[civility]

Because there isn't any reason for me to jump to a conclusion. For other reasons, I already have a carbon footprint and voting record almost anyone in that consensus would approve of. Is it really important that I "believe" all the things people are afraid of? I'm pretty content to leave some topics unresolved until I get more information.

[Gupie]

I am not a fan of "believe" or dogma of any kind myself. I tend to go on likelihood. I ask myself is it more likely that the 97% are correct or the 3%?

[civility]

I think Bayes theorem might be worthwhile here. Besides, going with the majority or authority as a principal is almost the definition of dogma. That's not likelihood in any rigorous sense.

[Gupie]

When weighing up the likelihood of something it is valid to consider the opinions of experts. Dogma is believing what an authority says is incontrovertibly true. I am not saying that man made climate change is incontrovertibly true, only incontrovertibly highly likely. It is true that the view of the great majority of the experts in a field has authority, particularly in regards to science, but it is an justifiable authority, not one for example one built solely on tradition.

[dfilppi]

Fortunately Galileo didn't follow that strategy

[amanaplanacanal]

Well sure, he did original research.

If you are suggesting most people should do original climate research, you are going to be disappointed.

If I get cancer, I assume that consensus medical science is going to give me the best treatments.

[wizlord]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2ftwt1/iama_scientist...