[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...

[mistermann]

> or you have a denialist agenda

Simple, honest skepticism, what used to be considered an intrinsic part of the scientific process, literally isn't an option? The irony. :)

Note that in this case I wasn't questioning the science of global warming, I was questioning the methodology and manner in which they qualitatively reviewed these scientific papers. There are, in fact, many different conclusions one could draw, depending on your agenda. Presenting it as nothing more complicated than simple math seems suspicious. Being accused of being a "denialist" when pointing this out is cringe worthy.