General reply to all my critics here. Try thinking for yourselves. Take a leaf of advice from Imanual Kant, who answers the question "
What is Enlightenment?".
Maagge did exactly that, right
here. Your response was to ignore him,
quote someone else's work that you liked with no explanation of the thinking behind it, and then make the the point that
"his status is already miles above yours". At no point have you presented your own thinking, in the way Maagge or berbatrick have - and in fact when that's happened, you've dismissed those as
just meaningless thoughts, what really matters is the evidence. Or at least your evidence. Sure,
the evidence might be flawed or misunderstood, but we
don't have time to actually understand why those flaws exist, or what they mean. It's better to just
move onto the next article to quote thoughtlessly, from the people you like. And you can't possibly engage with new evidence that people present, it's better just to refute it by saying the equivalent of 'my evidence is better than your evidence'. No time for thinking, folks.
It underlines two quite obvious things.
- You don't really understand the science
- Status matters, or the people presenting the evidence matter to you, as long as they're saying things that make sense to you
It's good that you read a lot of stuff, and seek other people's views on it. You shouldn't trick yourself into thinking you understand it, though. You'll look back on a lot of wasted years if this is indicative of how you spend your time on the internet more broadly.
It's an unfortunate reality that the world is exceptionally complex, and climate science engages directly with huge swathes of that complexity in a unified view. You need to have a deep understanding of the core sciences, and years of experience working on the specific problems, to really know what you're talking about. A minority of the population have that. You don't, nor do the the Connolly's, nor do the vast majority of people in here. Believing anything else is simply delusional, and if you were to read your own posts from a position of scepticism, you'd see lots of evidence of that.
What you're doing is what the vast majority of people are doing - in the absence of true understanding, you're relying on trust. Some people trust experts, some people trust consensuses, some people trust sceptics, and so on. The main difference is, the people who trust sceptics are the ones who feel good about being different and while largely doing the same thing they ridicule in others.