&gt;If most experts in a field believe X, you should believe X unless you have good reason otherwise.<p>True, unless a person believes the whole field is bunk. e.g. numerology, technical analysis (looking for shapes in stock charts), faith healing, etc. Many smarter people I talk to (not typical hurr-durr Al Gore sucks types) that don&#x27;t buy into the global warming story think that the climate is too complex for the current modeling to mean anything.<p>&gt;Anyway, if that was the argument in isolation, you&#x27;d have a better point. There&#x27;s also the matter of the rapid measured temperature increase in 20th century, glacial retreat, mass coral die-offs, historical records of Arctic sea ice, the body of published peer-reviewed work on it, among many other things.<p>I&#x27;m not disputing global warming. I was merely critiquing using popularity as a support for your argument. The real data is so much more powerful that adding that actually detracts from the evidence.<p>&gt;And... I take particular offense to &quot;it&#x27;s not scientifically relevant.&quot; There is a big difference between interpreting information and practicing science.<p>A major theory has never won over critical-thinking people with the argument &quot;it must be right because X group says so&quot;. It always comes down to actual proofs, experiments, and analysis that bring it into general acceptance. e.g. it&#x27;s not scientifically relevant who believed in &quot;spooky action at a distance&quot; from quantum mechanics, it&#x27;s only relevant that it was mathematically&#x2F;physically sound and eventually shown in experiments.<p>&gt;And if you want get specific, read the provided &quot;rebuttal&quot; link.<p>My comment is purely focused on using popularity amongst scientists as a tool for arguments. I am fine with showing that he&#x2F;she is full of shit via logical&#x2F;evidence-based rebuttals.