Science is the search for truth. Sometimes, the truth takes longer to reveal because Mother Nature doesn’t give up her secrets so easily. Many prominent scientists have changed their theories after the evidence shows they may have been wrong. Consensus is appeal to an agenda; it is in no way a means to scientific discovery or fact.
Eric is touting the same “scientific consensus” argument once again, but this time, is equivocating to the premise that it’s “pro-science.” In other words, if you don’t believe in the consensus, you are not “pro-science”. This is how he started the argument:
If history has taught us anything, and for poor Eric, I’m guessing he struggled greatly in history classes, that when science portends a problem to humanity, the best way to understand the real threat is to do more science and reduce the levels of uncertainties. We might even discover that the problem is not as bad as once thought, which is why more and more scientists are questioning the hysteria.
I am old enough to remember when it was predicted that we would run out of oil in the 1990’s, then 2000’s, then 2010, and yet, here we are producing more oil than ever before. In the current “consensus”, man-made climate change is dangerous and humanity itself is threatened. Doing nothing and staying the course will only lead to disaster and soon. In fact, it made Eric very upset one day..
We’ve heard this song and dance throughout history. Many times we’ve been told that unless we repent our sins, the world will end. Now it’s dogma in the religion of “Climate Change”. In some cases, scientists have boasted of tipping points that have come and gone, including in some cases, climate conditions that never materialized. Read that link, and peruse the site climatechangepredictions.org to read the doomsday category. Sounds an awful lot like a religion.
Let’s face it: Mankind’s record on what may or may not happen in predicting nature is horribly bad. To borrow a baseball phrase, we have been batting zero. That’s not to say that we can’t look for better or more sustainable energy sources from a long-term perspective. That would be a far more plausible argument to advance so as to give our society a better chance in the distant future than to suggest we, and the planet, will go the way of dodo in a few decades unless we repent and cast our carbon demons away right now.