No - you obviously don't have to 'truly believe' that something is going to happen before you take precautions, there just has to be a risk of it happening. Think about it.

Anyway, *IF* human activity is contributing to climate change, doing those things is not necessarily the right way to go.

I don't think that the 'so called experts are now struggling to maintain their own belief in their computer model' (you always say that as if that is the only piece of evidence there is) if anything, consensus seems to be hardening over time.

I sometimes feel we should back out...feeding the trolls etc!

I feel like that tonight - I know they cant be that thick and are just playing "wind up" lol

Jo xxx

Why does the word "belief" keep recurring here?

Belief has no place in science, only hypotheses and testing against empirical evidence.

If you want to believe - or not - go to church.

Are you sure about that ?

You don't have to look too far back to see when "irrevocable facts" as claimed to be proven beyond doubt by scientists, have turned out to be no more than mistaken beliefs based on incorrect hypothesis.

Don't think so. Under those conditions, a hypothesis was originally tested empirically and found true. Upon further evidence (empirical testing) it was found to be false. Nobody ever believed in it at all.

Scientific knowledge advances that way. Belief never does.

Belief can be the result of many thousands of identical incidents witnessed by thousands of people under thousands of different circumstances over a long period of time all giving the same result.

Supposed scientific knowledge can be the result of one or two scientists briefly witnessing similar results to one or two experiments, yet not being able to see the wood for the trees, until someone looks at it from an entirely different viewpoint

Many things were proven by virtual amateurs and still remain unquestioned today without scientists and scientific theory ever needing to become involved.

LIW - might you be talking about faith rather than belief?

Steady on Jojo!
Only yesterday was there mf claiming that you don´t resort to such comments

Possibly, since the word is often used in that context. It is used in the context of anything that isn't and can't be grounded in science - "I believe in Father Christmas" and in the sense of "support" or "like" such as "I don't believe in sex before marriage" and finally "I don't believe you because I think you are lying" (once I know you are lying it is no longer a belief, it's just a fact). None of those uses of the word "believe" are really appropriate for climate change or anything else that depends on actual research and tend to cause a muddle among superstition, political stance, and misinformation from sources with an axe to grind, none of which is good. It stops people thinking for themselves properly - and that is the case wherever you fall in the argument.

If all you mean by "I believe" is "I think" then you had better have some good old facts (scientific research)to back up your thought or it doesn't really mean very much. In fact, it would just be a belief.

Very interesting discussion on Radio 2 today explaining exactly what the scientists mean by climate change and global warming and the role the media, with it's own agenda, has in distorting the real picture. I won't discuss it here because anyone disagreeing with the sceptics is quite obviously now a troll.

Article from The Guardian today.

Ed Milliband seems pretty convinced...

Further comment...

I think the point here is that there will never be - CAN never be - absolute proof that human activities are contributing to climate change. There will always be enough wriggle room for people to deny it if they want to. Those who expect it should accept this and concentrate instead upon the weight of evidence rather than incontrovertible proof as there will never be any such thing.

Ed Milleband so he is an expert now

Have a read what this expert, who happens to work at the MET says. He is off message, he will be out of job soon he reckons climate change did NOT cause the storms. Interesting that the MET predicted a 15% chance of a wet winter just two weeks before the rain started

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-experts.html

No - Ed Milliband is not an expert, I would far sooner trust Matthew Collins judgement. If he says that this weather is not down to climate change I tend to believe him.

I also tend to believe him when he says this

don't remember anyone shouting about Global Warming when we had the bad weather of the 63-64 winter, the year children of 10 in the Scillies had the first snow fall in their lives.

`