[1024core]

When 99% of the academics agree on something, you could say the science is more-or-less settled. If you disagree, the onus is on you to come up with the evidence/theory to challenge it. Just claiming that "science is far from settled" doesn't make it so; you might as well claim that the "science is far from settled" on the Earth not being flat.

[refurb]

When 99% of the academics agree on something, you could say the science is more-or-less settled.

Go back 50 years and 100% of doctors thought stress and diet caused stomach ulcers. We now know that's not true.

I'm not using this fact as a knock against climate change. I'm just saying consensus across academics doesn't mean they are right.

If you had said "There is consensus across academics that humans activity is mostly likely the cause of global warming" than I wouldn't disagree.

[1024core]

I said nothing. I was just saying that if you want to go against scientific consensus, the onus is on you to provide proof! You can't just say "I disagree with them, so they must be wrong". It doesn't work that way.

This is how science works: there's a current understanding of the world; and if you want to change that, you have to come up with the counterexamples or other scientific evidence to back up your claim. You can't just stick your head in the sand and say that since I don't believe these guys, they must be wrong.

[ihsw]

You are correct that appeal-to-authority arguments are inherently weak but it doesn't change the fact that his hand-wavy "it's not settled!" argument is even weaker.

To take your remark about doctor's a century earlier, germ theory was met with derision[1] :

> [...] Some doctors, for instance, were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands, feeling that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.

Sometimes prevailing wisdom is discountable but sometimes it's not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Discovery_of_...

[soundwave106]

On the other hand, I think there are some facts on climate change that are hard to deny. We have actual data points of past weather patterns from various weather stations. We have observed various climate effects (glaciers disappearing, ice fields thinning, etc.).

I think it could be said that it is a fact that the Earth has warmed significantly over the past century. I think the evidence suggests that the trendline is atypical of normal patterns. I wouldn't call the trendline abnormality a fact at this point, but I think the evidence is very strong.

If someone had a conclusion was "the Earth is warming but I'm not sure humans are the cause", I would say that's fine. It recognizes the facts and strong trendlines above. It goes against consensus, but if they had some interesting data to go with their doubt, I would hope this analysis would be welcome.

"Global warming is a hoax!" type statements on the other hand tends to be completely dismissive sometimes of even the facts we have.

[emp_zealoth]

When any sign of disagreement with the agw cult results in swift, abrupt and pretty much permament death of ones career then it is no wonder that not many people do that.

Ive had a few chances to personally speak with some scientists and they were not 99% sure what is happening