I reckon, climate change, ie global warming, is a fact. What is disputed (not by me) is how much of this change is down to human pollution. Although we always have had 'storms' named or not... is there increasing intensity and frequency down to human activity. That is more difficult to prove.
I would think the last two volcanoes that erupted has done more damage to the ozone than humans have in god knows how many years, but I still believe we should do everything we can not to make it any worse.
There were a couple of climate change guys on Rogan last week one after the other. The bloke who's supposedly a climate change denier has said repeatedly that it's happening, but because he's not sure it's entirely man made he gets lumped in with the nutters. And because one side completely refuses to engage, us regular punters will never know what the truth actually is.
In the early 80s we had a few for a couple of years I remember working repairing roofs and had a few weekends overtime
I was at one time a climate change skeptic. About 15 years ago I read a book by Sir John somebody a retired head of the Met Office. A point he made was that if human actions were involved in climate change, it would make, floods, droughts and storms more likely, more often and a greater intensity. Give that prediction a tick then! Being a retired bean counter, I understood that to mean. In predicting the weather an algorithm is used using all the known factors, wind, solar flares, earth wobbles, volcano etc. inputting various observed weather numbers. Adding a human factor to that predicting/determinant would then allow greater accuracy in forecasting weather outcomes which just using existing factors wasn't as accurate. Then I looked at the UK Royal Society website ( a bunch of stuffed shirt scientists), I also looked at the NASA website. Both of these fairly conservative group of scientists linked climate change/global warming to increasing industrialisation/population rise. The correlation was very conclusive. To ignore such evidence probably indicates that you are already a member of the flat earth society. The good point is we can do something about it.... go nuclear to produce electricity or hydrogen and on the meantime, frack for gas?
I think that, as usual with heavily politicised issues, the middle ground - yes it's definitely happening, yes we're definitely contributing to it, we don't have enough data to really determine how fast it's happening or much we're contributing to it yet but we should definitely work on reducing it - has been forcibly pushed into the realms of flat earth because it's inconvenient for the agenda that it should be panic stations. Things like when we get a spell of weather that suits, it's definitely climate change and we need to panic more. When we get a cold spell, it's just weather don't be daft. It's worth a listen. Koonin is on first, then Dessler.
Its annoying that major issues like Covid19/ vaccines and climate change get politicised. Of course science is never 100%, but that's what the debate should be about... a questioning peer and layperson view of the science results. Not right or left wing. I have never been a big fan of Bonko (even though I voted Brexit) but a lot of decisions he has made (putting lies about parties, wallpaper and lobbying to one side). Bonko has made decisions about lockdowns, masks etc to pander to his 'Trump' MPs to save his political life rather than what a commonsense view of the various medical/scientific models forecast.
