Global warming

[Tony Williams]

of course if I don't agree with you I'm narrow minded and in denial...

I know. You have my sympathy.

[Tomolac]

and so once again we go back to having no evidence, aside from "no its not sun spots" and "yes climate change is easier to predict than the weather", but everyone believing in it anyway.

There is skepticism, and then there is

.........?

[Tim the Mage]

I was going to wind Tony up a little more with some further scepticism about the 'warmist' position. But he has clearly had the religious experience necessary to believe something without question and absolutely so I can't be bothered!

The climate is changing....we must adapt and respond. Agreed. Anything else is just obtuse and irrelevent scariness.

[Tony Williams]

I was going to wind Tony up a little more with some further scepticism about the 'warmist' position. But he has clearly had the religious experience necessary to believe something without question and absolutely so I can't be bothered!

Faith is not involved - merely a judgment that the vast majority of climate scientists around the world, whose extensive and continuing research has led them to an almost unanimous conclusion, probably know what they're talking about.

They've certainly been able to convince the Royal Society, the US National Acadamies and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among others. In fact, there isn't a single prestigious scientific body or publication which disagrees.

Now such professional unanimity doesn't guarantee that they're right, of course, but it's certainly the way to bet.

[Antipositor]

Please let us not have a climate change denial thread!

What's the difference between climate-change denial, and skepticism of conclusions about climate-change causes and climate-change predictions?

[Trinoc]

What's the difference between climate-change denial, and skepticism of conclusions about climate-change causes and climate-change predictions?

Skepticism is refusing to accept facts without evidence. Denial is refusal to accept facts despite evidence.

[Antipositor]

Skepticism is refusing to accept facts without evidence. Denial is refusal to accept facts despite evidence.

Then why are those who question the assertions of certain global climate catastrophe for lack of evidence, are often labeled as "climate deniers?"

[Trinoc]

Then why are those who question the assertions of certain global climate catastrophe for lack of evidence, are often labeled as "climate deniers?"

Those who question are not. Those who obfuscate and try to misrepresent the facts to support a contrary point of view are.

[Tomolac]

Faith is not involved - merely a judgement that the vast majority of climate scientists around the world, whose extensive and continuing research has led them to an almost unanimous conclusion, probably know what they're talking about.

They've certainly been able to convince the Royal Society, the US National Academies and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among others. In fact, there isn't a single prestigious scientific body or publication which disagrees.

Now such professional unanimity doesn't guarantee that they're right, of course, but it's certainly the way to bet.

sorry but for me I still want the evidence. I don't care how many people 'like the idea' I still want evidence. and not just disproof of other theories, I won't believe in man made global warming just because its not sun spots.

[Croydon Bob]

sorry but for me I still want the evidence. I don't care how many people 'like the idea' I still want evidence. and not just disproof of other theories, I won't believe in man made global warming just because its not sun spots.

I don't "believe" in man made global warming. But the majority of experts seem to think that it is real. And it is obviously possible, we do have a measurable impact on the planet, we're doing lots of things to it and that could include warming. Therefore, in view of all the people who know more than me and have changed their minds and joined the global warming camp, it seems very likely to me.

To refuse to accept it until we have absolute proof is a pretty good way of ensuring disaster if it is real.

[Tim the Mage]

I still have my doubts - not about climate change - but about whether the actions proposed (and the fewer actions undertaken) will make any difference at all.

My concern has always been about the response to climate change rather than the thing itself. It is being used as a justification for a huge raft of further interventions into free behaviour - something I find morally repugnant.

For saying this I get called a "denier" even though I have not denied.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is to ask why the "scientific concensus" has allowed Al Gore to get away with consistent exaggeration and invention? Why those same scientists whose research is misrepresented to present a doomsday scenario never challenge that presentation? And finally why it is that, given the widespread evidence supporting climatic changes, some of these scientists see fit to use temperature evidence that is inconsistent or incomplete?

Secondly, perhaps a discussion about evidence for different scenarios - from no significant change through to the dramatic catastrophes - would be more revealing. It is interesting also to note a rapid drop in global food yields over the past couple of years - because it is colder and drier! It is certainly a long while since it snowed in North Dakota in June.

Perhaps there's an ice age coming! ???

[Tomolac]

To refuse to accept it until we have absolute proof is a pretty good way of ensuring disaster if it is real.

and here is me asking for evidence when apparently I meant 'absolute proof'.
I also forgot that its better to act upon all the possible tragedy's and be wrong than to do nothing and be right. hay I believe in God now too, tis better to have believed either way it turns out, right?

[Croydon Bob]

and here is me asking for evidence when apparently I meant 'absolute proof'.
I also forgot that its better to act upon all the possible tragedy's and be wrong than to do nothing and be right. hay I believe in God now too, tis better to have believed either way it turns out, right?

You know perfectly well that there is an enormous and growing amount of evidence. However I don't consider myself more capable of judging it than the many experts in various fields. Over the last 20 years there has been an enormous shift of opinion amongst the people who should be capable of judging the evidence towards an acceptance of man-made climate change.

I've worked with and spoken to many of the Government's scientific advisors. Most of these people have changed their minds over the climate. Ten or 15 years ago they were telling the Govt not to worry too much about it, now they are very worried about it. This isn't because of a policy change or just the opinion of politicians, it is a change of opinion by increasing numbers of individuals who have spent a lot of time studying the evidence. Of course they might be wrong, but personally I don't think mankind should be risking it.

To compare doing something about the measurable changes to our planet, that have already affected human lives, with belief in a god is crass. A better analogy would be to compare with a product withdrawal. Do you withdraw it at great cost and embarrassment as soon as there seems to be a correlation with public death, or do you wait until you're really really certain it's killing people?

You are starting to come across as similar to the 9/11 troofer we had on these boards or, indeed, similar to any 19th century opponent of evolutionary theory. "Show me the evidence, show me more evidence, that's not real evidence, I'm not listening, la la la."

It has been said that if the skeptical movement was around 150 years ago we'd have opposed evolution. I don't think that it is true of most of us.

[Tomolac]

You know perfectly well that there is an enormous and growing amount of evidence.

that's it? this is what you consider your evidence? simply stating that it is there and that anyone who asks to see it is simply narrow minded? its obviously proven or you wouldn't believe it so there's no need to produce this evidence any more?
well now I'm converted, don't want to be called a 9/11 conspiracy theorist again. and I cant prove its not happening, that's how this works right?

[Tony Williams]

that's it? this is what you consider your evidence? simply stating that it is there and that anyone who asks to see it is simply narrow minded?

If you want to see it you can - it's all in the public domain.

Start with this, which tells you where to look for the basic info: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm