We have laws the Sherman act in order to protect and benefit the friends of politicians and bureaucrats at the expense of regular people/consumers. Why are you against freedom and economic prosperity and poor people? That's what these laws hurt.
Go read some public choice economics and learn how the government actually works. As a bonus, go read some economic papers on monopolies to see why laws like the Sherman Act are bad ideas (and maybe get some history in about the economic results of Teddy's attempts to use it. Hint: Not pretty, Can you say Panic of 1907?), then go read the Supreme Court decisions specifically about the Sherman Act's illegality.
Then when you're done, we can have a reasonable discussion about the topic from a position of knowledge.
(Note, the above is a reaction to the dismissive attitude in the comment being replied to, so take that into account)
Good citation. Basically, labor force participation has been flat since the end of 2013, falling in the years before.
What I find amusing is how the press report includes "better than expected". It became a running joke during the Obama administration how frequently every piece of economic bad news was unexpected. Now it seems the reverse might start to be true, every piece of good economic news during the Trump administration will now become unexpected!
I have a simple solution to this problem, which maybe both Parties can get behind, don't allow the government to take this power in the first place. In other words, let's not require government approval for people to merge their businesses. Then people aren't as dependent on the goodwill of whoever happens to be in power at the moment. Simple, right?
As for this specific case, the only actual quote in the article from someone with decision-making power was from Dalrahim, “I don’t see this as a major antitrust problem.” That doesn't exactly sound like someone who is planning to stop the merger.
The partial ruling is really about standing. If you don't have standing to sue, the courts won't hear your case. This means that they've already decided anyone whose visa application isn't affecting someone already in the United Stated doesn't have standing. Many of the Democrat States involved tried to make this a general injunction by claiming they had standing related to anyone who was visiting their State and thus might pay a tax or visit a conference they sponsored or whatever.
This tosses much of that and already makes it much more difficult to sustain the injunction in general, but rather just for specific individuals who can demonstrate they have a connection already to the United States. It signals a little how they'll deal with the unprecedented idea that the lower court judges have issued national injunctions rather than for specific individuals who sued. i.e. It ain't gonna fly and neither are the vast majority of people trying to avoid the ban. For the rest, we'll apparently have to wait for the next term.
From the cited article, buried farther down, below the breathless Obama worship: "There were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts."
Also, Obama CIA Director Brennan, cited in the story as the person who reported the information to Obama is quoted under oath as stating in regards to potential Trump involvement there is "No evidence of collusion to interfere in the U.S. presidential election."
So basically they're still whining about hackers potentially from Russia releasing the truth about Podesta and Clinton to the American people. Yawn.
From the University of Washington study: "... although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase. Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike."
Well, at least you've thought about it. Sadly, you didn't actually debunk the broken window fallacy, mostly because you didn't seem to understand the point of it.
There is economic activity which creates more wealth overall. There is economic activity which doesn't, which actually decreasing wealth overall. The broken window is an example of the latter kind.
If we want to be wealthier overall, we need more of the former kind, not the latter kind. It's that simple.
To put it in terms related to your article, if the multiplier for a government activity is greater than 1, then it's helping create wealth. If it's less than 1, then it's helping to destroy wealth. The vast majority of government spending ends up with a multiplier of less than 1.
The current Verizon service is, yes. Hence my comments about the transition from hardware to software using your data connection in the first paragraph of what you replied to.
The older service used actual hardware radios and thus needed specific hardware. Back then, pre-smartphone era, high speed phone data also wasn't really a thing yet, either. There are advantages (range differences) and disadvantages (need cell connection) to both setups.
Verizon has had that as a feature for a big chunk of their phones for a while (Google Push to Talk). It used to require specific phone hardware, but recently with the advent of widespread smartphones there are apps to do it, although I think they actually use your internet data connection and not the radio directly.
It's really helpful when you want to be able to push one button and talk to a bunch of people at once, like for instance, at a school where the staff need to be able to send to a group of staffers all at once no matter where they are on property. It's used similarly at construction sites.
Communication is half-duplex, just like a regular walkie-talkie radio and range is also similarly based on power and frequency.
If you read the article (I know, this is/.), then you'd read about the huge technological difference between MTS (essentially radio to one point in the city) and cellphones (talking to local cells hooked up to the phone system).
There's a reason MTS was so expensive and rare and Cellphones aren't.
The existence of MTS was one of the reasons cites in the article for why the FCC dragged its feet on allocating spectrum for cellphones.
Cellphones had massive advantages over MTS which didn't seem to be noticed. The biggest one was why we call them cellphones, because they talked to a local cell using low power instead of trying to broadcast across the city on high power and stepping on everyone else.
That's why cellphones took off, but MTS remained expensive and only capable of a small number of users at a time.
As per the article, a "cellphone" is where the radio communicates with a local cell, which then transfers the call to the regular phone network.
Don't confuse that with a radio which communicates directly with another radio. Cellphones allow for way more users in a geographical area than regular radios.
They talked about and planned for cellphones and cells which could be subdivided smaller and smaller in order to increase the numbers of users, but when they wanted to implement it, it literally took four decades from when the FCC Chairman said it would only take a few years before spectrum was _finally_ assigned for the use.
Good. The existing program is useless. Maybe they can do something more useful with the money, time and effort than try and have the Federal government dictate what energy use standards should be.
Enforce a single-sign-on long and complex password.
That you rarely (years) require to be changed.
Forcing a password change every 60 days doesn't accomplish anything but either create easily guessable variations, reducing the password space, or create lists of passwords, generally in something insecure for most people.
I wonder if you even know what a climate model is.
For example, in 2001 the IPCC published multiple climate models making predictions based on different levels of expected CO2 release. By design, each model contained mutually contradictory assumptions within their parameters and as a result provided contradictory predictions. Different climate models use various assumptions about the level of carbon forcing, about how various processes such as cloud formation interact, about how other natural processes will change to compensate for increased levels of CO2. There are almost as many contradictions in assumptions and results as there are different climate models proposed each year.
Some of the models are more plausible than others. What I'm asking from you is to pick a model which predicts what you think is going to happen with global warming so we can discuss it. I don't care which specific model you pick, but you can't believe they're _all_ going to happen, because they don't all agree with each other. If you don't believe any particular model's parameters and predictions are accurate, then feel free to suggest that none of the climate models contain a predictive value sufficient to justify wrecking economies and we'll be done. It doesn't appear that's your conclusion, but so far you haven't actually said anything specific about global warming, so I have no evidence you're even familiar with the field.
You're not the arbiter of who is the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. Nor on what the scientific consensus on something is. See how this works?
ALL of the GCM models out-perform the models and theories produced by denialists when it comes to prediction.
Pick one you believe is most accurate and let's discuss it's level of accuracy, then. Most are mutually contradictory, so you can't claim they are all accurate, after all. I don't have a need to claim the view of every other person in the world who disagrees with you for some reason, so there is no point in you attempting to attack straw men by ascribing their views to me.
You've been unable to describe any economic model where doing nothing results in a better outcome than mitigating against climate change
I haven't tried in this discussion. You haven't said what your recommended mitigations are. Describing such a model is easily done, however. More people die from the effects of cold than from heat. According to physics, logic, truth, scientific consensus, etc..., an increased global temperature average of a degree or two would be beneficial to human life. In addition, every commonly proposed "mitigation" for global warming creates an economic distortion which reduces global wealth now and in the future. As any additional wealth created now will result in approximately 15x that amount of wealth 100 years from now, doing none of them and waiting until we are both wealthier and any localized negative effects are more apparent will result in more wealth available to mitigate any effect. According to the scientific consensus, having that wealth available in the future is way more valuable and flexible than the very tiny reduction in temperature from any currently commonly proposed mitigation strategy.
Sorry for speaking in generalities, but you give me no choice because you refuse to outline anything specific about global warming you believe, so it's impossible to address specific models, proposals and outcomes when you don't even know what you supposedly believe well enough to describe it.
But thank you for your continued completely emotional reactions demonstrating to the world how you project your own issues onto others.
You can't even describe what I've said in this conversation.
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue. Feel free to answer on behalf of what you believe the "consensus view" is.
Which specific climate change/global warming model do you believe has successfully predicted in the future a couple of decades of global temperature changes, i.e. what's it's track record for prediction? Also, what's the margin of error of your preferred model and how are measurement errors accounted for in that?
Then, based on that model, what are the estimated overall economic costs of your proposed solutions vs. the costs of not implementing those solutions? Then how do those costs differ compared to implementing them now, vs. doing something about the "problem" when the world is much richer and more technologically advanced, i.e. in the future?
If you'll provide your answers to the above, then you've have at least thought rationally about the issue and we're ready to have a conversation and/or a logical debate about it. If you have no idea of the answers to the above questions, then you have no logical foundation for your listed beliefs and you're just a blind follower in regards to the religion of global warming.
You keep making the logical fallacy of conflating your personal opinion (which is what I've asked about and made statements about) with some magical consensus of all scientists, which does not in reality exist. Once you can get past the fallacy of composition, maybe you'll be ready for a logical conversation. You can't claim the mantle of "science" by simply claiming scientists agree with whatever your opinion happens to be. I could just as easily say, "My opinion is that the conclusion logic and truth support, therefore I must be right and you're wrong because you don't support logic and truth." Once you can figure out why that's just a circular claim to authority and not a claim to a specific scientific position, go ahead and apply it to your own words.
The reason that people have a problem with global warming is that it hurts their feelings.
My first post in the topic was a response to that statement of yours:
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
I then included several specific questions asking you what your beliefs on global warming are so we could logically discuss them. Since then, we've merely gone round and round your refusal to even state a position for discussion, instead making vague references to other people's general thoughts and ideas without even any concrete references.
I've never stated, nor attempted to prove climate science is based on hurt feelings. Your opinions/personal beliefs aren't identical to "climate science". So without any statement from you about what you individually believe in regards to global warming, this conversation is pointless and I'll just stop responding. If all you know is (this is a total caricature) "Some scientist dudes are out there and I agree with whatever they think, even though they don't all agree on everything, I'll just go with whatever the majority says at any given time, 'cause they've thought about it and I haven't!", then you aren't ready to have a logical conversation about the subject beyond discussing the advantages or disadvantages of using majority vote as a proxy for scientific truth.
Yet somehow, Venezuela is doing much worse (we're talking riots because of starvation and forced labor in the fields) than every other countries with just as much (or more) of a basis of their economy on oil. The reason is directly attributable to their socialist government driving companies out of the country by taking over industries "for the people" and getting rid of all those capitalist "exploiters", i.e. living up to their socialist ideals.
How much money is Google putting into AI research? Amazon? Apple? IBM? Others? How successful are they compared to the Chinese government's efforts?
How many products or services do people use which rely on U.S. company's AI efforts and how many which rely on Chinese created efforts?
The idea that the only comparison is between Chinese government funding and U.S. government funding is ridiculous. The private companies in the U.S. working on AI are the ones actually accomplishing things nowadays and announcing another government 5-year plan for China to win some sort of AI race isn't going to change that.
My problem is stated in my original post. Your contention that everyone who has a problem with global warming is responding emotionally and not logically.
So in order to provide a logical response, I asked you to put forth your logical position on global warming so that we could logically discuss it.
Instead, you've ironically only responded emotionally, with your religious views of blind faith in what you see as authority.
My problem with your position is that you apparently don't actually have one coherent enough for you to be able to even state it, yet you slander others with accusations you're actually guilty of. Projection, much?
First you need to state what you think the "consensus position" is on climate change. You're expecting people to read your mind, which isn't gonna happen.
The flaws in your argument above are: 1. There is no such person as "science". To suggest every single individual person who has ever done science is always in agreement one every scientific question is a case of the fallacy of composition. "Science" as a whole is a group of individuals and doesn't uniformly believe everything the same. Even global warming supporters as a whole (a subset) don't all agree on every particular item related to global warming. Hence the need to ask you for your specific proposition, before discussing it, so as to remove any assumptions about what your position is. 2. Your specific position matching or not matching other people's specific positions isn't mutually exclusive with you have a specific position on something. We can both believe the Earth is generally spherical and at the same time both may be correctly described as my position as well as your position. The two positions just may happen to be in agreement.
Conversely, if you don't have a position of your own on the issue, if your position can only be described as "I think this because someone else told me it was true and I've decided to just believe whatever they say.", which is what you appear to be describing with your talk of just agreeing with whatever the "consensus" is, then it's clear you don't have a scientific belief, in the sense that you've analyzed an argument and the evidence for/against it, but that you have what is commonly considered a religious belief, i.e. you have faith in what you describe as the consensus of science and have no need to logically analyze it, nor consider the evidence for yourself. Don't pretend that's the same as understanding the science around global warming itself well enough to logically discuss and debate it, which you've previously demonstrated you refuse to do.
Slashdot Mirror
We have laws the Sherman act in order to protect and benefit the friends of politicians and bureaucrats at the expense of regular people/consumers. Why are you against freedom and economic prosperity and poor people? That's what these laws hurt.
Go read some public choice economics and learn how the government actually works. As a bonus, go read some economic papers on monopolies to see why laws like the Sherman Act are bad ideas (and maybe get some history in about the economic results of Teddy's attempts to use it. Hint: Not pretty, Can you say Panic of 1907?), then go read the Supreme Court decisions specifically about the Sherman Act's illegality.
Then when you're done, we can have a reasonable discussion about the topic from a position of knowledge.
(Note, the above is a reaction to the dismissive attitude in the comment being replied to, so take that into account)
Good citation. Basically, labor force participation has been flat since the end of 2013, falling in the years before.
What I find amusing is how the press report includes "better than expected". It became a running joke during the Obama administration how frequently every piece of economic bad news was unexpected. Now it seems the reverse might start to be true, every piece of good economic news during the Trump administration will now become unexpected!
I have a simple solution to this problem, which maybe both Parties can get behind, don't allow the government to take this power in the first place. In other words, let's not require government approval for people to merge their businesses. Then people aren't as dependent on the goodwill of whoever happens to be in power at the moment. Simple, right?
As for this specific case, the only actual quote in the article from someone with decision-making power was from Dalrahim, “I don’t see this as a major antitrust problem.” That doesn't exactly sound like someone who is planning to stop the merger.
The partial ruling is really about standing. If you don't have standing to sue, the courts won't hear your case. This means that they've already decided anyone whose visa application isn't affecting someone already in the United Stated doesn't have standing. Many of the Democrat States involved tried to make this a general injunction by claiming they had standing related to anyone who was visiting their State and thus might pay a tax or visit a conference they sponsored or whatever.
This tosses much of that and already makes it much more difficult to sustain the injunction in general, but rather just for specific individuals who can demonstrate they have a connection already to the United States. It signals a little how they'll deal with the unprecedented idea that the lower court judges have issued national injunctions rather than for specific individuals who sued. i.e. It ain't gonna fly and neither are the vast majority of people trying to avoid the ban. For the rest, we'll apparently have to wait for the next term.
From the cited article, buried farther down, below the breathless Obama worship: "There were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts."
Also, Obama CIA Director Brennan, cited in the story as the person who reported the information to Obama is quoted under oath as stating in regards to potential Trump involvement there is "No evidence of collusion to interfere in the U.S. presidential election."
So basically they're still whining about hackers potentially from Russia releasing the truth about Podesta and Clinton to the American people. Yawn.
From the University of Washington study: "... although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase. Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike."
Or listen to an actual Subway owner about the impacts of going from 7 employees to 3, one of which is one of the owners.
Well, at least you've thought about it. Sadly, you didn't actually debunk the broken window fallacy, mostly because you didn't seem to understand the point of it.
There is economic activity which creates more wealth overall. There is economic activity which doesn't, which actually decreasing wealth overall. The broken window is an example of the latter kind.
If we want to be wealthier overall, we need more of the former kind, not the latter kind. It's that simple.
To put it in terms related to your article, if the multiplier for a government activity is greater than 1, then it's helping create wealth. If it's less than 1, then it's helping to destroy wealth. The vast majority of government spending ends up with a multiplier of less than 1.
I don't know how to simplify it further for you.
The current Verizon service is, yes. Hence my comments about the transition from hardware to software using your data connection in the first paragraph of what you replied to.
The older service used actual hardware radios and thus needed specific hardware. Back then, pre-smartphone era, high speed phone data also wasn't really a thing yet, either. There are advantages (range differences) and disadvantages (need cell connection) to both setups.
Verizon has had that as a feature for a big chunk of their phones for a while (Google Push to Talk). It used to require specific phone hardware, but recently with the advent of widespread smartphones there are apps to do it, although I think they actually use your internet data connection and not the radio directly.
It's really helpful when you want to be able to push one button and talk to a bunch of people at once, like for instance, at a school where the staff need to be able to send to a group of staffers all at once no matter where they are on property. It's used similarly at construction sites.
Communication is half-duplex, just like a regular walkie-talkie radio and range is also similarly based on power and frequency.
If you read the article (I know, this is /.), then you'd read about the huge technological difference between MTS (essentially radio to one point in the city) and cellphones (talking to local cells hooked up to the phone system).
There's a reason MTS was so expensive and rare and Cellphones aren't.
The existence of MTS was one of the reasons cites in the article for why the FCC dragged its feet on allocating spectrum for cellphones.
Cellphones had massive advantages over MTS which didn't seem to be noticed. The biggest one was why we call them cellphones, because they talked to a local cell using low power instead of trying to broadcast across the city on high power and stepping on everyone else.
That's why cellphones took off, but MTS remained expensive and only capable of a small number of users at a time.
As per the article, a "cellphone" is where the radio communicates with a local cell, which then transfers the call to the regular phone network.
Don't confuse that with a radio which communicates directly with another radio. Cellphones allow for way more users in a geographical area than regular radios.
They talked about and planned for cellphones and cells which could be subdivided smaller and smaller in order to increase the numbers of users, but when they wanted to implement it, it literally took four decades from when the FCC Chairman said it would only take a few years before spectrum was _finally_ assigned for the use.
Good. The existing program is useless. Maybe they can do something more useful with the money, time and effort than try and have the Federal government dictate what energy use standards should be.
Enforce a single-sign-on long and complex password.
That you rarely (years) require to be changed.
Forcing a password change every 60 days doesn't accomplish anything but either create easily guessable variations, reducing the password space, or create lists of passwords, generally in something insecure for most people.
I wonder if you even know what a climate model is.
For example, in 2001 the IPCC published multiple climate models making predictions based on different levels of expected CO2 release. By design, each model contained mutually contradictory assumptions within their parameters and as a result provided contradictory predictions. Different climate models use various assumptions about the level of carbon forcing, about how various processes such as cloud formation interact, about how other natural processes will change to compensate for increased levels of CO2. There are almost as many contradictions in assumptions and results as there are different climate models proposed each year.
Some of the models are more plausible than others. What I'm asking from you is to pick a model which predicts what you think is going to happen with global warming so we can discuss it. I don't care which specific model you pick, but you can't believe they're _all_ going to happen, because they don't all agree with each other. If you don't believe any particular model's parameters and predictions are accurate, then feel free to suggest that none of the climate models contain a predictive value sufficient to justify wrecking economies and we'll be done. It doesn't appear that's your conclusion, but so far you haven't actually said anything specific about global warming, so I have no evidence you're even familiar with the field.
You're not the arbiter of who is the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. Nor on what the scientific consensus on something is. See how this works?
Pick one you believe is most accurate and let's discuss it's level of accuracy, then. Most are mutually contradictory, so you can't claim they are all accurate, after all. I don't have a need to claim the view of every other person in the world who disagrees with you for some reason, so there is no point in you attempting to attack straw men by ascribing their views to me.
I haven't tried in this discussion. You haven't said what your recommended mitigations are. Describing such a model is easily done, however. More people die from the effects of cold than from heat. According to physics, logic, truth, scientific consensus, etc..., an increased global temperature average of a degree or two would be beneficial to human life. In addition, every commonly proposed "mitigation" for global warming creates an economic distortion which reduces global wealth now and in the future. As any additional wealth created now will result in approximately 15x that amount of wealth 100 years from now, doing none of them and waiting until we are both wealthier and any localized negative effects are more apparent will result in more wealth available to mitigate any effect. According to the scientific consensus, having that wealth available in the future is way more valuable and flexible than the very tiny reduction in temperature from any currently commonly proposed mitigation strategy.
Sorry for speaking in generalities, but you give me no choice because you refuse to outline anything specific about global warming you believe, so it's impossible to address specific models, proposals and outcomes when you don't even know what you supposedly believe well enough to describe it.
But thank you for your continued completely emotional reactions demonstrating to the world how you project your own issues onto others.
You can't even describe what I've said in this conversation.
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue. Feel free to answer on behalf of what you believe the "consensus view" is.
Which specific climate change/global warming model do you believe has successfully predicted in the future a couple of decades of global temperature changes, i.e. what's it's track record for prediction? Also, what's the margin of error of your preferred model and how are measurement errors accounted for in that?
Then, based on that model, what are the estimated overall economic costs of your proposed solutions vs. the costs of not implementing those solutions? Then how do those costs differ compared to implementing them now, vs. doing something about the "problem" when the world is much richer and more technologically advanced, i.e. in the future?
If you'll provide your answers to the above, then you've have at least thought rationally about the issue and we're ready to have a conversation and/or a logical debate about it. If you have no idea of the answers to the above questions, then you have no logical foundation for your listed beliefs and you're just a blind follower in regards to the religion of global warming.
You keep making the logical fallacy of conflating your personal opinion (which is what I've asked about and made statements about) with some magical consensus of all scientists, which does not in reality exist. Once you can get past the fallacy of composition, maybe you'll be ready for a logical conversation. You can't claim the mantle of "science" by simply claiming scientists agree with whatever your opinion happens to be. I could just as easily say, "My opinion is that the conclusion logic and truth support, therefore I must be right and you're wrong because you don't support logic and truth." Once you can figure out why that's just a circular claim to authority and not a claim to a specific scientific position, go ahead and apply it to your own words.
Here's your cite:
My conversation with you started when you stated:
My first post in the topic was a response to that statement of yours:
I then included several specific questions asking you what your beliefs on global warming are so we could logically discuss them. Since then, we've merely gone round and round your refusal to even state a position for discussion, instead making vague references to other people's general thoughts and ideas without even any concrete references.
I've never stated, nor attempted to prove climate science is based on hurt feelings. Your opinions/personal beliefs aren't identical to "climate science".
So without any statement from you about what you individually believe in regards to global warming, this conversation is pointless and I'll just stop responding. If all you know is (this is a total caricature) "Some scientist dudes are out there and I agree with whatever they think, even though they don't all agree on everything, I'll just go with whatever the majority says at any given time, 'cause they've thought about it and I haven't!", then you aren't ready to have a logical conversation about the subject beyond discussing the advantages or disadvantages of using majority vote as a proxy for scientific truth.
Since you yourself stated that _you_ don't even have a scientific position, what is there a need to object to?
Perhaps if you took a position, we could discuss it. Until then, you're just trolling.
Yet somehow, Venezuela is doing much worse (we're talking riots because of starvation and forced labor in the fields) than every other countries with just as much (or more) of a basis of their economy on oil. The reason is directly attributable to their socialist government driving companies out of the country by taking over industries "for the people" and getting rid of all those capitalist "exploiters", i.e. living up to their socialist ideals.
How much money is Google putting into AI research? Amazon? Apple? IBM? Others? How successful are they compared to the Chinese government's efforts?
How many products or services do people use which rely on U.S. company's AI efforts and how many which rely on Chinese created efforts?
The idea that the only comparison is between Chinese government funding and U.S. government funding is ridiculous. The private companies in the U.S. working on AI are the ones actually accomplishing things nowadays and announcing another government 5-year plan for China to win some sort of AI race isn't going to change that.
My problem is stated in my original post. Your contention that everyone who has a problem with global warming is responding emotionally and not logically.
So in order to provide a logical response, I asked you to put forth your logical position on global warming so that we could logically discuss it.
Instead, you've ironically only responded emotionally, with your religious views of blind faith in what you see as authority.
My problem with your position is that you apparently don't actually have one coherent enough for you to be able to even state it, yet you slander others with accusations you're actually guilty of. Projection, much?
First you need to state what you think the "consensus position" is on climate change. You're expecting people to read your mind, which isn't gonna happen.
The flaws in your argument above are:
1. There is no such person as "science". To suggest every single individual person who has ever done science is always in agreement one every scientific question is a case of the fallacy of composition. "Science" as a whole is a group of individuals and doesn't uniformly believe everything the same. Even global warming supporters as a whole (a subset) don't all agree on every particular item related to global warming. Hence the need to ask you for your specific proposition, before discussing it, so as to remove any assumptions about what your position is.
2. Your specific position matching or not matching other people's specific positions isn't mutually exclusive with you have a specific position on something. We can both believe the Earth is generally spherical and at the same time both may be correctly described as my position as well as your position. The two positions just may happen to be in agreement.
Conversely, if you don't have a position of your own on the issue, if your position can only be described as "I think this because someone else told me it was true and I've decided to just believe whatever they say.", which is what you appear to be describing with your talk of just agreeing with whatever the "consensus" is, then it's clear you don't have a scientific belief, in the sense that you've analyzed an argument and the evidence for/against it, but that you have what is commonly considered a religious belief, i.e. you have faith in what you describe as the consensus of science and have no need to logically analyze it, nor consider the evidence for yourself. Don't pretend that's the same as understanding the science around global warming itself well enough to logically discuss and debate it, which you've previously demonstrated you refuse to do.