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?

'while the sceptics are led overwhelmingly by politicians.'

Not many politicians would dare not believe it, remember that most of them are puppets and have to go along with the briefings they get which is why they nearly all believed that Saddam had WMD when most of the public didn't believe it. They are "career politicians", they wouldn't dare go against it even if the majority of the public didn't believe it. Nearly all of the people shown on TV clapping and patting themselves on the back for the deal to transfer $100 billion dollars of taxpayer money to third world countries were politicians or puppets.

Politicians like Trump are exceedingly rare which is why all of the puppets say in unison that Trump is "not fit for office".

Most of the people against man-made climate change are scientists and then there is the 40% or so of ordinary people who don't believe a word of it.

So what of NASA new measurements showing Antarctic ice increases more than offset loss of Arctic ice?

/So what of NASA new measurements showing Antarctic ice increases more than offset loss of Arctic ice?'

Very good question. Their usual answer (the back-slapping and clapping politicians who handed over $100 billion of taxpayer money) is that this is evidence of what they call "climate change" i.e. it is a change either to get more cold or more warm, it doesn't matter because that term covers both bases. They used to call it "global warming" but when they were found out that there had been no warming for 18 years, their best minds scrambled to find another term to confound the taxpaying public and the peer reviewed journals and backslapping politicians started using the term "climate change".

Scientists do science, politicians do politics.
Conspiracy theorists do conspiracies.
Billionaires do money.

Billionaires like Trump have no consideration for workers or consumers , so are unlikely to choose the environment over more money, whatever the evidence.
They cynically use their money to encourage conspiracy theories, just like they invest in advertising, to avoid constraints on their behaviour.

Rightwing politicians dismantle laws that affect the very rich and increase laws to restrict the rest of us. That's why they are in politics.

It's amazing how scientists, mostly on under 100k, have been successfully portrayed as an "elite" by billionaires.
It's depressing how many people are conned into supporting - and voting for - policies that are against their own interest.

Trump is for the use of ethanol instead of oil in Iowa, unlike Texan Ted Cruz who Trump says has to listen to Texan oil interests. Trump doesn't need anyone's money, no one can buy him, no oil money can buy him. He doesn't need high finance dinner donations and funding for his private office, he can't be bought by lobbies, he is not a "career politician" told what to do by big money, he is big money, he tells the puppets what to do.

Scientists aren't the elite, they are workers who often get government grants from taxpayer money dished out by the political class who are themselves influenced by lobbyists who contribute to keep the £20 million or so needed to keep their party's finances going. Trump doesn't need any of that, he is not one of them. He can't be bought, he can't be bullied, no one controls him which is why he has the courage to be able to tell the truth on climate change unlike the political class.

Do you know trump

Do any of you really know what's going on in world where people are fed what to believe.

There is a force however that is bigger than us.. It's called Mother Nature and the "planet" will do what it does regardless of all this. If the sun burns out we'll all be gonners anyway

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

Eminent scientists? Donald Trump? Sarah Palin??! Are you serious?!

I think she was being sarcastic!!!

I'm sure I read somewhere that climate change has always happened on a cyclic nature but that we've accelerated it so that it's now happening much, much faster than it would naturally.

Re Antarctic ice: the earth does not experience climate change in a uniform way. And the ice isn't offsetting the Arctic ice loss - the earth is still losing 35000km2 of ice each year, and that's including the net gain in Antarctica.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

under increased development because people are able to live better, but they then live longer whereas in severe underdevelopment, although there are more births, there are also more deaths.
But still experience population gains.
High birth rates and high death rates are a waste of resources, as the children are fed and never reach productive age. Society itself never gets enough qualifications. Women don't get qualified because they keep generating children.
But most governments in low income countries prefer lack of education to dominate the masses.

We can only piss Mother Nature of so long before she turns around and bites us on the arse.

I'd love to see all those peoples faces when we are stood on the brink of hell and they realise that they could have helped instead of hindered!

Scientists aren't the elite, they are workers who often get government grants from taxpayer money dished out by the political class who are themselves influenced by lobbyists who contribute to keep the £20 million or so needed to keep their party's finances going

Exactly - and while many scientists no doubt have colossal ability and brilliant minds, it's still worth noting just how much they sell out for the sake of money

This is why, when we're told that the latest research has "proved" such-and-such, the first thing I tend to look at is who's paid for it

Haven't RTwholeFT tbh but just wanted to come on to say, What an absolutely ludiculous and Bizarre idea??! Non of the larger parties in any country stand to gain anything but global benefit from sustainable energy.... Certainly its less profitable short term! And i think we all know by now it's all about the short term in politics....

Indeed.
I'm more worried about who pays for research that says climate change is not human made or nothing to do with fossil fuels. That is the industry with the most to lose.

I would say developing countries have most to lose if strict co2 emissions limits were imposed. Do the west want them catching us up?

'Do the west want them catching us up?'

No they don't, they want them held back to slow their growth and they need to pay them with our $100 billion taxpayer money for their leaders (the ones at the overnight signing session without the coffee and biscuits) to fall in line.

In the overnight signing session it probably goes something like this: the heating is turned off, the coffee and biscuits are removed, the doors are locked and "the leaders" are told, you can leave the room when you have agreed to "save the planet". Got that? There's $100 billion on the table and there won't be a penny more because the taxpayer may wake up otherwise.

The trouble is, the dark truth about human impact on the planet that no-one ever confronts is that this is a matter of numbers: specifically, population numbers. For example, Ethiopia's population has doubled since Live Aid - of course that has implications for resources. But no-one will say, hey, people, stop breeding.

The other issue is the race to the bottom- we as consumers demand lower prices and lower prices: the reason China is always cheapest is because not only does that government manipulate currency change and use slave labour from "reform through labour" camps, but they don't adhere to any environmental standards whatsoever - those very standards we beg our politicians for, and that cost our own industries serious amounts of money.

Our "recycling" - to meet EU targets - sometimes get shipped to landfill in the developing world, as then it "doesn't count" as landfill.

No-one in a public position seems inclined to point at these various examples of Emperor's New Clothes, or deal with the REAL inconvenient truth.

This thread is seriously depressing.

I could engage properly with it - but when one side is just going to have a nice conspiracy-theory rant, there doesn't seem a lot of point.

In the overnight signing session it probably goes something like this: the heating is turned off, the coffee and biscuits are removed, the doors are locked and "the leaders" are told, you can leave the room when you have agreed to "save the planet". Got that? There's $100 billion on the table and there won't be a penny more because the taxpayer may wake up otherwise.

Having been to quite a few of that sort of thing, including a UNFCCC CoP, I think you need to dial back your imagination a wee bit.

'Having been to quite a few of that sort of thing, including a UNFCCC CoP, I think you need to dial back your imagination a wee bit'

Are you saying that coffee and biscuits are not removed from "the leaders"? That surprises me.

Non of the larger parties in any country stand to gain anything but global benefit from sustainable energy

Honestly not trying to be awkward, silverstreak, but do you really believe that? It's reported that "green taxes" have now reached over 44 billion now:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/11644725/UK-green-taxes-hit-record-high-of-44.6-billion.html

Does anyone at all seriously believe that this money is spent exclusively on renewables, etc - or is it just another income stream, created on the back of a fashionable cause in the hope of raising lots of lovely cash before the population wake up to the idea they're being conned?

So what do people who deny climate change think happens to all the carbon taken from the ground and released (burned) into the atmosphere? Does it just float around there harmlessly?