Can those on the skeptics side explain something for me. . . .
If:
(a) in the 1970s/80s the scientific consensus was that global cooling was a serious threat, and that a new ice age could be looming if we didn't change our ways; and
(b) the way "big science" works is that views outside the mainstream constantly get shouted down, are dismissed out of hand despite their objective merits, etc. because science is just about getting funded and published and only consensus views get funding and publication,
then how did we ever go from a mainstream of global cooling being a threat to global warming being a threat? Shouldn't global warming science have never gotten beyond a few fringe scientists shouting from outside of the institution of self-perpetuating mainstream science?
Last edited by Mike F; 06-07-2009 at 01:42 PM.
|