2010-11-27 08:11:41The Argument For Scientific Consensus
Bob Guercio
Robert Guercio
robertguercio@optonline...
24.187.94.227

The strongest argument to dispute the contrarians is to appeal to the fact that the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has been firmly established by the scientific community. This argument certainly holds no sway with the contrarians but it is a tremendously powerful argument for the general public. Most people are reasonable and trusting of scientists; they will not accept the absurd notion that the scientists are in collusion to propagate a myth!

However, this argument is a bit abstract since few people are associated with the scientific community. "Abstraction" turns to "obvious" when the argument is framed regarding the science that is taught at the University level, which of course is an integral part of the scientific community.

On several occasions, I have successfully used this argument with people who were under the erroneous impression that the science of AGW was still in question. The argument goes something like this:

"The science of Global Warming has been firmly established by the scientific community as can be readily noted by visiting any science department at an accredited college or university. Courses are given in AGW and legitimate science textbooks are used. An example of one of these courses is "Global Warming, Understanding the Forecast" at the University of Chicago using a textbook of the same name by David Archer. This course is available on-line at

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

Furthermore, recognized science textbooks denying Global Warming do not exist as would be readily apparent by visiting a college or university bookstore.\" This argument will not work with contrarians since Global Warming poses a conflict with their agendas. However, a more powerful argument cannot be made for the general public as I have personally witnessed!

2010-11-27 08:19:30The Reason For The Above Blog
Bob Guercio
Robert Guercio
robertguercio@optonline...
24.187.94.227

Hi Guys,

I was a skeptic until about six months ago.  However, my skepticism resulted from listening to the news media and going no further. As soon as I decided to study climate change on my own, I quickly realized what was happening and, of course, I am no longer a skeptic.

I wrote this article because the fact that climate change is taught at the University Level clinched it for me. And I have used this argument to make others understand that the science of global warming is a settled issue.

It's a strange title for a blog so I thought that I should explain it to you guys.

Bob Guercio 

2010-11-27 08:33:09Not Sure
Bob Guercio
Robert Guercio
robertguercio@optonline...
24.187.94.227

Folks,

I accidentally posted this blog here for you guys to review.  I posted my two other blogs on a different forum.

I guess I'm not sure where to post blogs that I would like you guys to give me feedback on.

Please let me know and you could contact me by email if  you would like to. robertguercio@optonline.net

Bob Guercio 

2010-11-27 17:35:46
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
120.144.20.201

Bob

It would be interesting to actually do a post on why you stopped being a sceptic. What you thought before 'the change' and why, what your information sources were, how 'strong' a sceptic you were etc.

Then what you discovered that changed your view. Was it simply the level of acceptance of AGW in Academia? Specific science or data? Insights into the quality (or otherwise) of the sources of information you had encountered previously?

Your personal voyage of discovery on this could be a powerful story.

Glenn

2010-11-27 22:08:38Myself As A Skeptic
Bob Guercio
Robert Guercio
robertguercio@optonline...
24.187.94.227

Glenn,

That's a great idea and thank you.  I'll start working on that.

Just a quick note here for emphasis. My position was not that the scientists did not know what they were talking about or were in collusion or some other wild stretch. This is ridiculous.  My position was that the science was not settled within the scientific community.  I was a skeptic because I was ignorant and not because I was stupid. I wasn't exposed to the University environment and I didn't have the interest to dig into it.  So I listened to what came my way by accident from the media and 

Well -  you guys know the rest of this story!

By the way, I'm a bit embarrassed about this.  I studied the sciences extensively and therefore I hold myself to a higher standard than the general public. 

In any case, I think it's a great idea because most people who are skeptics are skeptics for the same reason and my admission could be powerful.

 

Thanks,

Bob