By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
0D0 said:
sundin13 said:

Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. The Guardian is a media outlet, not a scientific one. Both politicians and the media often have trouble accurately representing scientific consensus. As such, it is advised to handle with care when reading interpretations of the science by second hand, non-scientific sources, and further is is generally ill advised to use these second hand interpretations as evidence of flaws in the science.

Additionally, climate science is a fairly large field. There will always be individuals making fringe opinions that are contradicted by a large body of evidence. While "a New Ice Age" was all the rage in the media back in the '70s, even back in the early days of this type of science, a warming trend was by far the more common prediction:

Nobody here is sourcing science papers, so why should I?

It's always like this:

Paper says scientist said the world will end - See see, the world will end.

The world didn't end - That was just the paper interpretation of the scientist. No science's fault.

This is nonsense.

I mean, if you don't want to do the work to have an informed opinion, that is entirely on you, however it should be understood by everyone involved that what you are saying is merely an uninformed opinion and, again, not an accurate reflection of scientific consensus. To that effect, I'm not really sure why it matters what others in this thread are doing. Just because some people in this thread may not be making the best arguments, that doesn't mean that there is any issue with the science...

Lastly, why do you think fringe opinions invalidate scientific consensus?