For one, how can you test the theories? Can you duplicate what allegedly happened "by chance" contrary to known laws of science (e.g., 2nd law of thermodynamics or law of bio-genesis)? Can one compare to a control group to show an earth without humans to contrast how temperatures fared there over the last 150 years?
Because the media swallow these as fact, so does the common man or woman who doesn't take the time to investigate, also labeling dissenters as morons or the like.
But what about when folks in the same scientific community dissent? It's typically squashed and not tolerated. Why? Clearly, it's bad science if they don't come up with the same results. (Some of us call that assuming the conclusion.)
I was encouraged to see a Nobel prize winning physicist resign his membership in the American Physics Society because of the new official position that global warming is occurring, noting that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
I applaud Dr. Ivar Giaever for his willingness to swim upstream and suffer the inevitable repercussions.
As an aside, if these scientists "believe" the earth is (at least) millions of years old, how solid is science that uses a sample size of about 150 years of recorded data to demonstrate the "reality of global warming," particularly attributing cause? In other words, can science prove that alleged temperature increases are attributable to human causes and not something else (e.g., cyclical patterns of weather change)? Don't forget, back in the 70s there as great concern over perceived global "cooling." (N.B. April 28, 1975 Newsweek article about global cooling).
Consensus non facit veritatem.
~[Latin] Consensus does not make truth.
