General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Studies show that most Americans reject facts when [View all]naturallyselected
(84 posts)A consensus among clergy about scientific matters is not the same as a scientific consensus. If there are hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies, and 97% of them agree that climate change is caused by human activity, it doesn't matter if you or I accept it, it's still a fact. This isn't a "number" of scientists, or a "consensus opinion"; this is a huge body of scientific research.
The problem with not accepting the scientific consensus is that it is very difficult to legislate or promote any kind of corrective action if there are huge segments of the public and politicians that refuse to trust the scientific process because of their preconceptions and prejudices.
The idea that scientific consensus has sometimes been discovered to be wrong is a notion that I commonly see in the popular literature, and less commonly even here at DU. But I can't think of any examples of this when there is anything like the massive body of research that demonstrates that climate change is caused by human activity. In this case, I agree with the study you cite - it is only prejudices and preconceptions that keep people from accepting scientific fact. Any objective analysis will result in the conclusion that the data are undeniable.
What agenda is involved in accepting this? Trust in the scientific process? Some desire that the conclusion that climate change is caused by human activity be true? I would be extremely happy for this conclusion to be wrong; then there would be some hope the natural cycle would swing back before catastrophe. But my desire for this change to just be a temporary natural swing doesn't change the well-established scientific fact that climate change has been fueled by human activity.