Comments:

  1. Science is not a democracy. Your image of more people supporting one conclusion over another doesn't pertain to science. We would have been able to make a similar picture 1000 years ago comparing the number of people who thought the world was round with the number of people who thought it was flat. With the passing of a thousand years, we see the minority of people who thought the world was round were right.

    Plus there is much more big money funding investment in global warming studies that come to the conclusion global warming is man made.

    • Jack you comment misses the point of consensus. No one is claiming it is infallible. So what is your alternative? To ignore the consensus of experts?

      But you deference to the earth being flat gives me an excuse to post a link to Asomov's essay on the relativity of wrong:
      http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

      or of you don't want to read it (but you should) you can watch this abridge version on yourtube:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0

    • Oh and your monetary claim shows a profound misunderstanding of how science is funded (the results are not known before hand). Or the fact that Exxon of Koch would love to fund real science that gets them off the AGW hook.

      Actually the Koch brothers did try to do this. They even found a scientist (Richard Muller) that was sympathetic to their point of view. But when Muller looked at the data seriously he came to the same conclusion as every one else who had taken them time to look seriously.

      Also see this from ArsTechnica:
      http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>