By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
0D0 said:
sundin13 said:

I mean, if you don't want to do the work to have an informed opinion, that is entirely on you, however it should be understood by everyone involved that what you are saying is merely an uninformed opinion and, again, not an accurate reflection of scientific consensus. To that effect, I'm not really sure why it matters what others in this thread are doing. Just because some people in this thread may not be making the best arguments, that doesn't mean that there is any issue with the science...

Lastly, why do you think fringe opinions invalidate scientific consensus?

I'm just sharing equal predictions of the past the didn't happened.

The same way this thread piece of news will most likely not happen.

All the scientists that published things that didn't happen were never corrected or criticised. But their piece of news created uninformed threads like this.

While it is fair to hold a healthy degree of skepticism over claims that you see, the mere fact of past false claims by different individuals does little to disprove anything, and again, absolutely nothing to challenge the ground that the scientific consensus stands on. I won't argue with you criticizing fringe claims, however, I will argue with you if you say something to the effect of "this fringe claim from 50 years ago is evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong".