I have two examples to offer of skeptics doing the right thing. One is action-based the other is analytical.
Let’s cut to the chase: An Australian family is being evicted after the government decided to change the rules on their cattle business because the owner expressed skepticisim about climate change. It led to their being unable to continue business operations.There’s no excuse for that, and I really thought the Australians had better sense.
Anthony Watts of Watt’s Up With That has organised a donation drive at his website. As the family stands to be evicted very soon, I urge those of you in a position to do so to get over to Anthony’s site and make a donation.
Over at another weblog called The Air Vent, Jeff Id has cogently and succinctly summarized what the intelligent skeptical questions are in September 2010. I probably will not agree with all of his answers–we do have different positions–but he deserves to be congratulated for his analysis.
Jeff lists the outstanding issues that are causing contention regarding climate change:
“Besides the basic and obvious physics, you first have to believe that CO2 causes a positive feedback in the atmosphere and therefore serious warming. All by a minuscule changes in trace CO2 levels. The feedback is a difficult and faithful leap when there is little ‘data’ to back it up.”
“The second leap you must undertake is that which says warming is bad. Certainly there are plenty of stories about warmer weather which sound scary, but in general, warm weather is more pleasant and more livable.”
“There is a third leap, and this one is actually the hardest. The belief that somehow we can control the emission of CO2 through ‘green’ energy. That somehow we can just stop emitting CO2 worldwide and it will all be ok.”
“Climate scientists often accuse those of us who work in hard science of not understanding uncertainty. Here, I am making the reverse claim. Climate science is too soft a science to be demonstrably wrong in the short timeframe in which it has become mainstream. These guys haven’t been proven wrong enough by the god of climate. Being human, the hubris and narcissism build on them – source. Not because they are so good, but rather because of the career long timeframes and lack of feedback involved. My accusation is that Climate Science has misinterpreted uncertainty.
Finally, in the real world where most of us live, the ‘solution’ to CO2 output is very simple. It’s blatantly and flatly simple, and what is more – it’s guaranteed to be found. Nuclear power in its various forms will be the power of the future. I don’t like some of the dangers because the doom scenario’s are a bit scary, but it IS what it IS. Coal today and nukes tomorrow.”
Until climate science as a body has answers to Jeff’s questions, there will continue to be issues with The Issue Formerly Known As Global Warming. (It’s now climate disruption, haven’t you heard?)