I have noticed that the pro Global Warming side seems to increasingly rest its arguments on the “arguing to authority” line, that all the Climate Scientists and official organizations could not possibly be wrong, and that only accredited Climate Scientists are fit to debate the subject.
With the public increasingly skeptical and doubting the official line of Global Warming, the pro side is seeking refuge in the authority of experts; the idea that only experts should be allowed to comment and debate on the subject of climate. This conveniently keeps the whole argument in the camp of the pro global warming side, and denies the skeptics the ablity to comment on the issue.
Global warming arguments essentially boils down to a few points; none of which are proof of anything.
A) There is a hypothesis that CO2 build up will cause a positive feedback which will push everything out of control.
B) The experts believe it is true.
C) The computer models say it is true.
A) is nothing more than a hypothesis and has yet to be proved.
B) is the “arguing to authority” argument- that the authorities cannot be wrong. The reality is that the experts, and official organizations have gotten and continue to get things wrong all the time due to politics, ideology, group think, self interest, conflicts of interest, institutional inertia…
C) is not convincing because computer models can predict anything we want them to. Just tweak the parameters. Fancy computer models predicted that housing prices would go up forever. These were made by big brained “quant” experts with Phd.s from our finest universities, and their computer models and assumptions got is all wrong.
In the end global warming hysteria does not rest on real science (empiricism), but on speculation and theory about what should happen decades in the future (50-80 years)-so long in the future that by the time we can verify all of the predictions, most of us will be retired or dead.
In the end I am not saying that the Warmers are 100% wrong, but I am saying that the “evidence” is weak, and it is irresponsible to say that the science is settled, and no further debate should be allowed, and anyone who dares to raise an objection should be mocked and insulted. The science is very complex with hundreds of variable often interacting non linearly, and our understanding of climate is limited. We need further debate and study of the subject before declaring it over. We should never declare the debate over in fact.
Here is a good video describing some of the weaknesses in the Global Warming alarmist arguments. The best I like is “Science is not about consensus. Politics is about consensus.” The most popular opinion is not always the right one.