Bulldog Drummond;234365 wrote:I don't think that anyone is a climate change "denier", which is an odd sort of label, although it is conceivable that some people don't believe that there was ever an Ice Age. It is obvious that the climate has changed since time began, and will continue to do so, with the main driver being the Sun.
But I think that one can reasonably be sceptical about:
The impact of mankind on the climate
The role of CO2
The value of the "green" measures that are being put in place
The data being used to justify claims
The scientific consensus
Models
Whether it makes a blind bit of difference what the UK does
Whether climate change even matters much
NB the "precautionary principle" sounds very reasonable but in practice leads not infrequently to absurd policies.
But Scientists, who ought to know,
Assure us that they must be so ...
Oh! let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about!
An excellent post.
I agree with others though, like Dan, that the issue of CFCs and the ozone layer is not a comparable one, since that was a demonstrably concerning problem that was most probably being caused by industry. It is a highly specific and easily measurable chemical reaction with what appears to be an easily observable and proven solution.
Unfortunately, the apparent success in relation to that problem is then used to justify frankly absurd actions in relation to the far more vague, difficult to prove, grossly exaggerated matter of man-made global warming. As one of the posters above says: 'this is a good example of following the science', or words to that effect, which is absolute tripe. There is no such thing as "the science", and there is nothing scientific about "following" such a notion.
On the man-made global warming theory, or hypothesis as it should actually be called (still unproven), it hasn't even been convincingly shown yet that temperature rises follow increases in CO2, rather than the other way round. It is one of the many areas of doubt that got brushed over with the preferred narrative then being hammered by a toxic mix of government funding and other anti-scientific initiatives. Another absolute basic is: how do we measure temperature? Thermometers, obviously. For the most part anyway. How many thermometers are there? Where are they positioned and what is their global coverage? How accurate are they? How would we answer these questions 100 years ago, and 200 years ago? How can we know what average global temperatures looked like 250 years ago, let alone 500 years ago?
This is before we even get into the dodgy modeling that attempts to predict future changes in the parameters, and the repeated massaging of the recorded data to prove the modeling.
This is absolutely fundamental. In the absence of really rock solid data, we are left with more indirect evidence. Ice cores, the geological record, known human history. Temperatures have been higher than they are now in the past, and also colder. Geologists know that sea levels have previously been far higher than they are now, and also much lower during glacial periods. Nothing to do with humans. We know that there was a medieval warm period when wine was produced in England and the warmth permitted a period of prosperity and church building in Europe. Nothing to do with industraliation. We know this warm spell was followed by the mini ice age when there was ice skating on the Thames. Nothing that is happening now is anything new as far as we know. By the way, the recent "record temperature" in England was recorded at a thermometer next to a runway at the busiest airport in the world... don't tell the media though.
This disgraceful, anti-scientific scam bears no relation at all to other areas of scientific inquiry, certainly not the relationship between CFCs and the ozone layer.