Are We Turning Our Backs On #Science? - Greg Satell - Medium https://medium.com/@digitaltonto/are-we-turning-our-backs-on-science-2f97913599e5#11d5
" This is a major problem, because if we are only willing to accept evidence that agrees with what we already think we know, we are unlikely to advance our understanding. Perhaps even worse, it opens us up to being influenced by #pundits — those with strong opinions but questionable #expertise. When we turn our backs on science, we turn our backs on #truth."
I have stopped reading this after the first paragraph when it says that people doubting AGW are turning their back on science. It is the exact opposite. I am a scientist and at least 50% of my friends with science degrees do not believe in AGW. A person with a scientific mind will quickly find troubling evidence and proof of fraud in climate science, such as Mann hockey stick. For fun, look at this picture, which says that temperature everywhere are climbing faster that everywhere else.
Still, the scientific consensus on AGW is quite strong. Moreover, the consensus isn't the result of some survey, with a majority being drawn out, but of the meta-analysis of published studies, carried out by many independent institutes around the world and not just GIEC. These meta-analysis all point out to the same conclusions. I know some scientists refuse this, but that is not sufficient to reject it. They need to bring stronger counter-evidences and so far, have failed in this.
Also, a bunch of newspapers headlines doesn't represent a scientific proof. We all know that as far as science is concerned, journalists often have a skewed view of it, for lack of understanding of it and the need for a scoop, without reckoning with political biases. As a scientist, you should know that and abstain from using such arguments, even if you think that your interlocutor has no scientific culture (which isn't the case for me, I have a bachelor of science).
In general the climate warmists call the other people 'flat earthers' and 'deniers', and this shows that science can become a political tool and that meaning can be inverted.
Well, some of the arguments by AGW denialists are of the same kind. And well, yes science can become a political tool, but that doesn't mean it is systematically the case. Concerning AGW, the scientific consensus is fairly strong and has become ever stronger over the last 10 years.
I am surprised you are still at this point.
First there is no 'denialist' in science. This is a religious term. Second, there is no such thing as a consensus in science. It is not a vote. Each scientist has his own relation with the scientific truth.
Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.
There is no consensus in science? Each scientist has his own relation to scientific truth? Then, how do you know that Earth is not flat? How do you know that it is not the center of thw universe? How do you know that matter is made of particles and not of fire, water, earth and ether ? And how do you know that Einstein and all the other Nobel Price winners actually deserved their price? I mean, on what basis do you think it is even distributed, if not on scientific consensus?
Generic Mastodon instance hosted by the FairSocialNet association.