Rache, no not at all. I am a technical person, engineering is my background, so I have a slightly more acute understanding of what goes on around me. Your examples of the people you describe are based on theories contrived from data and 'best guess' assumptions. Remember, 'science relies on theory'. Engineering is based on facts. Your example of the bridge and engineers is probably not the best to use, as I know the answer. In engineering terms, the 3% you mention are clearly wrong because had they taken the time to quantify the strength of the base materials used (it is standard procedure to check each batch of concrete and the strength of the reinforcing steel used in concrete structures) in the bridge they should have arrived at the same conclusion as the other 97%. Science has too many variables and in the case of weather patterns, particularly historical ones, it is impossible to be completely certain of the data. Again 'best guess'. I do not make decisions based on anything but absolutes. In life we are faced with a lot of decisions based on imperfect data. We are placed in a situation whereby we are forced to make a decision, or else! So it is that we find all too late that it was the wrong decision, based on the wrong criteria. There has been too much controversy over this (now it's called) 'climate change', for people like myself to concur.
The arguments against are many and so are the experts who are demonised and called denialists. At best I would put myself in the skeptic category. All this means is,I may not be right, but I am definitely not wrong.

Rache, sorry a clarification or correction. I had a dyslexic moment. The 97%, 3% example should be the other way round, as you quoted. Unless the bridge was in some third world country, your example is moot. Just to touch on another of your examples. Even though we know that the ingestion of smoke, of any kind, is clearly harmful. We must keep in mind that in life all is not what it seems and one size does NOT fit all. To completely throw the numbers out of whack there are millions of people who defy the rules by smoking a pack or more a day and living to well into their nineties. As opposed to a non-smoker who died of lung cancer. Go figure. As for your other examples of the flat earth fraternity and moon landings, I think you may be overreaching a little. Your example on gravity is also moot. Saying it exists but then you switch to 'how it actually works'. Two different topics, again un-related. As for global conspiracies and mass delusions, we have seen them before. I'm not sure who started what, but there is a lot of money being made from promoting climate change. I put it to you that those experts who are not convinced are getting nothing for their opinion or stance. The same cannot be said for the ones pushing the climate change banner. Gore is one of them. He is making money out of this and we know he is. You choose to believe the climate change stance. That is your prerogative. It does not mean you are backing the winning team, it just means you are barracking for the climate change team.

ALTRAV,
Here is some Climate Change science you might like to validate, or disprove, or ignore. And, this science is all based on fact, as is the majority of science.

Herschel found infrared radiation in the early 1800s. You probable appreciate that the earth keeps cool by radiating infra red into space.

As an engineer, you may have come across Fourier analysis - much used in the communications industry. In the 1820s, Fourier measured the amount of heat coming onto the earth, and determined the amount of infrared radiation that should be leaving the earth. His measurements and maths showed that the average temperature of the earth should be between -15C and -20C. This could be called a snowball earth, which the earth definitely wasn’t. So he assumed there must be some form of blanket in the atmosphere keeping the earth warm.

In the 1850s, John Tyndal measured the amount of IR radiation that passes through a glass container containing various gases. His measurements showed that carbon dioxide and water vapour absorb IR. They were, and are, greenhouse gases.

Towards the end of the 1890s, Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase our world’s temperature by 4C to 6C.

In 1965, President Johnson made a speech to Congress that included a reference to rising CO2 levels:-

‘Within a few short centuries, we are returning
to the air a significant part of the carbon
that was extracted by plants and
buried in the sediments during half a billion years’

‘Through his worldwide industrial civilization,
Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment.
Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years’

‘By the year 2000 the increase in CO2 will be close to 25%.
This may be sufficient to produce measurable
and perhaps marked changes in climate.’

‘The climate changes that may be produced
by the increased CO2 content could be
deleterious from the point of view of human beings.’

Enjoy

//Remember, 'science relies on theory'.//

And empirical evidence.

//Engineering is based on facts.//

Which came courtesy of science. You're welcome. Those civil engineers working on that bridge? They're using Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian as in Isaac Newton, the famous scientist.

//it is impossible to be completely certain of the data.//

It is impossible to be completely certain of anything. That's why scientists go to such trouble to quantify uncertainty.

//I do not make decisions based on anything but absolutes.//

Yes you do.

//but I am definitely not wrong.//

Yes you are.

//To completely throw the numbers out of whack there are millions of people who defy the rules by smoking a pack or more a day and living to well into their nineties. As opposed to a non-smoker who died of lung cancer.//

Except that those cases of long-lived smokers and short-lived health nuts don't throw the numbers out of whack at all, because the numbers that say smoking is bad for you are averages.

//I put it to you that those experts who are not convinced are getting nothing for their opinion or stance.//

Volunteer scientists? I've yet to encounter any. It's a job, people get paid for it.

//The same cannot be said for the ones pushing the climate change banner. Gore is one of them.//

Gore isn't a scientist. He's a retired politician, who is totally cereal about tracking down manbearpig. Excelsior!

Tony, you cannot be taken seriously if all you do is simply reject a statement or suggestion. Your assertion about science and engineering is at best foggy logic. As I explained, to build a bridge the steel and the concrete are tested and must conform to a set of standards laid down to achieve the desired strength in the resulting bridge. The steel has a pre-concieved strength, so too the concrete. If these two materials come in below the required spec, they will be rejected and not used, until the material with the right specs are found. Climate change cannot boast of such 'actual' numbers. I don't care who said what and who's theory was what. You will find that there is always someone contradicting someone in this damn climate change BS. No one wants to own the fact that a new satellite found that the CO2 levels are 30% more than previously thought and that the CO2 was actually coming from the forests and large areas of plant life. They were shocked to find that unlike previous 'assumptions', the cities emitted so little CO2 it was considered negligible and not worth including in the stats. As for 'getting paid', Gore is 'killing the pig', he's not just getting a wage. I'll say it again, the scientists you claim are climate deniers are not 'making' any money out of this. But you already know this.

//Tony, you cannot be taken seriously if all you do is simply reject a statement or suggestion. Your assertion about science and engineering is at best foggy logic.//

Seriously? You don't get the connection between science and engineering? The mind boggles, ALTRAVinglunatic.

Perhaps an example from a different field of engineering might help you. Why do you think electrical engineering didn't really become a thing until after scientists got a decent handle on electromagnetism?

//As I explained, to build a bridge the steel and the concrete are tested and must conform to a set of standards laid down to achieve the desired strength in the resulting bridge. The steel has a pre-concieved strength, so too the concrete.//

OK...

How do you know what the appropriate standards to test for are? Well, to determine that somebody has to do experiments to find out what those numbers need to be... science.

And how do you quantify that information? I mean, it's no good if Dr. Bunsen does his experiments and then reports his findings and then has no way to report that data. And if you're measuring quantities and setting those as standards, you need to have some way of making sure that the measurements are standardised. If Dr. Bunsen determines by careful experiment that good concrete slumps in the range of 3-5 units of length but his units of length are hand widths, and he has tiny little Muppet hands whilst the civil engineer suffers from gigantism, then the slump test results won't be meaningful. Welcome to the wonderful world of metrology, the science of measurement and uncertainty (not to be confused with meteorology, the science of weather)... science.

//Climate change cannot boast of such 'actual' numbers.//

It's not my field, but yes, they definitely measure things. And record the results. Because that's what scientists do.

//You will find that there is always someone contradicting someone in this damn climate change BS.//

Yeah, that's one of the other things scientists do. All the time.