Jul 16 2010
We all believe the Earth is round. We believe humans evolved from primates. And we believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Well, most of us would agree with these ideas, anyway. That’s because these theories have been tested scientifically.
It’s not like we’ve done these scientific tests ourselves. I have not gone into space to see with my own eyes that the Earth is not a flat disk. I haven’t gathered specimens of differently-evolved species on the Galapagos Islands. And I haven’t surveyed a thousand chain smokers to see what has resulted from their pack-a-day habit.
But we don’t have to. We have scientists. And when just about all of them tell us the exact same thing, we tend to go with the majority view.
Not so with climate change skeptics, though. The National Post’s Jonathan Kay takes on these people with brutal honesty:
How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community? Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon…
In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.
The vitriolic response in the comments section (119 and counting) pretty much proves Kay’s thesis. A sampling:
Find it hard to type whilst looking down your nose J? If you could prove your theory that Climate Change is real we wouldn’t need to deny the existance of your theory. Come back when you can provide evidence that hasn’t been peer reviewed by monkeys and special interest activists who hike for a living.
Well, this article was utter crap. The vast majority of actual scientists who have backgrounds in climate have never signed on to this easily-disprovable, far-leftist hoax. An analogy for Kay might be asking the preeminent phrenologists their opinions on phrenology, or the leading communists their views on economics. Asking those with a massively biased view does not give a representative sample of anything. That, and the unbelievable fraud perpetrated at the top might lead some scientists who never see the whole picture to believe that their contributions support the junk science being spewed out the other end.
What drivel, Jon boy. The Greenies and Warmies seize on every chicken scratched note by a tree hugger to prove they are right and won’t look at any evidence to the contrary that disputes their religious beliefs in the warming gods.
You should have been on my deck this week, 20 degrees below normal, makes you look silly barbecuing in a parka and mitts in the middle of July, but then, that is absolute proof of global warming, is it not?