First, thanks for an informed, rational, mature adult comment. It's really the first one on this thread from those questioning current climate change models, and as such it's the first comment that will make anyone actually stop and think about their beliefs. There are some counterarguments to that line of thinking, the biggest involving that irradiance was significantly less then. I personally find this ironic because a currently popular climate change skeptic argument is that the current indisputable increase in temperature is primarily caused by irradiance changes, so this is essentially switching sides in that argument. This article provides a good summary of that line of thinking. https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm I'll admit that the theory in this area leaves me less than satisfied, so I'll agree that it's certainly a place where smart, well meaning people can disagree and a place I'd like to see more research focus. Again, thanks for bringing facts and reason to the table on this, you're someone that the rest of the posters here should strive to emulate.
Despite the well worded critique from misterkel, the scientific community is virtually unanimous that human activity is causing global warming. My view is that the scientists know most about this and I can't argue with the overall weight of their evidence. Putting up one or two contrary indications and pointing to other legitimate environmental concerns doesn't disprove the accepted position.
Tomorton has put forth a typical view on the side of warmists ( I use that term not pejoratively, but as a simple method to position a person's views, skeptics would be the obverse term). The approach creates a logical flaw called 'argument from authority.' Consider economists, for example, or TV pundits about the markets and how often they are wrong. Or, for science, consider phrenology, eugenics, phlogiston theory, Potlemaic cycles and many, many other theories now proved wrong. The advance of science occurs mostly by well-accepted theories being overturned - hence proving the majority of scientists wrong. Science is not consensual - it is based in phenomenological truth value. The scientific community is far from united. The 97% consensus has a strong body of criticism against it, even including many members of the IPCC itself. {EDIT} None of the papers claiming a high consensus was written by a statistical analyst, nor even a credentialed scientist. The best cited example is probably Cook, et al. Cook is a funded blogger. His methodology was to check about 10,000 papers for mention of global warming. If it was mentioned without expressing a negative opinion, the paper was was considered to support the 'consensus' view, even if no opinion was stated one way or another. Less than 1% of these papers explicitly supported the warmist view. Most referenced Global Warming without affirming or denying. This is not legitimate consensus. It is contrived. Many authors who are skeptics were placed in the consensus category - to which they publicly objected. Richard Tol, a lead author of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, said of the Cook report, “the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative” (Tol, 2013). The other widely cited study was filtered to leave a sample size of only 79 scientists. I believe the arguments against small and selected sample sizes are easy enough to adduce that I can let people draw their own assumptions. Further, you have not addressed any my concerns. The above 3 problems I list, especially the temp rise preceding CO2 rise, are fatal arguments. It is impossible, by definition for a cause to occur after its effect; therefore CO2 increase was not the cause of higher temps in the past. However, the correlative link between CO2 and temps, which does exist, is pointed to as a primary confirmation of the proof of global warming. As shown, the argument is not valid. Hence, I am a skeptic. It is also virtually impossible (in scientific terms 1 in 100 billion perhaps) that a global cause (4400ppm CO2) could occur without causing the feared consequence (runaway temps) then a far less extreme concentration (400ppm) cause that same consequence. The premise is fundamentally absurd. I believe climate change is fear porn.
I have no beliefs as such, in that I cannot weight the evidence, nor can I do my own research into climate change and its causes, nor can I examine and assess all the scientific evidence pro and con. However, I am prepared to believe the consensus opinion from the scientific community. If you get the majority of scientists qualified in this field on your side, I will be prepared to side with you. Not that I'd be believing what you say, I would be believing what THEY say.
Can you prove the consensus is valid? If not, why accept it as true? Is consensus a valid scientific concept? How so, if we cannot agree on a precise measurement of it? If not, how can consensus possibly represent scientific truth? There was near unanimous agreement by all qualified scientists on many past theories, now nearly unanimously believed wrong - phrenology, for example, claimed that whites are smarter than blacks and Jewish people are thieves - based on head shape. The universe is permanent. Flammable objects contain phlogiston. Ptolemaic cycles control the Sun's movement around the Earth - also, sun moves around Earth. Light is transmitted through Aether. Mind is a blank slate at birth. Mind is fixed at around 20 years old. Neurons cannot regenerate. If consensus created valid scientific truth, then these theories and many others would have been true by virtue of scientists believing them. Truth, however, is indifferent to scientific consensus. It is a logical fallacy to judge truth by consensus. And consensus is not even scientifically a concept.
Like I suggested, I'm in no position to prove this one way or the other. But the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists think one thing, and you think the opposite. I'm going to go with them for now. Cheers.
So if you believe that we shouldn't base the strength of our belief on something by the number or percentage of scientists in the field that believe it, then why did you subsequently spend most of the rest of your post showing that most climate scientists don't believe in climate change? That's an odd way to frame an argument, to say the least!
I'll believe computer models of the climate when I see infallable computer models of the markets LOL I think we're headed into a cold period. The sunspots are gone, hopefully to return someday. The Arctic Ice has grown tremendously although that news seems to be kept under wraps for some reason. Probably don't want to trigger sensitivities in liberal snowflakes I suppose.
Why do you persist in this Arctic ice lie! Can you please let us know how you came to this erroneous conclusion?