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?

Because i usually have a 99% accuracy rate

Hahahahahahaha...

'Voter registration was changed to deal with a problem for which there was no evidence'

But if that is the case, then why isn't Corbyn asking questions about it at PMQ and reading out letters from Mildred about it and why isn't it at the top of Labour's agenda?

I don't know enough about it, maybe you are right, but I haven't seen a big fuss being created over it politically.

Scientists and many politicians have been calling it climate change for decades. The UNFCCC (the last two Cs are 'climate change') was negotiated in 1992.

It's become more widespread in the last decade partly as a response to the sort of idiots who'd look out of their window and say 'it's snowing! So much for your global warming!'

Curious how misinformation lingers, isn't it?

Still waiting for that 99% accuracy rate explanation.

'claig based on WHAT!?!?'

Based on my knowledge of politics, just as James Delingpole bases his opinions about it based on his knowledge of politics. I may be wrong, but that is what I believe based on my knowledge. There are millions who believe like me that it is not real and is made up, among them the possible future President of the United States, and if he becomes President I believe you will see puppets in our parliament change their mind and start agreeing with him.

Look, it's not worth bothering, folks.

But since you asked, Claig, scientists don't get awarded grants 'to study the case against climate change'. FFS, how on earth would you submit a grant proposal like that?

You study:
-whether plants do or do not grow more in response to CO2
-whether observed climate patterns can or cannot be accounted for by current climate models
-what the effects would be of drier/wetter/hotter/colder climate, on tropical/desert/arctic/tundra species
-what indicators there are of temperature changes in the past and what records can be found for plant and animal life during the same eras...

etc, etc.

'It's become more widespread in the last decade partly as a response to the sort of idiots who'd look out of their window and say 'it's snowing! So much for your global warming!''

Yes, it became awkward on BBC phone-ins when listeners phoned up and said that. The BBC was stumped so a new world had to be found fast.

Yes, it became awkward on BBC phone-ins when listeners phoned up and said that. The BBC was stumped so a new world had to be found fast

I'm not arguing against the idea that the scientific knowledge of most journalists, including local BBC presenters, is woeful.

Luckily, they didn't need a new word. The accurate one already existed and was in scientific and political use.

The BBC was probably not stumped so much as eye-rolling at the sort of chump who would phone in and say that.

claig I mean this seriously so please answer - how old do you believe the Earth is?

I think I'm getting the hang of this thinking.

People Don't Know Stuff - therefore Stuff Is Wrong.

Is that it?

Oooh, can I guess, Furiosa? does it involve Ussher?

claig
I don't know enough about it, maybe you are right, but I haven't seen a big fuss being created over it politically.
Because politics is bollocks and people who base their life decisions on it are muppets

two birds with one stone

'But since you asked, Claig, scientists don't get awarded grants 'to study the case against climate change'. FFS, how on earth would you submit a grant proposal like that? '

That is what I suspected. Before committing $100 billion of our taxpayer money to developing countries, shouldn't our political class have asked the top sceptics and the top climate alarmists to present their work and evidence to find out which case made the most sense. Should Piers Corbyn PhD not have been asked to explain his views to a Parliamentary Commissio or whatever it is called, a bit like the one where they invited Russell Brand to address them with his knowledge on drugs? We are spending billions on this, our steel industry has higher energy costs than Germany's due to this and we had to close some steel plants partialy due to teh uncompetitiveness of our energy costs, shouldn't no expense have been spared to see if it was real?

'Because politics is bollocks and people who base their life decisions on it are muppets'

Exactly, why do you think people are voting for Donald J Trump? They have had enough of the scams, spin and lies.

They have.

But you don't start by 'studying the case against'. You ask an either/or question, or a 'what happens if...' question. That's why I gave some examples.

Anyhow, a 'top alarmist' and 'top sceptic' is not a job title. Try 'scientist' or 'researcher'.

'No expense spared'? Though you objected to people taking payment as it made them biased Make your mind up.

'how old do you believe the Earth is?'

I have no idea.

Ah.

You are, in fact, just taking the piss.

Fair play to you. I thought you were for real.

Brioche, we've derailed your thread.
Did any of it help?
Does it help at all to know that it is indeed bloody complicated ?

"I would change my mind if I believed it was real, I don't"

Change your mind when you see the evidence and see that it is real.

Information is what is missing from what you passes for reasoning in your universe.

"just like 40% of the public"

What public? In the UK, 9/10 people say climate change is happening and 84% attributing this somewhat or entirely to human activity. 2/3 say they are concerned by global warming.

"and like the possible next President of the United States."

Trump is a racist nutcase who will never be US president. Just like your other favourite, UKIP didn't win the election.

Why should we care what Americans believe anyway? About half are Creationists, half of them believe they are protected by guardian angels, a quarter say they have witnessed miraculous healing, and a whopping 40% believe that the Earth is no older than 10,000 years old.

Tell the truth claig. You are an American who is paid to troll MN promote this sort of disinformation, aren't you?

''No expense spared'? Though you objected to people taking payment as it made them biased Make your mind up.'

If we can pay for MPs' bath plus, I think we can pay for Piers Corbyn PhD to present his evidence to a Parliamentary Committee of the best and brightest barristers from Oxbridge that climate change is a scam.

Put it live on the BBC and have a red nose vote day and let's see what the public who pay for all of this and all of the bath plugs think about it.

how old do you believe the Earth is?

Answer:

I have no idea

Says the person on the internet! Case closed!

Move along now people, there's nothing to see here.

"Because i usually have a 99% accuracy rate"

I'm joining Soup in going HAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHA at this one.

I really really hope that you are a troll just having fun, claig. The alternative of a sad man who truly believes the nonsense he posts AND thinks he is right 99% of the time is just too heartbreaking to consider.