Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BNG I categorically believe on the evidence! or > lack of, I've seen surrounding 'climate change' > that to date, nothing can prove nor disprove the > hypothesis. But I would of course welcome science > to come at me and say otherwise. Totally open to > ideas. From what I have read and understand on the > topic, I am to date swayed by the idea of natural > climatic fluctuations with little or barely > noticeable difference made by humanity. I find it > grating when institutional mainstream science on > the whole backs the 'climate change hypothesis', > that then other individuals jump on the bandwagon > making out that every single little bit of extreme > weather is a result of this, and tbh nothing has > shown me personally that beyond doubt climatic > changes outside the realm of natural fluctuation > is actually happening! > > Louisa. The problem I have with the sceptics is entirely philisophical in that (to generalise) their argument/narrative has gone something like this as each point is proven by science: "No Evidence" "Evidence is wrong" "Evidence is OK but Climate Change isn't man made" and, more recently, "the outcomes won't be as catastrophic as everyone thinks" I am no fan of either bandwagons, pcness, or on the whole, the Climate Change/environemnteal lobby etc but the anti's argument shifts are not very convincing