Once again you promulgate ignorance of science. This mistake on your part is at least a common one:
“Then, he added that “only a few cranks deny it.” By saying this, he abandoned science for politics. Copernicus was once one of these cranks; so was Einstein, at least for some time. Science is not ruled by majority consensus; arguments rule it. Claiming that a particular theory is correct because most scientists agree with it is purely unscientific. The voice of the majority matters in politics, but not in science.”
Tell me, if science is decided by pure truth and not by scientists, how are we to discover this pure truth? Is there some oracle of pure truth who will reveal these things to us?
Also, Copernicus was never dismissed as a crank. Read, for example, The Copernican Revolution by Thomas Kuhn, or A More Perfect Heaven, by Dana Sobel, or Copernicus and Modern Astronomy, by Angus Armitage. Nor was Einstein dismissed as a crank; his 1905 paper introducing special relativity was radical, but physicists saw that it cleanly resolved the crisis created by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and that its mathematics was flawless.
“When scientists give us contradictory reports, how can we, mere mortals, decide where the truth is? My adversaries did not address this problem, other than citing the majority.”
This is an old problem, and was solved more than 150 years ago, when Congress established the National Academy of Sciences and charged it with providing reliable scientific recommendations on matters of public policy. The National Academy of Sciences is composed of the very elite of American science. It has only 2,290 members, out of about 3 million working scientists. In its 150 year history, the National Academy of Sciences has never issued a formal scientific determination that was later found to be in error. It has a perfect track record. Here’s what the National Academy of Sciences has to say about climate change. Read it and learn.
“Politicians ask us to support their political causes. They claim all as scientifically validated, despite the fact that they oppose each other. Unresolved for decades, immigration and health care are the best examples. Then climate change joined the club.”
Immigration and health care policy are not scientific topics.
““To make plain the scientific issues” means to present them in a way that most people can understand them. It is difficult because the knowledge of science and the scientific method can vary. Yet, even the most sophisticated scientific matters can be explained to a layman. An old American saying defines the straightforward way: If you cannot explain it to me in two sentences, you are either lying or have nothing to say. In old times, people with money, often not well-educated, asked for these two sentences when approached with new ideas.”
That’s part of the anti-intellectual tradition in American politics, once self-labeled the “Know-Nothing” party. You are welcome to reject rationalism and science, but you won’t convince many people that way.
“supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not pass the two-sentence test well. Their opponents do it much better.”
Yes, bumper sticker slogans are so much easier to grasp than science, aren’t they?
“The weight put by the IPCC on the need for immediate political actions with no regard for the cost raises a red flag.”
Now, now, when you lie about what other people say, you lose credibility.
“The IPCC opponents need not convince me they are right in everything they are saying. They only need to bring a few valid arguments questioning the IPCC conclusions.”
That’s because you have already made up your mind to reject science for political reasons. Rational people rely on something called “the preponderance of evidence.”
“Publicizing their agenda, the IPCC supporters try to visualize for us doomsday projections of what can happen. Their appeal to emotion, not reason, is the next red flag, especially because emotional arguments often look like the sleazy tactics of used car salespeople.”
Sure, there are nutcases saying crazy things about every political issue. That’s why rational people pay heed to what the scientists are saying. You should, too.
“Professor Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society (APS). It was his protest against the APS declaration that “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security, and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” Professor Giaever pointed out the obvious: that incontrovertible could be doctrines of the Catholic Church, not scientific statements.”
Your statement represents a failure to understand the meaning of the word “incontrovertible”. Look it up.
“For example, Michael Barnard, the leading climate change writer at Medium, blocked me after I posted a critical comment to one of his articles. His action is equal to a church excommunicating heretics. He is a preacher of the climate change religion, not a propagator of a scientific point of view.”
No, it is not; it is the rational response to determined irrational obtuseness. It is a waste of time to present rational arguments to an irrational person. You are such a person. I have presented many detailed responses to your nonsense, and you simply ignore them. I have presented here a lengthy refutation of much of your nonsense. I know well that you will ignore everything I have written here; if you do respond, it will be with even further silly arguments.
You refuse to engage in rational discussion. That’s why most rational people refuse to waste their time with you. Me, I’m something of a softy; as a teacher, I possess an eternal optimism that, with careful explanation, anybody can be taught. You are the best disproof of my naivety.