Quote:"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.
"Even before this paper there wasn't much scientific evidence for denying climate change, and now I don't see any credible scientific contradiction - if people don't believe it, it'll be because they choose not to believe it."
Robert Kaufmann displays an overwhelming level of ignorance here. If I believe when someone drops a pen it'll fall at 9.81 m/s2 is that an act of faith? Not an acceptance that a statement or proposition is true? One of the virtues of science is its repeatability - its not like science just stops working on occasions. No, I reject that statement; I don’t accept anything on faith, be it the existence of Australia or the sun rising in the morning.
And I'm a climate-change denier by their reckoning? Really? So if I'm unconvinced by all the god claims and don't believe in god, am I a god-denier?
IPCC carries out no original research and will be discounted. BBC have been criticised since forever for their basis towards climate change and campaigning on the issue whenever the opportunity arises, so on this issue they are not a trustworthy source, they are seeking to proselytise and scaremonger; they’re not giving me the impartiality on the subject I require.
There is simply too much controversy and political agenda that surrounds the whole saga (see link below) I simply remain in disbelief until it is proven true. I can't even comment on whether human-induced climate change is happening or not, no more if some scientists published findings tomorrow that without humans the climate would go out of control. I am not certain beyond reasonable doubt it is happening therefore it would be intellectually dishonest of me and hypocritical to accept the findings without trying to apply scrutiny to them first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-bill.html
