Goodbye, Paris

[robkelk]

Items that BA has already replied to are snipped.

...
I have looked at the arguments for climate change and against climate change. I'm generalising but the pro climate change sites are based on computer models of what they think will happen whilst the anti climate change sites looked at what happened in the past and how they don't match the computer models. Now perhaps there is a good reason all the predictions based on these computer models have been proven wrong

Such as "reporters did not understand what the scientists were telling them and reported what they thought they heard in a sensationalist manner in order to get people to read their articles and adverts."

(No snow in UK after 2000, Ice free arctic in 2013 are just 2 examples)

As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed".

but why should I trust the people who got the predictions wrong over the people who correctly said that the predictions were wrong. And if the failed predictions weren't based on computer models but were unscientific scare stories designed to bounce people into signing up to climate change then why should I trust the people who lied then to tell the truth now?

Good question: Why should you trust the reporters?

Finally my local council arranged 3 climate change marches in the early 2000's. Every one of them was cancelled at least once because of snow. Strangely enough they stopped arranging them after that. I'm no devout church goer but you don't need to be Moses to hear God's laughter at the idea that mankind controls the weather.

Living in Canada, I can tell you with historical evidence to back me up that if the temperature in the winter is too low, snow does not fall. Getting increased snowfall in mid-winter is a sign that temperatures are rising.

And if you want to invoke God, then I ask that She appears and speaks for Herself.

(links snipped - perhaps your interpretations of their contents might be mistaken?)

I have read the arguments on both sides and compared them with the real world. It is now 2017. You still can't sail to the North Pole without an icebreaker (if at all)

You can, however, sail the Northwest Passage without an icebreaker. Franklin's expedition could not.

Arctic natives are seeing fantastic beasts for which their languages have no words (such as what we call the "black fly"), because the environment is on average getting warm enough to support the lives of those beasts.

Waiting for the North Pole itself to become ice-free instead of taking action now is like waiting for invading troops to break down the door of 10 Downing Street instead of driving them off while they're still in the Channel - in either case, that's far too late to start taking action.

and it still snows in the UK. how many global warming scientists correctly predicted that this would still be the case? I bet it wasn't 95%.

I suspect the percentage of climatologists who did not make those two specific claims was higher than 95%, yes. That doesn't make climate change any less real.

Do you want a world where scientific theories are compared to real world measurements even if they are an inconvenient truth, or do you want a world where Galileo faces trial for disagreeing with the powers that be.

Are the real-world measurements being cherry-picked to support a particular bias, or is all of the data being examined? If you only look at one study, you get cases like the anti-vaxxers.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012