80% of soy is fed to animals for humans to exploit, so not really sure what you're getting at.

A plant based diet eliminates the vast majority of animal suffering (bonus points for reduced climate destruction, antibiotic degradation and future pandemic likelihood)

With all due respect, I've hunted down rabbit holes and everything I've seen so far has been discredited. Taking Richard Tol as an example (since he's the first on the Forbes article by the philosophy degree guy who gets paid by fossil fuel groups), Cook's analysis of his criticism sounds completely valid and I haven't managed to find anything by Tol which contradicts it https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm.

Googling to try and cherry pick these morsels of criticism from unqualified people just seems like really heavy duty lifting to try and reach the wrong wrong position. Shutting down the absolute masses of evidence which disagree with you in a refusal to align with scientific consensus in a technical field just seems intellectually futile... But here's a challenge: given that Wikipedia is a community effort, pick the most valid sounding critic you can on the topic and edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change article to include it, and people much closer to the topic than I am will follow that chain if it's missing, with others providing their retorts until eventually the truth is reached. Spoiler alert: there are so many vocal, but ultimately wrong climate sceptics, that this will be routinely attempted, and what's left is the pages and pages of truth (Tol is indeed included and that chain has been followed).

I guess we could go around in circles, but you've got to the point of just telling me to do some Googling to disprove the very strong global scientific consensus, which sounds a little like the "do your research" trope you hear from the antivaxers. I simply haven't seen a compelling reason to believe that the climate scientists are wrong, and the onus is on the relevant experts who disagree to chip away at that consensus if they feel it's wrong. The fact they have been failing should draw reasonable people to conclude that climate change is real and is man-made.

Yes, it's his own response to explain the criticism. More impartially, I've checked out the Wikipedia article too on the consensus, which speaks of the Cook study, but really puts into perspective how weak the criticism is in the face of the absolute epic mass of agreement (again, also bearing in mind that Cook's is not the only report of its type.

Given the overwhelming isolation of disagreement and the clear conflicts of interest from the fossil fuel industry in promoting the overly sponsored-by-fossil-fuel hacks that generally appear in opinion pieces in outlets looks Forbes and Fox, it really is a big stretch to go against the grain.

I can't disagree with you there with regards to phasing out fossil fuels being a good path to clean air - plenty we agree on.

I'd encourage reading the rebuttal I linked, as it directly references the people contesting the figures (heading "Confused Contrarians Think they are Included in the 97%").

I did read the Forbes article and spent some time down some rabbit holes, but it just doesn't seem a strong case to combat what appears to be a very strong consensus that climate change is man made.

Not so academic, but this xkcd on the subject is brilliant https://xkcd.com/1732/

That's an article in Forbes magazine by a guy with a degree in philosophy who rejects climate change in its entirety, and runs a company paid by the Kentucky Coal Association, (indirectly) employees of Alliance Coal, and by other fossil fuel companies.

The article has also aged comically badly: "The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half".

Lastly, that article is from 9 years ago. There is a pretty comprehensive rebuttal from the respected scientist who this guy has taken exception to, which I'd suggest reading: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

I think your suggested solutions of focusing on air and water quality are great, though phasing out fossil fuels is a must. They are equivalent to the tobacco industry in this debate in their lobbying for terrible outcomes capacity and will distort reality and ruin our collective futures for profit, and this is where your talent for cynicism is best directed.

Of course morality is important. I would like to think if I had no understanding of psychology, genetics, or any other scientific field, I would still want to weigh in on letting homosexual people live their lives without consequence in times when it was illegal, since wishing punishment upon them for doing no harm to anybody is clearly a question of morality, not science. On most of the things you have said, I understand where you are coming from, but here I simply don't get it - could you elaborate please? Do you understand my perspective?

If you publish on psychological topics, that's great, though clearly not relevant to climate science (except, that I'd expect it'd afford you a better-than-most understanding of the scientific method at least).

Where we disagree, is that I think consensus is the gotcha in a discussion about climate change with non-climate scientists - again, in the same way that it is in any other field. If somebody disagreed with expert consensus on any very complicated technical topic, I'd just think they were simple - you said it best - it's best to stick to your expertise. This doesn't mean it's not OK to form opinions on subjective things, less technical things, or to ask questions about technical fields, but deviating from the default on very technical things is just a very long winded way of being most likely wrong. You'll be right once in a blue moon because experts don't know everything, but statistically not about the thing you deviated on.

I will concede one important point here - you're right that my 99.9% figure isn't very useful at all, since it would indeed include people in the relevant fields, so I've overstated my point by a large amount. A more useful number for my point is 97%, which is the proportion of actively publishing climate scientists who understand it to be man-made (https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/). Again, a big enough proportion for people outside of climate science to form a sensible default of "yes, we're doing it".

As to whether it being man-made is a useful point of argument (aside from helping to signpost people forming opinions outside of their expertise), we'll have to agree to disagree - you believe not, I believe it's important, as it would help us model the outcomes better. For example, if humans weren't causing it, some may further believe that it is inevitable and thus there may be less point in trying to fix it.

In any case, I've enjoyed this so far and no hostility intended - I enjoy talking with people I don't entirely agree with, as it helps me to either cement or change my opinions - at least those for which I feel qualified to deviate from scientific consensus on ;).

We're talking at cross purposes. I am absolutely not saying there is no science in the genetics or psychology of homosexuality, I'm saying that opposing the antiquated idea that homosexuality is unacceptable was, and is, a question of morality that requires no science - that anyone can weigh in on. In principle, can you understand where I'm coming from? The difference between a matter of human respect and challenging decades of PhD level research outside of one's field?

If you're actually a published climate scientist, then you are absolutely entitled to have your view listened to, but with all due respect, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't mention that morsel up until now, as that would be kind of key to this discussion. Given that I'm also a sceptical person (though in a different way perhaps), I feel a little doubtful and suspect this is the point where you tell me that your identity and your published work is conveniently secret - but please, tell me I'm wrong. Even in that (sorry, but unlikely) eventuality, that would entitle you to your view, but the other rational laypeople like me would be better served by assuming the correctness of the current scientific consensus until you make significant enough traction to be able to convince your fellow climate scientists.

No, I like to think I also wouldn't have agreed with consensus on homosexuality's (remember that I don't agree with consensus on eating animals, so I agree that blindly following a majority isn't always the smart move.

However, you've fallen into two very specific traps - let me explain:

A) Homosexuality isn't science, it's morality - and we've seen time and time again that the majority of people often fall on the wrong side of history

B) Science is sometimes wrong, yes. However, we don't know which as lay people are going to be wrong, so it would be as futile as randomly not trusting science on any of the other topics I mentioned (do you think they are doing MRI machines wrong?). On the contrary, anybody can understand and weigh in on moral topics. However, while you can read some pop science articles and listen to opinions about well-studied scientific topics, but you simply don't have the extensive background to be informed enough to contribute anything but noise, doubt and misinformation to the conversation.

That's excellent news that younger republicans are more receptive to science - thanks for raising, I'll check that out.

The scientific consensus should change your mind if you're on the fence and scientifically literate - unless you're a climate scientist on the cutting edge of research and know something that 99% of the other climate scientists have got wrong, but haven't quite finished convincing them! I think it's because people misjudge the gap in understanding between a layperson and a climate scientist in ways that almost nobody does in other fields, perhaps because we can all look outside, feel weather and notice difference between seasons. You rarely hear of a layperson disagreeing with experts about microprocessor architecture, consumer electronics, space exploration, air travel, medtech like MRI machines, encryption, GPS - because the gap is understood. Unless you have a very accomplished and relevant history, deferring to scientific consensus is the only educated default.

Nobody likes being told what to do, but when it affects others, it unfortunately becomes necessary, even for Americans. For example, if an someone wanted to punch you in the mouth or take your things, they would be told not to do that, as it affects others. If people affect billions of future lives through probably terrible choices, I'll join in telling them what to do. I'm very big on liberty, but your liberty ends where mine begins.

Most reasonable people admit climate change is happening, which is the disconnect with American republicans is (only a quarter consider it to be a major threat), and I think while protesters like Greta can help get the word around generally, there's little way of reaching genuinely unreasonable people.

Climate change and its causes should only really be up for serious debate by climate scientists, as uninformed pundits with bad takes just convince idiots into conclusions which hurt all of us. However, I disagree with you about whether the cause is anthropogenic is important, as a misunderstanding of that truth steers the misinformed towards a resigned apathy that it's not our fault and can't be changed. For the record, the cause is man made and more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree. It should be continually challenged and refined, but by people who have spent their lives studying it at the highest levels.

That said, it's great to hear of your wishes for reduced pollution, safer energy production and cleaner transport, as they are aligned with a better tomorrow.

You're right, I apologise I didn't represent your view fairly, we don't fully agree, though I maintain we agree that America hasn't fully embraced Greta.

I disagree that it's that no American politicians warm to her and her loud behaviour (which is what put her in the spotlight). Biden for example said to Trump: "What kind of president bullies a teenager? @realDonaldTrump, you could learn a few things from Greta on what it means to be a leader,”. Doesn't sound like he's too dismissive of Greta's behaviour, does it?

In fact, it's generally down the left/right, truth/fiction party line, since Greta conveniently represents climate change/truth.

Unfortunately, that says more about American discussion - America has moved beyond left Vs right to reality Vs "alternative facts". For example, climate change denialism, large vaccines cause autism, the election fraud nonsense. Unfortunately, given that opportunistic morons like America's republican party have politicised and denied climate change, I'm sure they'll be a segment of the population that will blame anything, including Greta.

So yes, I do agree with you that the large anti science wing of America wouldn't warm to her, but they never would have.

You have never seen any impact because you're trying to mash your hands over your ears and close your eyes. I literally just told you the an impact she's had on my family and you still don't recognise an impact.

Of course, I'm sure anecdotes mean nothing to you, so look further at the awards, media attention, speeches, international demonstrations that started with her. Zero impact? Jesus, we are having this conversation because of her.

Honestly, if you can't imagine that this particular household name, face of Time magazine and organiser of global protests has had any impact at all, you probably also believe that the moon landing was faked, the election was stolen, the earth is flat, and there's no helping your unhealthy relationship with bad takes.

They are vegan, they get involved at their school on environmental improvements, they make sure they don't waste etc. and they make sure to highlight the plight of the future to others.

I honestly don't know how you can look at Greta Thunberg and underestimate the impact she's had on public discourse on climate change.

In before trolls have a go at them for being vegan, this very respected recent meta analysis published in science clearly finds that going vegan is the number one thing you can do to help most climate change factors https://josephpoore.com/Science 360 6392 987 - Accepted Manuscript.pdf

She's a hero, she's the reason why everyone is talking about climate change - even my kids are trying to make better choices and saying they've learned about it because of her, they've never heard of you.

I'd counter that with Earthling Ed, who's entirely rational and reasonable, while some of the people debating him are pretty scary characters https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCVRrGAcUc7cblUzOhI1KfFg

Thanks, that's a really interesting piece. I don't interpret that it's really about bias though, he's gone through to offer to some more ideas for context. The takeaway seems to be that while the OWID stats are accurate, historical context changes that changes the way people lived and would be good to add - it's really clever, but I don't think there's much to suggest there's anything nefarious. In times where we are presented with outright lies, it still seems to me to be a source which shines light

Could you reference some of these claims that our world in data was found to be biased? Sounds like a pretty solid judgement was made, but a cursory search didn't yield anything untoward. Maybe if it's definite, you could update the Wikipedia entry to reference the controversy, as that's always a good place to signpost that kind of thing.

Exactly, good for you. As individuals, we can choose to make things better, be a part of the solution, and have a big collective impact by making changes.

Bonus points are that it sends a signal to others which amplifies the impact, and also reduces the power of those large organisations who do bad, since our better actions often feed them less money.

That makes it sadder. Every one of those is an individual whose entire birth, life and death was for a sandwich, and people could just choose a different sandwich.