[ThomPete]

Because that consensus is trivial. Probably 100% agree that the climate is changing which is the question people agreed on. Even so-called skeptics agree on that. It's all the other questions that have much more uncertainty and less consensus.

The use of that number is the kind of outright political manipulation that's so prevalent in this debate.

Keep in mind we aren't even talking about scientifically demonstrated conclusions, we are talking about speculated conclusions. The IPCC doesn't do any research themselves and don't check the data, its a meta-study.

What started my skepticism was when I realized they don't actually know how much human co2 emissions affect the temperature. Go try and find that number, you won't find it cause we don't know. Once I realized that and started understanding how the climate models work and saw how much interpretation and fitting and vague language was being used to obstruct the actual science, I realized that worrying about the environment was more rational. There is very very little actually demonstrated science in the climate debate it's almost entirely ideological and used by politicians to gain more power and create something to rally up voters around. In 10 years the climate catastrophism we see today will be laughed at. Just wait and see.

[esailija]

The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening and that it is human caused. Being "skeptic" about this is like being a flat earther. Baseless skepticism is not any better than blind faith.

[ThomPete]

Not that's not the scientific consensus but thanks for proving my point by arguing in blind faith.

The scientific consensus which EVERYONE agrees about even the so-called skeptics is that the climate is changing.

There is no consensus that it's human-caused, there are some indications that humans have an effect but you won't find any actual scientific proof of how much.

So the real question here is why you blindly believe something that you haven't even understood. You are literally just repeating the media not actually science which is a much more subtle discussion.

[Frondo]

Actually, yeah, something like 99% of working scientists in climate-related fields agree it's human-caused. There've been a number of meta-studies about this.

If you want to know more, you can google this. It's a discussion that, if not for the fossil fuel money being pumped into stirring up controversy (also well demonstrated, also google-able), would have been settled long ago.

As a depressing parallel, there are also HIV deniers, too. There's one prominent scientist, I think the guy who invented PCR, who claims that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS, and he's got a small following. It's dwindled over the years, but he's still out there, trying to raise doubts despite the mainstream science on HIV leading to treatments and even possible cures, while his work leads to nothing.

Edited to mention: of course! There are also evolution deniers! Why does everyone dismiss them, but open their arms to skeptics of human-caused climate change? What's different about human-caused climate change and evolution?

[ThomPete]

No they don't but thanks for proving my point.

And I don't need to google it I actually spent years looking at the material and methods. You on the other hand cause if you had you wouldn't claim things like 99% and you wouldn't actually believe consensus was science.

Not a single concrete piece of evidence for your position just claims.

Where is the scientifically demonstrated number that shows how much humans affect the climate?

"Google it".

Couldn't find it? Of course you can't cause we don't know what that number is because we haven't actually demonstrated it. Instead we are speculating that because we can't find other reasons and CO2 emissions correlate with the temperature increase then it must be that.

Yet how do you explain the 0.5 degree increase from late 1800- mid 1900 were we didn't do any significant CO2 emissions and how do you explain that the temperature haven't gotten up much more than the same 0.5 from the mid 1900?

Yes humans probably have some effect but we don't know how much.

If 100% agreed that it was humans caused that doesn't change anything unless they can scientifically demonstrate it which they can't.

All you have is namecalling. No science, no data just an attempt at bullying without anything to back you up.

I can back my beliefs up scientifically, you can't. Yet you call me the denier.

[adrianN]

The IPCC reports speak a pretty clear language. For what reasons do you not believe them?

[kaybe]

I really hope you are right. :)

> The IPCC doesn't do any research themselves and don't check the data, its a meta-study.

The people writing the chapters are involved in doing the research. (It's not like doing that is a full-time job, mind.)

> What started my skepticism was when I realized they don't actually know how much human co2 emissions affect the temperature. Go try and find that number, you won't find it cause we don't know.

For anyone wondering, look here:

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

Short answer - doubling the atmospheric CO2 should lead to an increase between 1.5 and 4.5°C, though more current work I remember narrowed the range down somewhere around 2.3°C-3°C. There is a lot of work down to narrow it down further.

[ThomPete]

I understand how it works and I assume you can see the problem with this. The IPCC report is there to prove human impact on the climate it's not there to show IF humans have impact on the climate.

[Gupie]

>> In 10 years the climate catastrophim we see today will be laughed at. Just wait and se.

That is very unlikely.

[maxlybbert]

I remember science bloggers complaining that the recent IPCC report didn’t predict enough doom and gloom to get political results.

They may well be right, but they weren’t saying that they had reason to believe the IPCC had understated the influence carbon dioxide, methane, or some other gas has on the climate, or that predicted emissions where wrong, etc. They were complaining that the report didn’t have enough scare mongering. That’s not science, and it could easily lead to a big overcorrection in a few years.

[ThomPete]

Not really once you realize how much of the fearmongering is completely baseless.

There is literally no scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change that we don't know how to deal with today let alone in 10-40-100 years from now.

[ljcn]

This is obviously not true. How would you stop runaway methane release from permafrost for example?

[ThomPete]

Where is that scientifically demonstrated to happen (not just speculated) and keep in mind Methane has a "half life"

[adrianN]

I don't know about you, but I see a pretty clear trend here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions#/medi...

[ThomPete]

Where is it shown it's runaway?