I fully agree with the relevant Francesco Martoni comment and in this regard I suggest you :

THE 97% CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

where it is particularly reported:

"In 2009, 3146 earth scientists (more than 90% of participants had a PhD, and 7% had a master's degree) asked the following question: "Do you think that human activity is an important factor in trends in global average temperatures? "(Doran 2009) Overall, 82% of scientists responded" yes ".

However, what is most interesting is that the answers varied according to the level of expertise in climatology. Among the non-climatologist scientists who did not publish research on the subject, 23% answered "no". In contrast, only 2.5% of climate scientists who have researched and published climate change research answered "no".

It therefore appears that the more a researcher is active in the field of climatology and specializes in this field, the more he is convinced that human activity can influence the climate."

Interesting question! Following answers.

That is an interesting question!

However, I think even your starting point is a bit oversimplified.

Science isn't simply a formula or 2+2=4, on which, hopefully, everyone agrees. Science is also conducting a study, collecting data and present your results together with a discussion in which you suggest what your results may mean. Scientific consensus is, indeed, when everyone agrees on the interpretation of your results but, very often in Science, there are at least a few contrasting opinions on how to interpret the same results. This does not mean your results aren't 'pure science'. That's also the great thing of Science: it will always be open for discussion if somehow new data or new ideas come up.

That said, the fact that someone may not agree with a scientific consensus does not mean that their voice is "correct" or worth anything scientifically. Science does not work as a democracy under this point of view. If you don't agree with

anthropogenic climate change you are welcome to present your data, or to re-discuss the data and the interpretations of other scientist, but your position will be put under scrutiny and if your data and your idea is not scientific, then it has no point being discussed any further.

For example, saying that climate change is not anthropogenic because 'there have always been oscillations in temperatures' could be a fair opinion. But once you are presented with data showing the increase in temperatures are a lot higher since the industrial revolution, and showing unprecedented patterns, you have to consider such data in your opinion. Remaining of an opinion after being showed opposed scientific data can be one's right, but that's not science.

So, going back to the original example, if 97% of scientist has provided data showing that the temperature of the cup is >37C and it has been proven that a human body perceive as "hotter" a temperature that is higher than its body's, then the cup is hot. It would be interesting to check the methods and results of that remaining 3% of scientist and double check if their instruments and their methodologies are correct. There is a major consensu on the results despite some studies suggesting differently. All this is Science.

Hope this helps,

love this discussion, though!!!!

Dear Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak Thanks for your interest and following..also hoping your valuable comment :)

Dear Joshua O. Ighalo Thanks a lot for your comment .. climate change is fact... my question is 'what is the proportion of contribution from human?' .... 'is climate absolutely anthropogenic (more than 95% human contribution)?' .... again, if you carefully observe, you will see majority of the scientific articles using the issue Climate Change not proving it

Dear Francesco Martoni many many thanks for your very interesting and valuable discussion. I am agree with you. As you told " results of that remaining 3% of scientist and double check if their instruments and their methodologies are correct." we also need to understand the process of formation of 100%. If we search dry land in the middle of the ocean we will get less than 3%. Truth is also relative. My conclusion will depend on from what point of view I am looking at a issue, and your conclusion may not be the same as mine. If we want a real climate discussion, we need a organize a discussion with 50% people who unconditionally accept climate change as antropogenic and 50% who like to argue and go deeper into the matter.

Thanks again for taking part in the discussion and supporting with your valuable inputs

Hi Shahab Uddin ,

thank you for your answer.

I am not sure if I agree with everything you wrote.

Truth (if we consider it as the concept of truth) should not be relative, but a single one. As per your example, if you look for land in the Ocean, either there is or there is not. It depends on how you pose the question, obviously, but the truth is only one and, by definition, it cannot change based on who is observing. If the question is, how much land is in the Ocean (i.e. referring to islands) then the answer will be a percentage. But this does not change the truth. This is a fundamental concept. So, no, truth is not relative.

Truth may be partial, however. With some scientist having a partially correct interpretation of results. For example, after looking at the results of the 97% of researchers, you could come up with the hypothesis that climate change is not completely anthropogenic. This is a case where your 'percentage-based' discussion could work. Meaning that we both agree, based on the results, that Homo sapiens has a role in climate change but we don't agree on how much this role is influencing the situation.

The idea of having a discussion with 50% of people "in favour" and 50% "against" is unfortunately not correct. First of all, that 50% against would represent only 3% of the interpretation of the results which, in Science, do not carry the same weight of 97% (otherwise probability would have no meaning, isn't it?). Secondly, could you imagine this on anything else that is not climate change?

What if a similar discussion had 10 people agreeing that the result of 2+2=4 is correct and another 10 arguing that is wrong. The fact they are evenly distributed in two groups, does not mean that 2+2=7.

2+2=4, this is the truth and even if all the people in the world were saying the opposite, this would still be the truth.

Same thing is with Science and scientific data: it is not a democracy and it is not relative.

Also, and probably even most importantly, if we are talking of people who "unconditionally" accept or are against an hypothesis, that's not Science either. Science, as I said in my previous message, should have very little to do with personal opinion that cannot be moved and everything to do with results and hypotheses based on data.

Dear Francesco Martoni It is normal... it will be kind if you let me know your concern and let me try to explain for you

I think you have to click on "Read more" :)

It's quite tricky, I often don't realize there is more text, too :)

Francesco Martoni Thanks :)

I think you misinterpreted my 50-50 idea... it is not for frequency distribution like as consensus... i was talking a discussion on causes and dynamics of climate change. Peoples of same mind cannot think out of the boundary.

Yes, truth is partial. Absolute truth is singular. On climate change our knowledge is still partial (my opinion) and you are talking partial truth

Oh, I totally agree that on climate change our knowledge is still partial. If we knew already, we wouldn't have all these new studies coming out every months. Still, to get back to your original question, the fact that climate change is influenced by mankind is 'pure Science', backed almost unanimously by different studies analysing different dataset (and different results). It would still be 'pure science' even if a study will disprove it (always given it is done scientifically, obviously). Since this is how the scientific method works.

Surely, the "how much humans are responsible" is still under scrutiny and I am not sure we will ever be able to have a strong answer on this. The increasing amount of data from new studies, however, seems to point strongly in a certain direction.

My point on the hypothetical discussion was that it still should not be in equal numbers. There should not be such a need. If even a single person could prove scientifically their point, that would be enough scientific evidence to be discussed widely.

And I am not even hoping to speak any absolute truth :)

Dear Francesco Martoni , I agree " If even a single person could prove scientifically their point, that would be enough scientific evidence to be discussed widely."

but I think there is little contradiction with your last comment " And I am not even hoping to speak any absolute truth :)"... as long as we cannot reach absolute Truth..there will be space for multi-party discussion, and we must give all the parties equal opportunity for participating in discussion with their ideas and evidence.... the is no space for democracy in science... but there must be democracy while we are talking science... we must not follow autocratic approach

I don't see the contradiction, though. I simply meant this is my personal opinion and not an absolute truth..

And I agree on giving anyone space to scientifically suggest their interpretation of data. Do you think this is not the case? I am only concerned that very often who is against climate change is often very much biased and often not scientific..

(again, for what I have seen around)

Dear Francesco Martoni

May be you are true..and this truth is subjected to your surroundings

and what i can see in many journal articles is: 'majority of the researchers blaming climate change for all abnormalities in nature, even though their articles didn't explain anything with scientific evidence what is the reason behind their claims". My observations are also influenced by the level of my knowledge and surely partial

Dear Shahab you have started with Einsteins famous equation of mass and energy . But anthropology is the combination of science and sociology . So scientific knowledge is required with social consciousness.Then only climate change become sustainable .

Dear Jaydip Datta Thanks..think you are little confused ... my entire academic and professional background is multidisciplinary ... again, i am asking question does not mean I am know, it means i an curious to know... learning from discussion is the best way of learning quickly and effectively... I do research on disaster management, which is purely multidisciplinary, "jack of all, master of none" :) :)

Shahab Uddin Dear ,there is no chance of confusion! In Atmospheric / Environmental / Climate these are all interdisciplinary terms . So Jacks are also

useful as well as masters . Yours curiousness to know must be appreciated .

Being a chemical engineer I am well aware of that term which is related to safety ,Health and Environment policy . Hazan , Hazops , Emergency planning are important part of disaster management .

I fully agree with the relevant Francesco Martoni comment and in this regard I suggest you :

THE 97% CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

where it is particularly reported:

"In 2009, 3146 earth scientists (more than 90% of participants had a PhD, and 7% had a master's degree) asked the following question: "Do you think that human activity is an important factor in trends in global average temperatures? "(Doran 2009) Overall, 82% of scientists responded" yes ".

However, what is most interesting is that the answers varied according to the level of expertise in climatology. Among the non-climatologist scientists who did not publish research on the subject, 23% answered "no". In contrast, only 2.5% of climate scientists who have researched and published climate change research answered "no".

It therefore appears that the more a researcher is active in the field of climatology and specializes in this field, the more he is convinced that human activity can influence the climate."

Thanks Oum Kalthoum Ben Hassine

Oum Kalthoum Ben Hassine is very right as science need evidence in the form of dataset or published research. It perfect consensus that climate change is more anthropocentric induced than natural-process. But we have seen many times at global level also directed by geo politics and economy which quite evident in climate change claim and counter claim. A debate of major contributor of GHGs is already going on with developed and developed countries. USA walked out of Paris declaration first and still most of the industrialized countries due to economic consideration not want to solve the problem sincerely. every body different labs/ scientist coming with new new hypothesis and even dataset for climate change which even UNFCC not able to analyse. Few years back a lab claimed that tropical forest are responsible for more GHGS, How??. Paddy cultivation in Asian countries etc but are they not looking industries, automobiles and energy sectors across the globe major responsible. The consumerism of developed countries also equally responsible. So though a consensus is there climate change is more due to human interference with nature but who is responsible no country want responsibility for action due to geo politics.

This is an interesting discussion on climate change and its evident that we all agree to disagree that Climate Change is caused by Anthropogenic activities basing on different presentations by researchers

Interesting topic to discuss, there are so many variables to consider but major correlations are hard to deny. The fact there is ongoing research, it is evident that there is more to learn and as we try to improve our understandings, it would be considered a scientific consensus. Even mathematical models which is considered a pure science can lead you astray if are not asking the right questions. Our interpretations is the consensus but also this topic branches across many fields of science, which will never have numerical answers.