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?

Are there no vested interests in the coal, oil, gas industris ?

Just the renewables industry?

If politicians really cared about this issue why didn't they mandate that all coal fired power stations shut down a decade ago all over the planet.
Because all politicians are selfish shits
most of them in hock to the oil / gas / coal / car industries

"Piers is a PhD an studied at Imperial College"

Studied astrophysics, not anything related to greenhouse gas emissions.

"runs his own successful weather forecasting company"

So what? He bases his predictions on solar activity, by his own admission, not anything long term related to the Earth's

"I have just listened again and he says that "man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4% of the total amount which is 4% of 0.04% which is a tiny amount."

Total amount of what? (1) Total CO2 in the atmosphere, or (2) Total CO2 emissions? What is that 0.04% figure?

The rest of your post makes no sense. It is a laughable claim that termites which emit 0.64% of all greenhouse gases contribute more to global warming than humans, whose industrialisation and deforestation activities alone contribute over 76%.

See my earlier post for sources.

'If politicians really cared about this issue why didn't they mandate that all coal fired power stations shut down a decade ago all over the planet.'

Can't be done, remember that not everyone is in the pocket of the clique. America wouldn't agree, even Germany is opening more, China wouldn't agree etc. And then of course there is the good old climate sceptic public, growing larger in number everyday. That is why they have nothing left but the overnight meetings with no biscuits or coffee and no legally binding way of enforcing their verbiage. It is a slow, spin process for them (and they are masters of spin), they want to grind the "leaders" down, but it is slipping slowly out of the clique's grasp and they may not make it. So expect the dire warnings to get more dire, expect rock stars to write songs about "plagues of locusts" etc in a desperate attempt to push the plan through.

Watch the results of the French presidential election and the US Presidential election because they could overturn the clique's applecart overnight. Remember everything is politics, that is the driving force behind everything.

Even if you don't believe in man made climate change, we are still over consuming

Ah yes, now that I definitely can go with. As you rightly say there's only so much to go round and a little more care as to how it's used would be no bad thing

Claig
are you a virgin ?
just that your grandchildren - if you ever have them - will LOVE reading your posts as they struggle to cope with your selfishness

Surely not, Ta1kin.

Talkin - exactly and they are not going to shut down their major industries an curtail economic growth in the name of climate change.

What are central banks (eg Federal Reserve, Bank of England, ECB) trying to do? They are trying to stoke up economic growth with low interest rates - especially the retail consumption part of their economies. They want us to consume more, buy big cars, use more petrol, take more holidays, buy bigger homes. That leads to CO2 emissions. Govt policy is all over the place and so contradictory.

Claig - Agreed. If a politician puts 10 million people out of work in USA due to climate change policy and they will soon find the political wind will change. Trump is an example. Most people rightly care about a job today - not a highly uncertain possibility of climate change in 10,000 years time.

Claig is right. Our (mankinds) contribution to CO2 is 0.04% of 4% of the atmosphere. or 0.0016%

That is like packing one extra person into wembly stadium

and expecting that person to warm all the others by 2 degrees centigrade.

The UK contribution, is to put that person into Wembly stadium once every 50 cup finals.

and they want us to wreck our economy based on THAT?

'are you a virgin ?'

Pure of thought and mind, without a doubt

'your grandchildren - if you ever have them - will LOVE reading your posts as they struggle to cope with your selfishness'

I hope so.

'So you admit you don't know much about the carbon cycle?'

Yes, I don't know. I don't concentrate on the science, I study the politics because that is where the decisions are made.

Small changes. Big effects.
The weather is particularly sensitive to initial conditions.
Small changes in CO2 can have big effects.

'the science here is key. Politics can't stop the scientific reality'

But lots of scientsts disagree like Piers Corbyn and many many others. There is no fixed science.

You really should try to understand the science a little better. Seeking out the one person who agrees with you and claiming they know better than all climate scientists who say climate change is real & largely caused by humans will not get you close to the truth.

And that even before your inclination for conspiracy theorists and love of Donald Trump, Daily Mail, Fox News, and UKIP.

"lots of scientsts disagree like Piers Corbyn and many many others. There is no fixed science."

A conspiracy theorist like you should not have missed the climate change denial conspiracy that Greenpeace recently exposed.

The vast majority of scientists specialised in this subject say the same thing: Climate change is real and is largely man-made. Educate yourself.

"Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.

Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,

I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems."

www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

Steady on. You're bringing science into the equation.

No mention of chaotic systems, then?

So some guy called Singer said so and therefore 40% of "all scientists" (what, in the world? they have all been polled?) are "doubters"?

Why don't you try using your Googling superpowers to actually educate yourself rather than fire off links to MNers?

'A conspiracy theorist like you should not have missed'

I heard about it because I heard that due to I think that, Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, reported Greenpeace to the FBI or something, but I don't have time to look into every detail particularly on climate change which I already know is a scam and therefore is not worth wasting time on.

"Do you think
Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming
is a reliable source to quote?"

I think the clue is in the word leading