|
Scientists don't just agree with each other for the hell of it. The data is the data, and all the new data fits the model of humans causing global climate change. You can try to shift it into a delusion, but I'm not the one being fooled.
Here's how peer reviewed science works: those scientists who have different ways of explaining the data get their studies published in recognized publications, and the other scientists review them. If those differing explanations cause a majority of the scientists to realize that they were mistaken, and the new explanation is better, then it becomes the new consensus.
You and I don't get to make scientific conclusions. And just because there is some minority of scientists who disagree, doesn't mean that the majority are wrong.
A huge majority of the scientists who are working on this agree with the conclusion that humans have caused rapid global climate change by burning lots of carbon fuels. Like a 97% majority.
I posit that you should look at the funding sources of the deniers.
PS I notice that you didn't address any of the five specific examples, that I listed from the top of my head, of the reality of global climate change. Why is that, I wonder?
|