What do you think of climate change?

[ZMystiCat]

No one with a real understanding of climate science actually believes that there is a 97% consensus. That number is a complete fabrication.

Well, yeah, there isn’t a 97% consensus among the general population, but that’s not what they’re saying.

 

[Ender]

Well, yeah, there isn’t a 97% consensus among the general population, but that’s not what they’re saying.

It is the belief that 97% of climate scientists agree that man is the primary cause of global warming that is fantastical. It’s on the order of believing in the tooth fairy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

ZMystiCat:

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

No one with a real understanding of climate science actually believes that there is a 97% consensus. That number is a complete fabrication.

That depends on what there is supposed to be a consensus about. There are infinitely many gradations of the theory - some very specific, some more general. When people argue about whether or not there is a 97% consensus, they rarely stop and ask what the consensus is about. Until we are talking about the same formulation of the theory, there is no sense even discussing what would be the level of agreement on that theory.

There certainly is a formulation of the theory of global warming on which 97% of scientists agree. It would be much more fruitful to start there and argue about what that formulation is, as @Theo520 has done. That may not bring down the temperature of the planet, but it will bring down the temperature of this debate.

 

[Ender]

There certainly is a formulation of the theory of global warming on which 97% of scientists agree.

The only point on which there is 97% agreement is that the Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. That man is the primary cause of that warming is not something even half of climate scientists are willing to assert.

 

[edwest211]

I don’t know what you mean. I only post facts regarding this.

 

[edwest211]

Please explain where and how spent fuel rods will be stored.

 

[edwest211]

Public support is the wrong issue. Tell billionaires to install scrubbers on all their smokestacks.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There certainly is a formulation of the theory of global warming on which 97% of scientists agree.

The only point on which there is 97% agreement is that the Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. That man is the primary cause of that warming is not something even half of climate scientists are willing to assert.

I think there is also 97% agreement that warming in the industrial age has been faster than since the Little Ice Age.

 

[Ender]

I think there is also 97% agreement that warming in the industrial age has been faster than since the Little Ice Age.

Well, I doubt it, but it is immaterial since the assertion to which I was responding was this:

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

Now, what it specifically says is one thing (humans are causing global warming), but what it implies is something quite different (humans are causing most global warming). The former is true: man has undoubtedly contributed to warming if through nothing other than the urban heat island effect, and I’m sure 97% of scientists accept that. It is what is implied that has no consensus, and, as I said, believing that 97% of climate scientists blame man for the preponderance of the warming is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.

 

[twf]

I take the train…pretty much everywhere. Though of course not everyone has that option. I’m a big proponent of investing in sustainable and efficient public transit. The suckers stuck in traffic below me, as we race along the tracks, are not only polluting the environment and spending big bucks, but also wasting a lot of time. (My commuting time is spent on my phone either working or on CAF ).

 

[Theo520]

Public support is the wrong issue. Tell billionaires to install scrubbers on all their smokestacks.

China has scrubbers on all their new plants, and are even subsidized to run them.

But the local utility frequently turn them off, to increase their profit margin.

 

[edwest211]

There’s the answer.

 

[Guinness]

I think too many people are trying to make belief in “climate change” an article of faith.

 

[CelticWarlord]

I have zero interest in climate change. There’s nothing more I could do anyway. My wife and I both walk to work year round (I bike in summer) and the car is seldom used outside of shopping. We keep the furnace turned low in winter and don’t even have an air conditioner for summer. Every can, bottle, and paper is recycled. We’re selective with our purchases and, aside from a small electric lawn mower, we own no powered garden toys. If climate change is caused by human activity, I’m not to blame and don’t care anyway.

 

[ZMystiCat]

It is the belief that 97% of climate scientists agree that man is the primary cause of global warming that is fantastical.

Neither I nor, to my knowledge, the article I quoted ever claimed that humans are the primary cause, just a cause.

 

[MPat]

I think the problem with things like evolution and climate change is that they are seen as “controversial” in a lot of religious spaces, and by “controversial”, I mean that a lot of people who have at best an amateur’s understanding of the science like debating it as if they were experts (again, lot’s of pride here).

I’d say it is possible to choose a possibility that puts the other side in a better light. Even with assumption that theory in question is true, and that this should be clear from scientific papers etc.

That is, there are activists who openly say that the solution to climate change is what they would want anyway. Thus there is a reason to suspect confirmation bias on their part. And to compensate for it.

There were extreme predictions from that side, which proved inaccurate.

On the whole, someone who is not in position to check the papers on his own can reject the theory, and do that rather reasonably, even if the theory is actually true and well-supported in some way.

I think the idea that mankind is substantially altering the climate of the globe is a farce. I think the farce is fueled by gov’t>academia funding.

And I’d say here it is also possible to choose a possibility that puts the other side in a better light.

That is, in many cases theory in question is based on modelling, and modelling is hard. It is hard enough to model a rather simple system. And here scientists have to model a very complex system. Naturally, they will check if the results look plausible. And if, let’s say, they think (independently of their model) that extreme global warming is plausible and very mild global warming is not, they will throw out a model that shows very mild global warming - and it is not that unreasonable. If they kept it, they would have to keep models showing Sahara freezing over by now too.

It is not a matter where one must do something very evil or stupid to reach a wrong conclusion.

 

[lilypadrees]

I don’t think anything about climate change. The climate is changing. That’s a fact. I accept that it’s changing and adjust my routine accordingly.

 

[ZMystiCat]

On the whole, someone who is not in position to check the papers on his own can reject the theory, and do that rather reasonably, even if the theory is actually true and well-supported in some way.

No, they can’t. If you don’t research the literature, you can’t reject it reasonably. A reasonable rejection is one that’s informed, understands what they’re reading, addresses what is said rather than resorting to conspiracy theories, and is scientifically accurate in its criticism. If someone isn’t even informed, much less understanding, they aren’t rejecting it out of reason but ignorance.

Even if they’re just reacting to the activists, they should be reasonable enough to recognize that not all activists are scientists (most probably aren’t), and that should prompt them to research the matter themselves. If they can’t, they should at least have the humility to recognize their own limitations and defer to the almost universal consensus among experts. Even then, most of the big questions people may have are just a Google search away from being able to find an answer.

 

[Guinness]

No, they can’t. If you don’t research the literature, you can’t reject it reasonably. A reasonable rejection is one that’s informed, understands what they’re reading, addresses what is said rather than resorting to conspiracy theories, and is scientifically accurate in its criticism. If someone isn’t even informed, much less understanding, they aren’t rejecting it out of reason but ignorance.

You don’t have to research the literature that much to reasonably reject the notion that increasing the atmospheric CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm is going to cause the planet to be uninhabitable.

 

[Ender]

Neither I nor, to my knowledge, the article I quoted ever claimed that humans are the primary cause, just a cause.

You should have read the article more carefully because that is exactly what it claimed, that man is responsible for global climate change, not that he has contributed some vague and undefined amount to the warming that has occurred. That is the entire purpose of those studies: to foster the belief that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that man is responsible for most of the the warming we have experienced.

This is what is claimed that 97% of climate scientists believe: “…humans are responsible for climate change.”