[OniBait]

I thought the 97% of climate scientists claim (based on Cook et al) was shown to be a really flawed study. In any event, Consensus does not equal science.

I think given the broad definition of "human activity is causing global warming", you'd be hard pressed to find disagreement. If you refine it to "human activity is causing a majority of global warming and that warming is bad" there is a lot less agreement.

[coldtea]

>I thought the 97% of climate scientists claim (based on Cook et al) was shown to be a really flawed study.

Only according to really flawed and biased sources.

>In any event, Consensus does not equal science.

Actually science is very much the consensus among practicing scientists.

Short of reproducing millions of man-hours of international research to verify or refute it personally, what exactly would be the alternative?

[vlehto]

Science is about finding truth. Truth doesn't give shit what anybody thinks. (Except in psychology, but lets not get there.)

Scientific consensus is just educational and political tool. Get everybody on the same page. But it's pretty detached from the actual process of science itself.

Questioning established consensus has been scientifically very valuable in the history.

[coldtea]

>Science is about finding truth. Truth doesn't give shit what anybody thinks.

Truth is an abstract concept. You can't get hold of "truth" in raw form. Consensus is the only thing that validates a statement, and scientific consensus, that is consensus among experts following (each perhaps imperfectly) the scientific method, is the only thing that validates a scientific statement.

Even direct experience is not some failsafe -- a single person might just be misinterpreting, lacking skills and knowledge to understand what you see, or plain delusional (e.g. Wilhelm Reich and orgone or Linus Pauling and vitamin C).

>Scientific consensus is just educational and political tool. Get everybody on the same page. But it's pretty detached from the actual process of science itself.

Not according to any philosophy or practice of science that I know of.

>Questioning established consensus has been scientifically very valuable in the history.

Sure, but only to establish a new consensus, not to say that "my sole opinion, that remains my sole opinion, is more valid than the rest of the scientific world's".

[ddebernardy]

> Actually science is very much the consensus among practicing scientists.

Unfortunately, philosophers of science might add. They'd observe that a good determinant for a new theory to prevail over an old one is, well, when the old guard retires.

Not discounting the value of scientific literature mind you. Or the fact that we've indeed been seeing what looks like warming of late. Merely pointing out that a consensus does not a Truth make, that the consensus has remained unchanged since the 1970s [1], that the bloody mess is rather chaotic in nature, and that we're still learning new things about it every year.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...

[hsitz]

Consensus of scientists studying a given subject may not "equal science", but it's basically how scientific facts are established. That's how science works. There are always at least a few skeptics and crackpots, can never be free of them entirely.

[7952]

I have trouble taking either statement that seriously. We do not have a baseline to compare against as there is no spare earth available that is untouched by human hands.

The question has to be considered primarily from a qualitative point of view. The only reason people discuss the science so much is because they lack good instincts about the environment. It is so easy to believe that humans are an insignificant part of the environment when you entire world is made by man.