Where is the logic in believing a minority of scientists when the vast majority say man-made GW is real?

Question

SERIOUS QUESTION. Don't try to change the subject.

I'm an engineer, not a climatologist. So on global warming I put my faith on what the vast majority of scientists have been saying on the subject, not the pundits.

I looked up the most well established SCIENTIFIC (not political) organizations in America involved in geologic, meteorologic, and climate research.

They all have made official statements in support of man made global warming.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap2.9e38ASituYinP.flUZlIzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080302041921AAKNSf6

Answer 1

Look at it this way.  Having a vast majority of a group agree on something doesn't necessarily mean they're right.  If that were the case, we'd all still believe the earth is flat because that was the supposed consensus.  The best way to find the truth is dig for it yourself.  Read books, articles, stories, studies etc. on the subject.  Read one's that both support and reject the theory off global warming.  Try to find the one's that are objective in their reporting (which is difficult to do since almost everyone out there has some bias, even scientists). I think when you look at the data yourself instead of regurgitating all these numbers and statistics you find in the mainstream media, I think you'll find an answer that satisfies you.

Answer 2

There is no logic to their position. They try and deny that the consensus exists, but that's clearly wrong.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Or they try the brilliant 'consensus has been wrong before' argument, which ignores the fact that scientific consensus is usually right, and can only be achieved if there is very strong scientific evidence.

In the end it's just desperation - people trying to find any justification for maintaining their denial about the reality of the situation.

Answer 3

THE MAJORITY IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. REMEMBER THE MAJORITY CRUCEFIED JESUS.

Answer 4

Okay, pay attention to the scientists who do not depend on supporting the politics of their grant payers...

Overall, the Earth has been warming for about 18000 years, since the last ice age was broken by increasing solar output.  Since then, the glaciers were melted back by two thousand miles, the oceans have risen hundreds of feet and we now have millions of acres of green, living land that were once covered by deadly, crushing ice.

LIFE LOVES A GREENHOUSE!

In addition, your use of the words 'minority' and 'majority' is very dangerous.  Scientific truth is not determined by consensus, it is determined by the truth of the facts and their interpretation.  Remember, a majority of n**i scientists determined that other races were inferior to the 'aryan' and could therefore, according to the rules of Darwininan natural selection, be selected out of the gene pool.  Majority be damned.  Think for yourself!

Answer 5

In science, the majority opinion on a subject this heavily researched is very very rarely wrong. Once in awhile it is, but very rarely.

These people are merely looking for ways to deny it. They have already established in their minds that they won't believe it, so now they simply need to cherry pick the evidence from various websites on data they scarcely understand, most of which has been debunked already. It's sad that so many peope are too ignorant to know they are on the losing side of the argument. They are so arrogant that they reject the huge science concensus despite having very little or no prior scientific understanding of the subject at all.

Answer 6

There is none.  I see people here trying to deny the truth by citing a few individual "skeptics".  This  is still true:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Answer 7

Unfortunately, most people here always miss the point.

The majority of scientists believed that science had no new frontiers in 1880. This was repeated in 1902 (before the wright brothers), 1920 (before antibiotics), and 1948, before biochemistry opened the door for DNA research). Most recently, in 1972, one of the most respected scientists in the world was worried about global cooling, and the scientific community rallied. It made National Geographic. Lastly, in 2003, again the end of scientific advancement was 'annouced' in the journal 'nature,' just before breakthroughs in genetics, genomics, and particle physics literally doubled the body of scientific information available to the world in just 24 months.

The majority of scientists rejected the germ theory of disease.

The majority of scientists believed that phrenology (the reading pf bumps on the head) was a legitimate way to determine whether or not criminals would reoffend.

Only a hundred years ago the majority of scientists in the US believed in Eugenics, that some races were genetically superior to another by virtue of the lightness of their skin.

   The majority of them also believed that Africans had an extra muscle in their leg, enabling them to run fast.

AND the majority believed that a good leeching would rectify the humors... which also denotes that the majority of scientists believed in the humors, which in itself is friggin' ridiculous.

Scientists are fallible and subject to fads, just like everyone else. As a scientist, you should know this. Rule #1 has been and has always been QUESTION AUTHORITY, since the days of Pasteur. Shame on anyone who forgets this.

Answer 8

Didn't you know there's this secret repository of scientists out there who aren't being paid off with government grant money, never publish, but have all the answers about why AGW is fake?   They just choose to share their secret findings only with the lunatic fringe of the Right Wing, who are sworn to secrecy not to reveal their sources.  All except John Coleman and the Fox network, of course.

Answer 9

Can you show me a list of the majority of scientists who say AGW is real.  You do know that a majority is 50%+1 don't you.  Note, I did not say a majority of scientific organizations, or a majority of the scientists paid to study global warming, I said a majority of scientists, that's all scientists not just a few thousand.

You still have not shown me a list of the majority of scientists who say man made global warming is real.  Also, climatologist work on models that predict climate.  They may incorporate in this some physical principles, but by your own argument they are not qualified to determine the validity of these correlations.

And the study of the flow of energy is thermodynamics, not thermal dynamics.  I find it hard to believe an engineer does not know this.

As an engineer (you are real engineer aren't you, not a glorified technician like these Certified Microsoft Systems "Engineers") you should be capable of evaluating the data yourself and not having to place your trust in others.  Also, the question of global warming, and its cause is actually a matter of physics, not climatology.  Climatologists can tell us the possible effects, but are not really the best source for identifying the cause.

Answer 10

http://boortz.com/nuze/200803/03112008.h...

Here's an article about one Miklos Zagoni, a physicist and environmental researcher from Hungary. Zagoni is Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto treaty. Or ... to be more accurate ... he WAS Hungary's most outspoken supporter. Now Zagoni has come upon some research which he believes proves that the equations that have been used in computer models to "prove" global warming are completely wrong. Just read the article. I have to move on here. For you warmers ... sucks to be you, I guess.

Answer 11

Many times scientific change comes from the few and then moves to the larger group. This certainly would not be the first time the many were displaced by the correct few.