Greg - it'd take some doing.
I see a climate that has been changing for millennia, which reached a minimum just before the industrial revolution and is not unusual in its current trend of warming.
If there's a solid argument that shows the current trend is NOT natural, and further is preventable, I shall be over to the other side of the debate in a flash.
However I've read more about this issue than I care to admit to and while there have been some very technical arguments, some very emotive arguments and some with at least some degree of logic, I've yet to be convinced that it is anything other than mainly natural (if not entirely) and so obviously I'm unconvinced that it's preventable.
I'd also like to see a good solid argument that warming would inherently be bad, and while rising sea level may cause some issues, I don't believe it to the the nightmare-scenario many suggest, or, for that matter, an unusual one.
Husky - I became a skeptic (strangely) after taking an interest in open source software and found that most climate models used in the debate are closed source and can't be properly investigated for valid coding, sensitivity levels and so on, and that in some cases the very data used was in question (data shaping I believed it was called - i don't recall too clearly now)
That got me looking a bit further and through that I turned skeptic.
It was only a long while after that when I heard the argument about financial conflicts of interest, something that I'd (somehow) not encountered in the previous reading I'd done to move me to concerned and eventually to skeptic.
I see a climate that has been changing for millennia, which reached a minimum just before the industrial revolution and is not unusual in its current trend of warming.
If there's a solid argument that shows the current trend is NOT natural, and further is preventable, I shall be over to the other side of the debate in a flash.
However I've read more about this issue than I care to admit to and while there have been some very technical arguments, some very emotive arguments and some with at least some degree of logic, I've yet to be convinced that it is anything other than mainly natural (if not entirely) and so obviously I'm unconvinced that it's preventable.
I'd also like to see a good solid argument that warming would inherently be bad, and while rising sea level may cause some issues, I don't believe it to the the nightmare-scenario many suggest, or, for that matter, an unusual one.
Husky - I became a skeptic (strangely) after taking an interest in open source software and found that most climate models used in the debate are closed source and can't be properly investigated for valid coding, sensitivity levels and so on, and that in some cases the very data used was in question (data shaping I believed it was called - i don't recall too clearly now)
That got me looking a bit further and through that I turned skeptic.
It was only a long while after that when I heard the argument about financial conflicts of interest, something that I'd (somehow) not encountered in the previous reading I'd done to move me to concerned and eventually to skeptic.