View Single Post
Old Tuesday 22nd January 2019, 11:37   #21
Registered User
DMW's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jersey
Posts: 1,648
Litebeam, I am genuinely interested to understand how you came to your scepticism of AGW.

Let me explain to you why I accept the premise of AGW. I have a basic science background (zoology degree), and while I am in no way a scientist, I do have a reasonable understanding of how science “works” as a process, and I have faith in this process. This isn’t blind faith of a religious nature: the computer I’m typing this on, the kettle I just used to boil water, and the supply of electricity that powers both are all derived from the scientific process, as is just about every other aspect of modern life. Put simply, I trust the collective body of scientists and scientific research to do their job. I trust them to put forward the most compelling explanations of the natural world, and I trust them to keep looking for alternative explanations, and to change their collective minds when these alternative explanations are a better fit for the data.

This is why I accept the premise of AGW, despite never having read a single paper on the subject. Frankly, there would be little point in me doing so, as I would not be able to understand the science. As far as I am aware, no scientist who works in climate science or related fields disputes that AGW is the best explanation of the available evidence. I am positive that any scientist who could provide a robust alternative explanation would do so in a heartbeat: it would give them tremendous personal and professional prestige, not to mention great wealth. The oil companies would write them a blank cheque.

Yes, there are a very few scientists who refute AGW, but as far as I am aware, none of them actually work in the field of climate science. They are effectively dentists diagnosing a heart condition. And yes, there are a very few scientists who falsify or deliberately misuse data, but they tend to get found out and ostracized. Neither group are representative of the collective body of scientists.

In today’s world it is always a good idea to distrust anything you read in the media – look at how even the much-self-praised BBC peddled fake news in the recent Native American v white teens fiasco - but to be honest there comes a point where healthy scepticism turns into blind refusal to accept reality.

So that’s my narrative: what’s yours? What facts do you have that make you able to dismiss the collective body of climate-change scientists, and therefore the scientific process?
DMW is offline  
Reply With Quote