Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Obelix 11]

I'm sorry but the debate on AGW is effectively closed as to the source of it already. It'll take some stunning evidence to prove it's false at this point, all that most people are looking at is the magnitude of it.

[El Cid 221]

I'm sorry but the debate on AGW is effectively closed as to the source of it already. It'll take some stunning evidence to prove it's false at this point, all that most people are looking at is the magnitude of it.

 

Of course the debate is closed.

 

Those that cannot believe in climate change dont have an alternative.

 

We believe the temperatures are rising, the effect of that are melting ice and rising sea levels.

 

We do not hear of alternative causes, it is not the Sun, it is not Moon; the only suspected cause of this warming is the greenhouse effect. People try to play the man instead of the ball.

 

Its always been clear that the earth continued to warm, because the sea level continued to rise.

[unbeliever 10]

It's not a question of true or false. It's about the sign and magnitude of the net effect of all the feedbacks.

The question is the CO2 sensitivity of the system.

I have explained this in great detail on multiple occasions.

[little malc 10]

climate change is happening but what is not so clear, how much or any is down to mankind or is it cyclical as it's always been?

[Robin-H 11]

climate change is happening but what is not so clear, how much or any is down to mankind or is it cyclical as it's always been?

 

Is that unclear? The fact that the warming is anthropogenic is pretty much proven is it not?

 

There is no natural cycle that the current warming would fit into, so not only is the science behind the warming proven, but there is no reasonable alternative.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Is that unclear? The fact that the warming is anthropogenic is pretty much proven is it not?

 

There is no natural cycle that the current warming would fit into, so not only is the science behind the warming proven, but there is no reasonable alternative.

 

I understand a big spike occured with the industrial revolution (saw it on natgeo) and it's still going. Coincidence?

[BHRemovals 10]

Theresa may is a denyer.

[unbeliever 10]

Is that unclear? The fact that the warming is anthropogenic is pretty much proven is it not?

 

There is no natural cycle that the current warming would fit into, so not only is the science behind the warming proven, but there is no reasonable alternative.

 

That doesn't preclude a non-anthropogenic component.

[Robin-H 11]

Theresa may is a denyer.

 

Really? That's quite a claim, particularly as she said this in 2008..

 

"I am thrilled to see that after years of Conservative pressure, we have finally passed a necessary and ambitious piece of legislation on Climate Change. Britain is the first country in the world to formally bind itself to cut greenhouse emissions and I strongly believe this will improve our national and economic security. To stay reliant on fossil fuels would mean tying ourselves to increasingly unstable supplies which could endanger our energy security and the Climate Change and Energy Bills mark an important step for both the health of our economy and the health of our nation. It is now vital that we stick to these targets. I will continue to put pressure on the Government over the third runway at Heathrow as an extra 222,000 flights a year would undermine our national targets and seriously damage the health of the local community.”

 

And this is 2006..

 

“I welcome that the Government has responded to cross-party pressure to make it easier for homes in Maidenhead and across the country to install renewable energy like solar panels or mini-wind turbines. Where the Government offers positive, constructive and reasonable policies, they will have my support. But the Government could do far more to promote green energy, rather than giving unfair subsidies to new nuclear power stations. Conservatives want to enhance our environment by seeking a long-term cross-party consensus on sustainable development and climate change – instead of short-term thinking or surrendering to vested interests. The modern, compassionate Conservative Party believes that quality of life matters just as much as quantity of money.”

 

Neither of those statements sound like the statements of a climate change denier to me..

[Bob Arctor 11]

Really? That's quite a claim, particularly as she said this in 2008..

 

"I am thrilled to see that after years of Conservative pressure, we have finally passed a necessary and ambitious piece of legislation on Climate Change. Britain is the first country in the world to formally bind itself to cut greenhouse emissions and I strongly believe this will improve our national and economic security. To stay reliant on fossil fuels would mean tying ourselves to increasingly unstable supplies which could endanger our energy security and the Climate Change and Energy Bills mark an important step for both the health of our economy and the health of our nation. It is now vital that we stick to these targets. I will continue to put pressure on the Government over the third runway at Heathrow as an extra 222,000 flights a year would undermine our national targets and seriously damage the health of the local community.”

 

And this is 2006..

 

“I welcome that the Government has responded to cross-party pressure to make it easier for homes in Maidenhead and across the country to install renewable energy like solar panels or mini-wind turbines. Where the Government offers positive, constructive and reasonable policies, they will have my support. But the Government could do far more to promote green energy, rather than giving unfair subsidies to new nuclear power stations. Conservatives want to enhance our environment by seeking a long-term cross-party consensus on sustainable development and climate change – instead of short-term thinking or surrendering to vested interests. The modern, compassionate Conservative Party believes that quality of life matters just as much as quantity of money.”

 

Neither of those statements sound like the statements of a climate change denier to me..

 

There's nothing in them to suggest she is not a denier. The first is about energy security, the second could be about air quality as much as climate change.

[Robin-H 11]

That doesn't preclude a non-anthropogenic component.

 

Is there any evidence for a non-anthropogenic component to the current warming?

 

One could perhaps argue that there would be slight warming without human influence due to the natural ice age/interglacial cycle, but I don't know of any evidence which claims that even a component of this warming is due to that - and even if it was, it wouldn't negate the proven science behind the impact of increased Co2/methane concentrations in the atmosphere.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2017 at 21:00 ----------

 

There's nothing in them to suggest she is not a denier. The first is about energy security, the second could be about air quality as much as climate change.

 

After ratifying the Paris agreement in Sept last year she also said..

 

..The UK remained determined to “play our part in the international effort against climate change … In a demonstration of our commitment to the agreement reached in Paris, the UK will start its domestic procedures to enable ratification of the Paris agreement and complete these before the end of the year,”.

 

Why would she want the UK to play our part in the effort against climate change if she didn't believe in it?

 

Maybe you're right, maybe she's a secret denier and she doesn't believe in it, but as the UK is still going to 'play our part' then what does it matter.

[El Cid 221]

That doesn't preclude a non-anthropogenic component.

 

Could fairy dust have caused part of our rising temperature, or do you have something else in mind?

I wouldnt question the validity of a scientists theory, unless I could argue my case with a little detail.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2017 at 21:16 ----------

 

Theresa may is a denyer.

 

Cameron was convinced, hook line and sinker but he still appointed a climate skeptic to lead the relevant department.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2017 at 21:18 ----------

 

There's nothing in them to suggest she is not a denier. The first is about energy security, the second could be about air quality as much as climate change.

 

That is why she got the job as PM, she is on the fence about everything, accept Grammar schools.