"The big niggle I have is that if you look with no pre-decided mind set you'll find there is enough evidence out there to suggest the science is far from settled"
KMm, that statement predisposes that everyone else started from a predetermined point. That is a completely false and disdainful assumption. Apart from those that are taking sides along political lines I would think that everyone came to their own conclusions through their own investigation and assessment of the science and the characters involved. No, I'm sorry but you're wrong. LOTS of people have decided already for basically limp reasons that have nothing what so ever to do with research or stuff like that. We've seen that very thing in this thread. Sure that's not all people but it's a hell of a lot and I'd say the majority. It's easier to listen to someone with a flash title saying 'If we don't play nice the Penguins will get it'. Most people will think 'he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, he has a flash title and Penguins are soooo cute, I think I agree with him'. And Bingo, that's their decision made. There is a massive amount of emotion being used to manipulate people and it is a easy subject to use emotion as a tool. CC is a marketers dream. Fair enough I'll not dispute the fluffy bunny factor.
Take me for example, I seem to have and inherent distrust of corporations and politicians almost anyone in fact that primarily does works for the money and privilege. I believe their motives need scrutiny. I'm standing right there beside you on that.. but why limit yourself to only that group for whom money is a big deal? Why not include organisations who get say many many millions a year, and stand to get even more, because they say they believe in one side or the other? Those mobs are out there and some are raking in massive sums. I didn't exclude those groups/people
As for the subject being "far from settled" people are still debating the theory of evolution or whether man landed on the moon. At what point will you be happy? I'd be happier about the CC debate if it was as simple as evolution or creation or the moon landings, but its far from it. One simple question I've asked a lot of people, including 2 Uni Professors, "If we can't predict with in a knot or 2 or degree or 2 what the weather will do in a months time, what makes you so sure the 0.25 degrees per annum (or whatever) change will indeed happen in 10 years time?'. Do that and suss the responses, they are interesting. That's the climate/weather 101 debate.
So what are the alternative sources for the warming? There are lots of other possible reasons as many well respected scientists from well respected institutions have and continue to put forward. What caused the climate change 4 billion years ago?, 1 billion?, 100,000 year, 1500 years ago? Maybe it's the same thing causing it today, in fact there is no doubt that is fact and the only question is how much, if any, input is man adding into it all? I'm sure man has some input but how much is the biggie. Climate change billions of years ago was driven by absorption and production of CO2 http://www.snowballe....org/cause.html
If we are confronted with a problem that may take a couple of centuries to fix but we can't be 100% certain of it's cause (because of rigorous scientific principles, but lets say we're pretty sure) what do you suggest we do? Minimise our footprint in any way we can, a principal I and 1000's live by daily. But many don't, they need to get their sh*t together and stop being selfish. But that doesn't address the thousands of coal powered power stations
I agree that the money will bring on massive corruption, but that is there already, you could say it's endemic to humanity. What will the Nigerians do with their share? And what has been done already by the global businesses in the "third world"? We wouldn't have our lifestyles if it hadn't been for things like the British, French or American empires walking around the world taking whatever they felt like with a stupifyingly large sense of entitlement. Should we form a global government and make sure it happens they way "we " want it to? We have global government now, it's call the UN. It has bodies that can and do force our Govt to do sh*t, one's called the IPCC. The rest is history so shouldn't be able to be changed but the internet will change history if it wants to, it's doing it in lots of other areas. I don't think changing history is limited to the internet the encyclopedia Brittanica always seemed rather light on massacres and resource theft by the commonwealth et al.
The problem will get sorted and the discussion will end when, like I've said before, the rich and powerful have shifted their finances from the fossil industry and have got their noses into the next big thing. At the moment I believe they are slowing down the play to get themselves into a better position. Because if they weren't affected by the findings of decades of research there wouldn't be any denial discussion outside of the tin foil hat brigade. They will defend their position as long as they can then abandon it leaving behind those that didn't or wouldn't understand the game. Yeap, the money flowing into CC investigation and mitigation is probably one of the biggest flows of coin the world has ever seen. So as each day passes it become more imperative for Govts, big business and the like, including many scientific organisations, that man is changing the climate. If someone came out tomorrow with definitive proof man is not the majority cause then a lot of big powerful organisations and people will not only lose their shirt, they will be made to look dodgy as sin. Do you expect them to sit back quietly and let that even get close to being a possibility? Yep the money is moving into "clean" energy I wonder how much pollution will be pumped into rivers from dodgy solar panel manufactures or similar.
Money can be used to trash either side of the debate... not to mention keep the minions amused while the dodgy continues quietly in the back ground.
After it's all done they will say they were just supporting a rigorous scientific process out of the goodness of their hearts.
And if you're wondering who "they" are they are the investors in the coal, oil and associated industries. For example they'll leave the Aussie government high and dry after Abbott's hitched his cart to the coal industry, they won't repay the favour in kind. 'They' are numerous, come in all shapes and 'they' both support and don't support either side of the debate. 'They' do not only inhabit one side of it. No, but I was referring to the "they's" who are stalling the decision making process.
And to reply to your last bit before I really have to get some work done, I think I have a well balanced and honest view of the debate and the participants. I don't think the denial side is the only side with issues. But I trust the motives of the pro side rather than the denialists. Professor Dingle Dangle would love to be the man who changed the world by proving the whole thing is balls but he can't. Professor Zippy Nuts first wrote the paper because of his own poorly paid research in the 70's which built on Professor Bumble Nuts (no relation) research in the 40"s and 50"s. Professor Dingle Dangle has been unable to prove them wrong. Scientists are a very competitive bunch who would love to get their names up in lights but they are notoriously bad with money. I don't believe either in a global cabal of climate scientists conspiring together for fat research grants.
I had promised that I wouldn't buy another boat that didn't work, was broken, unfinished, sunk or that I hadn't seen.