I'm kind of amazed that, after it has been explained to the deniers multiple times, they prefer to deny the obvious. The consensus is about the observations that global warming is man-made, and it's mainly caused by burning of fossil fuel (and land-use).
Whereas I am
definitely amazed that those who are confident that man's CO2 emissions are the main cause of the current warming, and that such warming will be disastrous or catastrophic,
do not appear to understand the basic principles of the scientific methodology, even though many of these people claim to be scientists.
Now I'm not so arrogant as to assume that I know better than most scientists working in the field of climatology. I have a reasonable explanation for their
'apparent' lack of understanding of these basic principles of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions; and that explanation is that the views of many of these scientists are being misrepresented by the political processes which, by their very nature, need expressions of confidence in whatever position the politicians are promoting, in order for action to be taken.
Now you could argue that despite the scientific uncertainty of the causes of the current slight warming period, it's better to exaggerate the certainty and create alarm, in order to motivate action. That argument possibly has some merit.
I'm very much aware that there are benefits to the development of alternative, additional, and renewable sources of energy. Energy sources are a basic requirement for all human activity in a modern society. The more energy sources, the better, and the more prosperous we become. I have no objection to research on more efficient methods of generating solar power, and more efficient methods of battery storage.
What I object to is lying to the public, and pretending that current extreme weather events are unprecedented.
By the way, your comment that 'the consensus is about the observations that global warming is man-made' suggests you are either confused about the scientific methodology or are just being political.
Whilst observations, of some sort, are always a necessary part of the scientific process, it is the
interpretation of those observations that frequently varies. All scientific data has to be interpreted before it makes sense and can either support, cast doubt, or falsify an existing hypothesis or theory.
Interpretations of observations have frequently been proved wrong as science progresses. For millions of years it was observed, and continues to be observed, that the sun rises in the East, gradually moves across the sky, and sets in the West. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of that observation, in the absence of modern science, was that the sun is revolving around the Earth.
Even though we now understand it is the Earth that is revolving in relation to the Sun, the observation that the sun is revolving around the Earth can still be made. It is the
interpretation of that observation which has changed, as science has progressed.
