[YellowRoseofTx]

Isn't GW still a theory?

No, it's now a "Consensus"

[savedbygrace]

Isn't GW still a theory?
No, it's now a "Consensus"

Well, if you drop the second syllable, that's correct.

;-)

[andy58-in-nh]

Isn't GW still a theory?

No, it's now a "Consensus"

Which gives it the full weight of Truth to the fawning Drive-by Media and to the crowd of "researchers" addicted to Federal funding and looking hungrily for their next fix. The whole spectacle reminds me of nothing so much as the "Witch" scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. So if she weighs as much as a duck, she must be made of.....wood. And therefore....

[AaronInCarolina]

No, it's now a "Consensus"

The Michael Crichton lecture that I linked to in an earlier posts addresses so-called "consensus". Here is a quote from his lecture:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

[CharacterCounts]

Isn't GW still a theory?

Actually, I don't think it has even risen to the level of a theory yet, if you consider the scientific method.

It is more akin to a hypothesis.

[Ole Okie]

No, it's now a "Consensus"

Wow! I see consensi everywhere.

PV = ZRT is a consensus?