Pretty simple really, there are a small group of people who don’t accept what the scientists are saying, mostly because it upsets their view of the world we live in. These people also deny that man landed on the moon and think we are visited regularly by UFO’s.
The rest of us (those who listen to the scientists) think it makes sense to make changes to the way we do things to reduce the amount of carbon we are pouring into the atmosphere.
You are being unfair to the Moon-landing-was-hoaxed brigade. That’s a slightly more credible theory because of the relatively fewer numbers of people who would have to be in on the secret. The climate change ‘conspiracy’ would require many thousands of scientists to be knowingly deceiving the world.
Chuck, you are wasting your time asking for a scientific explanation here that would change your mind. I’m going to be charitable and assume that, as a person with an interest in this issue, you have read material on the climate change ‘debate’. If that’s correct, you have already had many opportunities to digest and accept sensible arguments, but for some reason have chosen instead to accept the arguments of ‘sceptics’ such as the famous Monckton.
Instead of asking persons who generally accept the current scientific consensus to explain their position, surely the more germane question is this: why do you reject it?
What brave souls mikenmild and YesWeDid are, such men of conviction. It was such a pity they and the other deluded souls who promote this shit turned to sacks jelly when Lord Monckton rolled into town. Where were your scientists then chaps, no doubt hiding in there taxpayer funded ivory towers.
I got the impression that agreeing to debate Lord Monckton would be a foolish waste of time. Scientists wouldn’t debate him because he is not a scientist. Politicians wouldn’t debate him because his isn’t a politician (apart from his failed attempts to get into the House of Lords). His fellow journalists did interview him, which was a kindness from them.
‘That does not explain why an increase in CO2 causes the climate to get warmer and colder.’
CO2 is a greenhouse gas; meaning an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere results in less of the sun’s energy being reflected from our atmosphere and this causes an increase of energy and heating.
This increase in energy causes more extreme weather due to the interdependence of weather patterns on the planet and the effect on things like ocean currents and global air flows, more extreme weather means both colder weather and warmer weather.
Reflected should be radiated same as glass effect in green houses or cloud effect cloudy days are on average warmer
Warming is the average world wide in the last warm period Greenland was warmer eastern Canada was colder
The warmth in the early middle ages had huge affects on society there are a lot more of us now and the effects are unknown
@cabbage – I don’t think anyone is saying this is evidence of climate change, what the climate change scientists are saying is these ’50 year’ events will happen more frequently, so one event in isolation is not evidence for or against climate change but if we start getting these events every 5 or 10 years rather than 30 to 40 years then that will show a trend of our weather becoming more extreme.
The problem with climate change is it is like a run away train, once we notice the effects it is too late to do anything about it.