Letter: Climate change debate
As a scientist/lecturer in evidence-based decision-making, the recent discourse on climate change caught my eye. The key questions for policy-makers are: Are we changing climate now? Maybe. Available science can support no stronger claim. If it's underway, can/should we do anything about it? There is little evidence that we can or should, other than emotive narratives that predict disasters for Vanuatu and Bangladesh - as if millimeter-per-year rises in ocean levels will somehow resemble a tsunami.
But I do know that:
1) Earth's climate has changed continuously.
2) Retrospective data are highly prone to bias.
3) Twenty years of higher-quality prospective data have junked numerous climate models.
4) Selling prospective outcomes' "sizzle" is what often works when it comes to getting federal funding. I've done it myself.
5) Selling sizzle is easier if aimed at biased funders.
6) "Climategate" emails revealed "leading" scientists tried to stifle colleagues who questioned the money-train narrative.
7) Founders of Greenpeace, The Weather Channel and renowned climatologist Judith Curry are among those whom the climate cabal and policy-makers dismiss as "deniers".
8) The popular narrative feeds the political left's need to dictate how the rest of us live our
lives, under their supervision.
9) Some in the cabal admit that there are insufficient data to account for fluctuations in solar output or the
profound effects of clouds on climate.
As a scientist, I admit that anthropogenic climate change may be problematical one day. Unfortunately, little data exist on so many variables. Yet until the cabal admits popular narrative on climate change could be wrong or overblown, smart citizens should remain alert to the many signs of an ongoing con game. Indeed, the history of science records how science and governments have been sinister partners in the past (e.g., search "eugenics" - a one-time "religion" of progressivism).