[mrpopo]

> I am really not impressed by any sides efforts to combat global warming.

The reality today is that no efforts are made whatsoever by any political movement on the planet to combat global warming, in the entire planet (except perhaps the CPC of China, against all odds). American Republicans do not even have the hint of honesty of admitting the issue at stake. They denied it 10 years ago, now they want to turn their audience into believing that it may not be human-caused.

> I would love to see more discussion beyond conservatives are anti-science radicals who want to kill the earth.

The discussion was over dozens of years ago, there is no debate. Human activity (intensive farming, petroleum and coal burning, cement production, ...) is causing climate change, period. And the changes are already past the point of being reversible. The data is plentiful and everywhere for the world to see.

[acqq]

> there is no debate

If the media were unbiased and wanted to show the viewers the actual state, there would be always 20 scientists in the studio, 19 scientists speaking that the global warming is real and only one speaking that he believes it's not. Then every viewer would understand.

"One person per side" is the core of the problem. That's how people get the impression it's 50-50: on the question "most scientists think global warming is happening" unsurprisingly only 49% of the public answered yes. They always see on the TV, at best, one guy speaking against another guy. The impression then: 50-50. It's not.

[tonyedgecombe]

>>The reality today is that no efforts are made whatsoever by any political movement on the planet to combat global warming

I don't think that is true, in the UK there have been efforts, for instance our coal use is the lowest for 150 years[1]. It isn't anywhere near enough to solve the problem but it isn't nothing either.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/31/rapid-de...

[mrpopo]

True, thanks for the correction. The point that I wanted to make was that all the efforts underway around the world at their current magnitude are not gonna make a dent in the greenhouse gases generation curve.

[mistermann]

> The discussion was over dozens of years ago, there is no debate.

You might find this attitude counter-productive in achieving your goals, especially in a democracy.

[acqq]

The "debate" means "a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote."

If 95% of the scientists of the whole world agree the global warming exists and is human caused, that "formal discussion" is really over since 1990. Since then there was no debate if. You can read the results of that discussion in the IPCC reports, the last summary here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...

If you mean that the politicians would like to "debate" between themselves "what to do about it," they sure do. But they shouldn't be allowed to doubt all scientists of the world. It's criminally irresponsible, considering the potential dangers.

It's also extremely simple in basic principles: without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C). More greenhouse gases, the higher the temperature on the surface. The same way you cover yourself with the blanket, under the blanket it's warmer, not because you produce more heat but because more warmth stays under the blanket. It's that simple, as simple as wearing the coat not to freeze in the winter, and unbelievable that somebody can be manipulated to doubt it.

P.S. Surveys of scientists' views on climate change (to answer the question to this post):

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse...

But they are of course less important than the IPCC which is official, worldwide and in the agreement since 1990.

[mistermann]

> If 95% of the scientists of the whole world agree the global warming exists and is human caused.

I often read this number, do you know where it came from, and what 95% of scientists agree on specifically?

[computereye]

You can check this source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-c...

[mistermann]

On one hand that seems fairly reasonable, on the other hand I can't escape the feeling that the author had a conclusion and was fitting results to it. It is an inherently messy and complicated field and there are many ways one could interpret this largely qualitative data, but the author seems to have not a shred of doubt or uncertainty, for my type of personality it makes my spider senses tingle.

EDIT:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-...

One of the problems with Cook's appeal to authority is this: So far, no one has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for decades.

While the Cook study may quantify the views expressed in published literature, it does not establish the beliefs of any defined group of scientists, Krosnick said.

"How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn't qualify?" he asked. "Personally, I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet."

EDIT2: This might be an interesting read if it wasn't behind a paywall:

https://www.iceagenow.info/97-percent-consensus-errrr-not-ex...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#p...

[acqq]

> there are many ways one could interpret this largely qualitative data

Only if you don't understand the basic science or you have a denialist agenda.

If you want to know the facts, see:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

And those are good and precise calculations.

But even for the simplest, back-of-the-napkin calculations, you'd have to deny the contribution of CO2 to conclude anything else. And the CO2 contribution is 100% proven.

The same stands for the basic chemistry: The humanity burns immense amounts of carbon, burning hydrocarbons produces CO2 (if there's enough fresh air) or CO (if there's not). If you don't believe that, I suggest you to close yourself in a sealed room and burn a fire (coal) inside and keep it burning. You'd die, provably, unless somebody rescues you.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-died-from-carbon-monoxide-pois...

The concentration of the CO2 increased proportionally to our burning of the hydrocarbons increased, and additionally, the seas got more acidic. Everything fits.

See also:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

P.S. If you "just" doubt in the study of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, you are free to evaluate them yourself and to publish your take on them. I really doubt that the results would significantly change, if the scientifically valid methods are used. I have emphatically not called you personally a "denialist." But I argue that you can't be intellectually honest if you use an "argument from incredulity" (which you suitably call your "spider" that is, in reality non-existing, non-sense sense) or stating "there are many ways one could interpret this" which obviously isn't true. You linking to the work which main conclusion is "that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate" has also no relevant scientific value, as the scientists agree about the human caused global warming occurring at least 30 years already. There are scientific facts, and to establish other facts you have to do real scientifically valid work. Scientifically valid also means accepted by the scientists. The majority of them in the relevant field. Again, politicians, lobbyists and media don't count. It's very known that the US public perception of the scientific agreement is wrong (including OP the statistics we comment), and your "spider sense tingling" (your name for you avoiding logically and technically valid arguments) fits that exactly.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/consensus_gap.j...

[mrpopo]

True, it's unfortunately a bug/feature of democracy to turn any and all scientific truth into a discussion.

[pbreit]

> there is no debate

Even for things that are substantially better understood no one would ever say "there is no debate".

[knowaveragejoe]

The debate is not whether it is occurring at all or contributed to by mankind, but which of our activities have what effect, and what to do about it.

When folks like the above say "there is no debate", it should be quantified with that.

[pbreit]

Should be but never is.

[wfo]

It doesn't need to be, anyone with the most basic understanding of the issues or anyone who cares enough to do the most basic cursory examination of the facts knows exactly what's being referred to.

There simply is no worthwhile discussion to have about whether or not human activity has been a cause of climate change. 'Debating' it is akin to debating the existence of gravity or a causal link between smoking and cancer or whether or not quicksort is better than bubblesort. That is, it would be similar if there were a very wealthy and powerful 'bubblesort' lobby that funds and props up any argument that favors it, no matter how ridiculous or how much bad faith is required to make it.

[pbreit]

Well, in fact researchers recently found that second-hand smoke probably isn't harmful. And that's exactly the point, things that some people think are settled are far from settled. And that kind of attitude invites suspicion. Why are you so concerned by skeptics?

[wfo]

I don't have a problem with skeptics. They're a healthy part of the scientific ecosystem. But as devil's advocate style checks against the consensus, challenging premises and acting in an adversarial but respectful manner.

Many of the climate change skeptics actually allege a huge conspiracy and accuse the enormous consensus of educated scientists of lying or being fundamentally incompetent, which puts them on the level of cranks that don't deserve a moment's notice. But there's a lot of money and prestige in denial, it's a huge business because the longer we deny the more money certain large companies can make. So these cranks (and the minuscule fraction of qualified honest skeptics who barely exist) get credence and money far beyond their due. They get paired off 1-on-1 with an actual scientist in the public sphere. They get asked to speak on commissions. Which is what I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with John McAfee existing. I'd have a problem with him and Ron Rivest holding a public 'debate' about RSA to 'understand the controversy'.

And you'll notice I never mentioned second-hand smoking. Evidence has always been shaky and arguable about how much of an effect it has, it simply followed the same moral panic as the very scientific smoking evidence. And we found out we were being lied to and results were being fabricated and manipulated by extremely powerful interests about smoking, so to be on the safe side we chose to trust nothing pro-tobacco after that, a correct choice I think. A societal immune response against the cancer that infected us, if you'll pardon the appropriate analogy.

I picked smoking as an example because the evidence is incontrovertible and because it was covered up as long as possible by actively malicious corporations and lobbying groups with the intention of killing as many people as possible so that they could sell more cigarettes to unwitting innocents/children. It's a history lesson that we should give very little credence to "skeptics" who happen to always end up having connections to vested corporate interests and insist "the science just isn't settled yet" but provide no evidence to back their contrarian claims and insist that we should drag our feet. Sound familiar?