Yup, big odds are .. What Climate Change Consensus Looks Like Filed under: General Science by SciPhile — May 26, 2011
It just keeps piling up, doesn’t it? If you trust scientists at all, there really is no reason to be in doubt about human-caused global climate change. Even studies that refute such consensus are being pulled due to plagiarism and fraud.
Unfortunately, what we often see on the news is a fallacy called false equivalency. This means that even though climate “skeptics” (they are not true skeptics in my book) represent less than 1% of scientists, they are still given equal time and coverage as scientists that accept human-caused climate change. For the public, this creates confusion, and it is easy to see why. If we give equal weight to the claims of every fringe idea, how are we ever to make up our minds? This is when we must rely on true scientific consensus, and not media hype. Climate deniers are the vast minority, and their notions are refuted, rejected, and discredited by mainstream science.
Because of the false equivalency that I mentioned above, climate deniers have a pretty vocal position in the media. But did you know that in total, in comparison with all US scientists, that the deniers only make up 0.24% of scientists?
Let me put it another way. If nearly 13,000,000 doctors recommended a procedure, would you refuse to have that medical procedure done if only 0.24% of doctors thought that the procedure was ineffective or fake? Of course not, because in climate science, medicine, and science in general, we rely on accurate consensus, and do not give fringe deniers and their theories equal weight.
Furthermore,
To all those climate deniers out there, did you realize that your position is basically unsupported by science and scientists?
Consensus is what drives good science and scientific progress. Because we have millions of scientists, all performing separate experiments, in different fields, with differing ideas, when they all come to the same conclusion, we know that those conclusions are backed up and supported by evidence and theory. Because climate science also works this way, the consensus has shown us that it is time that we stop pointlessly arguing with the fringe deniers or along party lines and move on to solve perhaps the biggest problem our species has ever faced.
Please don't use the phrase "believe in" with regard to either of those demonstrably factual events. One may "believe in" a deity or deities of their own choosing, as such things are not rigorously demonstrable by direct observation and measurement, whereas the two you mentioned certainly are amenable of such.
By using the term "believe in" you allow yourself to be sucked directly into the religious fundamentalists mindset and world view.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
