I never have doubted it.
I DO doubt some of their predictions and models, or rather how they come to some of their conclusions. But to think that 7+ billion human beings doesn't have an effect on the climate is just shear idiocy imo.
I'm not a mathematician. If I recall correctly I've told you before that I'm horrible at economics, math is a part of that reason. I can do basic math. But I started flunking math when algebra entered the picture.
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard
Though Rothbard's remark pertains to economics, the principle of it is fully applicable to any discipline availed of rigorous research.
Red:
Seriously!!??!! You are flunked math "when algebra entered the picture," yet you question the models climate scientists use to analyze the data they collect, arrive at and subsequently test their predictions. And let's get this right: it's not a matter of smart or not smart; it's a matter of what is/isn't and what of it one is/isn't aware. It's a matter of ignorance and cognizance, not degrees of intellect, adroitness and acumen.
You're not strong with math. Okay....that is what it is, but among the things it is, is inadequately informed to deny or doubt the legitimacy, accuracy, soundness or cogency of any empirical/quantitatively formed conclusions about pretty much anything, particularly things as complex as climate change, its nature, extent, rate and impacts.
There's nothing wrong with refuting a scholarly finding (science, economics, sociological, psychological, financial, etc.) based on quantitative analysis; however, to do so credibly, one must cite specific material failings (unsoundnesses and incogencies) in the methodology used to arrive at that finding/conclusion. Of course, one (one ably infomed) may be able to identify a methodological shortcoming here and there, but, if one's to be seen as credible, after doing so, one must also show that and how shortcoming is also material enough to alter the finding. The same basic epistemological principle applies also to qualitative findings such as those issuing humanities research findings.
Does one need to be particularly well informed to believe, as opposed to accept intellectually, given findings, even the most rigorously developed ones? Of course not; one can, and many do, believe damn near anything. The problem isn't with what one "buys;" the problem is with what one attempts to "sell." It's morally reprehensible and intellectually irresponsible to "sell" a conclusion founded on but abductive reasoning and/or faith when the counterposing conclusion is founded on sound/cogent analysis.
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
Aside:
I find it disconcerting, dismaying, and astounding that the US is so heavily populated with individuals who haven't any comprehension of
quantitative methods/analysis --
80% haven't a clue about "stats and prob," so there's no way in hell they "get" quantitative analysis -- and who yet are more than happy to publicly be "loud, strong and wrong" about findings thus obtained. They are free to think whatever they want, but being ill informed on the matter, they neither bother to become well informed nor do they keep mum. Moreover, when someone tries to explain "it" to them, they have only inane and ingermane retorts and objections, deeming it more important to assuage their will to be heard.
I fully empathize with folks frustration with the intransigence we too often witness among the American polity. While the subject matter differs, the phenomenon is substantively no different than that of a parent, based on what their child says/does, knowing damn well their child is clueless about XYZ and the factors affecting it. What differs is that one expects adults, unlike children, to recognize their own naivete and comport themselves accordingly. Yet, far too often, they don't or won't.
Together the confluence of persistent frustration and intransigence, exacerbated by a mental midget's having obtained the presidency, has produced in the US a culture whereby public public-policy discourse has devolved to mud wrestling with pigs.
