Time we had another climate change thread. Maybe siggie will come out to play 
Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning'
True sceptics test a hypothesis against the evidence, but climate sceptics refuse to accept anything that contradicts their beliefs.
The grim findings of the IPCC last year reiterated what climatologists have long been telling us: the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, and we're to blame.
Despite the clear scientific consensus, a veritable brigade of self-proclaimed, underinformed armchair experts lurk on comment threads the world over, eager to pour scorn on climate science.
Barrages of ad hominem attacks all too often await both the scientists working in climate research and journalists who communicate the research findings.
The nay-sayers insist loudly that they're "climate sceptics", but this is a calculated misnomer – scientific scepticism is the method of investigating whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the evidence.
Climate sceptics, by contrast, persist in ignoring empirical evidence that renders their position untenable. This isn't scepticism, it's unadulterated denialism, the very antithesis of critical thought.
Motivated reasoning is not solely the preserve of conservatives.
While nuclear power has been recognised by the IPCC as important in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, staunch and uninformed opposition to nuclear power arises often from the liberal aisle. In the furore over the Fukushima nuclear disaster (which has claimed no lives and probably never will) many environmentalists lost sight of the fact that it was a natural disaster, very possibly exacerbated by climate change, that cost thousands of lives. Instead, they've rushed to condemn nuclear power plants.
The health effects of Chernobyl have been well studied over 25 years by the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: 28 workers died from acute radiation syndrome, and there were 15 fatal thyroid cancers in children.
Those who ingested radioiodine immediately after the disaster are at elevated risk of thyroid cancer. No increase has been observed in solid cancers or birth defects.
If we truly wish to avoid catastrophe, we must be pragmatic and take action. Ideological differences need to take a back seat if decisive action is to be taken. When one's house is on fire, the immediate priority should be putting the flames out, not squabbling about the insurance. Let us hope we realise this before it's too late.
"a man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION
Accepted Solutions
I’ll have to do my own “COMPUTER MODELLING” to give an approximate answer to your post. 
After all that’s all the IPCC is, a computer model of what they think, not including the “hockey stick” lie when they couldn't manipulate the science to suit.
How on Earth could anyone deny that climate changes?......lol.... gotta love nature......
Climate change has been happening since the beginning of earth. Just study the history of our planet and you will realise that there is a greater power (our Sun) that influences the changes and no man can stop it.
Granted, the world is much more populated than thousands or millions of years ago. We live in an age were polution by overuse of appliances, manufacturing, mining and productions is poisoning the athmosphere faster than ever before.
No matter what some clever people may think of to stop climate change, it will happen regardless.
Better think of ways to survive climate change, than waste time trying to stop it.
Erica
