Links
I expect over time to add pieces, make changes and correct errors.
Before we go further, I have to explain why there is no "comment" option any longer. One word. Spam. As on most sites with an open facility, we seem to have attracted rather a lot of these odd folk and have, sadly, had to make this change to protect our sanity.
I must say to the spammers, though, that we appear to have attracted a better class! None of your cheap erection corrections or porn. No, we get people marketing cheap handbags and shoes using such proud names as Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Gucci, Christian Louboutin and Prada! Occasionally someone offered a comment about compatibility but then ruined their discourse by layering in links to these cut-price clothing brands.
I have now linked this site to my Facebook page, so maybe you can leave comments there if you wish. But please keep it civil, stick to facts, correct my errors. Most of all, let's have an open discussion.
Now on to the point of this blog.
Am I a climate change “believer” or “sceptic”?
Perhaps the question should more accurately be framed as a discussion of whether the data we are asked to absorb and the various positions put to us are accurate and the conclusions reasonable.
Discussions about climate and climate change should be about science. So being a believer or a sceptic seems absurd. It is as if we are being asked whether we “believe” in science. Belief has nothing to do with it. Science involves crafts, skills and knowledge. Do I believe in a carpenter?
Perhaps I should state my thoughts on the subject at the outset because it may have skewed the discussion below and readers ought to be aware of that potential. I have tried not to skew, but we all carry our prejudices into any discussion.
First, I was motivated to set down my thoughts by the increasingly vitriolic nature of the debate. I am offended by people who attack others when the discussion should be about the science, not about people. Note, I have not used the word “fact”. Science is not necessarily “fact”. More often than not, it is theory, postulation, methods of proof. My father was a scientist, so I know something of that profession. One of the oddities of scientists is that it is difficult to get them to commit to a position. They always qualify what they say. Einstein did not, for example, hand down the laws of relativity. He offered a theory. Darwin offered a theory about evolution.
When we read or hear that scientists on any side of the debate receive death threats – or any kind of threat - it hurts the chances that good sense will prevail. It was only a few hundred years ago that some scientists were jailed – or worse – for discussing certain propositions. The famed astronomer and mathematician Galileo was thrown into house arrest in 1633 after he published a book promoting the idea of heliocentrism – that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun. Charles Darwin delayed the publication of his seminal work “On the origin of species” for fear of a church-led backlash. He formed his theory in 1838 but the book was only released 21 years later. The backlash occurred nevertheless.
Let us leave the scientists to provide information and analysis and interpretation and assume they all mean well. We can also assume they will not all agree. But it helps if we respect their endeavours.
Second, I carry a general belief about positions in a debate in which there is no absolute proof. Let me use an analogy. I go to my general practitioner for a check-up for no other reason that one should do so on occasion, just to make sure all is working as it should. My doctor does all the normal tests, sends samples off to laboratories and then calls me to say there appears to be something wrong. Not life threatening, but worth checking. I go to another doctor who generally agrees and tells me I should consider some lifestyle changes. Nothing drastic. But I will need to cut out some of the foods I really like and buy some medication. If I choose to do nothing, the opinion of both doctors is that my condition will probably get worse and the cost of remedy will be higher.
Not fully satisfied with this generalist result, I consult another doctor, and then another. I find one who looks at the same test results that the others have seen and he says they are wrong and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. It’s just a stage of life. After a bit more doctor shopping I find myself with the following general position. I have eight who tell me there is something wrong, that changes in lifestyle are needed. I’m not going to die but, if I don’t make a few adjustments now, it will simply get worse and then I might not like the changes I would need to make. It could get expensive. Two doctors, on the other hand, tell me I need to do nothing. What do I do?
My tendency is to go with the weight of scientific evidence, countered by a curious mind and a knowledge that scientists have been proven wrong by time and increasing understanding. Science is in a constant state of flux, as is just about everything on our planet.
So the discussion below is an attempt to draw together some of the arguments, counter-positions and to dispassionately set down what I have learned.
What follows is the result of my reading and listening and a bit of viewing. Mainly reading.
[ view entry ] ( 1052 views ) | print article
<Back | 1 |