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?

[Lweji]

I see.
I haven't read the agreement, but I'd expect the cash to go towards cleaner technologies and stopping deforestation.
What stops the developing world from developing is lack of education of the masses, mostly.

[lorelei9]

James Lovelock's admission that he'd been melodramatic was quite interesting. Now says it's just as silly to be a denier as a believer....at least a more balanced view than the one he held before.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion

my parents are late 70s, the number of things they were told would happen in 10 years, when they were 20.....and um, yes, still waiting.

[claig]

'What? You actually want the population to grow?'

Yes, I believe in God and nature, not in elites artificially controlling the population. I don't agree with China's one child policy or with Indira Gandhi's forced sterilization policy. I don't think the elite have the right to control the earth's population through artificial means. I think there is enough food and enough resources on the planet to feed the world and to educate and develop the world and to invent new technologies that will solve humanity's problems if the rich elites share more of their wealth with the billions of poor people on the earth.

[claig]

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

Yes, because the end effect is to reduce the cheap access to energy for humanity which will stunt development and industrial production and growth in poorer countries and prevent them from developing in the same way we have. Lots of people die every year from fuel poverty of the cold winters in Europe. Cheap energy is vital for human progress and their plans will tax carbon emissions and subsidise poorer countries to reduce carbon emissions using Western taxpayer money and this will slow global growth which is the intention.

[claig]

'The elites want to make money Claig. '

No, the real real elites have more money than they know what to do with, they wamt other people not to make more money, they want slow growth and increased taxation and more poverty and prevention of progress.

They can't say it too openly or people would wise up to their game but if you listen carefully to the great and the good you will see the message.

[janethegirl2]

The whole premise is bollocks.

The world has seen warm periods and ice ages over millennia, nothing is new. It's all politician speak.

Humans evolve and if some do not want to, they will become extinct.

Read your history!

[lorelei9]

claig - seriously, if governments really wanted to control population then they would find more direct ways of doing so. But I will be honest - the fact that you refer to God and nature etc makes me feel that further discussion with you is unlikely to be, er, fruitful.

[claig]

"David Attenborough: trying to tackle famine with bags of flour is 'barmy'

BBC presenter links famine to overpopulation and warns if we do not curb growth the natural world will

Sending food aid to famine-stricken countries avoids the more fundamental problem of population growth, Sir David Attenborough has said, as he called for more debate about population control.

The renowned broadcaster told the Daily Telegraph the world was "heading for disaster", and without action the "natural world will do something".

"What are all these famines in Ethiopia? What are they about?" he said. "They're about too many people for too little land. That's what it's about. And we are blinding ourselves. We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That's barmy."

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/18/david-attenborough-famine-population

It is not barmy. There is more than enough flour stored in silos that are not used. There is more than enough ways to feed and develop the world and to provide education and technology to develop the entire world and unleash the potential of billions of educated minds to contribute in humanity's intellectual and technological progress. But the great and the good are not in favour of that, they want action to reduce the world's population instead because they know that billions of educated people will start asking questions as to why the great and the good have so much wealth and billions of people live on less than a dollar a day.

[claig]

'seriously, if governments really wanted to control population then they would find more direct ways of doing so'

Be under no illusion, they do want it but they cannot be too open about their real intentions or people planned for population control might resist it.

[FreeWorker1]

Claig - I think we can safely bet mankind will be using more fossil fuel and emitting more carbon by 2050 than it is today.

The efforts of the last 20 years to reduce carbon emissions has not had any impact at all.

I have a PhD in mathematical modelling and am an expert in energy. I made a speech about 13 years ago and predicted that unless the UK shut down its entire industrial sector there would be no other way of reducing our emissions and the then proposals to reduce Uk CO2 emissions were economically infeasible.

I was right.

[Lweji]

The world has seen warm periods and ice ages over millennia
Yes, and according to available data, some periods when we almost disappeared.

Individuals can't become extinct, btw. Only species and above.

[claig]

'"They're about too many people for too little land.'

That is rubbish too. There is more than enough land to support humanity. Even our country is noy overdeveloped.

[Squashybanana]

I have a close relative who is a geologist with for definite no political axe to grind (politics passes him by, he is an aspie). He is extremely sceptical about man made climate change.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

Loads of eminent scientists disagree with you. Nigel Lawson, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin.

ROAR. These might just be the funniest two sentences I'm going to read on here all week. It doesn't even matter that you meant to write agree not disagree.

Genuinely thought you were taking the piss out of the OP for a second.

[claig]

'I think we can safely bet mankind will be using more fossil fuel and emitting more carbon by 2050 than it is today.'

It is not certain. The puppets meeting in conferences are under instruction to reduce it and to eventually impose fines and sanctions on countries who do not go along.

America is the country that may not play along. Trump probably won't play along, but the real elites are very serious and have instructed their puppets to get things moving in the direction they want the world to go.

[janethegirl2]

Yes Squashie I agree, there is not a lot of real evidence for man made climate change.

Yes climate change does occur, but I think a lot of it just happens, with or without human intervention.

[claig]

FreeWorker1, you are spot on, but don't underestimat ethe great and the good and the control they have over puppets that come and go every five years in elections. Rome wasn't built in one day, they have taken years to get to here and they are well behind schedule but they are determined to move on with the plan. They won't give up, only countries like America or China or India might stop the plan but puppets will be very tightly controlled in order for the plan to continue.

[claig]

"Sorry, Sir David Attenborough. This isn’t the way to tackle over-population
...
Even our heroes can slip up at times. Sir David Attenborough is officially the most trusted man in Britain, but his remarks published today, in the context of the debate over world population growth, that it is “barmy” to send food to famine-stricken countries, is crass in its callousness; it is simply stupid. And when he reflects on the implication – that it is acceptable to reduce human numbers by starving people to death – Sir David may well be forced to modify his words."

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sorry-sir-david-attenborough-this-isn-t-the-way-to-tackle-over-population-8824385.html

[FreeWorker1]

BaaaHumbug - scientists who published work that refuted man made climate change had theiir funding removed. There is no funding for any science that questions man made climate change. The 'accepted science' is the only science that gets published now. Scientists have to eat and pay the mortgage. There is no money in opposing climate change dogma.

[janethegirl2]

I'd love to be around in 100 years and read the history of this.

[RictusGrimace]

Rafals it is a joke - the Trump Palin reference.

Mind you the way this discussion has gone anything is possible.

This debate has been had. There is almost no-one who doesn't believe in cc in the science world. Apart from on here.

The flat earth society is about right.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

I've spent far too much time on forums where people actually would have written that in all seriousness.

It was the rest of the discussion that made me think it had been.

[VintageDresses]

I think there are loads of good reasons why we need to take better care of the planet and it's resources and reduce emissions. I'm not 100% convinced that climate change is one of them. The climate has always changed and yes, that has resulted in extinctions and/or massive reductions to population, but it wasn't manmade.