(05-30-2023, 11:47 AM)quintessentone Wrote: Freija invited me here to give opposite opinions and/or facts to equalize the playing field here. Anyway, the consensus on the consenus is that climate change is caused by humans activity.
Quote:The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers(N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of nonexperts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’)represent nonendorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10...048002/pdf
So we see that the OPs choice of expert is proported to be a nonexpert in climate science by the consensus on consensus. And if we really think about it rationally what types of scientists are required to make educated claims in this area? I would think many different types of scientists from many different disciplines.
Here's the problem: consensus does not always equate to "fact". It's just a consensus opinion. Furthermore, in academia these days one can buy just about any result he is willing to pay for. No "scientist" wants to jeopardize his grant money by reporting findings inconsistent with the will of whomever is footing his bills. We see the same thing on the petroleum side of the debate, so is it really surprising that we find it on the authoritarian side of the debate as well?
Logical thought, exercised by combining the results of a broad range of sciences - climatology, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. will show that the climate actually IS warming up, although not yet anywhere near the "normal" temperatuire Earth has held for most of it's lifetime. In comparison, we are still in an ice age, have been emerging from it for almost 12.000 years steadily, and soon will come to the downward, cooling, arc of that cycle again. If the authoritarian tax collectors have their way, however, that natural cycle will be disrupted in favor of an already cooler climate, and the net result will be that the next ice age will be far worse than the last one.
But really, what do WE care about that? It's not like WE will live to see it. That honor will befall our grand children and great grand children, not us... so what do we care? Besides, there is money to be made off of THEIR future misery right NOW, so why worry about them if we'll never live long enough to see it ourselves?
Just kick that can down the road - it's human nature.
.