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?

Ego,

We can continue to research. We can spend sensible sums in sensible areas with meaningful payback. We don't have to throw absurd sums at dubious and visually polluting technologies. It is not all or nothing.

"Global warming is one of many catastrophes "

And I would like to think that steps are being taken to avoid each of them, where we have the technology to foresee and avoid them.

Why is global warming a catastrophe ?

we could do with a bit more warmth around here

KidLorne - well that 1956 paper was very interesting. See this bit on page 12 Explaining why plants appear to photosynthesise optimally at higher CO2 concentrations than we presently have.

"The simplest explanation of this fact is that the plants evolved at a time when the CO2, concentration was considerably higher than it is today and that the CO2, concentration has been at a higher level during the majority of the ensuing time. This higher CO2, concentration would have caused higher temperatures than today during most of the earth's history. In fact, the geological evidence shows that the earth has had a warm climate for at least nine-tenths of the time since the Cambrian period."

In other words the earth has been a lot hotter with higher concentrations of CO2 than today well before mankind started burning fossil fuel and plants evolved to deal with that. Seems to suggest the current warming is to be expected regardless of what we do and plants will eventually absorb much of that rise in CO2 by more rapid photsynthesis.

The Cambrian period was when multicellular life exploded onto earth.

In Roman and Viking times, they grew grapes around here, for wine.

I would like it to be that warm.

The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now.
Our problem is that today's society and cities are not prepared for either. A changing environment means upheaval, in a greater scale than the Syrian refugees.

*In Roman and Viking times, they grew grapes around here, for wine(

There was also malaria in the South of England and around Rome.

Lweji
good point, and absolutely spot on.

I would like to add that the thing that makes the difference is wealth. Rich countries will survive natural disasters a lot better than poor ones.

So lets stop wasting our treasure on climate nonsense and concentrate on lifting the world out of poverty

and there is malaria in Siberia today. so your point is ?

We can continue to research. We can spend sensible sums in sensible areas with meaningful payback. We don't have to throw absurd sums at dubious and visually polluting technologies. It is not all or nothing

Which technologies are they?

The point is that being warmer is not necessarily a good thing.

Freeworker and that has precisely what to do with your completely wrong claim about the terms?

"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"

You seem to be confusing weather with climate. Yes, there won't be a uniform rise in temperature to enable everyone to sit on a sun lounger and drink sangria, but that's for the same reason that the weather is different across the world.

It is a science to anyone who bothers to actually read the science, rather than pretending to ignore it because it's more convenient that way.

I must say, I'm very, very bored with claig appearing on threads like this, making all sorts of nonsense assertions based on what she's read in the Mail, stonewalling all posts trying to get a rational response from her, and then when she is completely backed into a corner claiming she was joking and disappearing. We're going to see it again and again before the US election, so I suggest everyone assume from the outset that that is the route she is going to take and ignore her from then on.

KidLorne - I read the paper and it says that the earth has had a warm climate about 90% of the time since the Cambrian period.

Would you like to respond to that?

As for the term 'global warming' or 'climate change'.

I am referring to the media term that became widely used in the 1990s whenever politicians and anyone else in the environmental lobby was pushing and spinning the idea at the general public they used 'global warming'. They changed the political spin and started calling it 'climate change' once the general public started to notice news reports that temperatures had stopped rising and actually many people pointed out they would like a warmer climate.

This entire debate is fundamentally about political use and abuse of science. Of course scientists used the terms 'global warming' to describe surface temperature rises and 'climate change' to describe long term climatic effects.

Its the spin, the influencing of public opinion by presenting a skewed view of the science by people who have a direct financial or political interest that I resent.

Dipankrispaneven, you can ignore me, I just disagree with you.

I am not backed into a corner, I said from the beginning, I don't think it is about science, I think it is about politics. I haven't criticised anyone else's posts or views, I have only replied when people asked me to. So ignore me if you don't like what I believe.

Claig, someone who admits that she knows nothing about science but disagrees with 97% of reputable scientists based on her perception of politics, and who, when confronted with the facts, says she joking - is certainly backed into a corner.

Ego - yes but the point is the planet was warm in the past for a lot of its history. It had nothing at all to do with mankind. The planet doesn't care. It was warm in the past and it will be warm again and very likely cold again with an ice age.

Why is that socialists are so arrogant as to believe they can control the worlds climate. The entire global warming (climate change) lobby is stuffed full of socialists who want to use it for nothing more than gaining control over people's lives, control what industry does and push Govt spending to levels not seen since the 1970s. Its about political control and nothing more by an elite making a hell of a lot of money off the back of it.