"doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts" – this is an argument of authority ("experts"), which in turn is a fallacy, moreover, since when scienc

"doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts" – this is an argument of authority ("experts"), which in turn is a fallacy, moreover, since when science is a democracy ("consensus"). "In this bewildering world we have to decide what to believe and how to act on that. In principle, that’s what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of Science, the prestigious journal. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.”" – I do not even know from where to start. I could write a book on the bullshit of this paragraph alone! Science is not a belief. "Facts" are required as evidence. And Science is actually the human translation of the laws of Nature, which could be right or wrong, but is done in a way using arguments constructed within rationality. The way the paragraph is written it is like it is describing a cult! "Science, the prestigious journal": again, argument of authority. "The students, even those who correctly marked “true,” were slower to answer those questions" – of course they were!!! They were thinking!!! Which seems nowadays is a rarity!!! And that is called conducting!!! The study and the paragraph are being used to lead to what the author of the article wants!!! The link with apes is self-evident because it seems we certainly have returned to that stage! Statistics: really one wants to lie on statistics – there is a planet, on this planet lives two persons, they also have two chickens. One of them eats both of the chickens, but the MEDIUM between them is still one chicken for each person on that planet; nonetheless one of them is still HUNGRY! Nothing against statistics, but we have to be careful in its use. Give any statistics and tell me what you want that it is possible to make it "statistically" happen. "Of course, just because two things happened together doesn’t mean one caused the other, and just because events are clustered doesn’t mean they’re not random. Yet we have trouble digesting randomness; our brains crave pattern and meaning." – At least some wisdom a time, who's to say randomness cannot happen? Oh here we go, "climate-change"! Oh, is this for real? I suppose it is because it is the same bullshit over and over again. I cannot believe I even have to say that: if one has a point to prove, prove it, instead of try to deconstruct what is already a deconstruction. If they are so right and the argument is so strong they just focus on it and not on those saying they cannot sustain their point (which they can't). Consensus: again, maybe 200% of scientists or all living and the non-living entities on Earth may also agree that gravity doesn't exist, so, since Nature works by "consensus", we would have a gravity-free day and we could all go happily floating around… so not happening! Now the golden part: "The planet’s surface temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 130 years, and human actions, including the burning of fossil fuels, are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century." Firstly, planet average temperature is a useless statistics; it's like saying no one is hungry in my statistical example above. An increase of 1.5ºF = 0.83ºC. That in the MEAN temperature of the Earth, which is to say absolutely nothing! Temperatures on the planet go easily from -50ºC/-58ºF/223K to 50ºC/122ºF/323K or more. Lowest natural temperature ever recorded on the surface of Earth was -89ºC/-128ºF/184K in the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica (21 July 1983), the highest being 57ºC/134ºF/330K at Greenland Ranch in the Death Valley in California (10 July 1913). Now the puff, out of the blue part: "and human actions, including the burning of fossil fuels, are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century." Based on what evidence exactly? Because the author has already warned about correlation and clustered events, so he cannot possibly be implying that, right? Moreover, there are plenty more plausible and reasonable explanations for the rise in temperature, the DETECTION of which could be due to human activities, but they are CERTAINLY not the cause on a global scale. Oh, it gets worse, of course it does! Really? I feel like in elementary school because again instead of advance their climate warming argument they are again trying to discredit those opposing it. More to the point, it does not matter from where it comes from as long as the argument is sound. The laws of Nature are what they are, regardless of who uncovers them. If the argument is not good, one refutes it with another argument not using ad hominen fallacies. Is it just me, or all I could grasp from his conclusions to the survey presented was that those with stronger opinions were exactly those with more knowledge of the subject? Well, obviously, isn't it? Oh, yeah, given his last survey example, people should not stop to think (of course, if we ever do, we won't swallow so much crap!) Science has no opposites ("antagonist tribes"); it either is or is not. In Science there is place for DEMONSTRATION and ARGUMENTATION, not BELIEVES. One can of course believes his arguments are correct but cannot hold to them once they are proved wrong, otherwise we scape the realm of science, at which point a discussion in no longer valid. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they are not free to spread unfounded "scientific" arguments, creating a state of "climate terrorism". "Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers." – Yes, that is exactly it, but it is the other way around. It seems to me that scientists are the ones who do not want to let go of the climate warming bandwagon and all the research money it entails (more than 100 billion dollars have been wasted in the past 20 years and has of course proved nothing!). "Convert": is that a word to be used in any scientific discussion?!!! I cannot even believe I waste my time!!! What? What? Really the world has gone mad!!! "Do you believe in them or me?" First of all she should be deserted. That is blackmail of the worst kind. I mean climate warming alarmists lack so much arguments that they have to retort to that low level kind of harassment?!!! Do I even need to go on this??? "We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community." – That is true, until they usurped that affinity (trust!). “There aren't really two sides to all these issues. Climate change is happening.” – Absolutely true. Climate changes is not a noun, it is a sentence, climate (subject) changes (verb). It has been changing since Earth was formed and will continue to do so. What would generate cause for worry is if it actually stopped changing, that indeed would be not the norm (not normal). He is using the doubt of measles vaccine to advance his argument on climate warming, and that is a fallacy construction. Just because one was wrong does not means the other is. That is false and emotional leading, something used a lot, of course, since they lack any real arguments. "keep laws governing greenhouse gas emissions from being enacted." – Rightly so! Those laws won't help when changes in nature come. They would only make humanity worse, way, way, worse. "But the claim becomes more likely to be seen as plausible if scientists go beyond their professional expertise and begin advocating specific policies." – They can barely do science; they don't have to advocate policies, they have to prove with reasonable sound arguments and without fallacies their claims. "It's the way science tells us the truth rather than what we'd like the truth to be. Scientists can be as dogmatic as anyone else — but their dogma is always wilting in the hot glare of new research. In science it’s not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it." – Too bad they are not following this principle anymore.