97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change. How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature. I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate. Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.
Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment? That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth". Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment, what scientist would even attempt to debate that? The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas. That's absolutely absurd. Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.
Exactly. To say that "97% agree, it's just matter of how much" - even if that were true - is completely meaningless. First, "consensus" is not science. Second, there's a hellofalotof difference between, hypothetically, man made CO2 emissions contributing 10% of the increase in warming versus 90% (warming of
maybe a whopping half degree Celsius, no less). Third, whomever among the "97%" create the climate models have drastically overstated the impact of such emissions on temperature.
This isn't just some academic debate. Policy with far reaching consequences is being made on these flawed models. The billions spent on subsidies to "green" energy is a fart in the wind compared to the cost of the regulatory burdens imposed.