"Green" policies are destroying this country

You stated there is an ongoing academic debate about the origins of climate change, which there isn't.

Peers can be as smart or as stupid as the people who write the papers. High bias cannot be a priori excluded.

Ergo, to default to a position in which 'peer review' is stated as an important factor is already a form of stupidity. But then, i am biased.

Anyone who denies he/she has no bias is by definition a liar..

And it's the best system we have and there's plenty of evidence within those studies that confirm climate change as man made. People who claim that it is not man made are free to utilise the exact same process. The fact they are not is reminiscent of the people who pushed bs during COVID-19, they never used that process cause it simply didn't stand up to scrutiny.

If there was a debate it would be available in peer reviewed papers - deafening silence from that quarter. Scientific careers are made from disproving established theories.

If there is a credible case to be made it would have been made unless you subscribe to that vast conspiracy of climate scientists controlling who can publish.

You mean the scientifically proven positive effect of lockdowns!?😂

Or the science behind masks..

Or keeping 2 mtr distances...on a beach, in an elevator.

Or the perfectly save Covid shots that would get us out of the pandemic?

Using Covid as an example? Maybe think again..

There is a Covid enquiry in the UK atm. All about Boris's antics. A side show. They should focus on the science behind lockdowns and other measures. But no, go where the drama is. No better than the tabloit press. The members are clearly of the opinion that more stringent measures were needed.

So, like Covid like Climate. Highly biased opinions so you dont actually have t address the science. Ad hominem..

No factor from the ones you reference show any sort of pattern which matches current climate change, they are not candidates.

CO2 alters the radiative balance of the planet by increasing the residence time of Infra-red radiation. There is no guesswork about it, it's a measured and quantified property of CO2, we can even plot it's relative end points by observing other planetary systems.

The only area open to debate is the various feedback mechanisms which could either amplify or dampen CO2 effects.

I mean the quacks who frequently claimed to have cures for COVID or downplayed the effects of it. None of these people chose to use the process cause they lacked the ability to prove their claims. So yep, entirely relevant.

Again demonstrably effective in reducing harm.

Positively antiScience, a theme on the right of politics (unless it's something nuclear or ICE).

Its not like the fossil fuel industry are not extremely motivated to disprove the anthropogenic climate change theory.

But I suppose those trillions of dollars they have is no match for a little bit of academic grant funding....

The first link is a link to a paper doing an analysis of studies into Science denial.

It is not a list of studies that challenge the scientific consensus on climate change.

It's an interesting paper and it lists the main sources of climate denial as

1. Contrarian scientists - A very small minority of working scientists, Mostly made up of retired scientists or people working far from their own field of expertise, and many of them not affiliated to any academic organisation, but employed or contracted by 'think tanks' such as the heartland institute
2. Governments - Far from governments pushing climate change 'because something something taxes' one of the biggest form of climate disinformation comes from governments
3. Political and Religious organisations - Denying the science for economic, ideological and religious reasons
4. Industry - Direct campaigns of disinformation aimed at reducing regulations on their own polluting or health impacting activities
5. Media - Mostly Right wing media, often owned or aligned with oligarchs who have strong financial interests in preventing actions that may harm their personal wealth
6. Social Media - the echo chamber where links to the sources above are regularly amplified with very little understanding or scrutiny of their content
7. The Public

Your second link shows that when some flawed science does get through peer review, it can be withdrawn. And it's very interesting that this terrible quality study that you linked to, was a climate denial study that was exceptionally flawed. Do you have any examples of any studies that support your position that you can actually stand over?

I wouldn't say that. In any of these discussion people seem determined to put everyone into two categories

In terms of myself, I would class myself as environmentally conscious, I would agree some changes have to be made to be friendlier to the environment, but I also see a lot of the extreme changes that some people want.

E.g. change the entire fleet of cars in Ireland to electric? pointless and will be a lot worse for the environment. We should be pushing an agenda to pick the right fuel for the righ requirement. Plus decreasing the size and weight of cars when possible. I see people driving around in a brand new electric car which a huge 70kWh+ battery because they need the "range" and then drive it 20km down the road to work and 20km back.

Also I do agree some of the government scare mongering is going on across the World. This is clearly to push taxes. It is not as bad as people make out but at the same time other people want to totally ignore that climate change is happening.

So far I have yet to see many politcians etc taking the middle ground which is disheartening. I do find a lot of people are in that area. No representation is the issue.

There are serious consequences to pandering to those who deny evidence based science, and the fact that the mainstream media treated the deniers as equals for over a decade has set back effective action by more than a decade.

There are consequencesnto humouring a lie.

That number of papers is absolutely tiny when compared to climate papers which implicitly accept AGW, undoubtedly a tiny fraction of a percent of the overall total. What you actually demonstrated is how utterly rare they are.

I already agree with the scientific consensus. I can find thousands of peer reviewed papers that back up my position that I'll happily stand over because they are in line with all of the best available evidence

You seem to think that there is still a debate about the role of CO2 in climate change. That is an extreme position that is not supported by any climate scientists of any standing.

Even the Fossil fuel industry's own scientists all agree that CO2 is the main driver of observed warming.