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?

Coffee/tea and biscuits is the ultimate persuasion tool; I'll sign anything for a hot drink and a bickie.

The planet has been hotter
The planet has been cooler
The planet will be just fine

Human society will be utterly screwed if we do not take steps to reduce our impact on the planet.

The planet does not care if we go extinct.

But our grandchildren will never forgive us for being so bloody selfish if we do not deal with the mess we have made.

Lance, I think "conspiracy theory" is going a bit far for most posters. I think there's an awareness that the science can be a bit - University of East Anglia - and there's an awareness that jobs have been created, that certain things that were feared in the past didn't happen and so on.

being a bit sceptical about anything seems fair to me. I don't think that "sceptic" = "denier" = "conspiracy theory".

Ta1kinPeace is right.

The thing people don't get about climate change is that the planet will be fine. Humans won't. You might think that serves us right but countless other species will go down with us. It will be our fault.

Newt Gingrich has said on Fox that the COP agreement (the one with the clapping, grandstanding and back-slapping of the "leaders") has "zero enforcement".

I haven't followed it closely because I already know it is the usual spin game they always play, but my guess is that in coming weeks we will find out how little enforcement this deal really has, that no one will know into which of the great and the good's pockets the $100 billion of tax money will go, and that the media were told to spin it as if it was a big deal as soon as the doors of the overnight meeting room were unlocked and the "leaders" were led out to cameras to annonce that they had "saved the planet" and were able to finally get hold of a coffee and a biscuit that had been denied them throughout the long cold night (in which the heating in the meeting room had been turned off for them).

If you start from the standpoint that anyone paid to do climate research is 'selling out for money' and therefore biased, then all you have left to trust is, presumably, people who are not paid for it and are doing it as a hobby.

You can't do decent science that way.

Politics. Absolutely huge amounts of money taken in with cap and trade laws, government dollars to green energy companies, government subsidies to landowners with vast landholdings for wind energy, big government subsidies for corn production for ethanol, etc. Nepotism, cronyism abounds. All with no oversight and no accountability -- no bottom line for actual cost of production or cost in fossil fuels to create the green energy products (that's an eye-opening subject).

Careful you don't fall off the edge of the earth there, OP

'World leaders Saturday adopted an historic international climate accord in Paris, the first-ever agreement to commit almost every country to fight climate change.

The 31-page pact does not have binding language or a mechanism to force countries to live up to the promises to cut greenhouse gases emissions or provide money for developing and poor nations to cope with the effects of global warming.

Nonetheless, leaders and the environmental community hailed the United Nations agreement has a historic turning point that has the potential to stave off the worst expected effects of global warming.'

thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/263047-world-leaders-agree-to-historic-climate-accord

It has to be spun by a compliant media for political reasons because otherwise taxpayers might rebel at the cost of coffee and biscuits involved.

Oh poor fanny, do you think the money in renewables is more than a tiny fraction of the money, power and influence of the fossil fuel lobby? Poor deluded fanny - that's where the conspiracy is, my dear...

Those who think its all a conspiracy really need to get out more.

I've just been digging in my garden in my shirt sleeves.
We have not had a frost yet.
Weather events are getting more extreme.
The climate IS warming.

Humankind has in under 100 years used up carbon sinks that took millions of years to form.
If you think that will have no effect, go and study some basic physics and chemistry.

If you think that ignoring it will make it magically not happen, just remember how much your grandchildren will despise you for it.

Just this...

I admit I don't understand the cutting edge of climate science. But I understand the basic carbon cycle and I understand what we do when we short circuit it by burning large quantities of fossil fuels. It's just basic science.

In any case, fossil fuels are running out.
We should be investing in renewable energy anyway. Climate change or no climate change.
The same for polution and forests.

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

I'm saying your gift for fiction is impressive.

Have to agree with the sentiment of this cartoon:

The science, at a basic level, is not hard to understand.

Increased levels of carbon dioxide (and other gases, but let's just use CO2 at the moment) result in an increased amount of heat being retained in the atmosphere.

Humans pump a huge amount of C02 into the atmosphere that was previously in storage.

More C02 = more heat retained = warmer planet.

Kid YES! Know your carbon cycle people!

What makes me sceptical about some of these issues is when the government tell us that things like plastic bags are really bad for the environment. Loads of plastic now in the sea apparently and the fishes are eating it and then it ends up on our dinner plates and then we also ingest all this awful plastic as well (and it probably causes cancer, etc, etc).

But instead of actually stopping making these evil plastic carrier bags like you might expect, they just encourage us to stop using them by slapping a charge on them and of course some of that charge goes straight to the treasury. Why don't we use paper grocery bags like in America then? Surely if plastic is bad then this would make sense.

So in my mind it's not about the environment or our safety, it's all about money first and maybe a bit of saving the planet if it's profitable or suits the system.

Energy companies trying to be our friend and telling us how to save money by advising us to lag our lofts, wash clothes at cold temperatures, bricks in toilet cisterns and then they keep upping the cost of our bills anyway regardless. Even if you don't need gas and have it capped off, they'll stick the equivalent of a line rental charge on the pipe to your home just to squeeze a little bit more out of us.

Encouraging people to buy an eco friendly car so we don't pay much road tax. What about when we all have these green eco cars? Will we all still pay hardly any road tax? Cars are pretty green these days anyway due to unleaded fuel compared with how they were 20 years ago and they're generally more efficient and reliable now.

Years ago in the 1980's it was the hole in the Ozone Layer that was the big news story and it was getting bigger (size of Australia or something) due to CFC's in aerosol cans and fridges and it was melting all the ice and we were all going to drown because of raised sea levels.

Pinch of salt, the lot of it.

According to Piers Corbyn, PhD, brother of the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, humans account for just 4% of global CO2 output.

For those who aren't aware of the legendary Piers Corbyn, weather forecaster and anti man-made climate change scientist, there is tons on youtube about him. Here is one interview where he goes into part of it, but he in general he calls it a scam, a fraud etc.

If you are interested in the scientific case, then Piers Corbyn, is a good place to start, but be aware that if you really want to understand the entire game, what they are up to etc, you need to understand politics because that is where it is all at.

I remember reading something once about bovine farts were the main source supposedly destroying the planet by raising temperatures. A mass slaughter of livestock and animals then?

I think some issues are getting confused. The problem with the ozone layer has been of no protection from UVs and that had indeed been a problem for Australia for example.

Plastic bags are killing animals and paper leads to forest destruction.

What comes back in the food chain, particularly in fish, are heavy metals.

Anyone remember acid rain?

Hopefully, action meant that the worst case scenarios didn't happen. Which can only be a good thing. No?

Cows are a major source of methane, which is a green house gas. That is one argument for eating less red meat, and milk.