>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Everyone knows that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all bodies rotate around it. There is only one person in the world that thinks otherwise and he recanted after he was confronted.

However, unlike your historically famous example, the naysayers didn't have mountains of evidence to support their position, merely hearsay and conjecture.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I doubt any of us here are climatologists, but we are people. As people, we can expect people doing science on climate to not be entirely dissimilar to us...


While I'm not a climatologist, I do have my PhD in Ecology and I regularly teach Environmental science. With that being said, I concur with most of the posts here in that climate change is indeed occurring and is largely anthropogenic. I agree with you that science shifts its focus from one foundation to another, but I disagree with you on most of your statements, namely:

a) "Peer review is more of a contest of popularity and not overall truth value."

This is ridiculous. I am both a reviewer of ecological journals and have had papers reviewed by those journals. While some authors may have an easier time getting published based on their namesake, the vast majority rely on their science alone. Most climatology papers are from large groups where most authors are unknown to the overall scientific community (grad students, post-docs, assistant professors and the like).

b) "Where is the data to support that global warming would even be bad?"

Most data revolving around the immediate biological effects of global warming are located not in climatology journals, but in ecological ones, particularly those on elevational gradients. For example, if an organism has a range at a specific altitude on a mountainside and the climate warms, it has no where to go but up - once he runs out of space, extirpation is eminent. Biological diversity will be reduce drastically in this manner in similarly smaller-ranged habitats or ecotones.

c) "We will entwine any evidence into the web of belief . And ostracize anyone that deviates."

The first person who comes up with solid proof that global climate change is not anthropogenic in a peer-reviewed article will have all the prestige granted to him that he could ever desire. That's always good motivation to deviate from the norm. The problem is, nobody can discover any evidence to the contrary. It's not ostracization by will, but by nature itself.