> The fact that we call some people "climate change deniers" tells me that we have an unhealthy dynamics going on there

1. Climate change is observable, it doesnt rely on a theory, just measurements. Nonetheless there are a bunch of people trying to discredit what is essentially a very well established observation.

2. Genesis of climate change (ie is it anthropogenic) is not a direct observable, but looking at concentrations of CO2/other gasses and where it comes from it is not too hard to convince yourself of humans as root cause. Again, a lot of people deny human-driven climate change despite all evidence pointing one way.

3. Perhaps the most uncertain are climate model predictions. I agree that this where something might be overlooked, or maybe not.

At any rate, "climate change deniers" by and large object to (1) and (2), and those people really have no credibility. If someone accepts anthropogenic climate change but proposes a new model that fits observation-- more power to them!

The biggest red flag is that "climate change deniers" aren't a fringe group of meteorologists, but a group of politically-inclined people who also denounce "cultural Marxism" and other crank theories.

I assume that actual expert skeptics are given a lot more respect but also get far less exposure than deniers.

I agree with you, but I think your argument is not a good way to engage with skeptics because it is basically an appeal to authority, but scientists precisely dont have much authority in their eyes.

Measuring outside temperature, however, is a lived experience for them. And this is what we have done (in a more complicated fashion) for years now. This, to me, is a more convincing argument.

Straw man. It's not black and white. Some are skeptical of the _degree_ to which the claims are true. Go watch Al Gore's 2006 documentary to see a good example of alarmist hyperbole. Some would say this movement has been hijacked by those seeking political and economic power, by those who don't care about the environment. Some would say the projected outcome is 10x exaggerated, and are suspicious of proposed "solutions" such as increase tax, transfer trillions of dollars to third world countries, setup carbon trading schemes to make investment bankers rich, and so on.

> Al Gore's 2006 documentary

He is not a scientist. The entire discussion was about scientists engaging in group think.

Regarding skeptics to degrees

1. There are no credible skeptics in the community regarding the observation that climate has warmed in the past 100 years

2. There are nearly no credible skeptics in the community regarding the rather simple deduction that humans caused a non-trivial portion of the warming in the past 100 years

Yes. "No true Scotsman" believes such things. My point stands, that the accuracy of the models is debatable, and the extreme scenarios that are used to inform policy are quite possibly exaggerated by an order of magnitude, by influence of powerful non-scientist entities.

The same way that it compares to the group think that asbestos causes mesothelioma.

In 30 years we'll all be dead.

Since the IPCC is worried about being too "alarmist" and other external pressures no one is investigating the plausible scenarios where CO2 increases exponentially in the next 20 years. The amount of potential feedbacks that could cause rapid climate change are alarming.[1] If anything group-think is making it so we're not taking enough action.

[1] http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feedbacks.html

I saw a hint of this in a paper describing how something in climate change was found to be positive or not as bad as previously thought. It ended with a call to action for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite the paper itself not being about that. Why? Maybe either the scientists were activists uncomfortable with their own findings or they were afraid of being rejected for denialism.

Another honest question: have we established that humans caused climate change? Is it even possible to do so?

I don't believe for a second that your question is 'honest', because I think you're smart enough to be able to type it in to Google and find the answer if you were actually interested in it.

Read the IPCC report if you actually want to know (Spoiler: yes and yes).