Especially because the fact that increased carbon dioxide traps heat radiating from Earth is just that: a proven physical fact. There is absolutely 0 disagreement on that from anyone who isn't a complete fraud.
There is some debate about what the end consequences of that physical fact are, about how much feedback loops affect the overall temperature, about the total contribution of man-made vs natural causes, etc. But saying "Climate scientists argue ..." is like saying "Chemists argue that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen."
It is a grave disservice to climate change prevention to attribute all ills to it. From Wikipedia [1]:
"Coral reefs are dying around the world. Human impact on coral reefs is significant. Coral reefs are dying around the world. In particular, coral mining, pollution (organic and non-organic), overfishing, blast fishing and the digging of canals and access into islands and bays are serious threats to these ecosystems."
I believe we as a global society should err on the side of caution, but I doubt scientists like Freeman Dyson are frauds. Probably climate science is way more complex than generally perceived, but that shouldn't lead us to inaction. I heartily recommend [2].
Argument to complexity is not sound logic, yes, it is complex, if there is an issue with models or margins of error, then that issue needs to be raised, but handwaving "complexity" helps no one.
Otherwise, well said, do agree, humans can be amazingly over-cautious with certain matters like air-travel but with large scale phenomena like climate change we are terribly foolhardy. There is nothing wrong with being prudent.
Regarding the Great Barrier Reef, farm runoff (sediment, nitrogen) has a massive contribution to coral bleaching. Not mentioned once in this article. Warmer waters do contribute but it's not enough for the scale of dieoffs seen. It's been nearly ten years since farmers signed an agreement to reduce runoff, so far they've achieved about 10% and are unlikely to meet 2018 targets, if they keep going at this rate it will take 40 years to reach the stated reduction goals. Farmers hold a lot of sway in Australian politics and I dont see that changing anytime soon.
Thanks for your reply, and sorry I found it this late. I think I digressed more than I should have. My first main point was that not every skeptic is a fraud, as I think we can generally tell their motivations, backgrounds and paycheck signers.
Just like you said, climate change plays a very minor in the destruction of coral reefs, if any at all. My second point is that pretending otherwise is not sound logic, not even smart, as it may hurt the badly needed credibility of climate change warnings.
Moreover, there's a great deal more, as you point out, in terms of environmental threats, than climate change. It is OK if sometimes they are essentially independent issues.
But it's reality. Climate scientists ARE arguing. They know it's very important & yet most people don't think so. My own mother is very progressive, but somehow fails to see the urgency of the situation.
Most people do not understand science one bit. And yet they are living in one great big ball of science.
"Climate scientists argue that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat radiating from earth, creating global warming."
The words "argue that" imply that the matter is still in dispute.