When 99% of the experts in the field agree, and that's not a compelling argument to a layman with no expertise, "skeptic" is not a word I'd use to describe that layman.

Did you take more than two seconds to think that through? If that was a compelling argument, everyone would believe in numerology because everyone that calls themselves a numerologist agrees that numerology is real.

Same for psychics, priests, and on and on.

Very much this. Ugh, so much ignorance in the name of "skepticism" in this thread!

Doesn't that then stand that you need to qualify the backing of the rest of the scientific community, then qualify the backing of those backing the backing, then qualify the backing of those who are doing the back of the backing of the backing?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the burden of proof decreases as the claims become less extraordinary. I'd suggest "a whole line of science which until this point hasn't been controversial" can probably be trusted, and that immediately choosing to disregard a group when it says something you don't like strikes as more reactionary than skeptical. I very much doubt you considered all of climate science a hack science until it started to butt up against your personal beliefs.

>Doesn't that then stand that you need to qualify the backing of the rest of the scientific community, then qualify the backing of those backing the backing,

Nope. Once you’ve there is backing from fields that you already trust experts in, then you can be relatively sure that the field is following scientific methods closely, etc.

>a whole line of science which until this point hasn't been controversial

Any science that makes predictions on complex systems without the ability to run tightly controlled experiments is pretty controversial to many in hard sciences. To see why: see social psychology for an example of a field filled with trash.

>I very much doubt you considered all of climate science a hack science until it started to butt up against your personal beliefs.

I very much doubt you read my comment if you think this has anything to do with my beliefs. I was pointing out a fallacious argument from authority that holds zero weight to people who don’t believe that authority.

If saying that 99% of climatologists agree was enough to settle the argument, it would be enough for 99% of police to agree that police abuse isn’t a problem.

Let's try an analogy.

99% of the sailors on a lifeboat say, "We need to paddle West, or we'll all die."

Sure, you have every right to be skeptical. But don't you think we should probably paddle West?

If someone starts trying to paddle East, shouldn't everyone in the boat try to stop them?

Yes, the sailors may be mistaken. But given the divisions of labor we have, and our limited understanding of the world, don't you think we should follow the best advice we can get?

Is there some better way you can imagine to gather the best advice?

During China's cultural revolution, for the sake of taking a Great Leap Forward, whole country-sides melted their metal housewares and cookware (trying to make steel) and killed all their sparrows ( to eliminate farm pests ) because the people were misinformed, but also mostly because the people were severely disincentivized from disagreeing. Going against the party line at that time meant you and your family going to work-camps for re-education, not simply just getting canceled. You don't always want to follow the masses, the 99%.

In your scenario, there's no way for the sovereign individual to go East unless he can find the ones in the 99% with the cognitive dissonance. Abandoning ship would be the metaphorical equivalent of becoming a hermit and giving up on society.

Do you really think that peer-reviewed scientists, who are the experts in their field, are on the same par as a totalitarian government, in terms of how accurately they can understand and model reality and make accurate predictions?

There's no Other Earth. If Climate Change is real, then we all need to paddle in the same direction.

Climate change is real, but what level of corrective behavior are climate alarmists willing to commit to?

A man, Allan Savory, acting on what was near unanimous scientific agreement on the cause of desertification, could have remained a mere scientist raising the alarm about deserts. Thinking he knew what the solution was, and getting the approval of other scientists, he went on to kill tens of thousands of elephants.

https://www.fastcompany.com/2681518/this-man-shot-40000-elep...

So, since you think climate change is real, what do you think should be done?

How do you think we should decide what to do?

I say we elect representatives, and they act as though scientists are the best way we have to measure reality. If they're concerned about the proposals of the scientists, it seems to me as though they should ask for ways to try experiments out, to see if they work, and to try to scale those up. Something like that.

What do you think?

Yes. The USSR collapsed because they tried to use huge committees of economic experts to plan everything, and their models and knowledge were simply not up to the task.

Do you think man is responsible for making climate change worse?

If yes, what do you think should happen next?

I don't know. I believe mankind is emitting lots of CO2, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that this might well be increasing the temperature of the Earth.

Beyond that I am filled with doubt. I've read a lot about the replication crisis in science. It started with psychology but has hit medicine especially hard too. Ioanndis' paper had a big influence, where he argued 50%-90% of all research findings are false. The papers about how scientists routinely misuse statistics also. I've seen first hand how enormous quantities of what appear to be scientific knowledge, things people believed were watertight consensus truth for years or decades, simply evaporated once someone who was serious about statistics sat down and tried to replicate the findings.

Likewise with economics. Is an economist making a prediction? Unless that prediction is "the current trend will continue" they are virtually always wrong.

Put simply, I don't trust academia much. I think most people trust academics far too much. The track record of failed predictions whether it be on the economy or the climate is enormous, and there are no repercussions.

Some of the most powerful arguments climate skeptics make aren't actually criticisms of scientists. They point out that academics are frequently portrayed as saints who float above mortal vices like self-interest or greed, vs "Big Plastic" or "evil lobbyists" or whoever who are assumed to be corrupted by their salary. But climate scientists and charity workers like money too. They have the same distorting incentives everyone else does. Important predictions = grant money, it's obvious. Why do people get so upset by this basic fact?

All that said, in the end, it's right and good to move away from fossil fuels. There are plenty of arguments for this that are stronger than "scientists say we'll all die, and this time they might be right!". For instance dwindling supplies of oil, coal and natural gas in regions of the world that are friendly and stable is, by itself, a good enough reason to switch to green power. I have no problem with carbon markets or government subsidies to this end as long as they don't destabilise the grid.

I do have a problem with people presenting any random weather event as "proof" that small children shouldn't go to school though. That's not a useful next step regardless of your presuppositions.

That’s a terrible analogy. A majority of people in the US believe in Christianity for a long time an led to all kinds of shitty laws.

99% of Christians believe Jesus Christ was a magical being

How about the real story of the Nongqawuse's prophecy ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse

Do you really think that peer-reviewed scientists, who are the experts in their field, are on the same par as the prophecies of a 15 year old girl and her 10 year old friend, in terms of how accurately they can understand and model reality and make accurate predictions?

> You need to highlight the backing by the rest of the scientific community ...

Would you be satisfied by 76 Nobel Laureates?

http://www.mainaudeclaration.org/

> As of 1 February 2016, 76 Nobel Laureates have expressed their support of the Mainau Declaration 2015.

Good. Highlight that. Validation by the rest of the scientific community that a field is real science goes miles further than claiming “this religious group believes in their religion so it must be the right one”.

The skeptic can go and read the relevant papers and if they find flaws in them write their own paper. If their counterarguments are compelling they'd likely convince more than one or two percent of the climate scientists.