Supporters of AGW science now. If the scientific community changed its' mind would you change yours?

Yes, I would.

If I were interested in politics, I would spend my internet time talking about politics.

If I needed a religion, I would probably choose an actual religion.

And when I need an opinion on a scientific issue, I choose to follow science over conspiracy theories.

I don't get it why skeptics get told this so much by AGW proponents yet still insist that we're all closet communists. If someone strongly supported communism, they would say so loud and proud.

And the "it should be about evidence not consensus" argument is also lame. The consensus exists because of the overwhelming evidence, the two go hand in hand. If the evidence were not there, the consensus would not exist.

Yes and eagerly because I have no political bias or need for AGW to be true. I would wonder what difference this would make in society if AGW was proved to be false.It would seem as though it would be appropriate to have celebrations around the world because a disaster was averted. I think some would celebrate and others would be more comfortable in their lifestyle choices to be sure. But we do face real environmental issues with or without AGW so I think not a lot would actually change. The left would find a new cause to save the planet and the right would resist moving away from capitalism. So, I just don't think it would make a real big difference which would show it is as much of a political and philosopical issue as a scientific one.

If the fundamentals of AGW were found to be wrong, that means some very basic physical concepts would have to be wrong as well. This would be hard to swallow, so I'd have to do some research first, rather than blindly following what the scientific community has to say.

Generally, however, the scientific community follows the evidence, so it'd be a pretty good indicator.

But I would change my mind if new evidence came out refuting all previous understanding.

Extremely easy to prove you wrong on all but a few technicalities and semantics. The impression I get is that even if faced with something right under your nose you'd still deny it. All of these (and many more points) have been shown to be wrong time and time and time again. Question global warming by all means but don't keep perpetuating baseless nonsense. For "I doubt I'll see answers" read "I'll ignore all answers that don't support my preconceived beliefs" 1. That variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries; Temperature records 2. That humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate; Quantum mechanics 3. That computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate; Not all natural factors but certainly the significant ones. Read papers I linked in one of your other answers 4. That sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities; Depends on definition of 'dangerous'. Islands have already flooded, a million refugees. Search Bhola, Cartaret, Kibari... 5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes; 99% certainty, basic epidemiological criteria, Google it 6. That human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past; Governed by evolution and species adaptability 7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions; Go look for yourself 8. That the polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes; Most can live outside the Arctic but in the Arctic some species are threatened. Research their breeding and feeding requirements. 9. That hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency; Global weather records 10. That data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends. Compare them to satellite telemetry - same results

Sure, it's about the science to me. I don't think anyone sees me on here advocating AGW mitigation anyway, so they should be able to tell it's not about the politics. I definitely don't have any grudge against the oil industry--I'm a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists and have even interviewed with Shell Oil in the past. I've even looked for an unused oil pump jack to put my front yard, although I doubt the homeowner's association would go along with it.

It takes decades for widely accepted scientific theory to be overturned. If AGW theory is as widely accepted as you proponent often claim, there could be irrefutable evidence that comes out tomorrow and many would dismiss it as a single study, inconclusive etc. Then it would take years or decades of repeating the process and verifying results and the transition would be slow and mostly unnoticed.

It's great that so many proponents on here will surely say "of course I would." But they wouldn't give up without a fight. The most frustrating thing about all of this is that many use the science to justify policy opinions. There are a few on this board, and of course probably many more out in the real world who transcend this, but using science that lacks the proper certainty to justify policy opinions and decisions is the ultimate bastardization and usery of an institution which I admire.

Yes I'd change my mind. It is possible there is some variable we don't know about, but so far all the variables denialists come up with don't explain anything other than their agenda to obfuscate reality. After looking into the GW pseudodebate characterized by such pieces of fraudulent crap as 'the great global warming swindle" http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/16/bo... it has become clear to me that:

Proponents of AGW science try to show the data on multiple levels and be as precise as possible.

Deniers of AGW try to muffle, obscure, warp, hide, twist and cherry pick the data to their liking in ways that are so obvious and desperate that anyone with half a brain can see it. They follow after their creationist kin by picking trivial facts and blowing them out of proportion while ignoring the much bigger picture.

Most likely. I'm not a scientist, so I more or less would have to as my understanding of the science is based on what scientists say. I wouldn't just blindly accept the change, but neither would I blindly cling to my current stance.

_

I would be very surprised that so many scientists had got it so wrong. I would also be very scared about all that 'excess energy in the biosphere' (JA 2008). If we are not causing the anthroprocentric part of AGW, then we could stand even less chance of taking action in the hope that AGW can be slowed or reduced in future.The new theory would have to be a convincing one and clear, extensive evidence would have to support it.

With the above caveats, yes, of course I would change my mind. Even a 1% possibility is a possibility. The explanations we have are not a perfect fit, only the best fit we have at present.

Only a fool does not learn in the light of clear, convincing new evidences.

I assume you mean the corrupted government sponsored scientific community, as, as we all know, the independent free thinking scientific community have no need to change their minds, they already know AGW is a rubbish discredited theory!