McGeo write to 1patriot: What I want to know initially is how many top scientists on the opposite side of the argument to you have changed sides to your views as a result of what you have put forward. If you do not answer this question in part I shall not waste my time even. looking at your views . Science WORKS on consensus.

So first off science does not work off of consensus you pride yourself as knowing science and say something silly. sounds like some crap cook university might say.

Consensus is Not Science
The late Michael Crichton, MD, author, film producer, put it this way:

“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.

“Let’s be clear: the 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 is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

(From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.)

so McGeo asks loaded question and i answered it through a quote from Michael Crichton now he's crying in the corner of the lab......