Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

Far from being alarmists, scientists ground themselves in uncertainty because “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts” (Bertrand Russell). Politics and business reward leadership qualities, drawing fools and fanatics, while science and academia draw thinkers who question themselves. “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality” (Russell). The IPCC rightly holds that "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate” [58]. But although politics by nature is unscientific, the scientific community takes firm stances on issues that relate solely to science. “When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others” (Russell). And on that note, the IPCC continues its statement, “However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities" [58] Con appears confused: “Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting,” so it seems I must rephrase with greater specificity: Con presumed that because he could provide nine links that highlight second-decimal mistakes in climate prediction (round 1), climate science itself is a mistake, not unlike presuming that because one could find nine physicists who made mathematical mistakes, astronomy itself is a mistake. This I referenced as "the fallacy fallacy," to which Con responded with incredulity [59], "this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy" (round 2). . . though I am sure Con would love to believe I admitted to making a poor argument myself! To Con’s question on the Appeal to Nature fallacy, how is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy? Well, take disease - it's natural, that's a scientific fact. "Appealing to" that fact doesn't just mean pointing out that it's natural, it means concluding that nothing can or should be done about it. "Because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal" [30]. This is Con’s argument that because climate fluctuations occur naturally, they cannot result from human activity. I did misrepresent that temperature anomalies chart, it showed 132 years. My apologies. It showed highly fluctuating anomalies in the last 17 years. If Con agrees with the Greenhouse Theory as he so surely claims, he cannot deny that significant increases in CO2 stand to boost global temperature. Con appreciates that my summary of source 41 conceded his point. I wrote it, I just re-read it, and I don’t know what he’s talking about. “A causes B” and “B causes A” - it’s a simple positive feedback loop. "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society" AAAS [60] This is not to be confused with political tactics like naming hurricanes after climate deniers. Science is defined by method which involves peer-review, and is not to be confused with the claims of political bloggers, activists or pundits. "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." - ACS [61] Nothing about the end of the world, just that it’s a growing threat to society - probably one of many. "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." AMS [62] The AMS view is important here, because of Con’s source that headlines, “Meteorologists are Global Warming Skeptics.” It’s a strange headline for an article whose actual content states that “According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.” Not skeptics, just not alarmists either. It’s ironic that Con is the only debate participant here who believes scientists are alarmists on this issue. "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." APS [63] No threats or bargains here, nothing about whether it’s America’s fault or China’s fault, or whether this means we have to stop driving cars. This is about science, and science with a political target or without proper peer review is not science. It’s easy to find geologists who are skeptical of global warming - they’re paid to find oil, not think about its effect on the air. They don’t perform peer-reviewed research. But the Geological Society of America, speaking for the science of geology over the business of it, concurs that Global Warming is anthropogenic. "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouseR08;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." GSA [64] And the American Geophysical Union agrees, "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." - AGU [65] Sometimes the medical community even chips in: "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." - AMA [66] 58. http://t.co... 59. https://t.co... 60. http://t.co... 61. http://t.co... 62. http://t.co... 63. http://t.co... 64. http://t.co... 65. http://t.co... 66. https://t.co...