Don’t be stupid.
There is a scientific consensus on the Theory of Gravity.
That’s just the way it is.
Scientific consensuses abound in science.
They don’t appear by magic.
It takes work and an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

MOND is fine and wonderful but it’s got nothing to do with the scientific consensus on Theory of Gravity.
You won’t wake up tomorrow and find that the Theory of Gravity has been overturned and replaced with something else. Read more.

In physics, Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a hypothesis that proposes a modification of Newton’s law of gravity to explain the galaxy rotation problem.

Your talking point is taken from the creationist playbook.
They too have an attack of the vapours over Punk Eek yet the the Theory of Evolution is not going anywhere.

Claim CA250:
Scientific theories are always changing. You cannot trust what scientists say, since it may be different tomorrow.

Response:
1.Science investigates difficult questions about unknown fields, and scientists are human, so it is inevitable that scientific findings will not be perfect. However, science works by investigating more and more, which means results get checked and rechecked with further findings. The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right.

2.As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA250.html

Let your global warming scam die, the world will be a better place.

Fewer and fewer are buying the global warming scam.

Truth is coming out. Thanks to all the smart people out there who are able to spot the obvious scam behind the global warming hoax.

So sad some people are just too gullible.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2011/04/david-attenborough-speech-to-the-rsa-people-and-planet/
“It remains an obvious and brutal fact that on a finite planet human population will quite definitely stop at some point. And that can only happen in one of two ways. It can happen sooner, by fewer human births â?? in a word by contraception. This is the humane way, the powerful option which allows all of us to deal with the problem, if we collectively choose to do so. The alternative is an increased death rate â?? the way which all other creatures must suffer, through famine or disease or predation. That translated into human terms means famine or disease or war â?? over oil or water or food or minerals or grazing rights or just living space. There is, alas, no third alternative of indefinite growth.”

Just curious?

Yeah, yeah. There’s a consensus on the Theory of Gravity too. It didn’t happen by magic. There was a process involved.

Ever hear of MOND? Its a different theory of gravity. Even in gravity, there are competing theories.

Do you advocate “reasonable force” to stop them?

Just curious.

After 20 years, and tens of billions of dollars spent on trying to prove that CO2 emissions from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming, no empirical evidence exists proving this claim.

The world now knows that the AR4 ignored a wealth of peer reviewed studies… ignored because they exposed the IPCC’s mantra as being flawed. If the AR4 was meant to be a balanced and objective report, it would have covered all scientific papers on climate matters not just those that support the IPCC’s mantra. How could the IPCC lead authors have done this? It took a group of international scientists to reveal the contrary peer reviewed studies in a report titled “Climate Change Reconsidered”… thousands of studies revealed… download the report at the following link and see for yourself:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf

Worst of all, the IPCC made its biggest mistake… relying heavily on computer model-based predictions. These models do not represent science. Heck, they haven’t even been audited. These models are now an embarrassment. All are flawed. They do not reflect what the real world observational data on climate is revealing… the real science. It means that the 2007 Summary for Policy Makers is wrong… obsolete… invalid. It means that the AR4 cannot be considered as the “gold standard in climate science”.

And as for all those economists’ reports that are based on AR4 e.g. The Stern Review (UK), The Garnaut Report (AUS), etc.. they are based on flawed science… which means such reports are also necessarily flawed… wrong… obsolete… invalid.

In short, obscene amounts of tax payers money have been wasted… to produce a hoax!