I'd laugh but it's so sad. These attitudes are part of what I'm now calling 'the rape of the enlightenment' - the idea that the opinion of scientific experts, or the majority thereof, is no more important than the opinions of laymen. It's the same reason people now choose to visit sellers of aromatherapy, homeopathy, and crystal balls, rather than a real doctor. I have actually heard the phrase 'why should we trust what the experts say' recently... well folks the answer to that question is because they're the fucking experts! It is clear to the vast majority of climate scientists that the greenhouse effect is real, and that the Earth will continue to warm by a handful of degrees this century, and as far as I am aware not one of you is qualified to argue with them. Of course this woman had a PHD, but I can find people with PHDs saying all kinds of stupid crap, and nobody agrees with them either. Anyone who does feel they are qualified to argue, please answer me these questions. 1) if the greenhouse effect is not real, why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury? and 2) if in fact the greenhouse effect is real, how could we put millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and not affect the climate?
I think the root of this is a basic misunderstanding of science. Many of you seem to think that if it were proved that the Earth was going to cool in the long term rather than warm, then the current majority would somehow be unhappy about that, like they had lost and you had won. This is not how science is conducted, in fact quite the opposite - the entire idea of science is to take the current theory and prove it wrong. That's called 'progress'. When you get to a theory you cannot prove wrong (yet) then you have to concede you may have disovered the truth. There is currently not enough evidence to prove the warming theory wrong but plenty to support it. The other problem goes even deeper than misunderstanding of science and almost reaches the level of a learning disability, or perhaps the symptoms of brain washing, where clear logical falacies are put forward as supposed proof of facts. The classic and most common example is the converse/reverse accident fallacy where someone cites a heavy snowfall, or a couple of cooler than average years, and then concludes something about the whole next century without taking any other evidence into account. Even more ridiculous is the arguement that says look - the climate was changing way before we started burning fossil fuels - as if natural warming somehow excludes the possibility of man-made warming also existing. It's like standing up in a murder trial and saying well, this other guy died last week and that wasn't murder, so of course this isn't murder either! :laugh:
I think the root of this is a basic misunderstanding of science. Many of you seem to think that if it were proved that the Earth was going to cool in the long term rather than warm, then the current majority would somehow be unhappy about that, like they had lost and you had won. This is not how science is conducted, in fact quite the opposite - the entire idea of science is to take the current theory and prove it wrong. That's called 'progress'. When you get to a theory you cannot prove wrong (yet) then you have to concede you may have disovered the truth. There is currently not enough evidence to prove the warming theory wrong but plenty to support it. The other problem goes even deeper than misunderstanding of science and almost reaches the level of a learning disability, or perhaps the symptoms of brain washing, where clear logical falacies are put forward as supposed proof of facts. The classic and most common example is the converse/reverse accident fallacy where someone cites a heavy snowfall, or a couple of cooler than average years, and then concludes something about the whole next century without taking any other evidence into account. Even more ridiculous is the arguement that says look - the climate was changing way before we started burning fossil fuels - as if natural warming somehow excludes the possibility of man-made warming also existing. It's like standing up in a murder trial and saying well, this other guy died last week and that wasn't murder, so of course this isn't murder either! :laugh: