Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6683350" data-attributes="member: 177">And, don't all the best lies not have some basis of truth in them?  There is a "nugget of truth" in Jurassic Park, too.  There are actually mosquitoes trapped in amber.  That doesn't mean we can have T-Rexes wandering around eating people."Some folks"?  Let us be clear about something....A search for peer reviewed articles from 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that discussed whether the globe is warming found 13,950 such papers.  The number of those that said the globe was not warming?  24.  Two dozen.  So, about two-tenths of one percent of scientific papers on the subject in the past decade don't agree that temperatures are rising.Of those nearly 14,000 papers, only about 4,000 touch on the cause of global warming (this is not surprising - most astronomy papers are about measurements observations of stars, not about how galaxies form).  Of those 4000,  97% agree that our current change in climate is due to human action.   So, if Chrighton actually suggests as you say, he can go fold his conspiracy theory five ways, and put it on the dark side of his moon.  THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY in the scientific community on this.This idea has the same flaw as "the Moon landing was faked".  It requires hundreds to thousands of people to be in on it, and keep their mouths shut, for years and decades.  This is not plausible.Citations for my points above:<a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article" target="_blank">http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article</a><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart" target="_blank">http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart</a>And, from a decent science-communication blogger (and scientist himself) Phil Plait, who often covers the topic:<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html</a><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/17/global_warming_climate_scientists_overwhelmingly_agree_it_s_real_and_is.html" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/17/global_warming_climate_scientists_overwhelmingly_agree_it_s_real_and_is.html</a>Nope.  Sorry.  They are melting wholesale.  Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting.  Permanent ice is melting all over the place.  Polar bears are having a bad day.  Your sea is rising.  Hope you weren't planning to leave your coastal real estate to your grandkids....See above.  You have specialists whose job it is to know this stuff for you, and tell you about it.  Why do you doubt them?  The same basic method produced not just climate science, but pretty much every  technological advance since the Renaissance.  Why doubt it on this, when we accept it everywhere else?  To quote Randall Munroe, "Science!  It Works, B*tches!"When you have a question about your health, you go to a doctor.  When you wonder about that doctor's diagnosis and treatment plan, you go to another doctor.  If you go to 100 doctors, and 97 of them agree that you have cancer, do you listen to the 3?  Or, do you accept that maybe you're actually sick?</blockquote>

Verification