6 ms·

I don't think there are scientists who deny past or present climate change. Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate

I don't think there are scientists who deny past or present climate change. Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate change, and who hypothesize that the current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made, industrial-age rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> the many scientists ... caused by other factors than the man-made How many of those are in climate related sciences? "many"? The consensus amongst scientists in the relevant fields is quite compelling.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
I agree, but I think you know the answer to the question you asked. It's a little sad to me for "the side of science" to fall into such religious belief. Especially when the "side of science" has become so extremely tied to the idea that the only real solution is taxes that one political side has come up with and of course voting for them. And if you question the tax side of things, you're a filthy denier.
- jibal 8y ago
  Invariably, climate science deniers talk about politics and economics.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    Thanks for proving my point that to some people who say they are “interested in science” actually just see black and white / filthy-deniers and true-believers. The article itself mentions Trump twice. Tell me all about how it’s not political.
jimjansen1 8y ago
There is overwhelming consensus that the current rate of climate change, which by the way is totally unprecedented in history, can be from no other source than anthropogenic CO2. You can read the research and see how thoroughly and completely every possible confounding variable was accounted for. The scientists who claim "current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made" are not taken seriously by the mainstream, form an unimaginably slim minority and frankly are dangerously wrong. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
- umvi 8y ago
  Let them be wrong then. But science is not a democracy. You can have overwhelming expert consensus and still be completely wrong. You can get experts to hold a vote and agree some new idea is complete garbage but that vote does not change immutable truth. It's happened countless times in history. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis (from wiki): > Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, Semmelweis suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia
  - jimjansen1 8y ago
    The problem is that a mountain of evidence stands against climate deniers and your example "could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings."
Brakenshire 8y ago
There are very few such climate scientists. Scientific skeptics mostly dispute the degree of warming projected, or some of the anticipated consequences.
jibal 8y ago
"Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate change, and who hypothesize that the current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made, industrial-age rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?" There are no such scientists, let alone "many". And it doesn't matter what people "hypothesize". I know the names of the handful of "lukewarm" climate scientists who don't hold the consensus position; none of them take the position that you put forth, and I can be certain that you can't name any of these "many" scientists.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

> the many scientists ... caused by other factors than the man-made How many of those are in climate related sciences? "many"? The consensus amongst scientists in the relevant fields is quite compelling.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

I agree, but I think you know the answer to the question you asked. It's a little sad to me for "the side of science" to fall into such religious belief. Especially when the "side of science" has become so extremely tied to the idea that the only real solution is taxes that one political side has come up with and of course voting for them. And if you question the tax side of things, you're a filthy denier.

jibal 8y ago
Invariably, climate science deniers talk about politics and economics.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Thanks for proving my point that to some people who say they are “interested in science” actually just see black and white / filthy-deniers and true-believers. The article itself mentions Trump twice. Tell me all about how it’s not political.

jimjansen1 8y ago

There is overwhelming consensus that the current rate of climate change, which by the way is totally unprecedented in history, can be from no other source than anthropogenic CO2. You can read the research and see how thoroughly and completely every possible confounding variable was accounted for. The scientists who claim "current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made" are not taken seriously by the mainstream, form an unimaginably slim minority and frankly are dangerously wrong. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

umvi 8y ago
Let them be wrong then. But science is not a democracy. You can have overwhelming expert consensus and still be completely wrong. You can get experts to hold a vote and agree some new idea is complete garbage but that vote does not change immutable truth. It's happened countless times in history. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis (from wiki): > Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, Semmelweis suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia
- jimjansen1 8y ago
  The problem is that a mountain of evidence stands against climate deniers and your example "could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings."

Brakenshire 8y ago

There are very few such climate scientists. Scientific skeptics mostly dispute the degree of warming projected, or some of the anticipated consequences.

jibal 8y ago

"Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate change, and who hypothesize that the current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made, industrial-age rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?" There are no such scientists, let alone "many". And it doesn't matter what people "hypothesize". I know the names of the handful of "lukewarm" climate scientists who don't hold the consensus position; none of them take the position that you put forth, and I can be certain that you can't name any of these "many" scientists.