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="Samuel Perfect" data-source="post: 3177080" data-attributes="member: 104715">I see it as a simple step by step process.  Humans introduce unnaturally high amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere>GHG concentration increases>more insolation trapped>global temperature rises>climate changes.I suppose that's the good thing about taking a scientific approach, it's possible to suggest that something is vastly probable or improbable and 100% certainty is never possible but in my mind contemplating such unlikely odds seems to be a waste of time.  In the same way I don't dedicate much of my time to contemplating the existence of unicorns.  May I refer you to the comedian Mr Jim Jefferies for my opinions on god botherers? :-OI don't trust your assertion that a belief is unexplainable by science.  Science isn't a test tube, computer or a dissected frog, it's the method by which we uncover truths in the universe.  The psychology behind belief is clearly incredibly difficult to understand but given a good amount of time and effort perhaps future generations will be able to explain these origins of thought and how our conciousness perceives them.  I know next to nothing about the subject but a glance back at the track history of scientific achievement is enough to boost oneself full of confidence that the hurdle of explaining reason for belief is attainable.I'm not sure how to respond to your point about not trusting evidence by peer-review.  The people who have voluntarily dedicated their life to the same intentions of broadening their knowledge would simply be conning themselves if what they published they knew to be untrue.  I highly doubt every single person up until my existence has been trained to spread lies so that from the time I popped out the womb I would be an experiment in itself to see whether my personal intellectual integrity would be compromised by what others tell me.No, I wasn't looking over the shoulders of the people who brought up the EPICA Dome C ice core and measured the CO2 concentrations within it, nor was I standing alongside Harry Hess with the US Navy checking all his data on bathymetry were correct.  I could easily disregard all this evidence and exclaim that it's all a load of tosh and part of a grand scam in which case it boils down to whether or not I trust the people collecting the data.  It seems I do trust scientists with what they say.  Why?  Because the application of science WORKS!  Type "1+1" into your calculator and I'll be confident (yet not 100% definitely definitely sure) that my answer will be the same as yours (note, there isn't a "politics" button on your calculator).  It seems to me doubting the obvious outcome is what skeptics enjoy doing so please don't drag me into it and demand that I confess I can't be certain of the outcome and that we each have a 50:50 chance of getting two different answers.  I'm simply not that intellectually dishonest.The reason the "reviewers are the same folk" is because they have an equal interest in the discoveries made by those doing the hard ground work.  It's for the same reason that people rooting for conservation are people who tend to take an interest in wildlife.I doubt I'd spend much time listening to anyone claiming the science is all fraud, I'd much much much rather see them point me towards ice core records, tree ring data, ocean laminates, pollen records from peat bogs and speleothems, flora and fauna distributions, paleoenvironments of past ice extent, geological substrates etc to prove to me why current climatic changes are totally normal with no input by anthropogenic forcing.</blockquote>

Verification