I openly admit, I trust scientific consensus more than a mob of raging, passionate, well-meaning individuals. Because a mob of passionate, well-meaning, but ultimately raging individuals do not own PhDs in the fields they are criticizing. However, they have there roles in society, mainly to think critically about the issues, and to place their trust in people with the credentials to make the right choices.
That said, the apparent brouhaha over so-called evidence against climate change has finally brought about the diversion of time by people who aren’t affiliated with the climate research to debunk these assertions.
From what I have read, which isn’t much, because wading through all those email messages would consume too much of my time, and I am a terrible statistician/mathematician/physicist/climate scientist which would ultimately make it pointless, I have submitted myself to trusting the scientific method, where disagreements are not settled through who is the loudest, but who presents the most compelling evidence.
In this regard, the emails that have been exposed have been deliberately misquoted, which amounts to nothing more than character assassination. Data from different models have produced the same graphs necessary to show that the warming trend is real, and the sinking island nations will attest to that fact as well.
The Economist has even published an article regarding this over-arching scepticism that seems to be of the opposite opinion simply because it wants to be of the opposite opinion.
What is the conclusion?
Trust the science, not the pseudoscience.
