mattorama12 wrote:
I completely agree with you on this. However, I still think it's useful to accept the validity of the scientific consensus as an efficient way of understanding the world better without having to research everything independently. That said, when you don't understand something yourself, you should certainly refrain from pontificating on the subject (which is why you won't find me weighing in the AGW debate here).
Sure, we all rely on heuristics to some extent. But with AGW, it's not even as simple as you or many others imagine; there are hundreds of scientists who don't believe in it. And even if you don't want to wade into any of the science, there are other heuristics to consider.
For instance, previous failures by atmospheric scientists predicting "global cooling" during the 70s. (Still an incredibly embarrassing topic among the few leading climatologists I spoke to about it)
Or the incentive to obtain government/think-tank grants by actively supporting AGW. (I'm not so naive as to think scientists are too holy and pure to give in to economic incentives/greed)
You know what's really funny? I took classes from 2 world-class atmospheric science professors, both of whom happened to be big-time AGW supporters. I always think of both their complete inability to contradict a single argument made by a visiting professor who didn't accept AGW (they were at his speech), as well as their highly guarded statements.
"I believe there is evidence to support the possibility of AGW, and we should investigate it further" was the most you would ever get out of them. Contrast that with the shrill, hysterical demands by non-scientists (like Al Gore) on the subject.
That is what Michael Crichton was talking about with the politicization of science.