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.

Its called being a climate denier btw, not a climate sceptic. Just like with the holocaust...

Interesting approach, to conflate a questionable scientific theory with the ideological murder of millions - but maybe predictable, given the hyperbole being flung around

@Puzzledandpissedoff except it's not a questionable scientific theory is it. Unless you know something that thousands of scientists across the planet don't.

I believe climate change is happening and is - in this case - man made. Just because previous climate changes haven't been man made doesn't mean this one isn't.

What I really cannot stick are Greta's followers and the Fridays for future movement, mostly made up of people who do fuck all to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle.

questionable scientific theory is that your gut feeling @Puzzledandpissedoff?

This is a thread about science, not your opinions.

What I really cannot stick are Greta's followers and the Fridays for future movement, mostly made up of people who do fuck all to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle.

Sources? Or is that just your opinion?

except it's not a questionable scientific theory is it

The very nature of any theory is that it's open to question; indeed, scientists who retain at least some independence of thought are questioning it - which is perhaps why some prefer to keep an open mind while still doing our best around our own possible impact

Man has always been a part of nature, but there has never, ever been so many men before, and there has never, ever been so many climate-raping chemicals before, or so many ecosystems completely destroyed before. I think we’re fucked.

The very nature of any theory is that it's open to question

That is very different to using the term questionable which suggests 'doubtful as regards truth or validity.'

There is currently little doubt about the theory, although yes, there is no ultimate 'truth' in science.

How long have global weather and temps been recorded for a couple of hundred years?
How can that possibly be an accurate representation.

Maybe we'll go the same way as the dinosaurs, maybe that's supposed to happen.
Trouble is humans are so arrogant and self important we think we'll be here forever.

Furfockssake I'm the first to agree that personal opinions are just that, but would suggest that, historically, the belief that everyone must bow down to the bought-and-paid-for mainstream view isn't necessarily a wise path to go down

www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#4e04779c2fb1

*How long have global weather and temps been recorded for a couple of hundred years?
How can that possibly be an accurate representation. *

Because scientists have a good idea of climate change and temperatures over the past few millennia, and have a good idea of how fast the climate has changed and what factors have caused it.

the belief that everyone must bow down to the bought-and-paid-for mainstream view isn't necessarily a wise path to go down

I understand the scientific method. At this point it also wouldn't be wise to listen to a few mums netters on here and their gut beliefs over what the scientific world is telling us. At the moment, their hypothesis is most strongly supported by the evidence currently available - and I'm happy to go with that rather than believe the big oil companies, and a few people on here who don't know their arse from their elbow about how global warming even occurs.

That link also says this This doesn't mean it's impossible to know anything at all. To the contrary, in many ways, scientific knowledge is the most "real" knowledge that we can possibly gain about the world

some of the replies on his thread are shocking.

yes, the consensus on climate change just might be wrong [though according to basically all leading experts it isn't], but "just might" just doesn't cut it... Pascal's wager, right?

using the term questionable ... suggests 'doubtful as regards truth or validity'

Are you sure? Personally I've always thought of questions as an exchange - a way, if you like, of gaining better understanding and gaining information, which may or may not result in agreement

I realise, of course, that some would rather avoid questions (as with the infamous Phil Jones of UEA who I referenced upthread), but again, I'm not sure that's a wise road to go down

Personally I've always thought of questions as an exchange - a way, if you like, of gaining better understanding and gaining information, which may or may not result in agreement

Yes I don't disagree with that and that it is the basis of the scientific method - but perhaps it is counter productive to use a term like questionable on a thread like this where people are actually denying the science used to determine whether climate change is man made, as the general usage definition of questionable is as I wrote above.

In your response you are using the term questionable to indicate that science can't provide a definitive truth about anything. And whilst that is also true, if we are going to bother teaching children science, and ask for scientific research, we need to go with the best supported scientific hypothesis - which is human activity is currently the most likely cause for accelerated climate change and global warming.

I did a science degree. I have a lot of friends who are scientists and understand scientific method. None of them are climate change deniers.

It's not like having an academic opinion on Jane Eyre or something, its not about what you personally believe to be the case.

It's well established scientific consensus. It's theory same way that relativity or evolution is theory.

And I love Greta.

Trouble is humans are so arrogant and self important we think we'll be here forever

Isn't there also a certain arrogance in believing that our current "understanding" and our here-today-gone-tomorrow hypotheses are all there is? And isn't it the case that too many scientific "facts" have already been discarded for us to necessarily believe every dot and comma of the latest fashionable one?

Let's face it, from an evolutionary point of view we really don't matter all that much - and that's as a species, never mind indivually. All we can really do is to make our best guess, do our best with what we've got and maybe remember that it's wise to guard against tyranny of thought

A lot of the science is very clear. That does not mean however that we should prioritise humans over animale or over rocks etc though does it Parituclarly given how much damage man does to the planet which is better off without us on it.

Does it really matter what you feel about being lectured by a 16 year old girl?

We all have to share this planet, clearly humans are impacting it - even if you really, really don’t think we are increasing global warming at a rate that is going to increase extinctions - and I really don’t see how anyone can not think this.

But either way someone saying that we need to look after our environment is not a bad thing - why this obsession with people’s personality rather than the message they are delivering.

if we are going to bother teaching children science, and ask for scientific research, we need to go with the best supported scientific hypothesis

Cross posted with you, but this I definitely agree with - just as long as it's presented as current understanding rather than irrefutable fact

Off out for my library volunterring now, but great to talk with you

It's well established scientific consensus. It's theory same way that relativity or evolution is theory

Global warming is not debated. It’s how much humans have contributed to it that’s the issue, or whether it is as alarming as being portrayed by some groups like extinction rebellion. Off the top of my head, Judith Curry especially is worth listening to on this

Isn't there also a certain arrogance in believing that our current "understanding" and our here-today-gone-tomorrow hypotheses are all there is? And isn't it the case that too many scientific "facts" have already been discarded for us to necessarily believe every dot and comma of the latest fashionable one?

Belief in the scientific method has impacted our lives in unimaginable ways. Science is the only way to build understanding, and yes it's not a perfect system but it's definitely the best we've got. When scientific hypothesis aren't supported by the evidence they get discarded - that's part of the scientific method. But without that system we would be a long way from where we are now with our understanding of the world.

I don't think you can throw the baby out with the bath water just because the best system we haven't isn't infallible. There is no alternative to the scientific method, except opinions, voodoo and nonsense - so I know where I'm placing my trust.

I don't think you can throw the baby out with the bath water just because the best system we haven't isn't infallible

I agree with this too, but it's the all-too-frequent insistence that it is infallible (and, as said, the tyranny which goes with it) that I have an issue with

Anyway, really must dash; the books (including the science ones!!) await ...

People don't believe in man made climate change because they don't want to. The science exists. No one on here claiming it doesn't exist is a scientist, and if they are, they certainly haven't managed to persuade a majority of scientists that they are right.

Sums it for me.