I read this article by Mike Hulme, a climate scientist as East Anglia University. I am interested in getting peoples responses to this article. I have read it, and I certainly have an opinion, but I don't want to paint others opinion before they read it.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

Funny.

 

I welcome looking at their data, but come on already with the logical fallacies and appeals.

 

All of us alive today have a stake in the future, and so we should all play a role in generating sufficient, inclusive and imposing knowledge about the future. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

I don't think that 'appeal to society' is necessarily an intelligent argument when it comes to global warming, but it is a useful one.

When did Singer become a "climate physicist"? Has he done any research and published any peer-reviewed articles? Anybody can publish books and op-eds. And Singer has flip-flopped his stance; a few years ago it was "there is no warming" and now it's "there is warming and it's not anthropogenic — it's unstoppable." His consistent position has been "less/no government involvement" but that's ideology, not science.

Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

So does this mean we should only listen to the abnormal ones?

So does this mean we should only listen to the abnormal ones?

 

Those ARE the normal ones (if normal is somehow related to the median).