This entry was posted
on Saturday, June 30th, 2012 at 12:57 am and is filed under .
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
When it comes down to it, you do have to have faith that if the people that have stdiued this particular branch of science their whole lives have formed a consensus around a scientific issue then we have to accept that they know what they’re talking about.I’m in no position to dispute quantum mechanics, relativity or molecular biology but I have to trust that the consensus reached by the people that have stdiued these issues on what is or is not a verified scientific hypothesis. Heck as I’ve pointed out here how many people can prove that the earth revolves around the sun without an appeal to an expert? The reason the geocentric model of the universe persisted for so long was that there wasn’t an obvious observation that one could make to discredit it in favour of another model. And this is the huge problem with climatology people who might have a Ph.D in another field have decided that gives them expertise to speak about climate science without having enough knowledge of climate science to assess whether the evidence is good or bad. Unfortunately the only thing that gives one expertise to speak about climate science is an appropriate level of study in climate science. It takes years for someone to become knowledgable enough about a complex discipline to speak authoritatively on that discipline.Expertise is not democratic. Unless you are inculcated in a field of study, you can’t tell when something is conclusive proof or a dodgy hypothesis. When it comes down to AGW it turns out that almost every person with expertise is in consensus about AGW. If there was a disensus on this issue, you’d be seeing substantial numbers of climatologists voiciferously dissenting about it like we’ve seen in every other serious scientific debate in history.The false disensus presented by the so called sceptics is like the false disensus presented about whether smoking was carcinogenic. In the end it comes down to this if a group of scientists who have spent their whole lives studying an issue have reached a consensus about that issue, then disagreeing with their expertise if you haven’t stdiued that issue is an exercise in irrationality.Scientific consensus only forms when their is convincing evidence. The people who have stdiued this issue *are* convinced about AGW. The question is why people believe in conspiracy theories that these scientists are some how making the whole thing up as part of some left wing plot.
When should I expect my first letter?