Give me the reasons why you are a climate sceptic?

[malificent7]

I'm not by the way...but neither am i overly anxious about it.
Some of my friends are and are also very against Greta Thunberg etc. So is it possiblook e to be worried about climate change but anti Greta and/ or do you think climate change is baloney?

Given the recent bush fires in Australia i think we should all be aware that we are all at the mercy of our climate, even if we don't think change is man made.

The moment you start to scratch the surface of these reports (primarily Cook and Oreskes), there is controversy about the data, the way it was collected and what it actually shows. I’m not saying that these studies should be discounted but it is interesting, and I think we should all try to be as precise as possible in our understanding about what was being studied because this makes a difference. And the way those studies was used by politicians and the media (most notably Obama continually referring to “97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is real and dangerous”) was incorrect, misleading and not what the studies said at all. And it makes me wonder WHY they were so exploited by politicians, in such an inaccurate way. This is the kind of thing that has led to some of my scepticism.

Well if I had a choice between cultivating a conspiracy theory involving 97% of scientists across muliple disciplines all acting like sheep and a brave 3% who are telling the truth - I know where I'd go.

President Trump nominates the leadership of NASA and can control its funding. He thinks like you and many on this thread about climate change. And yet Nasa STILL posts what it does about the research. And as for what is in it for politicians? Nothing in the USA as far as I can make out since on a federal level nobody is really doing anything to address any even mildly serious level of concern.

I certainly can understand why people don't want to believe it though.

Another interesting article, this time about financial drivers: www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

It's important to remember that this doesn't invalidate research in and of itself - after all, a number of industries are also throwing money around to prevent restrictions on their own polluting - but it suggests once again that motives aren't always straightforward

Try this superb book -www.<a class="break-all" href="https://amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0141989025/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-am-i-being-unreasonable-3835726-Give-me-the-reasons-why-you-are-a-climate-sceptic" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0141989025/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile
It is ‘Europe - the first 100 million years’ - by palaeontologist Tim Flannery.

It is an absolutely wonderful read about all the different creatures that have lived in Europe for the last 100 million years and the changes in climate over this period,

In the course of his book, Flannery obviously highlights all the climate ups and downs in the fossil record but he also points out that recent warming in the 100 years is 30 times as fast as anything in the geological past. I’m not sure you can be a sceptic by the time you get to the end of his book.

Here in the West, we HAVE TO stop buying stuff we don't need

I dont HAVE to do anything.
Sure i dont need a room of WWE and AFL merchandise, I WANT it, it makes me happy.
I dont need a big shoe collection but I like the collection i have and will add to it cos i like shoes
I will shop off ebay and wish cos i find things i like and that fit me at a good price, i dont care where they made, how far it travels to get to me

I think there's some confusion here about science and the scientific method.

The only thing that proves science wrong is better and more advanced science.

Well if I had a choice between cultivating a conspiracy theory involving 97% of scientists across muliple disciplines all acting like sheep and a brave 3% who are telling the truth - I know where I'd go.

Sorry, pallisers, I don’t understand this point at all. What do you mean?

The moment you start to scratch the surface of these reports (primarily Cook and Oreskes), there is controversy about the data, the way it was collected and what it actually shows. I’m not saying that these studies should be discounted but it is interesting, and I think we should all try to be as precise as possible in our understanding about what was being studied because this makes a difference.

I was responding to this. Why should I treat the consensus of 97% of scientists with the same scepticism as the 3% who can't replicate their findings. Of course we should all read critically and understand what exactly was studied etc but at some point don't we decide to accept what the vast majority of experts are telling us is the case rather than substituting our own gut feeling.

If you don't discount those studies, as you say, then surely you are very worried indeed.

the consensus of 97% of scientists

What is it that you think these scientists agree on?

god Jilly, I concede. I really couldn't be bothered arguing this with you. I am not a scientist so I am not about to google science to reply to you.

But I am an educated woman who trusts the scientific method. If you think you know better than most scientific societies and academics in the world, knock yourself out. I don't think I do. I also don't think Trump and his cronies are denying climate change, human intervention and, yes, Greta Thunberg in almost exactly the same terms as many on here, have the interests of the world/humanity/vulnerable communities like the Marshall Islands which are facing an existential crisis in mind when they deny and minimise.

But I am bowing out now because I really don't care about changing your mind.

Pallisers I didn’t mean to be a pain. I just wanted to point out that we shouldn’t just accept tropes like the 97% figure without at least trying to understand what they mean. If you don’t actually know what it was that they are supposed to be in agreement about, how can you be so confident about quoting the figure?

Sorry to bang on about it, but that figure really bothers me because it has been so incredibly influential in people’s’ thinking, and it makes it sound as if 100% of scientists were interviewed and 97% of them agreed that anthropomorphic climate change is real and dangerous. But that is absolutely not what happened. These figures were arrived at from searches of terms like “climate change” in abstracts (not even the full article), and some of the papers cited did not actually express a definite opinion on whether or not the impact of any climate change was positive or negative. In fact some of then scientists involved objected to their work being used in this way!

The OP asked why sceptics are sceptical. I was trying to answer that question and I suppose the answer is that the more I try to understand this stuff the hazier, and less definite, it gets. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think the climate is changing. It just means that I try to see beyond the headlines because every single topic should be open to debate, and I get suspicious when debate is shut down and questioning something isn’t allowed.

Scientists are just like everyone else. Some are good and honest, some are not. And even a “consensus” of opinion (if indeed there is such a thing in science) doesn’t mean that that opinion is correct or won’t be disproved at a later date. And if we are to make policy based on the science - the kind of policy that could have a massive impact on people’s lives - doesn’t it make sense to make sure we are right through challenge and discussion and the belief that “I know that I do not know”?

Well said Jillyhilly.
Also the 97% figure excluded scientists including geologists who should have input into the climate debate. It only surveyed a small number of publishing climatologists.

I’m not a scientist so can only really ask broad basic questions. But what do geologists generally think? - is there consensus one way or another it is it impossible to get that?

Can someone point me to these bottomless pits of research money for climate change? I must be missing a trick since I'm having to hunt for funding sources I'm eligible for an annoying fraction of my job?
I'm looking in the usual places like UKRI and other bodies and cannot find other big sources.
I'm prepared to be told I'm missing something...

I absolutely hate that rational scientists have warned the world for decades, armed with facts but nobody listened but a hysterical tantrumming teen gets all the press and attention. What kind of lesson do young peopke get out of that, do you think?

Well, people did listen to these top scientists and their deadlines that have been adopted by the United Nations as “fact”
but since we’ve passed many of them....and no crisis....the boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

If you dig into the history of the climate emergency in the UN records, it might shock you to find out it’s been going on since the 1960s.

1968- UN said we have until 2000 to save the planet (2000)
2006- ten years to save the planet (2016)
2008- seven years to save the planet (2015)
2017- experts say we have three years to save the planet (2020)
2020- experts say we have a decade to save the planet (2030)

Although a few activists are now using a 2050 date.....

I have no respect for Greta. She stands there glaring at people and shouting instead of having a diplomatic discussion. I also find her all talk and no action and obnoxious.

I like the ocean cleanup guy. He decided in his teens to clean up the trash in the ocean and started inventing stuff and actually doing that.

UN has the Green Climate Fund of 5.4 billion (in USD) funded by 194 countries.
www.greenclimate.fund/

Won’t list the EU funds because Brexit. But in addition to UN:

U.K. has a £60m annual fund for innovation:
www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/uk-innovation-fund-to-tackle-climate-change

Also a £56m annual fund for health subjects related to climate change:
www.gov.uk/government/news/new-funding-to-research-health-impact-of-climate-change

Inside philanthropy has a list of over fifty private founders for climate change.

I like the ocean clean up inventer too. He’s tackling the real problems with the environment.

If anyone’s interested, Tony Heller’s youtube channel covers a lot of the stuff that PlanDeRaccordement mentions above, in terms of historical evidence of climate scare stories - among other stuff in which he dissects the science (and politics) behind the climate panic in a very helpful non-scientific way. It’s fascinating to see that the dire warnings about the fast-approaching end of civilisation through freezing / burning / melting / drowning have been going on for a good century. And always, always backed up by “good science” and eminent researchers pronouncing that we only have x years to save the planet before we meet our doom. I suspect that the fact that this period represents a tailing off of the Church’s influence, with their threats of hellfire and damnation, is not a coincidence.

My feeling overall is that I support action that will actually see positive change in a practical way - let’s get plastic out of oceans, let’s have vehicles that pollute less, let’s invest in nuclear as the only practical way of replacing fossil fuels. If any 16 year olds want to focus in on one of these massively complicated issues and help try to make any of those things happen, that would be very impressive (although not being a particularly strategic person, I have to say that accomplishing even one of these things makes my mind boggle in terms of its complexity, investment and the different stakeholders involved). What I do not support is non-specific, shouty, disruptive activity that whips up general anxiety, abdicates personal responsibility and blames “the government” for all the ills of the planet.

My feeling overall is that I support action that will actually see positive change in a practical way - let’s get plastic out of oceans, let’s have vehicles that pollute less, let’s invest in nuclear as the only practical way of replacing fossil fuels.

Likewise, I concentrate my efforts on reducing use, re-using things and recycling. Plastic is a big problem for wildlife etc - we can also help with reducing buying plastic stuff and being sensible with disposing of it. With travel, we can all reduce travel - fewer long haul flights, fewer trips to the supermarket, etc all help, regardless of whether we're using environmental friendly transport methods or not.

But people are deluded if they think anything we can do will stop the likes of floods we've seen in recent years in our lifetimes - reducing plastic, banning cars, etc., won't have any impact whatsoever in the short term. It's the usual political blame game like the environmental agency blaming everyone else for their failure to manage water courses and provide flood protection measures.

We can all do things to help, i.e. not buy as much plastic tat, not lease a new car every 3 years, etc. - it all helps, but it's not going to stop places like Ironbridge flooding again next year (or even in 10 or 50 years) next time we have a very wet winter with storms and flash floods.

I think that climate change deniers are just conspiracy theorists and can be lumped in with all the other conspiracy theorists. I suspect there will be large crossovers between delusional thinking about climate change with other conspiracy theory favourites, e.g. anti-vaxxers, flearthers, lizard-people, woo-lovers, etc.

The common thread is always that the mysterious 'THEY' are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. To what end, it's never clear.

Conspiracy theorists are all deluded and annoying and there's never any point in showing them evidence because 'SCIENCE' is part of the conspiracy. They're beyond tedious.

When are we going to wise up? And I include myself - I still make some poor choices.

Over 95% of climate scientists say that climate change is real, man made and will be catastrophic if we don’t change. It doesn’t matter what climate model you use to look at it. That’s the current science. In the 1980s they predicted warmer, wetter and wilder weather if we continue. That’s what we are now getting. Several years ago scientists predicted that climate change would bring on Austrailian bush fires earlier and make them fiercer and last longer.....I could go on.

I don’t have expertise in this area of science but I do in another I get so fed up of people who don’t have expertise thinking they no better. I’ve never said it but I often think - I told you so! I am going to believe the people with the expertise over peoples vague ideas about the Thames freezing over in the past - natural fluctuations in climate will have been factored in to the models used to understand climate change. The scientists are not stupid!! Quite the opposite.

Greta is this generations Martin Luther King, Ghandi, suffragette etc. When governments are failing to act in the best interests of the people, civil disobedience is the most effective form of protest. That’s what the evidence says. Environmental campaigns have been happening since I was a child and still capitalism has been the main organising factor in government policy. That needs to change.

You can’t eat money....money can only buy food on a planet that can support the growth of food.

If we don’t change our children and their children will be f@#%*d.

That’s the bottom line.

Lack of good security => societal breakdown.

Morality is a higher order human need and gets swept aside in the face of more basic human needs not being met. No food => no morality.

It’s inconvenient, it’s scary - but we can still do something to prevent our extinction.

What can we do?
Talk about it with everyone
Petition government
Cut down on flights and other travel
Cut down on eating meat and fish
Cut down on buying unnecessary things
Turn the heating down a bit
Switch to green energy etc etc
Make ethical consumers choices

It’s not the size of the change that matters but the direction of travel....

What’s one small thing you can do today?

KahlanRahl
When have you made a huge sacrifice for the greater good?

Greta talks congruently and plainly and the emotion is justified.

This generation is putting her generation at huge risk.

So why do you like a glar@Msmcc1212
Why do you like greta better than the ocean cleanup guy. He is a fually doing something!

You ask me what huge sacrifices I have nade but you're not exactly twlling me what you have done to justify yourself. Do you have children? If yes, have you told them why they shouldn't have children?