Comments by "Wiczus" (@wiczus6102) on "Busting Climate Change Myths | Answers With Joe" video.

  1.  @aslanfrench  You didnt understand what I said. Almost the opposite.
    4
  2. ​ @aslanfrench If you read any scientific article you'll find out that there are no opinions there. Its not about consensus, the only thing to discuss is if the procedure was correct. Let's say there is a team of scientists (A) who think interval training is great for weight loss, so they start testing participants and note the results. In the conclusion the training will be linked to a percentage weight loss. Now lets say there is a conference and there are scientists (B) who thinks interval training is shit. B reviews A, but even though they disagree and reach no consensus, still awknowledge (through repeating the experiment or reviewing recordings and data) the article that was made with scientific rigor, so the article gets published. This is science, its impartial so no consensus is needed in the first place. You can have a consensus if you discuss what the effects of that observations are. In case of global warming, the data shows steady warming, and scientists have a consensus that this is a trend that happens and will continue, not that the data was observed, this is just peer review.
    2
  3.  @aslanfrench  I meant to say that peer review doesn't entail scientists discussing an opinion, but rather verification of the study.
    2
  4. Not a common combination of opinions I must say :D
    1
  5. Yeah, but that is wrong, science evolves. Truth is true, your observation (science) of it doesn't have to be. Neil is a bit on the pop scientist part.
    1