And only a fool places 100% trust in anything and everything a scientist says. The scientific method is not about finding evidence that supports your claim. The idea of the scientific process is to try and disprove your claim so that the only other possibility is that your claim is right. If your claim is that all swans are white then you don't go about proving it by finding a bunch of white swan and go "there, see." You go about it by trying to find any other color swans that would contradict your claim. The same goes anthropomorphic climate change or anything else. It is unscientific to go "well every scientist agrees with me, that means I must be right." You don't need a fancy degree to be a scientist. A scientist is merely someone that follows the scientific method. So long as you use the method, for whatever it may be, you are being a scientist.I don't put 100% trust in everything that comes from science. Not sure if you were referring to me or Scarlet there, but I don't automatically trust everything that comes from science. It's all about evidence, and there is evidence for climate change, and anthropological climate change.
Your entire argument is predicated on the the illusion that the majority of scientists agree with you. You even said it, the stat comes from the percentage of those who expressed an opinion. But the majority of scientists did not state a position, so that majority group is not represented. So to say that 97% of scientists agree with man-made climate change is false because not every scientist was equally taken into consideration, only those that expressed an opinion which are the minority. And again, it still didn't make the distinction between humans being the main cause and humans being a cause. I would love to hear from the ones who says that humans are not the main or even a cause. Don't you think that's more interesting and informational than hearing that humans are the main cause which you've already heard a thousand times? I don't even have to rely on the appeal to popularity fallacy for this.
Well, the thing you need to understand is that when talking about climate change you're talking about a geological time scale... meaning things won't change overnight and as things slowly change, we'll automatically adapt regardless.That's really not true though. Our infrastructure isn't going to adapt to anything when the sea levels rise. Venice isn't a very good example either since it was basically built on water in the first place. They can much more easily make smaller adaptations to water levels than can the average city.
The point isn't whether climate change exists, it obviously does, the point of contention is whether or not climate change is influenced by mankind and, most importantly, whether any level of irrational fear/hysteria is justified.Holocene Climatic Optimum sounds pretty cool. Yet... that would still bring the plethora of issues climate change has placed on our doorstep.
Most people don't even believe in climate change because they've been LIED TO again and again and again. Largely as a result of fear mongering hysteria. I mean just look at Al Gore's original propaganda video making insane level claims about how the whole planet should have been destroyed YEARS ago... and yet... here we all are! You can only lie to people so many times before you start to lose their trust.
On the whole though, a return of the Holocene Climatic Optimum is not something anyone should be afraid of... in fact, it would be a VERY GOOD THING! Unfortunately we're no where even close to getting back to it. We'd have to increase greenhouse gas emissions by upwards of 500% and even then it would likely take several hundred years to actually reach that point...
Would be nice to get back the Sahara rain forest though!