> Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus. How is "credible" determined, and do statisticians familiar with their work ge

> Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus. How is "credible" determined, and do statisticians familiar with their work generally feel the same way? > The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records. If it was really that simple, I doubt there'd be much argument: "Measured increases in CO2 levels correspond to a change in atmospheric absorption from X% to Y% in Z wavelengths, which works out to W petawatts. This is P% of our energy budget, and requires a temperature increase of T to dump that energy through other wavelengths.". But of course we also have to deal with clouds and water vapor, and the models rely on accurately guessing some ginormous amplification of any CO2 effects in what appears to be basically a chaotic systems, so... > Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act. It says that we can't actually expect that things will be as different as the models are saying. When the entire reason for acting is that the models are saying we're basically doomed, this really is kinda relevant.