With so many failed predictions why should I believe it's a good theory?

Good reply. In most of this 'debate' on climate science there are a number of factors that limit sensible discussion. I do know a number of people who are what I like to term skeptical about the claims made for climate change. My outlook is open but conservative, so I am often labeled as if being a conservative thinker is automatically wrong-headed. I wanted to share something of what I understand as I listen to those who are not convinced.

First, quite a lot of the research is presented graphically without access to the raw data, and as has been spoken to, the "hockey stick" will never go away. Hopefully the East Anglia emails ...nah its on the internet.

Second, those who are skeptical have often written rebuttals and pointed out errors in arguments against which, rather than address the concerns, often the skeptic experiences attack - which for the layman is sure sign that the skeptic has a valid point. Please do not let Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson speak against your position! The hivemind responds in full fury, and with its attack all thoughtful discourse is lost.

Third, whoever is trying to stay on top of this must be working at it full-time because there are so many variables involved in understanding Earth's systems, that makes it alarmingly likely that we must either accept large parts of the claim unexamined or remain skeptical until the Free Flat Earth Society ceases to exist. Most non-climate-focused scientists I have talked with or who have written about this point out that they are supporting the climate change drivers based on the evidences for which they have understanding - from their own research and expertise - as being right. This is a perfectly reasonable position. I am reminded that the last IPCC report had something like 800 lead authors, yet it is assumed that all these authors understand and support what was written as consensus of them all.

Yet, I do not know anyone who does not accept that there is such a thing as AGW, nor its importance. I understand those who have a problem with the assumptions behind CO2 emissions being the primary cause, as we all know that correlation is not causation, and that controlled experiments are rarely as stated in more complex environs. I do know some who feel we are undervaluing the mass of humanity in our efforts to focus on fossil fuels as the primary cause.

So, why am I writing you? Your good reply contains evidences and explains your thinking. That is how I become convinced, and I think that is what America listens to. Thank you.

Of course if there is someone who can address definitively the relationship between human population and global patterns that would be really worthwhile. The only research I have seen is very old, reflecting how weather patterns changed during WW1, and is not what I would consider quality - although it made sense at the time. Do we have an expert in this subreddt?

/r/climate Thread Parent