.
Also, I'm sure you'll be able to admit, on a large enough time scale almost every single scientific consensus which has ever existed has eventually been proven wrong.
The attitude you are displaying, that scientific consensus must be blindly followed because one's peers say so goes directly against the scientific method and is a mockery of it. The scientific method being the entire reason science has value in the first place. The last 100 years or so it has largely degraded into a game of telephone.
