yes, but they don't necessarily believe absolutely everything in science.
do you think those global warming scientists are infallible?

@callmedubious believing in science INCLUDES the belief in the scientific method. Which is self correcting..
I don't think you are an actual believer in science (or don't understand it fully) or you wouldnt be asking that kind if question.

@hippydog ,
are you a scientist?

"Skeptics still believe in science." your words.
you didn't mention empirical or theory.
are you implying that everything that shows up in a report should never be questioned?
you don't think they can make mistakes & their models can be wrong.
frankly, i don't think you know what you're talking about.

@callmedubious

"are you a scientist?"
.. no.

"your words. "
.. Yes.. my words.. my opinion.. one thats shared by all the actual organized skeptic groups..

"you didn't mention empirical or theory."
.. don't have to.. its automatically implied and included with the scientific method.

"are you implying that everything that shows up in a report should never be questioned?"
.. scientific method.

"you don't think they can make mistakes & their models can be wrong."
.. scientific method.

"frankly, i don't think you know what you're talking about"
...
Frankly i think your just another one of those crazy conspiracy theorists.. no better then a flat earther.

Have fun ..
Im out.

@TheAstroChuck ,
''I suspect those conclusions are based on information that has been erroneously taken out of context. Although I have no first hand evidence"

so now even NASA is suspect.

why am i not surprised that you just won't even countenance any report/paper/opinion that dares to differ with your opinion, in which you seem heavily invested, that global warming is just an open & shut case proven beyond any doubt whatsoever? and that there's no possibility that one of their models could possibly have a mistake. or that since most of those scientists are dependent on govt grants/subsidies that they may just be tempted to tweak unfavorable numbers/reports just a little.

@TheAstroChuck ,
'Your suspicions are those of a cynic's. You are not being objective. You put all of your faith in those individuals who happen to think as you do.'

very few people think as i do. the reverse is true. you're with the comfortable majority.

'The evidence started to become solid in the 1990s and has been getting ever stronger through out the 21st century.'

so our planet is 4.6 billion yrs old & you think data from 20 yrs is significant? you're talking about weather not climatology.

i started to get a little more skeptical when i came across some of those reports.
there are even nobel laureates who have published papers in which they disagree with the consensus mainstream view.
i have never trusted my govt or any other govt; and i not going to trust them on this either.

@callmedubious It's okay to be sceptical and especially as a layman itis hard to say who is right but you have to understand that most of the climate change scepticism doesn't come from a place of sincerity but from a multimillion dollar propaganda apparatus of the fossil fuel industry. I also know of a certain nobel laureate who sadly is an obvious fraud.
Also scientists are not the govenment. Especially with the Trump administration science and the government are at odds with one another.

@Dietl ,
scientists are not the govt but many of them depend on grants & subsidies from the govt.
if some top bureaucats have built little empires from the global warming scare they are going to require reports to back them up, regardless.

@callmedubious So how could I trust that you actually believe anything you say and are not just a mouthpiece of your boss? In science there are systems in place which try to counter such manipulation like peer review. Every claim is evaluated by another expert in the field who doesn't rely on your paper passing or not.

@Dietl ,
i've been retired for 20 yrs.
i notice that neither you nor anyone else commented on NASA saying that CO2 is a coolant & not a warming gas.
just waitin for someone to call that junk science.
there is no doubt in my mind that global warming has become a kind of religion for many people.
how many even understand the greenhouse effect?
how many understand that gases in our atmosphere including CO2 prevent our planet from overheating by blocking up to 95% of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet.
i honestly try to keep an open mind on this issue but as i've said before i've never trusted anything the govt says so why should i or anyone else trust them completely on global warming?

@callmedubious Yes our atmosphere blocks some sunlight. Some of that light gets reflected. But it also keeps the light that did get through from leaving. This process is understood very well and for a long time. We now that more CO2 means a warmer climate, there is no denying that.
But again scientists are not the government. They are normal people from all kinds of fields. If you think they are lying then you are willing to accept a worldwide conspiracy that would be easy to disprove by multiple people in the world. But we see a consesus and the only people who deny it are politicians and people sponsored by big business. You somehow don't seem so suspicious of them. And you are willing to value the opinion of some random guy on the internet higher than an actual scientist. It just looks to me like you don't see things very clearly.

@Dietl ,
so you automatically disbelieve everything if it doesn't go along with your preconceived view.
i don't trust any group: politicians, big business & certainly not govt bureaucrats which view
the global warming issue as a great opportunity for a tax grab. neither do i completely trust scientists which are dependent on govt grants/subsidies for their employment.
what would happen if they released a report in which an error was found & the global warming threat wasn't quite as dire? do you think that might affect their funding?

you said 'Some of that light gets reflected. But it also keeps the light that did get through from leaving.'
so you disagree with the NASA scientists who say that overall it has a cooling effect. they could be wrong & you could be right. but they are atmospheric physicists. what are your qualifications?

@callmedubious
"so you automatically disbelieve"
No. I've seen the climate sceptics lie and manipulate on multiple occasions. Their ties to big business just give me their motive.
"the global warming issue as a great opportunity for a tax grab"
If they want to make a tax grab they'd just do it. Like Trump did. Just say it's better for the economy, boom, taxraise. There is no need for a global conspiracy for that.
"what would happen if they released a report in which an error was found & the global warming threat wasn't quite as dire? do you think that might affect their funding?"
No because their job is not to prove anything. It is just to study the climate.
"so you disagree with the NASA scientists"
No because without any atmosphere sunlight would make it very hot here. So overall the gases make it cooler. But that doesn't mean that more CO2 doesn't also make it hotter given our atmposphere because of the greenhouse effect. It's not as simple as gas = cool, no gas = hot.

@Dietl ,
"No because their job is not to prove anything. It is just to study the climate."

that's where we disagree. bureaucrats are bureaucrats, they build empires. if they can get more money, you can't be naive enough to think they won't try whether they need it or not.

anyway, this is it for me i'm finished with this topic. as i said at the outset i don't 100% believe either side of that issue & can't understand how any true atheist could.

@callmedubious Just one little thing. Scientists are not bureaucrats.
Have a nice day!

@Dietl ,
you just don't get it.
have a great day.