>I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective.

So you would be persuaded if you thought the evidence was objective, not subjective. What are some criteria you use for determining if evidence is subjective or objective?

I am open to evidence that clearly shows that climate change is in part or completely caused by humans. Subjectivity would be one measure that I would apply.

I think we are using the term "subjective" differently. In your original comment, I thought you were using the term to indicate biased thinking. Now you seem to be meaning people's direct experience of the temperature. Or am I misunderstanding you?

You are misunderstanding.

Basically, you are commenting in circles. I am looking for, no, pleading with you to present... is a clear and compelling case that global warming is at least partially caused by humans. When you or anyone else presents that evidence, I and others will apply various techniques to determine how credible that evidence is. One of those techniques I will apply is to examine subjectivity vs objectivity.

What I am asking you to do is clarify what you mean by the terms "subjectivity" and "objectivity". I am asking that because it is common for people to differ as to whether a given claim is objective or subjective, and so I would like to know how you yourself decide.

Yes, what is obviously subjective to me, may be objevtive to you. We wont know unless we look at the evidence and debate it. Why dont you start by presenting some. I have looked and looked, but I am failing to draw causality

> I am looking for, no, pleading with you to present... is a clear and compelling case that global warming is at least partially caused by humans

If you think that in 2017 there is no clear and compelling case that global warming is at least partially caused by humans I think you won't accept any fact about it

That is what everyone says, but no one actually presents the paper or research that convinced them. I would think that if I held a deep conviction about something I would know why I held that belief. Unless I just decided that all my friends and TV people said something is true so it must be. That would be very alarming though...

How is calling someone who denies something a 'denier' an attack? I am a denier of prayer healing, chemtrails and the illuminati, to name a few. You can call me that all day, because it's true.

The IPCC report is that, a series of papers that reviews everything and presents it in a technical but topical way.

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

> Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds.

This is true, but the people who are, in fact, deniers likely won't change their minds anyway and likely will not be alive long enough to see any undeniable evidence that could.

It's the same thing with discussing religion, I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut about it when talking to anyone who didn't express even a touch of an open mind about it.

I agree that the magnitude of the effect has not been demonstrably measured by anyone yet, but I don't see that as any reason to not take action to at least try to reduce whatever damage we might have done, are currently doing, and might do in the future.

There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology. That is why people are questioning the 'science' of global warming. If we as a species are wrong about global warming in either direction, that is a big problem.

>There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology.

But the technology has been rapidly getting more economical, and in some ways is now actually cheaper than fossil fuels (which also has many negative externalities of its own). And this has been happening only because there has been an enormous investment in renewable energy. The idea that the scientists all on their own will work for decades and come up with fully-ready technologies that then will be put into full production is just not how these things actually work.

There are far greater costs to not cutting emissions now. 15-40% of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1000 years: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

Your link pretty much says "on average the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 3-4 years, but if we change the definition, then it's up to 1000 years".

No it does not. For a supposed MIT grad with a PhD I would expect excellent reading comprehension and the ability to understand scientific fields even when outside of your main one. Given your comments and misunderstandings here and elsewhere I am inclined to think you are not. Read the IPCC reports, if you don't have time, look at the summary for policy makers, particularly the physical science basis.

Do you understand the difference between average and 15-40%? How about the difference between average and median, non-normal distributions, etc.?

There's no changing of definitions from anyone except yourself in your misleading "quote".

Here's a more accessible article: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.12...

>Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds.

There are many people who openly state that the climate is not changing. It is objectively correct to use the term "denial" to describe their position.

However, you say we should not use this term, and don't propose any alternative labels, so in effect you are saying we should not talk about them at all. I think that is a very bad idea.

As far as changing people's minds, I was asking what would do that.