[vonnik]

An extremely unhealthy skepticism that is not shared by any scientist in the field. That skepticism is the result of self-interested propaganda from energy companies spreading FUD. Unmerited skepticism is just as dumb as unmerited belief.

[narrowrail]

>is not shared by any scientist in the field

And that seems to be part of the problem: You just made a statement that is quickly proven false[0], which leads to further skepticism from these people.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...

[yongjik]

> Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

I count eight people who seem to have worked in (broadly) related fields:

    Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
    Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
    Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado
    Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
    George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University

You could probably raid a single decent university and find more people working on understanding AGW better.

This is the equivalent of saying "Zoologist X Somebody in University of North Carolina said there's no link between smoking and lung cancer!", and keeping smoking while having a lung cancer while ignoring mountains of research, except that it's not your own lung this time.

[blueyes]

This is the U in FUD. Online rando makes seemingly factual but ultimately irrelevant argument. Sure, some "scientists" are skeptical of human-generated climate change. But most of them are not climate scientists, and they have no more authority in the field than an entomologist would have when making pronouncements about theoretical physics.

[vonnik]

And that, my friend, is a pitifully short list given the total number of climate scientists in the world. 97% say that humans are causing climate change. So yeah, keep spreading the BS and start shopping for real estate away from the coasts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_...

[anon1253]

Evidence should not be counted, it should be weighted

[ChemicalWarfare]

>> An extremely unhealthy skepticism that is not shared by any scientist in the field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...

[dwaltrip]

The scientists on the list are any scientist, not specifically climate scientists or even related fields. Would you trust a chemist's diagnosis of your mother's cancer? Of course not.

What's more, the vast majority of their statements doubting an aspect of climate change are not even part the peer reviewed scientific literature. They are simply opinion statements. And they only found a couple dozen people to put on the list? Not a very strong showing..

All of this is found in the linked Wikipedia article itself.