It is the logic in
"I think this is correct because of such and such human reasoning" that many people challenge, not the fact in this case that global climate change is happening.

Global climate changes are far too rapid for the cause to be anything but "unnatural", unless it is caused by some cosmic influence we know nothing about as yet.

Science is logic, and we all know logic is not well handled by many people.

Just because some goat states his/her logic and a flock of sheep bleat along in unison does not make the logic correct.  Reality is the only judge.

Unfortunately Naomi Oreskes takes a very blinkered view that all science is correct.

Her example of plate tectonics is rather curious.  The original logical connection that upset the old view was considered incorrect by "the consensus" of geologists, and a bloody scientific war ensued until "the theory of plate tectonics" was finally accepted.  (causalities were immaterial)

The evidence always was, the Earth always was, but the logic was different for different people.

The Gristmill posters, think the facts are, and therefore the logic should be the same, consensus should rule.

WRONG ! science rises above this myopic view, however people and scientists only change their logic by being dragged screaming to the gallows.

I do not see any merit in the link story.

It is myopic and fatally flawed in logic.

Also, resorting to grand analogies from the history of science has the same soporific effect.

Turn the hypothesis into a New York Times best seller -- that explains or justifies everything from A.D.D. to the need for wider garages, and I'm gone.

But give me one really convincing, incontrovertible data series...

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Andrew, I hope you don't mind this little post. I have to escape from SciGuy sometimes to be amongst the  sane...

http://www.skepchick.org/skepticsguide/viewtopic.php?t=35 ...