Monday
Oct312011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Snow in New England
Oct 31, 2011 Climate: WG2 Heavy snow in New England has brought chaos, with trees still in full leaf leading to branches being brought down across roads and power lines. This is apparently the first time the region has had heavy snow in October since 1869.
You can guess what has caused it.
Michael Mann, director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, last February linked monster snowstorms with climate change, "This is what the models project," he said, "that we see more of these very large snowfalls."
I can't help but be a little surprised that global warming is going to lead to earlier and heavier snowfalls.
Reader Comments (174)
Info on snow storms east of the rockies and snow extent in the US. No trend.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_Precipitation.htm#snow
As far as I can see, the only evidence either way on US snow fall is that heavy snow fell in in the NE US states in 1869 and fell again in 2011.
Nice one, Hengist.
Your response to a request for pre-2008 predictions of CAGW causing increasingly cold winters is to provide a Monbiot article from December 2010 complete with 'plenty of footnoted references' from post-2008.
Result.
And just in case anybody pontificates about the usually mild New England weather in October...
No Les I haven't read the papers, I dont have the expertise like James Delingpole. A precis will have to do for me for now. I think you'll find that scientists have been concerned about the gulf stream shutting down due to climate change for some time. That is like the central heating for Europe. It looks like youre right that (apart from Budokova) there was no prediction of colder winters and more snow fall until after they started. But that presumes Monbiot's piece fully encapsulates all known knowledge on it, which I doubt a position I probably share with most on BH. I am reminded of a quote (by I think Gavin Schmidtt) that the study of climate change is pretty much the coal face of what is known and unknown .
Hemngist: Don't feel bad about not reading the cited papers; neither did poor old George.
This from Budikova, in the conclusion:
The reduction of ice cover in the North Atlantic often coincides with a northward-shifted and weakened Icelandic low and a strengthened Azores high.
My emphasis.
Note that a strengthened Azores high pressure is generally responsible for bringing warm dry air to Europe.....
Warm, dry air. Not cold, moist air. Note the Icelandic low is weakened as well.
From Wiki:
A large difference in the pressure at the two stations (a high index year, denoted NAO+) leads to increased westerlies and, consequently, cool summers and mild and wet winters in Central Europe and its Atlantic facade.
In other words, Budikova says that ice retreat should bring cool summers and mild winters.
You really need to read other people's references, and not just cite them. The Great George should too.
corrigendum:
In other words, Budikova says that ice retreat should bring cool summers and mild winters.
Should be:
In other words, Budikova says that ice retreat should bring cool summers and mild winters, in the case of a strengthened Azores high and a stable Icelandic low, or even warm, dry seasons, in the case of a weakened low.
Plenty of people predicted colder winters and more snowfall before 2008. As I recollect the notorious James Hansen of NASA was one of them.
But that was when they were all trying to engineer a panic about the climate getting colder overall and us entering the new ice age.
The trouble with the 'new ice age' theory was that it didn't need the plebs to live in windmill powered medieval conditions, whilst the rich got even fatter on green energy subsidies, so it was quickly dumped in favour of other theories more in tune with engineering a socialist green paradise.
Mike Jackson - there is a mention in the NY TImes on January 19, 1906 of a Mr Scarrit (nomen omen) warning there wasn't enough gasoline to run all those cars.
David C: that was why I prefaced my challenge to find literature on cold, snowy winters caused by GLOABL WARMING.
It would have been too easy to quote papers from the 60s and 70s on the coming increase in winter weather.
Re: Hengist
> I think you'll find that scientists have been concerned about the gulf stream shutting down due to climate change for some time.
And yet there is no discernible trend in the gulf stream, just some natural variability, according research.
ZBD
This may interest you:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
There is over 800 of them. Have fun.
I don't know who writes David Attenborough's scripts, but I notice he referred in his latest programme to changes that might make us the last people to view the polar regions as they presently are.
He declined to explain how a small rise from -70 degrees would melt all the Antarctic ice, but I can see that a rise of more than 70 degrees might be serious.There was still some snow and ice around Mt Erebus, though...
Hengist
George Monbiot in 2005:
Quote:
"Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur."
Enough said I think.
Someone needs to keep a record of the Manniac claims regarding CO2.
I could see a book of jokes, all with the punchline, "this is as predicted".
He is, of course, flat-out misleading in his claim. The predictions were for the UK to have snow-less winters.
The AGW opinion makers are busy pretending they did not say that snow would be a thing of the past, but the record is clear.
Link to the above:
http://www.monbiot.com/2005/02/15/mocking-our-dreams/
Crikey - you lot never do dissapoint.
Where to start? Having a life, instead of sitting crouched over a computer all day long is apparently evidence of guilt. Here's me thinking I've been enjoying an excellent meal of duck breast, swede sauce and fondant potatoes, but no, according to comments here, not instantly replying how you want, when you want is tantamount to some form of guilt.
Seriously, get a grip on yourselves and get a life.
And the responses to my perfectly accurate point? One response, of course, is completely absent. "Good point ZDB, Andrew is just trying to score cheap shots by pointing to snow and insinuating AGW isn't happening". If you lot were honest, and genuinely sceptical, that's what you'd be saying.
As for the rest, Latimer Alder seems as odd as ever, clearly not understanding that demanding answers to the best part of a dozen highly specific questions is not only a hiding to nothing, but rather weird. You need to lay off the blogs and get outside in the fresh air.
The majority of the rest of you, as ever, have missed a major point, namely that increased extreme weather events are completely consistent with global warming, and have been predicted for something like 20 years. It's only relatively recently that climate scientists have amassed enough evidence to take a step beyond saying that such weather is merely consistent, and are now beginning to say that it constitutes actual evidence.
And what is the overall response? The key theme here seems to be borderline autistic. Namely 'it's wrong unless you can find evidence of a specific forecast of our choosing in a date range of our choosing'. Again, perspective please - you're just being weird.
AR4 makes plenty of reference to increased moisture in the air - what do you think's going to start happening to it in colder weather? Do you really need everything spelled out for you? I'd be careful if I were you - that's very close to the argument from ignorance.
To pre-empt, I have things I should now be doing. If I'm being a good ZDB, you won't hear much from me for the rest of the day. I may not actually get on with them, and stick around, as I can be as guilty of procrastination as the next person. but If I'm not, it's because I'm busy. Something many of you seem oddly unable to take into account as a factor for non-response.
@ Hengist
The problem you have here is threefold.
First, someone somewhere has almost certainly predicted everything, and someone else has predicted its opposite, as likely consequences of CAGW. The challenge is to demonstrate that the majority of predictions went the same way. We're still waiting on the evidence for this.
Second, as others have pointed out, a lot of these supposed "predictions" were not made until after the fact anyway.
Third, one of the bad things about CAGW was supposed to be the warmer winters, but now we're being told that one of the consequences of CAGW is in fact cold winters. I'm sure you can see the problem here.
You must very much regret the internet and its horrible capacity to store everything ever said, however stupid and embarrassing.
One thing noticeable about the supposed "consensus" among scientific academies is that it consists largely of Little Sir Echo repetition of others' unchecked claims. It wasn't a scientific body that noticed the stupid Himalayas claim, for example, or the IPCC's 30% reliance on grey literature. A body noticeably absent from this consensus is the anthropologists, who have no doubt noticed that CAGW looks much more like a reconfigured western religion that it looks like proper science.
A few years ago I did an analysis of oil analysts' predictions of the future oil price, mapped against the price at the time they made their forecast and against the actual price outcome for the period they were predicting the price for. The result was a 0% correlation between forecast and outcome but an 80% correlation between forecast and the price at the time they made the forecast.
In other words, they weren't forecasting what would happen three years ahead, they were simply telling you what the price was today.
Climate scientists do the same. They look out the window, notice that winters are a bit mild and declare the sky is falling. They look again a few years later, notice they can't see through the window for all the snow and still conclude the sky is falling.
What weather event would falsify your faith in CAGW now? Be honest, there isn't any. Is there?
Exactly. The climate change models didn't show increased SNOW until the snowy winters turned up. You want peer-reviewed papers? OK:
"The effects of climate change due to global warming on river flows in Great Britain"
N.W. Arnell, N.S. Reynard, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 183, Issues 3-4, September 1996, Pages 397-424
Abstract: "Global warming due to an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will affect temperature and rainfall, and hence river flows and water resources. This paper presents results from an investigation into potential changes in river flows in 21 catchments in Great Britain, using a daily rainfall-runoff model and both equilibrium and transient climate change scenarios. Annual runoff was simulated to increase by 2050 by over 20% in the wettest scenarios and decline by over 20% in the driest scenarios — and different catchments respond differently to the same change scenario. Monthly flows change by a greater percentage than annual flows, and under all the scenarios considered there would be a greater concentration of flow in winter. Snowfall, and hence snowmelt, would be almost entirely eliminated. Progressive changes in river flows over the next few decades would be small compared with year-to-year variability, but would be noticeable on a decade-to-decade basis."
Yes, you did read that. Snowfall in Great Britain would be "almost entirely eliminated".
"The impact of global warming on winter tourism and skiing: a regionalised model for Austrian snow conditions"
M. Breiling and P. Charamza, Regional Environmental Change Volume 1, Number 1, 4-14, 1999
Abstract: "Possible climate change will modify snow-cover depth and change the characteristics of winter tourism and skiing districts. Our model describes seasonal snow-cover depth related to altitude in six Alpine climate regions as the best fit of all snow stations. Data cover 30 winter seasons (November to April values) from 1965 to 1995. We modified the data according to a scenario of temperature and precipitation change (2 °C warming, no precipitation change) and achieve a new simulated snow-cover depth. The indicators MARP (mean altitude of resident population) and MASPSL (mean altitude of starting point of ski lifts) serve as references for “critical altitudes” of Austrian districts. A warming implies a reduction of snow in all districts, but the loss is overproportional in lower altitudes. The direction of economic impacts is clear – income losses and adaptation costs – but magnitude and time frames remain uncertain."
Yes, you did read that. "A warming implies a reduction of snow in all districts".
Here's the big one, cited in AR4:
"Changes in Snow Cover and Snow Water Equivalent Due to Global Warming Simulated by a 20km-mesh Global Atmospheric Model", SOLA, Vol. 1, pp.93-96 (2005) .
Abstract: "Simulations under present (end of the 20th Century) and future conditions (end of the 21st Century with SRES A1B scenario) by using a 20 km-mesh atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) over 10 years are conducted and the changes in snow due to global warming are investigated.
The seasonal march of the snow cover in the present simulation is comparable to that of satellite-based observational data. Distributions of the simulated snow cover and snow water equivalent (SWE) reflect the detailed geographical features.
Due to global warming, the beginning of the snow-accumulating season (the end of the snow-melting season) will occur later (earlier) in most snow regions, and the snow cover will decrease except for very few exceptions. SWE will also decrease in wide areas, but over the cold regions (Siberia and the northern parts of North America), SWE will increase due to increases of snowfall in the coldest season.
In both the change and the percentage change of the SWE, we can find that the detailed geographical features effect on them. In Japan, the SWE will decrease over the heavy snow areas. However, the percentage changes are relatively smaller over the colder areas."
And main text states "In past reports published by Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), changes of snow were described; “there are very likely to have been decreases of about 10% in the extent of snow cover since the late 1960s”, and “northern hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further” (IPCC 2001).
Yes, you did read that: Due to global warming, the beginning of the snow-accumulating season (the end of the snow-melting season) will occur later (earlier) in most snow regions, and the snow cover will decrease except for very few exceptions.
The northern parts of North America are mainly Alaska, as can be seen from the paper. The model simulated results for snowfall are shown in figure 5(g) in this paper and are -30% to -100% for cumulative snowfall in New England.
Read the whole paper:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/kakushin21/kyousei/k041open/ipcc_ar4/mhosaka/SOLA_2005_hosaka.pdf
I could go on and on, but I weary the reader. The idea that monster snowfall, and early snowfall in Europe and USA was predicted by the models is a total lie.
@ Scientist
The lie is more insidious than that. CAGW Luddites are getting good at lying. The really seasoned liars amongst them will try to point to one or two such predictions, and argue from those that this proves increased snowfall was predicted.
What is required is the warmists' own standard of "proof": a consensus. I want to see evidence that 97% or more of peer-reviewed papers that discussed CAGW's effects on snowfall predicted that it would increase. That would convince me that more snow was indeed predicted by the Luddites.
Anything less is just, well, a dirty propagandist lie.
"First, someone somewhere has almost certainly predicted everything, and someone else has predicted its opposite, as likely consequences of CAGW. The challenge is to demonstrate that the majority of predictions went the same way. We're still waiting on the evidence for this.
*deleted section*
What weather event would falsify your faith in CAGW now? Be honest, there isn't any. Is there?"
Oct 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM | Justice4Rinka
Definitely in my top 5 favourtie posters here - only ever a heartbeat away from full on rant.
2 geat points to pick up on though. in the first section, J4R is unequivocally stating that the important thing is concensus. So J4R, concensus is that AGW is the correct theory. By your own logic, it is.
Secondly, why would anyone be looking at specific weather events to prove or disprove a long term global climate theory? A long term decline in global average temperature would certainly make everyone sit up and take notice, but why are you focusing on weather?
zed: your
AR4 makes plenty of reference to increased moisture in the air - what do you think's going to start happening to it in colder weather? Do you really need everything spelled out for you?
It does indeed say that there will be more mositure in the iar. Then it goes on to say that winters will be shorter, milder, and with less snow.
your
I'd be careful if I were you - that's very close to the argument from ignorance.
No, that would be infringing on your copyright, I am afraid.
To pre-empt, I have things I should now be doing. If I'm being a good ZDB, you won't hear much from me for the rest of the day. I may not actually get on with them, and stick around, as I can be as guilty of procrastination as the next person. but If I'm not, it's because I'm busy. Something many of you seem oddly unable to take into account as a factor for non-response.
This statement is proved false by the post at 1:22 pm.....
Still waiting for any reference pre-2008, on global warning causing cold, snowy winters, Zed....
"Simulations under present (end of the 20th Century) and future conditions (end of the 21st Century with SRES A1B scenario)"
Oct 31, 2011 at 1:11 PM | ScientistForTruth
That whole 'end of the 21st Century' bit from the title passed you by, huh?
"It does indeed say that there will be more mositure in the iar. Then it goes on to say that winters will be shorter, milder, and with less snow."
Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM | Les Johnson
And it says that's happening right now and with no localised unusual events does it? Are you kidding yourself or just making it up?
zed: your:
And it says that's happening right now and with no localised unusual events does it? Are you kidding yourself or just making it up?
Actually, the IPCC said that:
Fewer frost days
VL (consistent across model projections)
Decrease in number of days with below-freezing temperatures everywhere16
Fewer cold outbreaks; fewer, shorter, less intense cold spells / cold extremes in winter
VL (consistent across model projections)
Northern Europe, South Asia, East Asia17
L (consistent with warmer mean temperatures)
Most other regions18
Reduced diurnal temperature range
L (consistent across model projections)
Over most continental regions, night temperatures increase faster than theday temperatures19
Temperature variability on interannual and daily time scales
L (general consensus across model projections)
Reduced in winter over most of Europe20
Increase in central Europe in summer21 "
Are you kidding yourself, or just trying to make it up?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-1-3.html
It will inevitably lead to the next ice age. Then they'll say I told you so.
The IPCC's projections for North America in AR4 say:
The annual mean warming is likely to exceed the global
mean warming in most areas. Seasonally, warming is likely to
be largest in winter in northern regions and in summer in the
southwest. Minimum winter temperatures are likely to increase
more than the average in northern North America. Maximum
summer temperatures are likely to increase more than the
average in the southwest. Annual mean precipitation is very
likely to increase in Canada and the northeast USA, and likely to
decrease in the southwest. In southern Canada, precipitation is
likely to increase in winter and spring but decrease in summer.
Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease
in most of North America except in the northernmost part of
Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase.
Les Johnson
Little tip for you. You may wish to check out the timescales on the source papers with things like Kjellström et al. (2007). They're the same timescales the IPCC report is using.
I'll leave that one with you.
Oct 31, 2011 at 1:59 PM | Turning Tide
*does drumroll*
.....and the timescale for that is?
That was the IPCC statement. Lets reconcile that with data:
No trends in winter storms in the US:
"Snowstorms from 1950 to 2000. The authors state:
The average was 4.8; however, there was great year-to-year variability (i.e., standard deviation of 2.2) with the numbers ranging from 1 large snowstorm per winter (1973/74, 1980/81, and 1991/92) to 10 storms (1993/94). The winter values did not exhibit any long-term up or down trend during the 50-yr period. A 5-yr running mean also had no trend. The winter counts for each decade showed that the frequency peaked in the 1950s with a minimum occurring in the 1970s and 1980s. None of these decadal mean values were significantly different than the average for the rest of the period when using the Student’s t test.
Changnon, D., C. Merinsky, and M. Lawson, 2008. Climatology of surface cyclone tracks associated with large central and eastern U.S. snowstorms, 1950–2000. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 3193-3202."
From Allen et al:
The results from this study suggest that natural climate variability will play an important role in future changes in storminess, and thus could overwhelm any anthropogenic signal there might be.
Allan, R., S. Tett, and L. Alexander. 2009. Fluctuations in autumn–winter severe storms over the British Isles: 1920 to present. International Journal of Climatology, 29, 357-371."
North American snow cover is increasing since 1967:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=1
Lastly: US winter temperatures are falling at about 32 deg F per century, since 1998. Yes, that is 32, not 3.2.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
For a month would be nice.
I'm afraid your reading comprehension is as poor as your reasoning ability, Zed, on three counts.
First, my post was addressed to Hengist, not you.
Second, I explicitly pointed out that the standard of proof required of you Luddites should in this case be your own. That is, you don't get let off telling a pack of lies because one of you happened to guess accurately. For Luddites to be able to claim you predicted greater snowfall you'd need to show that you more or less all did, because we've heard at great length from you in the past that all that counts is consensus. Very well - show us there has always been consensus.
And third, and just so you can be reminded of it later, could you just confirm that you think Luddites did predict more snow, but that this prediction nor indeed any other does nothing to support Luddism? Because that's what you seem to have said. It seems only polite to give you the opportunity to recant this astoundingly foolish remark.
Zed @ 1:08
"you won't hear much from me for the rest of the day"
And yet...
zed: your nonsensical:
Little tip for you. You may wish to check out the timescales on the source papers with things like Kjellström et al. (2007). They're the same timescales the IPCC report is using.
I'll leave that one with you.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I have not mentioned IPCC timescales. I say that no where in the IPCC AR4, does it say that there will be an increase in cold and snow events.
Discussions about timescales of climate change have been transmogrified by talkative "climate scientists" into red herrings for quite a while.
"Very well - show us there has always been consensus."
Oct 31, 2011 at 2:07 PM | Justice4Rinka
So do you concede that concensus is likely to approximate to a theory being correct or not? If not, then why do you wish to establish it for past predictions if you feel it has no value. if so, then you'll be preapred to admit that AGW is likely to be the correct theory.
You can't have it both ways. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
"I have no idea what you are trying to say. I have not mentioned IPCC timescales. I say that no where in the IPCC AR4, does it say that there will be an increase in cold and snow events."
Oct 31, 2011 at 2:11 PM | Les Johnson
I'm trying, and succeeding, to point out that you are being disingenuous. You seem oddly obsessed with dates of model forecasts, so I've pointed you to AR4.
For someone so focused on timelines, you're quoting passages of it in a thread about snow in the States now, to infer that current weather somehow negates the IPCC projections. Essentially the same 'it's cold outside so AGW is wrong' argument. Yet you seem to have overlooked the timescale of the projections you took from AR4 - I'd suggest you have a look at them.
@ Scientist
I liked this bit: "In Japan, the SWE will decrease over the heavy snow areas."
That's me. Last winter we had over 11 metres of snow, about average. Some winters we get up to 16 metres. That equates to 2-3 hours per day of snow clearing. from late December to early March. A reduction to about 5 metres would be nice, and leave me more time for skiing.
zed: Like Hengist, you don't read your references.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00475.x/full
Kjellström et al. (2007) describes how Europe will warm mostly in the winter, based on an ensemble of models. Also mentioned is how snow cover will decrease. From the paper:
By comparing data from the three time periods the gradual decrease in snow cover as temperature increases over time is clearly seen for this region in all 16 simulations.
My emphasis.
We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania. Any documents that say otherwise are double-plus-ungood.
zed: your
I'm trying, and succeeding, to point out that you are being disingenuous. You seem oddly obsessed with dates of model forecasts, so I've pointed you to AR4.
Not obsessed. Interested, is closer, in having you provide any reference to a prediction of increased cold or snow, prior to the actual increase. That would be 2008. Rather than a timeline, that would be a point in time.
For someone so focused on timelines, you're quoting passages of it in a thread about snow in the States now, to infer that current weather somehow negates the IPCC projections. Essentially the same 'it's cold outside so AGW is wrong' argument. Yet you seem to have overlooked the timescale of the projections you took from AR4 - I'd suggest you have a look at them.
If you had bothered to read some of the references, the timeline is as far back as measurements go. I'd suggest you have a look at them.
"the timeline is as far back as measurements go."
Oct 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM | Les Johnson
Once again - and it's murder trying to drag these numbers out of you, let's nail you down specifically, what is the timescale for the projections? I'll give you a clue, projections go forwards.
"We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania. Any documents that say otherwise are double-plus-ungood."
Oct 31, 2011 at 2:26 PM | Stuck-record
Gosh - wouldn't have thought you supported hard-left socialism a la Mr. Orwell. Learn something new every day.
zed: this is the stupidist post I have yet seen from you.
So do you concede that concensus is likely to approximate to a theory being correct or not? If not, then why do you wish to establish it for past predictions if you feel it has no value. if so, then you'll be preapred to admit that AGW is likely to be the correct theory.
Galleleo and Copernicus went against the consensus. Einstein went against the consensus. Darwin went against the consensus.
Based on your statement, we would still believe that the sun orbits the earth, and that relativity does not exist, and that the world was created in 7 days and species are immutable; as these ideas went against the existing consensus.
Wow.
zed: your
Once again - and it's murder trying to drag these numbers out of you, let's nail you down specifically, what is the timescale for the projections? I'll give you a clue, projections go forwards.
I don't care about projections going forward. I care about the skill of the forecast to now.
Again, what source states, from prior to 2008, that snow and cold will increase in a warming world?
Your own sources, BTW, show that snow and cold should be decreasing.
Try reading them.
I think most here have figured out ZDB is incapable of answering questions.
Oct 31, 2011 at 2:49 PM | Les Johnson
I'm giving up with you. You don't care about when projections apply to, but you're trying to apply them to now. I've pointed you to a 2007 source, but you don't like it. And now I see that you don't understand the meaningful concept of concensus either, i.e., scientific option of any theory after it has been mooted, checked and attempts to falsify it made.
Red herrings, refusals to read and weird over-specific question setting.
"I think most here have figured out ZDB is incapable of answering questions."
Oct 31, 2011 at 2:52 PM | timg56
Mmmm - God forbid I'd do something like I did on this very thread and name a source....
Zed
"I have things I should now be doing."
Is that a projection?
zed: your
I'm giving up with you. You don't care about when projections apply to, but you're trying to apply them to now. I've pointed you to a 2007 source, but you don't like it.
And I showed you that the source you cite, states that snow and cold will decrease in Europe in the winter. It supports my contention. I love it, especially as it comes from you.
Let me quote your source again.
By comparing data from the three time periods the gradual decrease in snow cover as temperature increases over time is clearly seen for this region in all 16 simulations.
your
And now I see that you don't understand the meaningful concept of concensus either, i.e., scientific option of any theory after it has been mooted, checked and attempts to falsify it made.
What the heck is a "scientific option" in relation to theory? This is a new term....your invention?
But, what I think you are trying to say, in your muddled way, is that consenus is good when its right, but bad when its wrong. Is this a close approximation?
ZDB,
Please keep posting just as you do. Don't change a thing.
Your style of posting is the best way to advance skeptical thinking since climategate.
I do hope you encourage your fellow believers to adopt the same style, in large numbers.
Thanks in advance,