This was really the last issue I woke up to since I changed from "a bit of a lefty" a year or so ago.

Climate panic is just another angle of attack to institute socialism as (1) Normal people (i.e. people who would not normally vote green) will be panicked into voting green i.e. far left watermelons (2) This provides a justification for massively increasing taxation for groups the government don't like and redistribute wealth and (3) A reason to introducing authoritarianism to crack down on "climate deniers" (nazi's).

The evidence for a climate disaster just does not exist and the science around this is driven by politics and cronyism.

If you think climate change is the biggest issue we facing then you are simply just not paying attention.

Agreed.

I think the market will take care of a lot of the issues with a little nudge from government. Pushing hard on air quality especially in London will also help the climate change lobby. The added benefit is that pollution can be measured whereas climate change still has it's detractors.

One more point

It appears the predictions by climate scientists are based on the wrong information about coal use.
Over 2000 research papers have used this info.
Now their results are wrong
Phew I thought we were dead in 10 years if we didnt live in caves and eat leaves
Can someone put the bbc story link up as last time I created the matrix on screen.

It was pointed out that since the 1980's the UN and others have been predicting a global disaster within the next 10 years and then re-predicting it again and again.

I am not a climate change denier but neither am I a follower of Greta who thinks, guess what? the planet will be devastated within the next 10 years.

One more point

No-one wants incorrect information to pollute the thinking on this vital issue. It's important we deal in facts, and credible probabilities, and not in wild speculation designed to grab headlines.

Nevertheless, we must also not allow the inevitable refinements of the data bases to undermine the drive to acknowledge the problems and for us to face up to the need to make significant changes to the way we live.

We know climate change is happening and that man's activity has been responsible for much of it. Exactly what parts of that activity has contributed more, or less, of the effect is only important in knowing what counter actions are needed.

So whilst you were never going to be dead in 10 years as a result of climate change, I doubt whether this "revised information" you claim is going to make any difference.

As I cannot though find anything on this can you please identify the source?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think you need to read all of that report before making comments. It doesn't say what you said it does. All it suggests is that as the switch to renewables has accelerated quicker than originally anticipated the worst case scenarios are now more unlikely. It was always the case that the outcome of possibilities were within a range, and what it says is that the lower levels now look more probable. Which is good news, but as these are still above the levels that scientists believe are sustainable not really that good. Just not imminent disaster.

There is heaps of data available that suggest that man's contribution is 100%! This one says it's above 100% as the natural variation has been towards a cooling, thus mitigating some of man's impact:-

[Link]

Don't like that one, or suspect it might be "biased". Do you trust NASA? If so look at this:-

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.