to be sceptical about man made climate change

[Brioche201]

.. to a layperson like myself the evidence does not seem robust (record antarctic ice caps) .Even if it were true 'the climate' is such a complicated thing affected by thousands of factors.Is it likely that changing just one or 2 of the factors that are within out control would make a difference (or even that the difference would be in the right direction)
Do you still believe in man made climate change or think it is mainly rooted in politics?

'Again, what's your reasoning behind only listening to the minority view?'

I have said it many times, I believe it is political and is a scam and therefore I leave it up to the sceptic scientists to battle it out with the government grant sponsored ones at the University of Anglia Climategate etc ones.

Claig
You say its political
That does not absolve you from any ability to test the political views
What would happen if one of your seers changed their mind ?
Would you blindly change with them
or would you analyse the information

What is your political view on voter registration ?
Do you test the evidence?
Or accept blindly?

So, Piers Corbyn who owns a company that supposedly makes weather predictions and makes a living out of predicting the weather, had no vested or financial interest in being a high profile sceptic?

'That does not absolve you from any ability to test the political views
What would happen if one of your seers changed their mind ?'

It would depend who they were and how credible i though they were. If they were on the Guardian staff, I would most probably discount it. I would change my mind if I believed it was real, I don't, just like 40% of the public and like the possible next President of the United States.

'What is your political view on voter registration ?
Do you test the evidence?
Or accept blindly?'

I don't understand the issue swell enough as I haven't got time to study everything. As afar as I understand it, it was brought in to cut out some possible fraud in registration and now everyone has to register individually which seems to make sense, but there is a risk that some people will fall off teh register if they don't take action and register. As far as I understand it, it seems to make sense.

Claig but what do you know about the science? Again I have to ask what do you think happens to the carbon that humans release into the atmosphere?

Please give me your best guess!

Claig, you are curiously obsessed with coffee and biscuits. Have you run out? Can we send you some?

Meanwhile, can you name me an area of contemporary science that is entirely uncontested and where there is total agreement that our knowledge of the subject is complete?

'had no vested or financial interest in being a high profile sceptic?'

I doubt it. If he had toed the line and gone along with the game, I assume he would have received soe grants and been praised to the rafters on TV, been a constant guest on the BBC and been in line for a knighthood. But as it is, he has to do the tough work of breaking down the lies.

'Have you run out? Can we send you some? '

No, I have just received my latest supplies of cantuccini mandorla - fabulous stuff, goes great with an espresso.

'Meanwhile, can you name me an area of contemporary science that is entirely uncontested and where there is total agreement that our knowledge of the subject is complete?'

No, but I am not a scientist, I suppose that lots of it is uncontested, but there are lots of areas that aren't and that is why there is argument across most spheres

With reality you can't simply decide to believe something and then pick the evidence you want.
You can decide that humans have nothing to do with climate change or that climate isn't changing fast, but that won't change what is happening or the reasons why.
You'd do better to read and understand the evidence collected and then decide.

Governments don't want hassle. Why would they fake human made climate change?
I bet most are praying it never happens.

Tell you what claig
put your efforts into Voter registration
but there is a risk that some people will fall off teh register if they don't take action and register.
Does not even come close.
Tens of thousands of wives are finding themselves dropped off the roll because they do not realise that despite living where they do for years, they do not exist
same with their kids
and students
and those who move for work

Voter registration was changed to deal with a problem for which there was no evidence
and has created a much bigger problem

its a bit like the "problem" of vested interests masking the much bigger problem of human society screwing itself

For the record, there are probably very few areas of science that gather a 100% consensus. If any.

'Claig but what do you know about the science? Again I have to ask what do you think happens to the carbon that humans release into the atmosphere?'

I know little about the science, I don't know what happens to the carbon, I thought it helped plants grow.

No, but I am not a scientist, I suppose that lots of it is uncontested, but there are lots of areas that aren't and that is why there is argument across most spheres

I asked because you have set an unreasonable test for climate science - for there to be complete unanimity that our knowledge is complete and correct. I'm not aware of any field of contemporary science where that state exists.

Really. Educate yourself on the subjects you want to talk about.

don't argue with fools, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

claig than answer me this:

If you know so little why are you so sure you are right?

I don't think you are being unreasonable to doubt that climate change is being caused by man. I think it's happening, but personally believe that it is more of a natural cycle. The climate has been changing for centuries, it can hardly be down to the advent of cars and planes!
However, I do believe that we need to prepare for the rise in sea levels, and more extreme weather, both of which the government seem quite happy to ignore. Their total interest in climate change (note that they've changed the name, from global warming, since they now admit that they got it wrong) seems to be in adding tax to certain services and products - none of which is being spent in counteracting the effects of climate change.

'Governments don't want hassle. Why would they fake human made climate change?
I bet most are praying it never happens.'

Governments are made up of here today gone tomorrow politicians, they lose their seats and then they are gone. Decisions that endure are taken at a higher level.

'Why would they fake human made climate change?'

I explained the political reasons way up the thread - taxation, population control, lower growth, world regulation, deindustrialiation, slowing of economic development in the third world etc

'I bet most are praying it never happens.''

Some of them may look stupid, but they aren't that stupid, most of them don't believe a word of it which is why as FreeeWorker 1 asked "if they believed it why didn't they shut down coal fired stations a decade ago?"

'If you know so little why are you so sure you are right?'

Because i usually have a 99% accuracy rate

claig based on WHAT!?!?

Some years ago I gave a presentation on the economic cost of CO2 abatement policy that were being adopted by the uk Govt. My analysis was based on PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data published by the DTI.

I then invited questions from the audience. The first person that stood up was a representative a lobby group representing the renewable industry. His question was:

"Do you want to kill your children?"

Then he sat down. It was at that point I realised no sensible economic or scientific debate was possible on climate change or our response to it.

That is the level the debate has decended to and stayed there over the last decade.

'I asked because you have set an unreasonable test for climate science - for there to be complete unanimity that our knowledge is complete and correct. I'm not aware of any field of contemporary science where that state exists.'

Jassy, you have to realise that I am not the only one, along with Piers Corbyn PhD, who thinks it is a load of old hooey. There are millions of us who don't believe it whatever the BBC might try and say. Even the possible next President of the United States doesn't believe it. Can you imagine what all the back-slapping, clapping politicians holding hands in uniosn in the air must be thinking about the prospect of him tearing the whole thing up and ending the dream they ave all been told to work towards.

You can't force people to believe things, not yet anyway. Trump doesn't believe it, and that will be the end of the whole thing. Piers Corbyn will probably be flown to America to make a speech about it on the White House Lawn and then every puppet on eath will clap Piers Corbyn and if they are lucky they may get a biscuit and a coffee.