You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I await my flaming.
you seem confused between challenged with facts and flamed
The climate is cyclical. It has changed greatly many times with no help from mankind.
I never understand why people keep making this point.
Do they REALLY think that the world's foremost climate scientists are unaware of natural climate cycles?
I always picture someone in a white coat, sitting at a desk deep inside an IPCC research lab, stumbling on these comments and saying: [i]"By Jove, there's a chap here who reckons the climate has [b]always[/b] changed. I think he might be onto something. Get me someone at NASA immediately."[/i] 😆
Its also interesting they believe the same budget let purveyors of lie or scientists as the rest of us call them about previous change and causes but not about current change or causes.
I also wonder what they think is natural about burning tons and tons of fossil fuels and why they have not realised that previous natural change does not preclude current man made change.
What's cost got to do with it? Is offshore wind too expensive, or is coal too cheap? The need for renewables has nothing to do with being competitive in the market.
The cost is directly related to the carbon footprint of their construction, maintenance and operation.
They are not very "green", when the true "carbon cost" is added up.
After all, volcanoes spew out somewhere in the region of 0.15 to 0.26 BILLION metrics tons of CO2 every year! That's a lot.
[url= http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html ]Not everyone agrees with those numbers[/url]
Nobody believes scientists, that's the problem. We all know scientists have vested interests, we all know you can lie with statistics and we have all been fed conflicting dietary advice in our lives. It's time we stopped treating scientists as prophets.
Read Bad Science if you don't agree with me.
Hydrogen powered cars. Ridiculous, requires huge electrical output to produce. Complex and expensive infrastructure to supply.
As opposed to deep drilling on and off shore, massive transportation vessels and pipelines, refineries, storage and distribution network. Though I guess you could knock that all up with the bike spares in your shed.
gobuchul - MemberThe climate is cyclical. It has changed greatly many times with no help from mankind.
that's sort-of why lots of people are extremely concerned.
we've all seen the historical temp/CO2 graphs... the climate has warmed/cooled a LOT uring the last 800,000 years, probably longer, but the greenland ice-cores only go back so far...
and all of that variation has happened within a CO2 range of what, 180-300 ppm?
we've already gone way past that; we're at 400ppm at climbing, we have no idea what's going to happen - but it's going to be HUGE.
why is everyone so concerned about this?
if it does turn out to be a disaster we can just press a button to fix it.
[img] 
[/img]
Gobuchul, a quick sum says that even taking the highest figures for volcanic out-gassing of C02 in the article you link you still only get to 2% of anthropogenic CO2.
That's okay then, if volcanos can do it, we can do it too.
Not everyone agrees with those numbers
I don't see anything in that article that contradicts what I said?
The figures seem pretty much in line with the USGS figures I quoted
All he says is that they have a relatively small sample size and that [i]"Our planet's isolated volcanic frontiers could easily be hiding a monster or two"[/i]
Okay. Are we very likely to stumble across 11,200 volcanic monsters?
He also suggests we might need to include emission from degassing volcanoes and magma because [i]"this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes"[/i]
Okay, so lets add 0.13 to the largest estimate of 0.26.
That gives us 0.39 billion tons.
Manmade CO2 still absolutely dwarfs that at 35 billion tons and rising.
Deniers, Alarmists.. not sure there is much to choose between them to be honest.
Silly graphs showing warming over a hundred years are as bad as silly graphs showing stalling across 15.
Climate change is natural, this is a fact I'm afraid. Very scary stuff.. thank god for the Scientists agreeing upon that!
What is acceptable for climate change? Slow warming is fine? a rapid or slow decrease perhaps? How much effect is man allowed to have?
Climate should be rapidly decreasing apparently, would that be okay because we didn't have any effect upon it?
We can make ethical/sustainable decisions based upon real data rather than things we don't understand.
Let's just deal with the small things in our Society and let climate change do it's thing, humans are not very good at planning 50 years ahead let alone a million years.
Please do change the way you live for ethical and sustainable reasons but don't do it based on hogwash about the bogeyman. Come on chaps lets be sensible for once.
I've just found where the STW deniers and head-in-sanders are hanging out
[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/what-car-do-you-have ]Here and the other car threads[/url]
Given the increasing number of extreme weather events affecting the area I live, doing something seems sensible.
I've just found where the STW deniers and head-in-sanders are hanging out
What's your point?
Gobuchul, a quick sum says that even taking the highest figures for volcanic out-gassing of C02 in the article you link you still only get to 2% of anthropogenic CO2.
The point is that even the specialists don't fully understand where to look and how to measure the CO2.
As opposed to deep drilling on and off shore, massive transportation vessels and pipelines, refineries, storage and distribution network.
However, the hydrogen systems do not replace having to do most of that.
Read Bad Science if you don't agree with me.
Brilliant clearly you have not read it as what it does is complain about the widespread lack of understanding of science a subjetc matte ryou have so amply demonstrated.
Slow warming is fine?
Well - slower warming gives us (and nature) more chance to adapt. Hoewver the other issue is that a warmer atmosphere has more energy in it which gives rise to more extreme weather - hurricanes, freezes etc. Nature can deal with this to an extent, but we're a static farmer species and we pin our future abundance of food on a few harvests each year. Take out a few of those and we'll be in trouble.
Plus if a few million sparrows starve well it's bad, but we don't care so much about it. If a few million people die, it's worse.
I am a geologist and know exactly where to look. Direct measurement not being feasible estimates are made. I'm happy with the estimates being accurate to an order of magnitude which is all you need to know to say volcanic emissions are tiny compared with anthropogenic emissions.
Produce hydrogen using a fuel cell powered by solar panels on your own roof and store it in a tank on site, and I assure you you need none of:-
deep drilling on and off shore, massive transportation vessels and pipelines, refineries, storage and distribution network.
"The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems has built a completely self-sufficient solar house (SSSH) in Freiburg, Germany. The entire energy demand for heating, domestic hot water, electricity, and cooking is supplied by the sun. The combination of highly efficient solar systems with conventional means to save energy is the key to the successful operation of the house. Seasonal energy storage is accomplished by electrolysis of water and pressurized storage of hydrogen and oxygen. The energy for electricity and hydrogen generation is supplied by solar cells. Hydrogen can be reconverted to electricity with a fuel cell or used for cooking. It also serves as a back-up for low temperature heat. There are provisions for short term storage of electricity and optimal routing of energy. The SSSH is occupied by a family. An intensive measurement program is being carried out. The data are used for the validation of the dynamic simulation calculations, which formed the basis for planning the SSSH."
Produce hydrogen using a fuel cell powered by solar panels on your own roof and store it in a tank on site,
Seriously?
So with about 2000 - 3000 kwh of electricity per year I could produce enough hydrogen to power a practical vehicle?
You have solved our energy problems. Please release your vehicle design and save us, whilst making yourself very rich.
pressurized storage of hydrogen and oxygen
Lovely stuff pressurized hydrogen, not very volatile at all.
No mention of powering a vehicle though?
The problem with solar is that the absolute maximum amount of energy that can be generated per m2 is relatively low, averages about 100W in the UK.
As opposed to deep drilling on and off shore, massive transportation vessels and pipelines, refineries, storage and distribution network.
Exactly. It really is a remarkable illustration of how people take oil and other hi-tech energy supplies for granted when you hear them complaining that putting a few windmills up in the sea is somehow too technically challenging to be economic.
Edukat. I would need to know much more about what you are 'doing' and your whole story before I would consider your idea of 'sensible' as fact. Your real story might be inspirational for all I know but I'm not going to believe someone chatting guff on a cycle forum without a bit more info.
Molgrips. I would consider that unethical and unsustainable and unproven.
We can warm it a bit and that is fine as long as the humans don't die.. Isn't that the type of living that got us here??
I'm afraid my vehicle wouldn't compete with one powered by one producing hundreds of tonnes of CO2. Fossil fuels are too cheap.
As for producing enough renewable electricity, that's really not a problem. A litre of petrol is equivalent to about 10kWh. I used 360l of petrol last year which is the same amount of energy as is produced by 14 PV panels in this part of the world.
when you hear them complaining that putting a few windmills up in the sea is somehow too technically challenging to be economic.
It is.
You need nearly all of the same equipment, skills and technology as offshore oil and gas, with a fraction of the output.
Lovely stuff pressurized hydrogen, not very volatile at all.
Yore right only a total f***ing lunatic would have pressurised, flammable gas in their house...hang on.. my toasts burning.
Molgrips. I would consider that unethical and unsustainable and unproven.
What, exactly? Not sure what you mean.
Yore right only a total f***ing lunatic would have pressurised, flammable gas in their house.
Supplies of Natural gas and LPG do occasionally go wrong and results can be terrible.
However, hydrogen is a different ball game. Can you remember your physics at school?
Doing:
Living close enough to Madame's place of work that she can walk (so can junior)
Buying locally within reason
No gas
Produce twice as much electricity as we consume
Heat with wood (not much needed as the house is well insulated - November and still 21°C inside with 10°C outside this morning)
Recycling, buying second-hand
Holidays using public transport and human power (we walked to Santiago and caught the bus back this year)
On the negative side we ski which contributes to maintaining a town at altitude in Winter.
I remember Susie B's knockers from school if that helps?
Oh and somehting about temperature and pressure of gasses of different compositions? and something about forcing and global warming potential?
I've just found where the STW deniers and head-in-sanders are hanging outHere and the other car threads
Switching to a car with a lower CO2 output isn't always the answer...you need to factor in the manufacturing cost of the car too. In terms of environmental friendliness, it's probably better to keep an old car in tip-top condition and use that than to buy a new vehicle every three years.
Also, you need to factor in things like the efficiency of your home's central heating, whether you regularly use air travel and whether you have children...
IMHO, the sooner we rid ourselves of a dependence on non-renewable energy, the better. We've some uncomfortable choices to make in the next few years and we simply cannot continue with a model of unrestricted growth.
[quote=Edukator ]"The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems has built a completely self-sufficient solar house (SSSH) in Freiburg, Germany.
That would be in Freiburg in the far South of Germany? I wonder why they didn't do it in Hamburg?
I used 360l of petrol last year which is the same amount of energy as is produced by 14 PV panels in this part of the world.
Well done. However, I bet the bloke that fitted your solar power system used a lot more.
Living close enough to Madame's place of work that she can walk (so can junior)
This isn't possible for the vast majority of people. Lucky you.
Holidays using public transport and human power (we walked to Santiago and caught the bus back this year)
Where from? Are you based in Spain or South America?
That would be in Freiburg in the far South of Germany? I wonder why they didn't do it in Hamburg?
Doesn't make it null and void though. Plenty of people DO live in places at that latitude and greater. Possibly the majority, thinking about it!
Maybe, but the discussion seems to be about what we can do, and the vast, vast majority of people on this forum live at significantly higher latitudes than Freiburg. Of course solar makes sense if you live in Spain or SoCal, but we need to be careful how we extrapolate.
lots of people don't have the funds/permission/both to radically alter the fabric of their house.
millions of people live in crappy old brick boxes that would require so much alteration that the most economical course of action is to rebuild from scratch.
We had the choice between the modest house we live in near to Madame's place of work (which is in the most expensive part of town) or a flash house out of town with a swimming pool and huge garden. It's often choice rather than luck.
You bet wrong on the number of solar panels, our electricity consumption is around 1750kWh a year. (Edit: I misread you on this - I've no doubt the solar installer used some fuel, as did all the others in the supply chain. However pessimistic you are the embedded energy is les than four years production)
Santiago from St Jean de Luz in France (which is near home).
Maybe, but the discussion seems to be about what we can do
This must not become a personal discussion; otherwise it'll descend into mud slinging and willy waving and that'll get us nowhere.
It's often choice rather than luck.
Sometimes, but often people don't have that much choice. Your experience is just that. Other people's experience varies a lot, so don't get all preachy about it.
aracer - MemberThat would be in Freiburg in the far South of Germany? I wonder why they didn't do it in Hamburg?
It seems they have a branch in Freiburg, and none in Hamburg
Edukator - You live at 43° latitude. Your experiences with solar will be completely different from most on this forum.
It's often choice rather than luck
Totally disagree on that one.
Willy waving or proving what can be done in reply to a direct question on the previous page, Molgrips?
When I first went to see an energy adviser I was a little dubious, when I got the quote for the solar panels with the payback times too. Everything I've done has matched or bettered expectations. I'm passing on my positive experiences which may encourage others to invest.
I get about 30% more sun than my sister in the UK but as the feed in tarifs in the UK were better when she installed her PV she'll get payback in about the same time.
The return on investment is faster on energy saving measures in the UK so things like triple glazing pay back faster in the UK than here.
[quote=Northwind ]It seems they have a branch in Freiburg, and none in Hamburg
So to put it another way, why are they based in Freiburg, not Hamburg?
Though I note they have a branch office in Gelsenkirchen, which is of similar latitude to London and considered asking why their house wasn't there, but figured at least people would have heard of Hamburg.
Why Freiburg indeed. Because in about 78 there was a proposed nuclear plant for the Rhine. The locals objected and committed to a programme of energy saving and alternative energy so the nuclear plant wouldn't be needed. They won and solar city Freiburg was born.
Theres almost always choice.
There may be few people who can quote extreme examples but for the majority there will be more sustainable options that arent taken because its still less important to them than a normal measures of success.
To be fair if you had hydrogen stored in your house you may suddenly vanish with a large squeaky pop.
Seriously though it now appears the climate change deniers (not skeptics, to be a skeptic there must be a way of changing your position if enough evidence is given) are on the back-foot. Indeed while I was walking the mutt on Saturday morning there was an article on the 'Today' programme about how the 'skeptics' are now actually agreeing that anthropomorphic climate change was happening but were now mainly arguing about what the effect is/will be.
Here is my vanilla response to all global warming threads.
"Global warming, also known as Climate Change, is a STUPID theory by a bunch of tree-hugging liberal hippies that states unless we go back and live in caves, the polar ice caps will melt and life as we know it will cease to exist. This theory comes from a bunch of idiotic scientists who really have no clue what they're talking about...after all, they're only scientists, who ever wants to listen to them? I mean sure, I admit they were right about the world being round...and the planets going around the sun... and lightning being caused by opposite charges between the earth and the sky, not Zeus...and worms and rats not appearing out of nowhere...and stars being balls of gas burning millions of miles away, not holes in heaven...and the brain being the center of the nervous system, not the heart...and lead poisoning being able to kill you...and cigarettes being bad for you, and everything else ever discovered or invented, but still! They're wrong! These global warming people are the same tree hugging hippies that said DDT was bad for the environment back in the 70s and 80s!
They're all a bunch of liberal crackpots who have a political agenda, so who wants to listen to them? It is almost exclusively believed by left wing bleeding-heart liberals who are influenced by rich environmental lobby groups and opposed to the economy and anyone with a job. One of these bleeding heart socialist hippies, Al Gore, has made a propaganda video regarding global warming entitled An Inconvenient Truth which uses heartless fear-mongering, and all kinds of heartless, cruel, un-American facts in an attempt to get people to consume less and sabotage the American economy, culminating in Ford going out of business, which will mean that the terrorists will win. Republicans would never use this type of fear mongering for political gain, never! So stop criticizing us, after all, you don't want the terrorists to come get you, right?"
Climate change is natural, this is a fact I'm afraid.
On a very semantic point, you are correct, in so much as H. sapiens is just another species of animals.
But, as I'm pretty sure that a semantic point is not the one you were making, you're quite incorrect to say that it's fact. This is why we have a word that specifically describes humanity's effects on things: "anthropogenic"; it avoids such pointless ambiguity.
To say that the currently observed climatic change is not related to anthropogenic activity is about as sensible as saying that you don't need oxygen to breathe. Perhaps you could try that for a few minutes and see how you get on? After all, it's only scientists that worked out that we as humans apparently need oxygen to survive.
I'll repeat - you are as a layperson entitled to your opinion. You're not, however, entitled to your own facts.
You live at 43° latitude. Your experiences with solar will be completely different from most on this forum.
Euan Mearns suggests that Scottish solar panels may not produce in their lifetime the energy used in their manufacture.
http://euanmearns.com/solar-scotland/
They are only cost effective because of the subsidies from other consumers and like wind depend on the grid sup[plying nuclear and fossil fuel power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Do read on to the comments on that Scottish solar article - lots of really interesting and informative stuff.
They are only cost effective because of the subsidies from other consumers
Any idea how most of the older power stations were built, was it a big government corporation. Because coal, oil and gas are all around us people assume it's been really cheap to get all that infrastructure in place.
Pricing today may be an issue but as with most tech manufacturing costs go down over time, same can't be said for carbon based fuels. To assume governments will be able to keep energy cheap into the future is a big gamble.
Fossil fuels are made economic by the fact that we treat irreplacable natural resources as being free, and the environmental costs as being everyone else's problem. If the predictions of warming/climate change come even a little bit true, the economic and social damage will be... well, unbudgetable. We don't even really take into account the past, known environmental costs
"Alarmist" and "Exagerated claims" - and that is just what the climate scientists say!
Given our ignorance of what is going on in the oceans and large parts of the land mass, the definitive way in which arguments for our role in global warming is framed is quite extraordinary. And that is from scientists, bizarre. At least it puts humans at the centre of things....how terrible if we were only marginal players
While large sums are spent on inefficient alternatives, less money is spent on issues that cause far more deaths and hardship - starvation, poor water, sanitation. Strange priorities.
Alternatives are often very efficient, they have to be to compete with the throw-away alternative that is fossil fuels. It's a bit like using throw away plastic plates. Convenient and cost effective in the short term but using crockery and washing it is a more cost-effective, long-term solution.
Given the level of unemployment in Europe, one of the greatest inefficiencies is not making efficient use of human resources. People don't insulate because it costs too much, it costs too much because gas and electricity are cheap and lightly taxed but labour heavily taxed. In France labour is taxed at over 100% but electricity at only 22%. Change macro economic policy to reflect the benefit to society of energy saving and the harm caused by fossil fuels, and you can create an economic boom while cutting CO2 emissions.
While large sums are spent on inefficient alternatives, less money is spent on issues that cause far more deaths and hardship - starvation, poor water, sanitation. Strange priorities.
Classic whatabouterry.
If the climate does change then starvation, poor water and sanitation could be something that we all face.
There is never absolute certainty in science, but that is not a reason to not act on the best and increasing evidence of human impact on climate.
I am not in a position to analyse the science so I have to analyse those that can. What is the credibility of those making the arguments, what is the proportion of informed debate on either side, what are the motivations of the speakers. As has been offered in the discussion earlier, the overwhelming majority of those that are experts in climate science believe that human impact is driving change - for me that is persuasive, rather than uninformed editorial in the newspapers or talking heads without the necessary scientific background to undertake their primary, or even secondary analysis of the evidence. I don't argue that there are not exaggerated claims on the climate change side - but that does not undermine the consensus argument
Change macro economic policy to reflect the benefit to society of energy saving and the harm caused by fossil fuels, and you can create an economic boom while cutting CO2 emissions.
I'm sorry I don't understand.
Please educate me Edukator.
If you make it cheap to do the right thing and expensive to do the bad thing then the good thing happens.
Tax Fuel
Tax Inefficiency
Tax Waste
Subsidise Efficiency
Subsidise Energy Saving
Subsidise Recycling
MORE
http://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html
Study the Permian and tell me claims about the extent of change are exaggerated. Scientists tend to err on the side of caution when making predictions and also fear being ridiculed. I won't post my own predictions for two reasons: I won't be around to know if I was right and I don't wish to be ridiculed. I'll just say that you can expect a rapid rise in the number and intensity of extreme weather events in your lifetime.
Simple, gobuchul. Make it cheap to insulate business premises and expensive to buy gas to heat them and firms will employ people to insulate using material that have to be manufactured. More people working creating more fixed assets increases economic activity and wealth.
gobuchul
This is not new thinking. The Stern report covered some of this ground, but more recently Jacobs and his mates ate the The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP)at Leeds Uni and LSE have published stuff on this. The argument runs that the market does not price in the full impact of environmental degradation, including climate change. If it did then the market would re-orientate towards environmentally sustainable activity. Their argument is that you would not only minimise the impact of climate change but also maintain economic growth.
Others think this is over optimistic - but you pays your money and takes your choice
Edukator - Troll
Scientists tend to err on the side of caution when making predictions and also fear being ridiculed.
Presumably why they dump their raw data, and only keep their manipulated copies?
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind-Phil Jones head of UEA CRU
Oh good, another one who thinks the increase in extreme weather events is not happening, that places are not smashing temperature records year on year and that it's all just fine.
No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.
An example is a professional I know. His house is well insulated because he is cost conscious with his own money. However, he knows that all of the expenses of his business premises are deductible and he's a lot less worried about keeping costs down. The result is that he invests a lot less in the efficiency of his business premises than his own home. One person responding to two different sets of economic conditions.
When in business the electricity I consumed at home cost me 110% more than the electricity I consumed at work.
Cost at work: price on the bill minus VAT.
Cost at home: price on the bill including VAT paid for with money subjected to social security payments and tax.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.
That is some foresight right there!
No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.
Since records began or since the formation of the planet? November 1 was the hottest since records began in Paris. Records are being broken all the time if we consider the period since records began, and with increasing frequency.
Mike.. lets leave 'cherry picking' of data to alarmists and deniers. You can't just decide when the records start from to suit your claim.
Are we not allowed to use ice core data in the study of climate change? Alarmists and deniers constantly choose which info they want to use.
Mike.. lets leave 'cherry picking' of data to alarmists and deniers. You can't just decide when the records start from to suit your claim.
Not alarmist at all, just seem more extreme weather events in the last 10 years than I care to repeat, 2013 was an incredibly hot year in Australia, one of the countries that will be most ****ed by rising temperatures. Reality isn't alarmist, when you are starting to hit 40c+ for over a week then something is broke, it's happening more and more.
Who says 'we' aren't allowed to use ice core data?
Use ice core data if you wish. It shows that rises and peaks correspond to natural orbital and solar cycles. The current ones don't. CO2 didn't cause the post-glacial or medieval warm periods, the mechanisms that caused those aren't responsible for current warming.
Unscientific opinions are important to understand as are so often constructed from a combination of the individual's existing prejudices, political inclinations and psychological projections.
Us humans can be fascinatingly self-centred don't you think? So often the climate change debate sounds like a televangelist-style Creationist debate.
theocb - Member - Block User
No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.
You really need to use your brain / google (preferably both) before you open your mouth
me or him Zokes 🙂
Unscientific opinions are important to understand as are so often constructed from a combination of the individual's existing prejudices, political inclinations and psychological projections.Us humans can be fascinatingly self-centred don't you think? So often the climate change debate sounds like a televangelist-style Creationist debate.
In the US the issue is a party-political one. Republicans deny climate change specifically and reject science generally. The general rejection of science is simply becuase scientists are typically liberals so they're people you have to disagree with on principle. They deny climate change specifically because republicans believe in small government and individual liberty. If you accept climate change you accept that government [i]has[/i] to do something about it and that means growing government and increasing government regulation - which would be diametrically un-republican.
U! S! A!
U! S! A!
[img] 
[/img]
'Anti-environmentalists' 😐
I agree that 'human' opinions are very interesting and agree with your point.
You have fallen into the trap yourself though. I assume you state 'unscientific opinions' to try to place a scientist above an 'ordinary' human.. much like the religious believers do. Science is a simple subject matter open to all, if you start pretending Scientists are special then it is a slippery slope.
Edukat. Yes I wish to use the best data we have in a discussion about climate. No records have been broken regarding temperature. Agreed? If a denier said the temp has stalled or dropped since 97 you would mock him.. not sure why you think an alarmist using short term climate data is okay.
I agree that different forcings were responsible for previous records.. doesn't make them irrelevant when alarmists start using short term temp. data.
What happens long term if milankovitch cycles are balanced against different forcings (i.e exaggerated human influence)? We have zero data to understand that occurrence. agreed?
try to place a scientist above an 'ordinary' human.. much like the religious believers do. Science is a simple subject matter open to all, if you start pretending Scientists are special then it is a slippery slope.
Except science has qualifications and real training, is reviewed by peers and tested by others. If the lay person has spent the time, educated themselves in the methods of research and the science, then studied the data, and examined it with an open mind, conversed with others subjected their work to scrutiny and challenges and do what if for the common good not fame or ideology then I reckon they can challenge "science"
If I want an opinion on fitting a toilet I'll ask a plumber, fitting a mech a bike shop. Climate change a climate change scientist.
Classic whatabouterry.If the climate does change then starvation, poor water and sanitation could be something that we all face.
We won't in the UK. The north is set to become more economically prosperous under even the extreme ends of the climate change projections, as it opens up more land viable for heavy agriculture. Eg Russia, Norway, Canada etc.
What it will do is cause billions of people in equatorial regions to starve, forcing them to migrate North or South. And we here in Britain will be happy to vote UKIP and watch them all starve to death on TV whilst telling them to sort their own countries out, climate change isn't real you indolent fools, you're just lazy...coming here because of a benefits system! They will be shot at trying to cross borders, lynched if they get to their destination or left to drown at sea if their boats capsize.
That or we'll round them up in internment camps and gas them and carry on not giving a shit like good Europeans do.