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?

Climate does always change. It's the rate at which it does that is concerning.

When northern populations start being ravaged by diseases such as malaria, then it won't be so easy to ignore.

Amicissma - there are a heck of a lot more with vested interest in denying climate change.

I'm with robert and those eminent scientists, especially Profs, Trump and Palin

thanks to the pp who made the point about Bangladesh - one of my friends was banging on about floods in the area and an elderly relative said to him, "er, hello, it's been flooding there since my great grandmother's day" - he honestly thought it was recent because he's read so much propaganda.

I tend to keep quiet because so many people just believe all of it. There are tons of jobs and government jobs linked to it of course, how convenient.

I do ask people why they think the ice age that scientists said should be upon us now, has not materialised. that was in the 70s, so now I'm just told the science is better. Not convinced.

I know there are questions over Nigel LAwson's book on this but I thought it made some interesting points - not least that many people will benefit, health wise, if the earth gets a couple of degrees warmer.

I think overpopulation is the biggest problem but no politician wants to talk about that.

Vindscreen well you do have a point. That Trump fella certainly seems a bundle of good sense to me

considers inviting them to give a lecture

Mass extinctions come from the inability to adapt. Human beings have been as successful as they are because of there ability to adapt.

To my mind I would sooner we start focusing on adapting to potential change than assuming we have a cat in hello chance of stopping what might well be unstoppable regardless

But if sea levels rise Bangladesh won't experience the temporary flooding it experiences now. It will become submerged like the atolls in the Caribbean are now.

Climate change has always happened, remember ice ages and the Victorians skating on the Thames. Also the Romans grew plenty of grapes. I know grapes are grown currently in uk but nothing really changes. Climate variation is inevitable.

The thing is the earth has been a great deal hotter and a great deal cooler in the past. The climate is ALWAYS changing. It was changing well before mankind arrived on the scene.

Up or down 2 degree centigrade is neither here nor there in climate terms.

'not capping emissions gains you far more political points than being a climate change party pooper'

No because you have to understand the elites who run the world and that the politicians are mostly bought and paid for.

''What would anyone gain from pretending this was true, if it was not?'

There are lots of reasons and all revolve around the elites wishing to control population and growth on earth. They want slow growth or green style zero and even negative growth, they want deindustrialisation and a post-industrial world with a drastic reduction in global population in order that ordinary people do not grow and use resources. They want India and China and third world countries to be limited in their growth potential and they want increasing poverty and deindustrialisation in the West partly aided by the transfer of billions of pounds of taxpayer money to the third world. They want humanity to be reduced dramatically in numbers and they want growth, industrialisation, travel and progress to be slashed. We are entering a robotic automation age and there will be fewer jobs for people and they want population reduction.

Who cares if it's man made or not? The planet does not care, Earth will continue to exist for billions of years until it is consumed by the expanding sun.

The real question is 'do we want to do everything we can to make earth inhabitable by humans for as long as possible?'. The earth has finite resources and we cannot exist with the lifestyles we have forever, whether that is 50 years or 50000 years is up to you.

A very large population of this planet live in areas that only very marginally support human life. Too little water, too much water, summer temperatures that are too low or winter rainfall that is too low mean the difference between a sem-normal life and a fight for survival.

Whether climate change is natural or man-made is somewhat irrelevant. It is going to happen. In my (uneducated) opinion, too little is being done to help vulnerable communities adapt and compensate for climate change.

You know amiccissima you have a good point there. I forgot about all those billionaire climate researchers running their data analysis empires from palaces in the Antarctic meteorological stations. I mean if you want to make big bucks every one knows climate science is the game to be in, not oil or chemicals or plastics or automotives. Yes, those climate scientist plutocrats have it all worked out, don't they? Fiendishly clever of them...

It's fine to be sceptical, assuming you have a PhD in climate science, are a competent statistician, and have experience in mathematical modelling ;)

Of course the vast majority of people who do have the above qualifications are not sceptical about it at all - they may have differences of opinion on certain aspects of climate change - like the precise value of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 - but not on the underlying, fundamental science (which is very long established: the link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature has been established for over 100 years).

'I think overpopulation is the biggest problem but no politician wants to talk about that.'

That is the hidden subtext behind the whole thing. They want a global government with legally binding reductions in emissions in order to slow growth and slow population and humanity's progress.

So it's all now politics and saying the right shite! Fuck em all!!!

And the flooding will decrease if it rains/snows less in the mountains too.

Adaptation is indeed key. But can we do it as fast as necessary? Reducing green house emissions would at least slow it down.

Also, the climate fluctuates. 20 years may not be enough to see a trend. Moren than that and it's normal climate evolution. That's why you need models and algorithms.

It's not a black or white issue. But, do people want to risk it being mostly our doing and do nothing about it?
IMO we have more to lose than to gain in ignoring the possibility of human driven climate change.

Mind you the change could be to a colder Earth. It's the sudden change that is the problem.

They want a global government with legally binding reductions in emissions in order to slow growth and slow population and humanity's progress.

What? You actually want the population to grow?

claig - are you saying you think that "reduced emissions" is code for "get global population under control"?

The elites want to make money Claig.

Am genuinely laughing at the lofty dismissal of the overwhelming scientific evidence Base and the assertion that environmentalists and climate change scientists are coining it in. that well known sector of money grabbers.

Look at the pollution levels in China where people cannot breathe the air if you don't believe in man made climate change.

We've been quite lucky so far with our emissions, volcanic emissions & global dimming are cancelling each other out but destroying forests which are carbon sinks & produce oxygen is borderline suicidal.

The oceans as well. Just have to look at geological history of mass extinctions; Permian where the ocean warmed up to release methane & 90% of marine life died.

People might not think a little doesn't hurt but it will a lot.

The Paris agreement is a nonsense. How can a legally binding agreement to lit temperature rise to 1.5 degree actually work?

trikes me the $100 billion of slush money being given to developing countries was the only thing that really was of interest to the leaders of those countries. The developing world paid some money to the developing world so they would not develop.

What a fantastic deal for the poor in those countries. How about we just accept that we should get out of our cars? Well our political leaders know it would be political suicide at the ballot box if they mandated that.

Its a load of tosh that will never be implemented but an awful lot of money will be sloshing around that a lot of people will be getting a piece of.

CORRECTION: The developED world paid some money to the developing world so they would not develop.