There is currently a lot of evidence that climate change it is being produced. However, there are still groups of people who believe that global warming is a phylum and that, in fact, it is causing global cooling, rather than warming. It is the case of researchers of the paranormal as Luis Carlos Campos, which even has books published about it.
Other people directly deny both cooling and warming. Nothing is changing on the planet. How to know who is right? The majority will appeal to what scientists say. But it is not so simple: What exactly is a scientist? Can a physicist have the same opinion about global warming as, for example, a chemist?
In science, most are not proof of anything. That is, although the phrase “most scientists think that…” is often used, this phrase is worthless in itself if it is not used as a metaphor for “most studies published in high-impact journals, as well as the subsequent meta-analyzes suggest that… ”
Science is based on evidence, evidence and experiments, and especially on knowing how to explain the concatenation of events that produce a certain effect. If it were based on the opinion of scientists, without more (and we looked at their opinions, without more), then we would not be doing science, but, film criticism, for example.
The best example that majorities are unreliable if only presented as evidence, the majority itself happened a few years ago, when the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, created by Arthur Robinson, chemist Noah E. Robinson and veterinarian Zachary W. Robinson (yes, they were family), published the manifesto The petition project.
The project defended the idea that the gas emissions carried out by human beings are not related to climate change. In the last edition of October 2007, on its cover it showed a title that could not leave anyone indifferent: “31,487 scientists reject climate change”.
Something like "nine out of ten dentists" recommend X. How to resist the large number of scientists denying alleged evidence?
However, if we dive into the evidence that these scientists claim to deny climate change we would not find more than ideology or prejudice, not true science (scientists are human beings, and among them there are also people who deceive themselves, or who cheat directly, or people who let themselves be bought, or people who think too lightly without knowing in depth the subject under analysis ).
As analyzing the arguments of each of these scientists is very expensive, just take a look at their degrees. Many of them were already dead. And Robinson, to consider a scientist trained to give an opinion on climate change, only needed one requirement: a diploma or a bachelor's degree.
Consequently, among the thousands of scientists on the list who were still alive there were 9,751 mechanical engineers, 3,069 doctors, 1,198 dentists, 71 agronomists and graduates in agriculture, 903 computer scientists ...
We could incur a fallacy of authority if we discredit someone's opinion based on their academic studies. But scientific progress would become insufferably slow if any opinion of the first nut that is presented in a magazine or institution had to be weighed. Therefore, the progress It is based on experiments or studies published in peer-reviewed journals. That is why the experiments are presented to the scientific community so that it is the one that finds errors or inconsistencies (science advances through falsifiability). If an agronomist thinks no more about a complex issue such as climate change, then his degree doesn't even matter. He is a daring, a reckless and, above all, unaware of the operation of the scientific method.
Use this scale to catalog the hordes of individuals who, protected by their academic qualifications, think about transgenics, homeopathy or origami.