What is missing from the debate is 2-3 papers that are agreed on to be the clearest evidence that temperatures are changing due to human inputs.
Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds.
So you would be persuaded if you thought the evidence was objective, not subjective. What are some criteria you use for determining if evidence is subjective or objective?
Basically, you are commenting in circles. I am looking for, no, pleading with you to present... is a clear and compelling case that global warming is at least partially caused by humans. When you or anyone else presents that evidence, I and others will apply various techniques to determine how credible that evidence is. One of those techniques I will apply is to examine subjectivity vs objectivity.
If you think that in 2017 there is no clear and compelling case that global warming is at least partially caused by humans I think you won't accept any fact about it
This is true, but the people who are, in fact, deniers likely won't change their minds anyway and likely will not be alive long enough to see any undeniable evidence that could.
It's the same thing with discussing religion, I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut about it when talking to anyone who didn't express even a touch of an open mind about it.
I agree that the magnitude of the effect has not been demonstrably measured by anyone yet, but I don't see that as any reason to not take action to at least try to reduce whatever damage we might have done, are currently doing, and might do in the future.
But the technology has been rapidly getting more economical, and in some ways is now actually cheaper than fossil fuels (which also has many negative externalities of its own). And this has been happening only because there has been an enormous investment in renewable energy. The idea that the scientists all on their own will work for decades and come up with fully-ready technologies that then will be put into full production is just not how these things actually work.
Do you understand the difference between average and 15-40%? How about the difference between average and median, non-normal distributions, etc.?
There's no changing of definitions from anyone except yourself in your misleading "quote".
Here's a more accessible article: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.12...
There are many people who openly state that the climate is not changing. It is objectively correct to use the term "denial" to describe their position.
However, you say we should not use this term, and don't propose any alternative labels, so in effect you are saying we should not talk about them at all. I think that is a very bad idea.
As far as changing people's minds, I was asking what would do that.