Quote Originally Posted by Wales-Bales View Post
That's not actually true. Let's say you have two groups, Group A which consists of 7 out of every 10 people who think they are right, and Group B which consists of 3 out of every 10 people who think they are right

If a real or imagined disaster appeared on the horizon, and Group A consent to a particular course of action by virtue of being the majority, then both Group A and Group B will be hoping that Group A is right and Group B is wrong. But if Group A is wrong and it was actually an imagined disaster, it would make no difference if Group B was right because it would be too late to stop the hugely negative consequences of blindly following Group A.

In essence, what I am saying is you need to have a very robust debate between Group A and Group B before making any decisions that could result in a catastrophic consequence for mankind, i.e. what would happen if Group B are right and Group A are wrong?
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/public-hu...climate-change

There are two things here. Scientific evidence and people's perception/opinion.

In the first instance experts who have conducted peer reviewed studies almost universally agree the case for man-made climate change. As the study above shows however only 70% of the UK's population accept that.

It is not clear on what basis the almost two in 10 who think it's false base their perception on. Perhaps they think they have a greater gift than others and it fills them with a sense of self-worth, or perhaps loads of You Tube videos and tweets bombard them with supportive contrary views when they power up their phones in the morning which they accept and regurgitate without a moments hesitation.