I don't deny that there are those how latch on to fads, but comparing the science of global warming today to eugenics of 100 years ago is not useful. If you think it is, why not instead compare what science thinks about cancer and smoking today, vs. what medical doctors claimed about it 100 years ago? I can only assume that you are wise enough to realise that what medical science claimed 100 years ago in no way discredits modern medical science. This is a very common problem in the USA. People doubt science, and scientists routinely on evolutionary biology, atmospheric science, etc, but trust the same methods with great faith when they head to the hospital. Slight disconnect there.
Regarding climate models. Those denying global warming are free to try and develop more accurate ones that produce the results they desire. It is rather telling that they specialize in bitching about other models, but don't produce anything themselves. To anyone familiar with science bashing, this puts them in the same category as evolution deniers. The point being that the models do a pretty good job when run against the measured data from the last 100 years. Anyone is free to develop there own model that does just as well on that stretch of data, but then shows something much different going forward. Thats the problem, nobody can. |
