The Blog of Fleeced

An article in Slashdot about a “Surprise Discovery In Earth’s Upper Atmosphere” sparked an inevitable debate about climate change. Though I’m a global warming skeptic, I believe you need to be cautious about selectively jumping on data that supports your cause – as many other skeptics did – but this post in response to one of them caught my eye (emphasis mine):

Concern troll. Al Gore and AEI with their daffodil ads are not the same thing. Al Gore may be a politician, he may not be your kind of politician, but the science is on his side.

The pseudoscience is on the side of the “skeptics”

I posted the following in response, which bears repeating:

Do a survey at any green movement rally, and see what percentage of these people are anti-nuclear and anti-GM, or support “alternative” medicine over the conventional (scientific) kind. How many anti-vaxxers would you expect to find in the crowd?

None of this reduces the validity of AGW of course, but it does put paid to the notion that people follow this cause because they are more scientifically rational… indeed, there seems to be a general fear of technology in the green movement (and to be clear, I’m not talking about the scientists here, as much as the supporters).

In short, my global warming skepticism, though a minority view amongst scientists (and I accept that it IS a minority view) is still scientifically based… most of the green movements support of the “consensus” view is not scientifically based at all – it just happens to conform to their world-view.

Minority scientific opinion does not equal pseudoscience