What does bother me, however, is how it’s more politically correct, say, to work toward a greener earth rather than a moral one. Just a thought.

You don’t understand the first thing about the scientific process.

That’s correct. I know nothing about the scientific process. My training as a molecular microbiologist, years of doing research in a lab, and my several years as a professionally-practicing restoration ecologist taught me nothing about the process.

Right, anyone who doesn’t agree with your “consensus” should be shouted down.

The consensus is not mine, as you suggest. It is the current conclusion after tens of thousands of research projects have gone through the scrutiny of peer-review, having been tested, debated, retested, and re-analyzed.

I said nothing about anyone’s research being “shouted down.” You are jumping to the typical conclusion and making the typical argument. Research stands on its own. In fact, in support of alternate theories, I stated above:

It is true that there are a number of examples of scientists, considered rogue at the time, whose “crazy” theories have turned out to be true. Those are perfect examples of the beauty of the scientific process.

As technologies and fundamental understandings improve, the accuracy of the body of science improves as well. Outlying theories that have merit can be reassessed, retested. If they turn out to be valid, they will eventually be accepted by the scientific community—although it may not be within the lifetime of the “rogue” scientist.

My point is about the scientific process, itself—over which I have no control. It sounds like you are talking politics. The politics in science is causing great harm in some fields—especially in the politically-charged field of climate change when it comes to policy.

I do not have any vested interest in one particular “answer” or the other. If after rigorous scrutiny, debate, and retesting, it turns out that part or even all of the current conclusions are inaccurate, that is fine. I’m not in it to pad my career, grab media attention, of force my beliefs on anyone.

I, like everyone else who is not doing research in this broad topic, have choices. If an individual is not a scientist, they can either blindly accept whatever they want, or they can try to educate themselves about the underlying processes and theories and make an informed decision. If an individual is a scientist, they can dig into the research, postulate alternate, testable hypotheses, and attempt to disprove the results, to show that the science is flawed.

Of course, people can choose to go against the current consensus if they wish. That is their prerogative. But if they do, they should not do so blindly. When it comes to science and medicine, it can be a big mistake to accept a minority’s view just on belief. It is usually the more conservative, safer approach, to stick with the consensus and let science do its job over time.

Personally, I have dug into the research and have decided to side with the consesus on this issue. I monitor research in this area closely, trying my best to keep up with the process as it advances us toward a better understanding of the truth.

Right, anyone who doesn’t agree with your “consensus” should be shouted down. You don’t understand the first thing about the scientific process.

The global climate is a vastly-complex system. Although the apparent overall trend is a warming lower atmosphere, the weather patterns that that produces are greatly varied. Just as you hear one report of record lows somewhere, you hear another for record highs.

We had zero snow in October and November, and only a couple of inches in December. That is unseasonable for our specific area of the county. But further south in our state, there were areas with record snow.