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.

*doing things to impact on it.
Ooops.

the reason many top scientists aren't allowed an opposite opinion to fe climate change evangelists is because the industry is massively massively funded to the tune of billions. They have a vested interest in promoting the idea of man made climate change. There's plenty of evidence out there to show that much of what the IPCC puts out is flawed and exaggerated. And no, I'm not 'in denial', perhaps you've been 'brainwashed'?

What badguider said:
"...., the planet will survive what we do to it but do you really want to suffer the war and famine that will follow the mass dislocation of populations and food crop failure? Really?"

I agree.

I sounds all philosophical to say "of course the climate changes, humans will just have to adapt" but what that means in practice is millions of people loosing their homes and livelihoods, and the wars and conflict that go with that.

There is no ethical justification not to act now to prevent that as far as we can.

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.

You do realise that it uses power provided mostly from non renewable sources to get the water to your tap?

Stop tilting at windmills, Ellie. I haven't claimed any better sources than science. The planet isn't yet as warm as it was 12,000 years ago. There were no humans causing the previous warm eras.

the reason many top scientists aren't allowed an opposite opinion to fe climate change evangelists is because the industry is massively massively funded to the tune of billions. They have a vested interest in promoting the idea of man made climate change. There's plenty of evidence out there to show that much of what the IPCC puts out is flawed and exaggerated. And no, I'm not 'in denial', perhaps you've been 'brainwashed'?

Do you have anything to back that up. There is plenty of evidence that industry, particularly the petroleum industry funds climate change deniers. Not the other way round.

I think cars are using up most of the power from non renewable sources. The power to get water to the tap is tiny and insignificant by comparison. The non renewable sources are going to run out. In our lifetime probably. That is going to impact on us humans massively. But it's unlikely to impact on the environment.

the IPCC is not a reliable source of impartial information on climate change. It's big big business. Huge.

The planet isn't yet as warm as it was 12,000 years ago. There were no humans causing the previous warm eras.

Which proves nothing really except that global warming can be caused by forces other than greenhouse gases.

Stop tilting at windmills, Ellie. I haven't claimed any better sources than science. The planet isn't yet as warm as it was 12,000 years ago. There were no humans causing the previous warm eras

That's really not the point. The planet goes through all sorts of changes, this we know. We are, in fact, just coming out of the end of an ice age, so you could use that as an explanation of why things are getting warmer.

But that doesn't take into account things like the rate of the warming & the nature of it. It's staggeringly simplistic to say things like "Well, it was this warm 12,000" years ago and that wasn't our fault". Indeed not - but natural climate change is much, much slower than what we're currently seeing & there is an immense body of evidence that demonstrates the role we are (very, very likely to be) playing in this.

I strongly suggest you read the actual data, garlic and familiarise yourself on exactly why it is that almost all scientists (you know, those people who have PhDs & have devoted their lives to research) are convinced that we are, at the very least, partly to blame.

Garlicbaubles - but the point is that human civilisation has grown up in an era of climate stability. Anthropic climate change is endangering that. Yes the earth has had hotter periods, but not while supporting a human population of billion.

Is it human arrogance to that people matter, maybe, but the alternative is worse.

happybublebrain, in a way I think the exact opposite to you. Even if there was no such thing as human driven climate change ( which I don't believe), surely it still makes sense to do the things we are being asked to do. I think everyone can agree thAt things like petrol and industry fumes are not great for anybody's health, nobody wants new landfill sites to be built next to their home or to have water cuts or even electricity cuts when they could have been avoided, etc., etc

It is patronising to assume that no-one who disagrees with you is capable of reading source data. It's also typical of those with gigantic agendas to pursue, who do whatever they can to suppress data that does not support their case.

MeeWhoo - but our running out of non renewable fuels cannot be avoided. They are going to run out, especially at the rate we are going. And that won't have an impact on the enviromment.

You don't have to do everything you are told. Always question it.

It is patronising to assume that no-one who disagrees with you is capable of reading source data. It's also typical of those with gigantic agendas to pursue, who do whatever they can to suppress data that does not support their case.

I think the people arguing that AGW is happening would much rather it wasn't. What do you think is driving our agenda?

The planet isn't yet as warm as it was 12,000 years ago. There were no humans causing the previous warm eras.

For fuck's sake, is this a serious opinion? What exactly are you arguing here? Noone is denying that the climate of the earth changes for all sorts of reasons, and that over the course of millennia it changes significantly. Also, species become extinct over time, because they fail to adapt quickly enough to the changes. This is normal an natural.

What is happening at the moment is a hugely accelerated version of this, and whilst there are all sorts of reasons why this may be happening, te evidence overwhelmingly supports human activity as the cause of this unprecedented acceleration. The effect of this change will be the same as any natural change in climate - many species will fail to cope and after a period of decline will become extinct. But because the rate of change is so extreme, the number of species that will be affected will be vast. It's going to be chaos.

And even if we consider that extinction and environmental change is normal (albeit not at the current rate), it's still pretty rubbish if you are the species suffering. The planet will become smaller due to rising sea levels, water supplies will become unpredictable, agriculture will be extremely difficult in an unpredictable climate. Millions/billions of people will starve; global wars will be started over resources; it's going to be horrible. Not to mention all the wonderful diversity of life that will also be wiped out. Why would you want this to happen? Why would you not take steps to try to prevent this? Why just say 'oh well, these things happen naturally, so let's not worry about it'?! Even if there is doubt that we are causing it (and there really isn't), surely we should ere on the side of caution, because if we do take steps it's only a smallish effort that is needed, and if we don't it could be catastrophic.

I don't care if the world was uninhabitable for humans millennia ago; I don't want it to be uninhabitable now.

It is patronising to assume that no-one who disagrees with you is capable of reading source data

I didn't say you were incapable of reading it, I'm suggesting you haven't bothered. I'm basing that on your comments about polar bears & how warm it was 12,000 years ago. Try familiarising yourself with the science before trying to refute it, eh?

Happybubblebrain -

Non renewable fossil fuels are also used for the electricity supply - coal and gas fired power stations, as well as for heating in homes (gas), it is not just cars.

You are right, turning off the taps in the uk is fairly marginal, but still it is not a hardship to reduce waste in this way (or to design plumbing systems to recycle grey water...).

In many places there are real water shortages. And in dry places where they do a lot of pumping and desalination water supplies are a big energy user.

It's also typical of those with gigantic agendas to pursue, who do whatever they can to suppress data that does not support their case.

I don't understand what you think these agendas are? The agendas of climate-change deniers is clear; there is a massive investment in tr status quo; the oil industry, car industry, etc., etc., are massively wealthy and powerful and are seriously compromised by the problem of climate change. Who is benefitting on the other side? Renewable energy companies? Not sure they really have the resources to effect this amazing fraud of getting 97% of scientist to pretend to believe in AGW. Who exactly do you think is doing this? It makes no sense at all!

They are going to run out, especially at the rate we are going Good grief, bubblebrain - listen to yourself.

Yes, we are running out of renewable fuels. THAT'S why we need to conserve rather than waste energy. We do not have a viable alternative yet, so let's be careful with what we have until we do! That's logic, surely.

And yes, I agree, question everything. But ignoring masses and masses of scientific evidence is ignorant.

Oh - and we need to limit our usage of plastic bags because they don't degrade very quickly. They end up in the sea causing harm to other creatures. Again, not hard to figure out that it's not a good idea to keep using them, huh?

Illsmum "I don't care if the world was uninhabitable for humans millennia ago; I don't want it to be uninhabitable now." Exactly!!

iismum said: Who is benefitting on the other side? Renewable energy companies? Not sure they really have the resources to effect this amazing fraud of getting 97% of scientist to pretend to believe in AGW.

Exactly!

I went to see a film last night called chasing ice about a group who set up time lapse photography to monitor receding glaciers between about 2005 and 2009. I opened this thread today and I want to cry at the blinkered ignorance and weird belief that this is a political 'left wing' hobbyhorse.
unbelievably

badguider was it filmed each Spring by any chance?!!And without sounding like I'm pigeonholing you, we all have our opinions, and I think someone who goes out to see a film such as that will have their very own strong views on climate change and is quite unlikely to listen to the opposite view.

The precautionary principle
Imagine that there was a 50/50 split between climate scientists between doom and "normality".
Would any sane person choose to take the risk ?

But human civilization is not sane.