Now the good parts of climate science are the parts which isolate and understand isolated aspects of climate, of chemistry, of physics. This science stands on it's own. It's reliable and valid. The problem right now is the development of a global climate model. There are a lot, and I mean A LOT, of moving parts in such models. Secondly, the prevalent practice in the climate science community is to validate computer models against other computer models. Oh boy. I have a friend who does computer modeling for the nation's nuclear warhead stockpile. He could never get away with validating his models against other models. The reason that our nuclear test ban is still in effect is because the computer modelers have developed their models to such a sophistication and they've validated the models against ACTUAL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS and the models accurately predict the results that developed from the explosions. Climate models are producing results all over the map. That's not science.
Psychometrics are at the squishy end of the soft sciences. In real biology land, there is no overall standard for measuring intelligence in humans.Intelligence is pretty well defined by the psychometric community, at least to the point where they can measure and predict. It's not deterministic, but it's the best single psychological variable out there in terms of predictive validity.
Simple enough to program the computer to look for skin color genes. That hardly makes race an objective genetic definition.Race is a concept with fuzzy boundaries. The fuzziness of the boundaries doesn't invalidate the concept. Computer programs can now sort people into racial groups simply by analyzing their DNA.
The evolution of physical characteristics localized to a geographic region took place long ago. The incredible mobility of modern societies prevents the same of kind regional selection in humans.Not the past tense, please use the present tense. You wouldn't want people to believe that you're exempting humans from evolution now, would you?
Is it so hard to accept that there might possibly be forces pushing most scientists to the wrong conclusion other than actual science? Peer pressure/groupthink, or the fact that academia in general is hugely politically left-leaning, which brings in all sorts of sampling biases, comes to mind. Anyways, to answer your question, yes, I would rather do the actual research and come to my own conclusion than just take a poll of scientists and uninformedly decide whatever they tell me must be right.
Expert credibility in climate change
97 - 98 % is accurate.