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?

"It is equally stupid making policy on an assumption of zero scientific progress, which is what we are now doing."

The smart thing to do is to take steps to avoid worst case scenarios, which is what we are trying to do.

That is the smart thing to do because we don't get another chance since we don't have a second planet at hand. Even if you believe the probability of a climate catastrophe is low, the potential outcome is so terrible that you must understand that the risk (= probability x outcome) cannot be ignored.

Well, yes, I think cold fusion is probably best ignored. Suspect that wasn't quite what Cote meant to say.

Mind you, some of the 'hot fusion' guys didn't exactly inspire confidence. I'm hoping they have gone beyond the stage when they used to send earnest cartoons in multicoloured felt pen to accompany otherwise serious scientific articles.

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

Simply not true.

The term global warming was coined in 1975.

Climate change/modification was before that. See the date on this paper here?

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

50 years from now, and probably sooner, skeptics of man-made climate change will be looked at in a similar manner to flat earthers

Perhaps, yes - or maybe they'll be seen in the same light as Galileo, who was persecuted for rejecting the "settled science" which insisted the sun orbited the earth?

We do have rather more data than the 'establishment astronomers' did in Galileo's time, though.

We need to understand the climate for obvious reasons.
But when the so called climate scientists talk about the permenant drought in Australia
The permenant drought in the USA
and the permenant drought in the UK

it's clear that they do not know what they are talking about.

It is also clear that there are some here with very short memories, if they do not remember these drought scares.

"Galileo, who was persecuted for rejecting the "settled science" which insisted the sun orbited the earth?"

"Settled science"? Is that what you call the dogma of the Catholic Church?

FFS if people can't tell the difference between science in the year 2015 and Catholic Church saying Earth is fixed and Sun orbits around Earth because the Bible said so, what hope do we have of any real understanding of climate change?

That's perfectly true, Lancelottie - but data can be falsified, and isn't it often the interpretation where the questions arise?

Let's not forget the heliocentrists were absolutely certain they were right, too

Cote,

Modelling large and complex systems is still more art than science. This leaves a lot of room for bias, hence the large disparities in studied depending on who is funding them.

"Settled science"? Is that what you call the dogma of the Catholic Church?

No of course I don't, but it's what the church (the authority at the time) certainly called it; what's more they expected their word to be accepted without question ...

Egosum
If the models get it wrong, we end up building massively expensive desalination plants in Australia, just before the floods come.

We end up trying to tell the poor folk in Cumbria to paddle out of that 2 metre deep permenant drought.

we should not be listening to these fools who base their 'science' on computer models

"heliocentrists were absolutely certain they were right, too"

Because they based their opinion on the Bible. They had faith, not observations, measurements, and projections.

Much like claig blindly agreeing with Piers Corbyn without understanding any of the science underlying climate change discussions.

Well, the powerful Akkadian empire collapsed due to an abrupt climate change resulting in reduced rainfall and extended drought.

Mind you, I do have a long memory - the demise of the Akkadian empire was in around 4150 BP.

larry - "Modelling large and complex systems is still more art than science."

The answer to that, again, is:

The smart thing to do is to take steps to avoid worst case scenarios, because we don't get another chance since we don't have a second planet at hand. Even if you believe the probability of a climate catastrophe is low, the potential outcome is so terrible that you must understand that the risk (= probability x outcome) cannot be ignored.

Cote,

Global warming is one of many catastrophes (nuclear war, pandemics, meteorite strike). We have no meaningful way of calculating which costs more according to statistical expectation. We cannot throw trillions at all if them and isolating climate change is mere bias.

Cote
the problem with climate science is that it predicts more rain/less rain
more heat/less heat more floods/less floods
more snow/less snow more sea ice / less sea ice
more clouds / less clouds
more storms/less storms

It is not science. It's an un falsifiable religion

Isn't that a bit like saying you might as well smoke, because you might be killed by falling bricks?