[shakermakr]

Science isn’t consensus! Proof isn’t determined by “very nearly 100% of scientists agree”. Just ask Copernicus.

We don’t vote on scientific proof. Yes evidence leads us to believe climate change is happening, but why and predicting it’s trajectory and effect should be met with scientific standards not scaremongering and “CLIMATE DENIER” hyperbole.

If the pursuit of scientific rigour and fact has taught us anything over our history it’s that skepticism and challenging the status quo is necessary and should be welcomed. In today’s climate debate it it’s nothing but derided.

[sfkdjf9j3j]

I think you're not reading his comment in good faith. He's clearly not suggesting that whether or not something is true is decided by a vote of scientists. He's saying that the people who are most familiar with the science overwhelmingly believe that the evidence suggests that global warming is in fact real.

Further, people are wise to be skeptical or even dismissive of climate denialist claims because there is a long history of politically motivated people making deliberately but subtly specious arguments for it. Given both the overwhelming consensus and the glut of misinformation, it makes sense to filter it with a very high bar.

[throwaway5752]

You are right. It is decided because not only do almost 100% of climate scientists agree, but there in indisputable proof of the basic method of action (CO2, CH4, H20 greenhouse effects) and we can measure that effect in the lab and then correlated it to measured climate change that normalized for various known climate cycles. The consensus in the fields is driven by the overwhelming evidence of the multidisciplinary field results, experiments, and modeling.

The benefit of science (reproducibility, falsifiability) has been hacked by commercial interests. This isn't even in dispute (Heartland, IER, many others). Groups that dispute climate change are all funded by CO2 emitters and the results are coordinated by enormous lobbying and donation campaigns.

Flat earth proponents are not operating within a scientific framework of doubt and proof, and neither are climate change deniers.

[shakermakr]

You just completely prove my point.

First there’s the “almost 100%” of scientists agree argument again. Sorry, that’s not a valid argument for saying something is true!

Second. Models aren’t proof. They’re models. Yes we can measure gas quantities and determine correlations. But we haven’t scientifically proven it. We’re dealing with chaotic systems. Until we can, we need to remain skeptical and open to other ideas. That’s my point. Not that it isn’t happening.

Third. Then you bring politics into it. Oh the 1% are funded by Big Oil. Oh and the 99% aren’t funded by politically motivated players either? See point (1), scientific fact isn’t determined by who agrees with it or not. Until it’s proven, it may be unproven.

And fourth. Flat earth, again, the relationship to climate deniers...you don’t need scientists to agree the world isn’t flat. It’s proven. Scientifically. See the difference?

Thanks for eloquently providing examples to exactly what I was saying

[pdonis]

> but there in indisputable proof of the basic method of action (CO2, CH4, H20 greenhouse effects) and we can measure that effect in the lab

Yes, and those measurements tell us that without a large amount of positive feedback, the effect of greenhouse gases alone is too small to worry about.

> and then correlated it to measured climate change that normalized for various known climate cycles

Nope, this has not been done. The climate models cannot reproduce the data at all with just the measured greenhouse effect of the various greenhouse gases. They have to dial in a large amount of positive feedback, and even then the only period of time for which they reproduce the data tolerably well is the latter half of the 20th century. The model outputs don't match the early 20th century warming, they don't match the mid 20th century cooling, and they don't match the early 21st century pause.

The correct, honest scientific conclusion from all of this is that the models are simply not good enough at this point, i.e., we don't understand how the climate works well enough at this point, to support multi-trillion dollar policy decisions.