We got a couple of views on scientific insight here. For me if someone posted links about how the world's scientists were in agreement that water was not wet, I'd go over to the sink & check and if I saw that water was in fact wet I'd either conclude that the world's scientists were mistaken or perhaps those scientists never said such nonsense from the getgo.
That's my take on this climate confusion. What I'm hearing is that something's bad. Many (but not all) say that the worst part is the heating of the earth. For me it's impossible to approach the question rationally w/o clarity. Can you tell me what's "bad"?
I think you have exactly the right idea here. Science is not what someone dictates to you; science is what you - yourself - determine from observation and experimentation, in order to corroborate a claim about the universe and reality.
When I was in college, one of my physics professors said that our lab experiment reports had to be written in the past tense - I did this, I observed that, this is what happened, etc.
There's a difference between what you witnessed happen and what someone else says happened; even our system of justice is based on witness testimony, not hearsay.
Someone says "water is wet" - this is just a statement, a claim that they make. A statement can be true or false. It's on you to test this claim by doing just what you say you'll do, which is to go over to the sink to determine whether or not it is indeed wet. Obviously it's something we've done and have been doing ever since we were old enough to go to the sink and wash our hands; from that experience we have repeated the test countless times and don't need to do it yet again, even though we eventually will the next time we need to wash our hands, or the dishes, etc.
When someone tells you something and demands that you must accept it, or else you will be shunned, that's not science, that's religion.
When someone tells you that you have to believe something because they say that some scientists are saying it's true, including with peer-reviewed articles, that's an appeal to authority fallacy. The late, great, Carl Sagan (my avatar is a cartoon depiction of him) pointed out that arguments from authority should not be trusted.
When someone accepts what someone says without challenging it, especially when there's a conflict of interest involved, that makes them gullible.
I don't know whether the relentless insistence about human-caused climate change is the result of gullibility, the result of people not being able to admit that they're wrong (or in denial that they are), or a combination of both.
An example of crony capitalism is politicians using tax money to fund cherry-picked scientists who write papers saying something is happening in order to impose policy on us, so they can make themselves wealthier.
There seems to be a bunch of hearsay upon appeal to authority upon cherry picking, and it's up to individuals to decide what the truth is by saying "show me."
As you can see from videos that I'm posting, I'm not trying to tell you anything you have to believe. I'm directly showing what a huge number of experts are saying.
Consider that anyone else can post such material consisting of their choice of scientists as a rebuttal to any bias that may exist on my part, and there's nothing I can do to stop them, yet they choose to forgo this option. Even if they did, it would just show that contrary to the popular narrative being pushed, there is no scientific consensus particularly for human-caused climate change (perhaps that's why they refrain from doing so).
