In areas that I am not expert in (ie not software engineering), I defer to the experts. When the experts disagree, I go with the majority of experts. That is why I fall squarely in the pro-AGW camp.
All things being equal, this would be the appropriate position to take.
However, another consideration that MUST be taken into account is the incentive for scientists to take a particular stance.
Example. Let us assume for the sake of the argument, that scientists at the CRU discover irrevocable, blatant and unarguable evidence that their theory of Human Caused Global Warming is totally whacked and without merit.
Do you think that they would come forth with that evidence?
I honestly and truly do not believe they would. Their entire careers, reputations and economic status is dependent on there being an imminent Human Caused Global Warming catastrophe.
And that sort of pressure must be considered when judging the validity of their position. Those scientists have every reason to continue the hysteria and no reason to allow any contradictory evidence.
I will grant you that, up until a week or so ago, you might have had a valid argument with your “peer review” stance.
After ClimateGate, however, the peer review process is horribly, possibly irrevocably tainted.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.