Some have declared that "the science is settled" because a vast array of evidence points to human influence on climate. Scientists have a good understanding of many elements of climate. It is a mistake to ignore this knowledge just as it is a mistake to assert that we know that human-induced climate catastrophe is imminent.
Others have implied that the science is settled in a different direction. In their view, humans can't possibly influence climate, and therefore any scientists who say otherwise must be part of a global conspiracy to use climate change as a pretext to expand government regulation. Such doubters of human influence on climate are often labelled "skeptics," but frequently show excessive credulity about any evidence that humans are not changing the climate.
Skepticism towards scientific claims is generally a healthy attitude. Yet a large number of expert panels have concluded that global warming due to human activity threatens to induce large and potentially dangerous climate change. Is this conclusion a skeptical and rational assessment of the science?
Here I sketch why it is. In doing so, I point out the limits of our knowledge as well. I focus on the question of whether humans are influencing the climate, rather than the impact of these changes or how society can respond to them.
Next: Are humans changing the atmosphere?Last modified: 21 July 2018