Why can't conservatives accept scientific consensus?

show me them please. cite them, the institutions who agree and cite their studies.

because I can not just cite indicual studies, but a study of the studies that aggregates them and show 99% of the studies agree with man made climate change.

EVERY TIME, every single time, I get a link from you guys. its from a non academic scientific institution, with names like "friends of science". who in their "about us" section always have things like "we are a group of scientist, academics professionals and concerned citizens". and when anyone checks up on these, they find they count "scientists and academics" as people with engineering or English degrees. and the ones who are legitimate scientists are normally never in relevant fields, and have NEVER published anything on climate change.

go ahead clown. I will wait :)

"That can mean from anything, like over-population, consuming environmental resources faster than they can recover, putting waste into the environment."

agree affects on our environment can be multi faceted. not simply one thing.

"It would mean before we did anything that could affect other people or our common environment that long-term effects of that something should be considered, and watched and reconsidered if the future to see if there is a problem."

agreed cause and effect. anyone who claims releasing til;lions of tonnes of C02 would have zero affect doesn't live in reality.

"What this really means is that the political organization of humanity is not aware and not intelligent, and that while there may be a lot of intelligent people on the planet, their intelligence doesn't mean anything compared to the psychopathic need for power and wealth demonstrated by the psychotic selfish gene viewpoint of our insane leaders."

politicians work for reelection, not necessarily to do what is right or backed by science. corporations work to gain profits and have no interest in any longterm environmental solutions, short term profits is their sole raison d'être and they can be sued for not doing so and acting morally. these two things are the two largest power bases in our society

got any evidence of your imaginary friend? how out of the thousands of imaginary friend do you find the right one?

Exactly right. Consensus implies groupthink, the opposite of real science. Science isn't about opinion, which is a required component of consensus. Science entails testing a theory to see if it holds up by repeatedly reproducing empirically verifiable results (hundreds, if not thousands, of times). Any theory that's proposed an inevitable outcome countless times over the course of many decades that was testable merely by letting time pass, only for each test to produce failed output over and over again, is very problematic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557026/#:~:text=Consensus%20is%20the%20business%20of,In%20science%2C%20consensus%20is%20irrelevant.

Consensus has no value in a scientific argument; only experimental evidence matters. As stated already by Galileo Galilei, “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Physician, producer, and writer Michael Crichton formulated:

[T]he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains that scientists tend to experience what he calls “theory-induced blindness”: once a theory is accepted and used as a thinking tool, it is extraordinarily difficult to notice its flaws. Even when one comes upon an observation that does not fit the theory, one assumes that there must be an explanation that was somehow missed. Therefore, no consensus of experts can be an argument in scientific discussion.

LOl good one! thats not a response to science though. stop self projecting clown

give me a single proven example. amazing man how all those republican governors and DAs and judges are all in the conspiracy!!! amazing how they never presented any such evidence to any court. you got the tism.

It happened in multiple states...and they are all like "nO iT DIdn'T NeenER NeENeR!!11""