This has caused a problem for the skeptical community, because the majority of scientific
skeptics accept the consensus of scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Not exact matches
A responsible
skeptic will request that you remain open minded to opinions from both sides, and consider the uncertainties involved * without * prejudging them based on the demonstrable human predilection toward a «herd mentality» — by «herd mentality», I mean that once a
consensus is formed, a flock of «me too» science papers become much more easily
accepted, by peer review journals, than the
skeptics» papers.
But sometimes
consensus just means that there is a
consensus of
skeptics (e.g., Wegener's theory of continental drift was proposed in 1912 based on continent shapes but was not widely
accepted until 50 years later because the smoking gun — deep sea rifts — hadn't been discovered) or there is
consensus because the data is overwhelming (e.g., descent with modification).
What I would love is for
skeptics to tell us what level of confidence they require before they
accept the
consensus.
I'm told the TC is now more willing to
accept opinion articles from climate
skeptics than it has been in the past, and I hope
skeptics will begin to submit opinion articles critical of the «
consensus».