[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?