To me the question isn't one of whether global warming/climate change is or is not occurring, but one of whether one is at ease in fully believing the politicised science of the IPCC (and its ramifications), or mainstream science: the former having quietly altered its remit to look exclusively for anthropogenic causes, while the latter seeks to continue looking at the whole spectrum; i.e. both man-made and natural causes. From my perspective, therefore, the term denier is entirely wrong, but is still regularly used due to the ease with which it can
close down debate.“I will be dead before it becomes a problem, so I don't care.”
This both presupposes there is, indeed a ‘problem’ and that CO
2 reduction is actually a solution to it. That said (and though now being 64 and on the downward slope) I do actually care. Not about climate change per se, because I believe it to be predominantly natural, but at the cost (financial, social, political and environmental) to be borne by those youngsters being gulled into demanding action. As I mentioned above, one only has to look at the gilets jaunes protests in France (and the, sometimes, brutal suppression thereof) to get a flavour of what’s to come when the piper demands payment.
Ever since Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph was comprehensively debunked by Steve McIntyre* (subsequently reinforced by the climategate revelations) I’ve been increasingly suspicious of how the IPCC operates. (Even worse has been the fawning of the BBC in their support.) We’ve had 30 years of ‘ten years to save the planet’ (actually making the latest 12 years a 20% improvement), but in reality, very little has changed. This, of course, hasn’t stopped some from blaming just about every weather event and ill (including Brexit) on climate change – which I find eerily reminiscent of early civilisations, rather than those of the 21
st century. And let’s not forget too that some entrepreneurial individuals have grown incredibly rich from fostering this belief, and the
lavish subsidies being thrown at renewables.
So I am very interested in your observations. Do you think the hockey stick graph is indeed the basis upon which all of this climate “science” rests upon? And since it has been thoroughly debunked, where does that leave the global warming believers? I am really interested in a non-emotional exchange of ideas here.