Tobin wrote:Again, would you like me to quote what Gunnar said? His argument is classic Ad Populum Argument. He claims we must believe a majority of climatologists because they are the majority and for NO OTHER REASON. Read that link you just read. What does it say about that?
No. Not just because they are in the majority. It is because the results they got when examining the same evidence and doing the same experiments were consistently repeatable and led to the same conclusions, just as with any other well established scientific theory like evolution, Boyle's law, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, atomic theory and the heliocentric solar system. It was based on actually looking at the evidence (which you consistently refuse to do) and honestly evaluating it.
These scientists are people who have dedicated their careers and their lives to figuring out the dynamics of climate, including how the atmosphere, oceans, landmasses, biosphere and all other relevant factors (including human activities) interact with each other to produce and influence climate, which you obviously haven't done yourself and have very little clue about. That anyone should take your word over what they say is beyond ludicrous.
What evidence or argument can you possibly cite contrary to their conclusions that does not in itself rely on the testimony of others whom you regard as qualified authorities? And why do those who dispute the realities of climate change constitute a minuscule and still shrinking minority, if they are right?
If you experienced severe abdominal pains, and several qualified M.D.s, including your primary doctor and gastroenterologists with whom he consulted agreed that you have acute appendicitis and need an appendectomy, would you accept their verdict, or would you rather take the word of your favorite highly qualified auto mechanic or psychiatrist (or worse yet a priest or clergyman) that you have only a temporary condition that will go away on its own, or that it is just in your head?
