The media is reporting what most reputable scientists are telling them.
Scientists are giving the media their best interpretation of the evidence.
But - as you and others correctly note - scientific predictions have been wrong before...many times. What you don't say is that in these matters scientific opinion is infinitely better than that of laymen. Especially laymen who would suffer economically if the scientists were believed.
What you don't say is that in these matters scientific opinion is infinitely better than that of laymen.
Science is only as good as its ability to withstand critical test of its observations. For the key is not the "scientist", nor his credentials. The key to science is being able to withstand critical test of hypothesis against observation, and nothing more.
When the "scientist" forget to keep science separate from their politics their judgement becomes as warped or more so in single minde pursuit of a goal in an echo chamber:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
(Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).
often becoming mercenary in their pursuit of funding:
"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
-- Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001
"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)
Especially laymen who would suffer economically if the scientists were believed.
Hmmm, I notice you don't mention those "scientists" that suffer economically should they not be believed.
Science is independent of the researcher, belief in a scientist's credential's over critical test of his observations and hypothesis, reproducibility of result and reason are the only tests of science.
Especially where Billions of research dollars are in the target sites of large academic institutions and political power in the ken of political entities such as the UN/IPCC.
OK then.
Explain this.
Once upon a time, the best scientists were ascetic scholar-monks. That is no longer true. Every scientist is paid by someone.
You can choose to have faith in bureaucrats and "scientists" living on our tax dollars and grants.
Me? I prefer to trust the silent majority who produce, innovate, discover and win nobel prizes under our private enterprise, free exchange system.
The invisible hand lives!