Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Who ARE these people?

re: Who ARE these people?
ER — (archived)

As someone who is not a climatologist, but who does have a scientific education and background, I am forced to rely on the opinions of the majority of climatologists and scientific organizations which do identify AGW as a serious environmental problem with potential disastrous consequences.

Does this mean AGW is the truth, and that its predictors and proponents must be correct? Of course not. Consensus opinions in science have been demonstrated to be wrong before. But given my own lack of intimate knowledge on the subject, and my respect for the established scientific community and peer-reviewed research, I must choose the position I have taken. Who do you expect me to believe, the National Academy of Science, or the Association of American Petroleum Geologists?

On the other hand, when I review the positions, data and especially the methods of the denialist community, what I often see is a deliberate misrepresentation of their opponents' positions in order to make them unpalatable, a calculated introduction of irrelevancies and exaggerations into their arguments (every single one of your OR... points, for example), and an alarming correlation with self-serving commercial and political agendas. I'm not denying that there may be some legitimate and competent scientists who sincerely believe denialist viewpoints. Perhaps they are even correct! After all, that is how science works, it isn't settled by vote. But from my position and knowing what I know, I simply don't trust you and your colleagues.

There is one final item, since we are dealing with probabilities and not certainties in this debate. The denialists are going to have to convince me that there is a sinister or aberrant reason why AGW has received the support of the preponderance of climate scientists and responsible academic and scientific organizations concerned with this issue. Is there an international conspiracy, some self-justifying meme, or simply an intellectual fashion gone beserk that has relegated your position to a minority, if not a fringe position? You are going to have to explain to me why so many people and groups I trust have deliberately chosen to be mistaken and ignore the evidence you seem to find so self-evident.

Or, while we're speculating, isn't it just as, if not more, likely that the denialist position is supported and promoted by economic and political interests which find the idea of possible economic controls and regulations anathema and will stop at nothing to put a stop to them? To me, this seems to be a much more reasonable assumption.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (100 posts)