basically i'd say in summary, climate change is a complex enough topic that if you are driven enough to want a particular conclusion, you can pick and choose all sorts of data to make yourself sound right.
but if you have the slightest idea about methodology, something thats covered in first year stats & scientific methods & you don't need a phd for, and you are open to all the available, current data, it overwhelmingly shows that anthropogenic effects are clear, present and real.
so much of CC skeptics literature is based on really dodgy tricks that would never be publishable, for example choosing an outlier as a starting point to give a distorted trend, because they don't have to pass as science, they're about public opinion. if people see CC topics as a threat to their pay packet, all they need is a steady stream of pseudoscience and confirmation bias will do the rest.
but its not science, and you're not going to get anywhere by trying to pretend it is.
|