Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Give me the reasons why you are a climate sceptic?

382 replies

malificent7 · 29/02/2020 12:51

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.

OP posts:
dreamingbohemian · 03/03/2020 12:26

So scientific theory and consensus is now 'tyranny of thought'? Okay.

What other sorts of scientific theories do you all dispute? Or is it just climate change?

heartsonacake · 03/03/2020 12:29

My 'attitude' is a reponse to people saying they either don't understand the science or (far worse, frankly) that they simply don't care.

KidLorneRoll Again, you catch more flies with honey then vinegar. If you’re determined to put people off the climate change cause you support, carry on.

But don’t you think engaging politely with people is far more likely to get them to consider your points rather than insulting them?

TinklyLittleLaugh · 03/03/2020 12:29

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

No this is not the case. Scientists have correlated climate change against human production of CO2.

And species are becoming extinct and people are losing their homes and their livelehoods (and probably their lives). How can that not be alarming?

Do people need to see it affect us? Extreme weather events are increasingly common. It is coming for all of us. Nowhere to hide. And I am oldish and have had a good life. I have children though. I don't want to think of them scratching a survival on an exhausted planet.

MangoFeverDream · 03/03/2020 13:00

And species are becoming extinct and people are losing their homes and their livelehoods (and probably their lives). How can that not be alarming

Fewer lives are lost due to extreme climate events than ever before so why be worried about that?

I agree that species extinction is worrisome but then why focus exclusively on climate change? More targeted solutions is the answer not focusing on one issue only somewhat related (Not you specifically but CC isn’t the only environmental issue out there!)

MangoFeverDream · 03/03/2020 13:02

Some sauce for the natural disaster costs:

Data tracked by Our World in Data shows that from 2007-17, an average of 70,000 people each year were killed by natural disasters. In the decade 50 years earlier, the annual figure was more than 370,000. Seventy thousand is still far too many, but the reduction represents enormous progress. The material cost of disasters also has decreased when considered as a proportion of the global economy. Since 1990, economic losses from disasters have decreased by about 20% as a proportion of world-wide gross domestic product. The trend still holds when the measurement is narrowed to weather-related disasters, which decreased similarly as a share of global GDP even as the dollar cost of disasters increased. The decrease in disaster damage isn’t a surprise, because as the world population and economy have grown, the incidence of the most damaging extreme events has hardly changed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2014 that there has been no increase in hurricanes, floods, droughts or tornadoes within the past 30 years. And 2018 is on track to have the lowest losses from disasters as a share of global GDP since 1990

From here: www.rogerpielkejr.com/2018/08/17/some-good-news-about-natural-disasters-of-all-things/

(Originally in the Wall Street Journal)

Furfockssake · 03/03/2020 13:06

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

I agree with that!

Have a good time at the library Flowers

Furfockssake · 03/03/2020 13:12

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2014 that there has been no increase in hurricanes, floods, droughts or tornadoes within the past 30 years. And 2018 is on track to have the lowest losses from disasters as a share of global GDP since 1990

Yes, but science has shown us that weather events that do occur are more extreme. Even anecdotal evidence supports that.

I doubt the calculated economic costs from current weather disasters take into account the future economic costs of climate change in those areas. So yes, we may currently be better at mitigating natural disasters, but if those disasters are progressively getting more extreme, and are also a result of changing environments the total economic cost - and sorry I can't remember the source - has been calculated as being in the trillions.

dreamingbohemian · 03/03/2020 13:50

This is the Our World in Data website:
ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

I think the above description is misleading. First, natural disasters include earthquakes, volcanoes, and other phenomena not related to climate change. Second, the 370,000/year average from the 1950s/60s includes two years with some of the highest death tolls. If you look at the full range of dates, there are a lot of peaks and troughs.

It is also misleading to look at global figures because vulnerability to extreme weather varies across high to low income countries.

The 2014 quote about hurricanes is outdated. The last four years saw above-average hurricane activity: www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/12/04/headlined-by-horrible-dorian-other-freak-storms-atlantic-hurricane-season-is-done/

In any event, scientists do debate the impact of climate change on current extreme weather and the likelihood that extreme weather will get worse. No one is saying there haven't been massive improvements in disaster response, thanks to better warning systems and prevention especially in higher-income countries. But there is a significant concern that climate change will lead to more extreme weather and this may already be starting.

Skierrdery · 03/03/2020 14:04

Why does it bother some of you so much if some of us don't buy into the mass hysteria around climate change?

I probably do more for the environment than you preachers on this thread. I haven't driven in 5 years, I haven't flown in about 3 years, I have one child. I recycle what I can.

These are accidental, not by design. But the hysteria at the moment is lunacy. It's like a bandwagon and everyone is jumping on it singing yippee-aye-ay! Madness.

You've read that some of us don't think that our contribution is much anyway. Personally, I would say that we're responsible for maybe 1% of climate change. You really don't understand nature and physics if you think otherwise.

A lot of THE SCIENTISTS SAY on here. You've read above that the area of science which holds a contradictory view on this (geology) doesn't get a say on the matter.

I'm not sure why this thread was started as so far I've just been called an idiot for expressing my views and the OP hasn't come back Hmm

Nicely played.

May have backfired on you though Wink

MangoFeverDream · 03/03/2020 14:06

First, natural disasters include earthquakes, volcanoes, and other phenomena not related to climate change. Second, the 370,000/year average from the 1950s/60s includes two years with some of the highest death tolls. If you look at the full range of dates, there are a lot of peaks and troughs

Quotes from above: The trend still holds when the measurement is narrowed to weather-related disasters, which decreased similarly as a share of global GDP even as the dollar cost of disasters increased.

Also, from the website: What we see is that in the early-to-mid 20th century, the annual death toll from disasters was high, often reaching over one million per year. In recent decades we have seen a substantial decline in deaths. In most years fewer than 20,000 die (and in the most recent decade, this has often been less than 10,000). Even in peak years with high-impact events, the death toll has not exceeded 500,000 since the mid-1960s.

This decline is even more impressive when we consider the rate of population growth over this period. When we correct for population – showing this data in terms of death rates (measured per 100,000 people) – we see an even greater decline over the past century.

As for claims that there are more hurricanes, I don’t think there is high confidence in that from the IPCC: ‘Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged’

This is taken from the latest IPCC report

Furfockssake · 03/03/2020 14:09

Personally, I would say that we're responsible for maybe 1% of climate change. You really don't understand nature and physics if you think otherwise

In a debate about science saying anything which just reflects your gut feeling immediately discounts what you say!

Skierrdery · 03/03/2020 14:11

Keep slamming that head. Eventually you might knock some sense into yourself.

onionface · 03/03/2020 14:12

Personally, I would say that we're responsible for maybe 1% of climate change.

Oh well, if you think that, best tell the IPCC and they'll definitely add it to their next report. FFS.

Furfockssake · 03/03/2020 14:13

@Skierrdery says the person who doesn't know how to debate sensibly.

People who want to debate science, and then end up talking about their gut feeling or anecdotal evidence just show themselves up as being unable to discuss science.

Skierrdery · 03/03/2020 14:14

In a debate about science saying anything which just reflects your gut feeling immediately discounts what you say!

In a discussion about why we don't buy into the climate change furore, you have done nothing but curse and swear, insult people and basically barge about the place roaring nonsensically, with nothing to say.

Skierrdery · 03/03/2020 14:16

People who want to debate science, and then end up talking about their gut feeling or anecdotal evidence just show themselves up as being unable to discuss science.

People who haven't put forward one single coherent belief, adherence or opinion, let alone any scientific information, are hardly the experts on this thread.

onionface · 03/03/2020 14:17

There's a lot of misunderstanding around the effects of climate change. It's not just "oh there's a bigger storm than usual, never mind, it's only blown over the garden fence, what's the panic about".

Ecosystems are collapsing. Animals and plants don't have the luxury of air conditioning or central heating or garden fences. Rapid changes in climate and resultant environmental effects, however small they may seem to you, massively shift how ecosystems function. Food security is greatly threatened. It will bear out over the next few decades, we're only at the beginning.

Furfockssake · 03/03/2020 14:18

@Skierrdery

People who start nonsensical threads on a public forum should expect to be told firmly where the evidence lies. And yes, sometimes I swear because the level of ignorance on threads like these is depressing. People have answered a question about why they are sceptical of climate change not by answering with science but by answering with their gut feeling. If we're talking science and climate change, gut feelings are automatically discounted.

Skierrdery · 03/03/2020 14:19

Ecosystems are constantly evolving. Tis the nature Wink of the game.

Furfockssake · 03/03/2020 14:20

People who haven't put forward one single coherent belief

Science isn't a belief.

I support the best current scientific hypothesis for climate change which is that it is man made. If you have a different opinion, test it, publish it, and get it peer reviewed.

Skierrdery · 03/03/2020 14:21

If we're talking science and climate change, gut feelings are automatically discounted.

Where have you contributed anything apart from to tell us repetitively, like some sort of rare hopefully soon to be extinct parrot, that our opinions are worthless?

onionface · 03/03/2020 14:21

@skiderry the science all shows that species cannot evolve quickly enough to adapt to climate change. I mean, if you don't care about the survival of the human race or the quality of life of your future grandchildren, then sure, ecosystem collapse isn't really a problem because Earth will carry on. But then what's the bloody point of being alive?

Furfockssake · 03/03/2020 14:22

that our opinions are worthless?

Because they are just that, your opinions.

If you're talking science, it's scientific evidence I'm interested in.

Skierrdery · 03/03/2020 14:23

If it wasn't for evolution, we wouldn't exist.

Furfockssake · 03/03/2020 14:24

@Skierrdery

I've contributed a bit of critical thinking. Don't say things you can't back up with reliable sources, don't believe opinions are as valid as fact, don't believe your gut feeling trumps current scientific thinking.