Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be sceptical about man made climate change

753 replies

Brioche201 · 12/12/2015 21:11

.. 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?

OP posts:
claig · 13/12/2015 20:06

'What are fossil fuels, in other words?'

Oil, gas

Furiosa · 13/12/2015 20:07

cleig how did those fossil fuel get there?

claig · 13/12/2015 20:08

TalkinPeace that is an amazing result for Le Pen. Quite unexpected according to many pundits' predictions.

GenevaMaybe · 13/12/2015 20:09

I think people are behaving badly towards claig on this thread. It smacks of bullying at this point so maybe take it down a notch?

Lweji · 13/12/2015 20:09

Definitely a bot

claig · 13/12/2015 20:09

'how did those fossil fuel get there?'

Natural processes, I don't know how they are formed exactly, science is not my forte, politics is

Lweji · 13/12/2015 20:10

You are still to prove that politics is your forte, though.

claig · 13/12/2015 20:10

GenevaMaybe, thanks. Smile

CoteDAzur · 13/12/2015 20:12

"'how did those fossil fuel get there?' - Natural processes, I don't know how they are formed exactly, science is not my forte, politics is"

FFS how can anyone be this clueless? Shock

My 10-year-old DD had this at school months ago. She is in primary school.

Furiosa · 13/12/2015 20:14

Don't evade the question, what do you think they are the fossils of?

Lweji · 13/12/2015 20:15

Since when is querying statements bullying?

Anyone who is an expert on politics, and any scientist, should be used to debate. With actual arguments. We are still to get a proper argument from claig.
Other than statements of expertise that turn out to be jokes, and reference to out there politicians who prefer shock tactics, one supposed weather scientist with financial interests in publicly disputing other scientists.
Plus acknowledgement about knowing nothing about the topic in actual discussion.

CoteDAzur · 13/12/2015 20:16

claig - I'll try to say this in the gentlest way possible, given the circumstances:

You need to go educate yourself before you form an opinion.

If you are not willing to educate yourself, you must allow others to educate you on here. That means you need to let go of your preconceptions and prejudices, read, and learn from others.

Your current mix of near-complete lack of (1) accurate information AND (2) the bare minimum scientific base to process it is very unproductive and it is killing every thread you show up in.

claig · 13/12/2015 20:17

Fossil fuels are fuels formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms, off the top of my head.

Lweji · 13/12/2015 20:17

my forte, politics is
And even this is not true (a joke), as you had just said.

Furiosa · 13/12/2015 20:18

Lweji You mean they've passed the Turing Test?! I feel so dumb. Grin

Mistigri · 13/12/2015 20:19

geneva, it's not bullying to ask someone to back up an opinion on a matter of scientific fact with, well, facts.

We all have the right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. It's impossible to have a sensible discussion about climate change with someone who doesn't even understand the carbon cycle (this is not GCSE science; many bright primary school kids could tell you where coal and oil come from), and who knows quite literally nothing about the physical processes that control the earth's climate.

There are political aspects of climate change which are open to debate, of course, but the fundamental science is very uncontroversial and not really "debatable".

Furiosa · 13/12/2015 20:19

claig How long ago do you believe this process happened?

claig · 13/12/2015 20:20

It's a joke, Lweji. You need to learn to lighten up, don't take every statement too seriously, some of them are jokes.

Egosumquisum · 13/12/2015 20:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Lweji · 13/12/2015 20:20

Well, Furiosa, strictly, no.

claig · 13/12/2015 20:21

The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years, off the top of my head

CoteDAzur · 13/12/2015 20:22

Furiosa - Well, it doesn't quite pass the Turing test, does it?

Lweji · 13/12/2015 20:22

But you keep using that argument (which is a joke) to back up your claim that you say is not a joke.

I think some reprogramming is in order.

CoteDAzur · 13/12/2015 20:23

Oh right, "off the top your head". You didn't look it up at all in the hour that passed since you were asked the question Grin

claig · 13/12/2015 20:24

'This. Threads become dominated by you just saying everyone's wrong but you are completely unable to explain or argue why.'

Only because you are asking me what I think about fossil fuels and how they are formed etc. I mentioned Piers Corbyn and how many scientists don't go along with the government consensus and explained why I agree with Corbyn that it is a scam. I have said it is a scam for political reasons in my opinion. It is you who are nitpicking every statement. I think it is a scam, I agree with Piers Corbyn. You ask me why, and I say because that is what I believe.