"Green" policies are destroying this country

There isn't because its not allowed. Anybody who questions is declared an i,,,,,l

I sometimes have arguments about 'basic' physics with people who clearly have no real understanding of it. Basic physics plays a role in the discussions about Earth's climate like conservation of energy, the properties and behaviour of molecules etc. In short, all the usual variables/elements in physics science. The overshoot comes in the form of determining an overriding factor in a dynamic, complex, interactive system. Nothing wrong with that per se. Ive read papers about the pre dominance of the Sun, the oceans, space flares and a plethora of combi factors involving radiation, convection, feedback mechanisms etc.

Still, just opinions. Where does the truth lie? Nobody really knows. It is almost unknowable. It is guesswork, can be educated or not. One thing for sure, NOBODY can make a conclusive, beyond reasonably doubt argument that human caused Co2 emissions are the main drivers of climate change. Not from a 'basic' physics standpoint or a complex one. It is a lie to pretend it is possible so they HAVE to rely on consensus which is a really, really bad argument if one at all. Certainly not a scientific one..

Do you have any examples of Peer reviewed studies that are 'against climate change' (ie, disagree with the central premise that the global climate is warming and this is mostly due to human caused emissions of greenhouse gasses).

The literature on climate change is extremely robust with all kinds of academic debate on the finer details of climate change and how human impacts will drive long term changes

What there isn't, is any alternative hypothesis that explains the observations that is in any way credible or supported by evidence

If you think they exist, post a few examples please

You are talking about the mrna shots, right?

We are drifting off topic but it is clearly the same madness..

This is showing the overlap in bad science that people will buy into though.

It really isn't up to me to do your homework.

Here's a summary of peer reviewed papers denying climate change

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617317821

On the whole peer review nonsense that has infected this place, here's one that was peer reviewed, published and gained attention worldwide. Only for it to be redacted as it was bullshit.

Conclusion - there are numerous studies denying climate change. There are numerous ones published. There are numerous ones peer reviewed and published. There are numerous ones shown to be bullshit. This happens on both sides of the arguments.

Are you happy now to concede that a) studies exist denying climate change and b) the peer review process isn't foolproof

Whichever side of the fence people sit on, the only truth is that there are still 2 distinct camps.

Climate Change Advocates and Climate Change Deniers.

As long as this gap exists in any meaningful way, progress towards emission reduction and other climate targets will remain slow.

Neither of you will convince the other and you will both continue to pull in different directions.

I do think there is something to be said for the media pushing agendas aggresivley and the fact that a lot of people turn against the mainstream as a result. Perhaps feeling silenced or not listened to.

Many people get frustrated by woke ideology or asylum policy or whatever the subject of the day is.

But those feelings have consequences and so when a subject that is hugely impactful arises, the unheard are already in defence mode, primed to rally against it.

It reminds me of the old childrens fable, The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

I am not trying to pass judgement on either opinion here by the way.

More an observation about how little people listen to and respect eachother and the serious consequences rendered when it comes to engaging collective efforts in society.

I'm loving that the search term was basically "climate change denial peer review" to find that particular study followed by not reading it. 🤣

As I said earlier, I'm not doing your homework.

The first link I gave is, you are right, a look at denial studies. I never said otherwise. I gave the link as it included a look at many climate change denial, peer review and published studies. It's what you asked for. You doubted they existed.

The second one is the first that came up when I searched. My point there was to show that all this peer review nonsense about it being great and foolproof is rubbish, where peer reviewed and published papers can be later redacted for being shite. It could be have been a pro climate change paper that was redacted. It just happened to be the first that appeared on the search. I even said it in the post

Perhaps read the text, and then open the links.

Anyway, I'm not a denier. Far from it.

politicians largely listen to 'advice' from economists not scientists, this is more than likely one of the main reasons why we are where we are!

There's plenty of us on the fence with no particular extreme leaning. We'd all like to find a reasonably costed way forward to address our energy security needs whilst respecting the environment. It doesn't have to be all doom and gloom nor does it have to create Utopia. There's plenty of appropriate actions we can take given our scale and global impact.

The problem with economists, is you can pick and choose whichever economist you think will suit your political ideology

Scientists don't tend to get corrupted that badly, apart from a notable minority who have sacrificed all academic integrity to get a place at the table in these 'think tanks' where the policy comes first, and the science is then distorted to fit that agenda

The scientists working in the field have their work checked all the time. Scientific predictions made about how much warming we should expect based on the emissions we have released have been remarkably accurate.

Predictions by the politically motivated 'scientists' and shills have been completely wrong, but they're not getting paid to be correct, they're getting paid to misinform and create doubt and uncertainty even where scientific confidence is high

Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Look! A climate change denier falsified data and got a paper published, that paper was quickly retracted, but if climate change denier could be so dishonest, then how can we trust any of the science?

You couldn't make it up