martine wrote:I'd still like to know what would convince you of man-made climate change.
That's a reasonable question from a personal perspective but not very reasonable from the perspective of the fact that it's not me making the assertion.
Anyone that makes an assertion needs to be able to demonstrate that it's fairly likely to be true in order to retain their credibility. If they suggest that as a result of their assertion we should change the way we do things in a massive way at enormous cost*, then they should be able to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. That proof would come in the form of a testable hypothesis or series of hypotheses, with full access to the data, theory and any software used as part of the formulation or testing of the hypothesis. It would certainly not include an unwillingness to hear any other opinions, the unwarranted retention or destruction of data and the ridiculing of opposing views.
If there was little or no credible evidence to the contrary then I don't suppose I'd have any reason to disbelieve.
* And yes, it does cost real money which has to come from other budgets. Otherwise HMG could just spend money in any way it sees fit with no resulting problems. Clearly that's not the case.
regards
P.