to think climete change is a pile of bollocks?

[moogy1a]

Summers in Britain to get colder and wetter

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20758780

earlier this year," oh no, they're going to get hotter and drier"
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9038988/Climate-change-will-make-UK-new-holiday-destination.html

climate change scients cherry pick the data they need to fit whatever political agenda they need it to fit.
If you start looking into reports, they are a huge mess of completely contradictory results.
I also like the way the term"global warming" has been quietly ditched in favour of climate change as it became increasingly obvious the world wasn't hotting up.

This in general is a very refreshing thread to read :)

To all who think a typing error is more significant than an opinion on scientific research, my apologies. I was typing one handed whilst bf'ing teeny 2 week old.
Ellie wtf has evolution got to do with my views on climate change? I have never questioned the theory of evolution as from what I can see, there is overwhelming evidence that it's fact, as opposed to climate change.
Who remembers the fuss a year ago about the BBC not showing any viewpoints from scientists who disagreed with the whole climate change theory? They ended up admitting that they only allowed the one viewpoint to be aired. perhaps that's why so many people think 97% of the scientific community share the view. The opposers aren't allowed a voice.
In fact, here's a report on it
www.express.co.uk/posts/view/365640/BBC-blasted-over-climate-change-bias-
yes yes, I know it's a report from a newspaper which some of you seem to disapprove of, but without access to a whole symposium of scientists to give a real time, personal opinion, I can only go on what's reported ( as does evrybody)

I'm sorry Ellie but if you are getting your "facts" from the Express then you are just proving our point.

That should be Moogy not Ellie. Sorry.

From the article "The GWPF describes itself as ?open?minded on the contested science of global warming? but ?deeply ­concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies ­currently being advocated?."
As I said above, its the economic implications of acting on climate change that has many politicians concerned'. unfortunately they are wrong, the economic impilcations of not acting on it will be catastrophic.

Well I think so far I've got the reports from the BBC, Telegraph, and now the Express. I'm sure I could get the whole spectrum of political bias but I don't think it would make much difference as they are all just printing the press releases given to them.

So , opinions on the BBC's bias towards climate change believers?

Perhaps the BBC is biased in favour of science. That is the way it should be. On the other hand you have the Daily Mail that prints articles saying that the Met office has quietly released a report showing that there has been no warming for the last 15 years. Except the Met office say that there has been no such report and the earth is warming. I would prefer the BBC telling the truth to newspaper lies any day.

But the BBC have admitted they are not giving the airtime to scientists who disagree with the opinion that there is unprecedented climate change.
Not very scientific to ignore all evidence and opinions from a large number of climatologists, is it?

There are some people, who claim to be scientists who dont believe in evolution. How much airtime should they get?

In my experience, moogy people who start ranting about scientists with political agendas and other such crap usually feel the same way about the evidence for evolution.

Science is ALL about data & evidence. Yes, of course individual scientists have their biases, but the scientific method is designed to bypass this. A scientist cannot simply proclaim something as a fact all by themselves, they have to demonstrate it to the satisfaction of all the other scientists in the field through an extremely important process called peer review.

If someone was trying to slant their findings in one direction, it would be sussed very quickly indeed. There is a reason that the vast, vast majority of scientists believe in climate change - that's because the evidence supports it. If you believe you have grounds to show that they are wrong, then present your evidence, open it to peer review & win yourself a Nobel Prize if you're right.

Sorry, but you are presenting yourself as very ignorant here.

I think the BBC is saying they are not giving them equal air time. Giving them anything more than 3% is disproportionate.

I tend to agree with you, OP. Earth's climate is changing because it always does. CO2 levels have been at least as high as they are now, at several periods in the planet's history, entirely without the help of combustion engines and so forth. I think it's typical human arrogance to assume we control the climate; not unlike people of old who reckoned they controlled it via rituals and sacrifices.

There's so much crap on this thread it's laughable. Sea levels have been rising for at least 12,000 years. Sea-bed fossils at the tops of mountains are there because of the mountains rising, not falling oceans. Polar bears sit on ice floes to sunbathe and fish, they were not homeless.

There's nothing wrong with being biased towards science.

If I wanted to know what was going to happen with the stars next year, I would listen to Brian Cox not Mystic Meg. I am biased in favour of facts, as is the BBC. Thank fuck.

Sea-bed fossils at the tops of mountains are there because of the mountains rising Er....familiar with the term "plate tectonics"?

If someone was trying to slant their findings in one direction, it would be sussed very quickly indeed

Oh, come off it. People who should know better believed that polar bear story. The world's governments sat down to throw money and power at a problem which had been misrepresented to them - they were looking at a chart of rates of change, believing it showed actual temperature changes.

I don't know whether those folks are thick or just pretending to be thick in order to push their agendas.

Met office have a superb guide to climate change including temperature records if anyone wants to read further.

Ellie, somebody said upthread that fishy fossils up mountains show sea levels have fallen dramatically. They don't show that at all.

And that story was refuted was it, garlic? Who by?

That's right. Scientists.

The bbc doesn't give equal airtime to flat earth believers either or alien abduction believers.
Same situation.

I'm not sure, but environmentalists certainly cause a lot of smug.

The evidence for man made climate change is extremely strong and it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the field as other posters have noted.

Climate change predictions are liable to change because they are based on statistical models, which are complex and sometimes flawed, and which have to be adjusted as more data becomes available.

Science reporting in the mainstream media is generally pretty poor as noted n the Leveson submissions. Climate change reporting is especially bad as it's frequently informed by misinformation campaigns by climate change deniers. There are some well-funded, mainly US based groups; the money trail always goes back to business interests which are incompatible with a world where man made climate change is a given.

You can believe man made climate change is a load of nonsense if you like, but you have to accept it's just that, a matter of belief, and not evidence. The details of how climate change will affect us are less clear but that's because predictions are always uncertain.

Do you not think that climate scientists do not take all that into account garlicbaubles? They call it Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming because of course there can be warming due to other causes. The science suggests the planet is warming due to our actions.

I dont think smug is a term I'd associate with most environmentalists. Concerned is a more apt term.

well put sinpan.

I don't know if the climate is changing or not, or whether us humans are doing thing impact on it. I'm no scientist.

But I do know we are being asked to do things in the name of the 'environment' which have no impact on the environment whatsoever. These things are a scam.

As an example - how does saving water impact on the environment.? We are asked to turn the tap off and using less water. The water we let run down the tap just goes back into the system. You can't waste water.

And recycling - that has no impact on the weather either. It just saves someone somewhere money.

Paying for plastic bags?

We are fed some complete nonsence and most people buy it without question.