On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:32:09 PM UTC+12, Waveguru wrote:
The thing about all these arguments above is that very few of us ever read anything that opposes the opinion that we have already formed, and no matter what anybody says or links to, NOBODY is going to change their mind and we are going to think those that think differently than we do are idiots, so why bother saying anything? By the way, I think we are definitely changing the weather with the dinasours we burn, and everybody that denies this is an idiot....

That's trivially true, in the sense that NO ONE denies that we are having some non-zero effect. Claims that sceptics say we don't have an effect, or that sceptics believe that temperatures have not increased (and faster from 1975-2000 or so) are pure lies or ignorance.

At question is:

- the proportion of the natural vs the human made effects in the past

- the accuracy or otherwise of future projections

- whether the effects of a few degrees increase (if they should eventuate) would overall be beneficial or harmful

- if temperatures continue to increase (not a given) AND are overall harmful (not a given), is is economically more efficient to try to prevent such changes, or to adapt to them?


In the nature of the logic in the arguments made, the alarmists have to prove every one of their linked chain of claims to be valid. The sceptics only have to show any one of them to be false.