Two recent offerings published raised questions about accepting the scientific consensus (“Unsettled science” and “Antiscience ruins the climate debate”). It's true; scientific consensus doesn’t guarantee absolute truth. Often, however, we must make decisions based on the opinions of experts, who interpret the data to the best of their ability.
What if your child was having trouble keeping up with other kids and was found to have a heart defect? You consulted the best physicians and found that 97 percent recommended surgery, but 3 percent told you to let the condition take its course. Would you hold on to the hope that the small minority of physicians was correct?
Now 97 percent of climate scientists say the earth is warming, human activity is the primary driver of this change and the consequences will be more serious than we are already experiencing if we don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.
What if this large majority is right?
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Can Hollywood keep the faith in faith-based...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Re-enactment...
- Letter: Policy disagreement
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have voted for
- Letter: Outdated climate
- My view: Circuit Court's Obamacare decision...
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 69
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 64
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 61
- In our opinion: History will remember... 46
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 46
- Letter: Breeding hate 45
- Letter: Policy disagreement 37
- In our opinion: Use market forces and... 32