There aren't two sides of this. The vast majority of scientists that know what's going on are terrified. A few, many paid by the same lobby organizations that backed FUD on cigarette smoking, are creating a "debate".
Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus. By the time we know who was right, it'll be too late.
The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records.
Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.
"Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act."
Neither does obfuscating the data and the models and how they work. Another commenter mentioned "transparency", and I think that's a key element that's been lacking from the climate scientists. They say they're "terrified", but when they're asked for the raw data and the source code to their models, they refuse to provide it, making it impossible to verify that their terror is justified.
What information they do reveal does not inspire confidence in their analysis: for example, read the latest IPCC report and see how many key causal factors have a "low" level of scientific understanding. (It's true that greenhouse gases are not in that category, but the fact that we understand them pretty well does not justify simply ignoring the other factors when we admittedly don't know enough to judge their impact.)
Also, the IPCC predictions for how much the climate should have warmed by now, given the actual increase in CO2 levels, have basically been falsified: CO2 has been increasing faster than all but their most pessimistic predictions, yet climate has been warming slower than their most optimistic predictions. So as far as deciding how to act, I don't trust the IPCC predictions, and since those are driving all the policy recommendations from those who are "terrified", I don't trust those recommendations either.
"critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records."
No, the burden of proof is on those who want to implement highly disruptive policies without adequate justification.
Your statements create the implication that the Hal Lewis, the author of this piece, is being paid by someone to intentionally spread misinformation. Is this a misreading? For while he may be scientifically wrong, I wouldn't make this accusation lightly.
According to the article the last straw for him, was that he obtained 200 signatures from members of the APS (all scientists) asking for the creation of a group to look at Climate Science. These 200 presumably thought there was room or need for debate. Given your "few"/"many" construction, I have to wonder: how many of these were being paid off and by whom?
True of course, but I meant "does the fact that he is a physicist and not a climatologist affect the implication that he is being funded to spread disinformation?". The original article does not proclaim any particular theory on Global Warming. Rather, it criticizes the process by which science is being politicized. This strikes me as a matter for which any scientist should be allowed to speak.
I take offense at the notion that anyone who would want to question the process can be presumed to be acting out of pecuniary interest rather than a desire to find truth. So I ask again: Daniel, are you claiming that Hal Lewis and at least some of the 200 people who signed his petition are being paid to do so?
APS is an organization that publishes papers in the field of Physics. not "climatology" (which really sounds like astrology to me.) He is a physicist.
You may not be aware of it, but much of the relevant work in the area of the global climate is being done by Physicists. Not all, of course, but Physics is a pretty relevant field.
>By the time we know who was right, it'll be too late.
Only if Climate Change is correct, not if it isn't.
>critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records.
Hal addresses that in his letter.
>or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.
It does a great deal useful, in instructing us how not to act. Science is as much about process of elimination as anything, and eliminating hypotheses is one of the most valuable outcomes of scientific method.
The problem of induction comes into play here - thousands of confirming observations cannot prove a theory true, but one single refuting observation can disprove it. It could be rather embarrassing when governments have invested billions, and top scientists have based their lives and careers on, proving it true, and it were to turn out false due to a few refuting observations.
Another problem here is that too many people have worked themselves into a tizzy of thinking we must solve the problem immediately, even if our understanding of what exactly the problem is may not be accurate. Given the lack of full transparency, sloppy data handling in some cases, and what appears to be a biased, corrupted process, it's hard for interested lay people to trust the accuracy of our understanding.
Don't misunderstand, I personally think we're trashing our world and need to do something about it. When the Amazon Rain Forest is vanishing and there's an island of garbage the size of Texas drifting around in the northern Pacific, we've got clear, systemic problems that need to be solved.
And that's not to mention another extremely strong reason to transition away from fossil fuels - self reliance. Having to be constantly at war, either hot or cold, to protect the energy supplies that allow a modern economy to run is about the most undesirable political situation you could possibly have.
Trashing the world + self reliance should be enough justification for government to strongly incentivize solutions, without resorting to a complex, difficult-to-prove, scandal-plagued theory like AGW. And solving those clear problems may even have a side effect of mitigating AGW, if it is indeed correct.
> Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus.
How is "credible" determined, and do statisticians familiar with their work generally feel the same way?
> The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records.
If it was really that simple, I doubt there'd be much argument: "Measured increases in CO2 levels correspond to a change in atmospheric absorption from X% to Y% in Z wavelengths, which works out to W petawatts. This is P% of our energy budget, and requires a temperature increase of T to dump that energy through other wavelengths.".
But of course we also have to deal with clouds and water vapor, and the models rely on accurately guessing some ginormous amplification of any CO2 effects in what appears to be basically a chaotic systems, so...
> Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.
It says that we can't actually expect that things will be as different as the models are saying. When the entire reason for acting is that the models are saying we're basically doomed, this really is kinda relevant.
Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus. By the time we know who was right, it'll be too late.
The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records.
Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.