Originally Posted by badhatharry
This type of characterization is hardly ever true but it is a characterization that the opposition group always uses.
We're all brutes intent on having our way prevail. Admit it.
And just one more item...climate skeptics are not exulting ignornace. They are heartily against it...as in an entire population in the thrall of a bunch of political opportunists who tell them the sky is falling. It's a religion, as Michael Crichton pointed out over a decade ago.
I think the ignorance is in not knowing how to evaluate controversy. If 99% of scientists say one thing, and 1% say another, who would you be more likely to believe? Let's say the 1% does not represent the top authorities in the topic, but rather a random collection of science related people. Who to believe?
What if that 1% support a claim that benefits a powerful lobby, such as the oil industry? What if the media platform that gives voice to that 1% happens to be a well-known biased media, which has been exposed repeatedly for presenting a very skewed view?
What is the interest of the 99% of scientists to make a claim? If someone is primarily driven by interest in money or funding they may pursue a whole bunch of careers, but very unlikely that they would choose a career in science for that purpose.
We know you've been invested in defending your point of view on climate change for a couple of years now. I'm not expecting to convince you, but rather show you that there's always some degree of dissent in science, and an integral part of it is to know how to evaluate different claims, weigh the body of evidence, and move forward with the claims that are best supported.
That doesn't mean that the dissenting voices should be ignored completely. If they have sufficient evidence, they would get funding from reputable sources. If their view supports a certain industry, that industry will fund them. Unfortunately, their results may be tainted by a biased source of funding, but, they can still present them.