What a great reply !!!Ha, righto. I'll play until I get abused...
I'm not a scientist, but I am an engineer - so I do know a thing or two about maths/stats/academicia/etc. I can generally follow most scientific papers, and love reading - even if its dry! Research is my thing...I tend to get mindly obsessed with a certain topic and research the hell out of it until I feel I've learned everything I care to. I believe in knowing a little about a lot of things. I know how stats can be tortured to give an inaccurate picture and I believe I have a pretty good BS filter.
In the mid-2000's, a work colleague introduced me to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". I was horrified - and immediately began researching everything I could find. Especially diving into the nuts and bolts of things, rather than relying on the media which I had already grown to distrust by that stage. It wasn't long before I started finding all kinds of flaws - inaccuracies, exaggerations, circular reasoning, throwing out data which didn't match the theory, the lack of an ability to replicate which is literally at the heart of science. I was stunned - why was this science not held to the same standards as I'd been taught in my engineering training?
Long story short, the more I researched, the more I grew to doubt that we could even tell if anything catastrophic was actually happening...and nothing I have seen since has convinced me otherwise. I have spent thousands of hours going through scientific journal papers, reports, studies, supplementary material. I have downloaded hundreds of GB of data and run my own studies and stats and checks. I'm not saying all the science is bad, by any stretch, but there is a significant proportion that barely stands up at best. This is true for many branches of science, by the way, not just climate science...health/medicine is actually another particularly bad one too.
Before we continue the conversation I think it's very important to have confirmed definitions for the various terms in use - because they all mean something different to different people. Huge - would you like to provide your definition of "climate change" for me, so we're sure that we're talking about the same thing?
I also hope you evaluate evidence that supports your view with the same rigour? It's natural to have bias; we're only human after all, and that's exactly what the scientific method is supposed to help remove - our own fallibility! But that only works if done right.
I believe "climate change" is too broad a topic to just say "yes" or "no" to, btw. There are so many facets and components and moving parts... Each area/topic needs to be considered on its own before trying to form a bigger picture.
I like how you established your position first. By that I don't mean your view but I hope we can agree it means your qualifications! If I read it correctly you say your starting point was Al Gores pile of drivel. I agree with your conclusions about him and his offerings. I've not watched anything by him but I have read some of the claims he made and looked into the evidence he alleges supports his views.
I don't care about Gore. I don't care about the crazy extremes of the debate. I rely on two things. Firstly, if you take thimble after thimble of water from an Olympic sized swimming pool you will eventually empty the pool. Humanity has been been doing just so at an ever increasing rate and it's inevitable that we will run out of resources. Secondly I'm not the only person who has worked that out! Much better qualified people, like yourself started paying attention years ago and their research, by and large is reliable.
What we do with or rather how we interpret the mountains of complex data is for me the biggest sticking point. I don't think there's any doubt at all that the trillions of tonnes of gases we've added to the atmosphere are making a difference or having an impact on what I believe was a finely balanced system. I know that system is huge and to alter it significantly would require a massive imput OR a constant and gradually increasing smaller imput. I think the latter has happened and continues to happen much like the thimble in my analogy.