Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
Do the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists believe that the science is settled on this issue?
https://thebestschools.org/features/...ge-scientists/
Some of the world’s most brilliant minds are skeptical of the belief that human’s and CO2 are the primary driver behind climate change. Are they science deniers? Flat earthers?
How many more climate scientists are skeptics, but are not speaking out for fear of the mob outrage, and for fear of having their lives turned upside down like the group listed above? |
I understand your point. You’re saying that because there are still scientists out there that disagree, the science in not yet in, or conclusive. This is missing out on the most important facet of the communal belief on climate change and global warming (pick your favorite euphemism) - the unified theory.
There has always been disagreement in some of the specifics in the over-arching discussion, but what the vast majority of scientists who study our environment, climate, eco-systems, and so on, agree upon is the unified theory. The unified theory brings together all fields of research and defines a common element in studies and research affecting these very different fields. This unified theory is what brings meaning to the chaos. This is what brings those 97% of experts together and have them agreeing on the premise of what is happening to our planet.
This is where your scientists fall on their face. They have no unified theory. They propose varying theories, then spend time tearing down those posited by others. They believe they are the only ones with the correct explanation, and that it is unique in its understanding of the issue. This is why they hold no credibility in the big picture.
This is no different than if you discovered a lump and go to your doctor. Your doctor decides to send you to 100 of the best oncologists in the world, and they each do an examination of you and take a small biopsy of your lump. 97 of these doctors agree that it is a form of melanoma and a treatment regime including excision, radiation, and some chemotherapy is required. There is some disagreement in the exact prescriptive approach, but the diagnosis and treatment regime is pretty much agreed upon. The other three disagree completely. One guy says it’s related to your dandruff, and a little Selsun Blue will fix you right up. Another suggests it’s juast athlete’s foot, and a little Absorbine Junior will cure you. Another suggests that your near sightedness is causing you to bump into the same table, and it’s just scar tissue. Who do you listen to? I mean, the science is clearly not in on what this lump is? Are you headed to Shoppers looking for a bottle of dandruff shampoo, some Absorbine, and some new readers? Sounds that is what you would do.
The problem we are really facing is that the media has done such a ghastly job in presenting this issue to the public and informing them. The media thrives on conflict, and they are the ones who continue to forward this ridiculous notion that the science is not yet in. When the6 discuss the issue they bring on a climate scientist to represent the theory, and then a denier to counter. The denier is usually a trainer speaker and better at countering the expert than the expert is countering the talking head. This makes the expert look weak, even though they are the expert and the talking head is just that, a talking head whose job it is to obfuscate and mislead. If the media really wanted to show the public what this issue was about, they would bring 100 scientists into the room and seat 97 of them on one side of the table (those who agree in the unified theory) and then bring in the three who have counter theory. They would then let the 97 make them unified statement, and then allow the other three to argue amongst themselves about which of their counter-theories was more correct.
This is the current state of the issue. The science is in, and it is irrefutable. Climate change is happening, it is happening at an alarming pace, and human activity is responsible. The only question is, are we too late to take action?