yeah... that's the thing here. it's science, not opinion.lotusamerica wrote:I have a good friend who thinks about the same as you Cole, and like you, he lives small, eats local, and cares just as much about his fellow creatures as I do, and I have no problem with him thinking differently than me on the subject. Better that someone questions and concludes differently than just follows whichever herd he's a part of.
Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists.
A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
i mean, i'd like to think that the vast majority of the US population can thoroughly understand the science and make factual critiques and rebuttals. then again, look at who got voted into office. nearly 63mm people voted for Trump. i'm not that optimistic.
if only 3% of the collective climatologists don't think that humans are the ones causing the shift, well i guess there's a chance that a Copernicus or Galileo exist in that sub-population and will be proven right over time.
but i seriously doubt that.