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?

UnderCrackers, are you saying that climate scientists are claiming more knowledge or the hydrological cycle than they actually have?

Maybe they just need better error bars?

• of, not or.

Under - re "cote. you are wrong. your conspiracy theory nature is showing. I am not a sock puppet"

Sure. You have not posted anywhere on MN except on this thread, and your 1st post ever is this:

UnderCrackers5 Sun 13-Dec-15 17:14:01
Claig is right.

I rest my case

I think that before we spend trillions, it really would be worth understanding the science properly. Raised carbon dioxide will raise temperatures but by how much is very controversial. Climate is very hard to model and cutting back on emissions causes poverty today, especially among those already struggling to pay for fuel.

Doing nothing is probably not realistic either but we need to take a sensible middle ground.

Fantastic listen it is worth it. Michael Portillo, good on him, is a sceptic. We are all told that Andrew Neill is or that is the view that everyone says, I am not sure on it.

claig please answer my question.

Eh? Did I miss the bit where the entire IPCC review was based on whether Ego used the term light reflectance correctly, Larry?
(Actually I can't even spot that post.)

OK, Undercrackers, it's not 'carbon' It's not 'carbon dioxide' either. Strictly speaking we're talking about 'carbon dioxide equivalents'. Generally in startlingly large quantities like billions of tons.

Oh. A youtube video. My, how convincing. I'll just ignore the massive, overwhelming evidence in favour of MMCC in favour of a nutter on youtube. Who can't tuck his tie into his jumper.

Lancelottie,

It was not one but several posts where he talked about algal blooms causing increased reflectance and raising temperatures, while lecturing claig in a patronising tone.

Larry (with apols for snarky tone above), the bugger is that delaying may well is very likely to cost more and create greater problems long term than starting now and building mitigation policies up or down as more results roll in.

I really wish we could all agree to just ignore claig. This is a subject I'm really interested in but EVERY thread ends up with him/her spouting utter nonsense and linking to websites like Fox News and other posters arguing the toss. Can't we just ignore? You know you're not going to be able to talk sense with someone who seriously quotes Sarah Palin and Tony Abbott.

Ah, found it: you mean 'algae contributes to the reflectance of the sun making the Earth warmer'

yes, just a word missing, I think: algal blooms could mean lower reflectance [lower albedo] thus increased warming. Seems logical.

Ego,

And the algal blooms you referred to earlier? You mentioned increased reflectance, didn't you? And you mentioned this raising temperatures?

There is a real belief in some circles that we could have controlled fusion in 30 to 50 years, a sun in earth and virtually limitless clean energy. If true, why make old people shiver through winters now with an absurd green fuel surcharge.

You are right, free spirits.

I really REALLY wish MNHQ would give us an "ignore poster" button.

Gosh, Ego, I haven't seen anyone talk about the CLAW hypothesis since I wor a young sub - back in the days when those talking about climate change were the rebels, not the establishment.

Betcha it's still in the style manual, along with TTAPS.

Global Warming was first used in the 1980s. The term Climate Change was introduced later.

"There is a real belief in some circles that we could have controlled fusion in 30 to 50 years, a sun in earth and virtually limitless clean energy. If true, why make old people shiver through winters now with an absurd green fuel surcharge."

I was a child when "We're almost there with cold fusion" claims started coming in and that was quite a few decades ago.

It would be a very unwise move to bet the future of our planet on theories about future technologies.

Ego,

Apologies if I used the wrong pronoun. I was using it in the generic sense of someone whose sex I did not know. It is not germane to the debate though.

Cote,

I am talking warm not cold fusion. It is equally stupid making policy on an assumption of zero scientific progress, which is what we are now doing.

freespirit
Claig is irritating, but she is predicable and has saved Brioche the roasting she'd have got had she tried to argue
and actually all of the lurkers are getting to see that discussion play out
claig v. reality
which is useful