BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="elkcub" data-source="post: 3176972" data-attributes="member: 14473">Hi Samuel,I've been a scientist all my life and share a similar attitude.  All the evidence I've seen from various fields supports the notion that the earth is, in fact, currently warming.  The contentious part is why it's warming, how much of a part humans play, and whether it's possible that it can be changed/reversed by policy.   If you were to assert that God exists, and then challenge me to disprove it scientifically, I could not.  Why?  Because your reasons for believing don't relate to science; it's just what you believe.  Most people believe what they were brought up or evangelized to believe.  However, if you were to ask me, as a scientist, whether God is necessary to explain the observable facts of the universe, I would with certainty, say No!  Although many people believe in God (their choice), and all the churches on earth support that belief, I haven't found the concept (hypothesis, if you will) to be scientifically useful.  Now let's get to your "opinion" that "...climate change is real."  Do you mean that climate change is really occurring, or that it's really due predominantly to human activity?  The former is not an issue, as I said.  The latter, requires that you state the evidentiary basis.  Be careful not to place too much reliance on science advocacy organizations across the world, since that's like saying that all priests believe in God.  What is the evidence that supports your current belief, and has it been challenged scientifically?  Be careful not to place too much reliance on the absence of papers in so-called peer-reviewed journals, because those journal reviewers are actually the same folks being challenged, and they have the authority to reject papers.  The real world of science is very, very political.So, if you're really serious about being open to changing your opinion, and it's not really an iron-clad belief, would you be willing to consider challenges to the EVIDENCE you rely on, and accept scientific reasoning from outside the highly selective "climate-science" journals, and turn down the multi-lingual choir of science advocacy/advancement groups whose common interest is to lull politicians into giving them more research money?  Finally, I will add from personal experience that giving serious consideration to evidence and scientific reasoning that doesn't conform to one's current opinions is a damned hard thing to do.  It takes a huge amount of self-discipline, and often self-sacrifice, that many scientists find challenging even in their own fields.  Notice that I haven't revealed my own working conclusions.  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />  Ed</blockquote>

Verification