>>>My conclusion, perhaps I will be classified as a conspiracy theorist for this, is that possibly the climate industry has become such a big industry that in order to sustain itself it has to bend the truth a bit and cherry pick data and conclusion to let the world think we have a massive environment problem. What could be a bigger threat to the industry than the outcome that it is build on false assumptions?
>
>I have considerable sympathy for your viewpoint. However: what if you're wrong?
That goes two ways: what if the climate activists are wrong? The political implications are huge and affect the poorest people on earth. See the movie "The great global warming swindle" at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg. Near the end it displays the implications for the 3rd world.
If I'm right, we could have build a lot more coal power plants rather than nuclear with all of its environmental and economical implications.
It is much more religion and political ideology or even economic geopolitics than science. And that is a very dangerous mix. Personally, closely monitoring the current status, continue to make more observations and put that into perspective of available data is the best thing we can do. However I feel the whole subject is hijacked by politicians with possible hidden agendas (In the same movie, see how magaret tatcher use the CO2 argument to promote nuclear power to get the miner strikes of her back).
The problem IMO, since there is so much money going around in this industry, it will be very difficult to unbiased scientifical results published and accepted.
OTOH, only time will tell. If in the next two decades global temperatures decline as they did between 1940 and 1980 (there was a real concern of global cooling), then the climate activists will really have something to explain. Lets hope then we can put this to bed once and for all.
I have hope that the earths climate not following the activists agenda will uncover the fraud in the long run.
Walter,
>The issue is that those who propose doing nothing until the science is "proven" (as if anything ever could be absolutely proven!) are in fact seeking to impose their own viewpoint just as aggressively as those they accuse. The term for a deliberate (in the classical sense) decision to do nothing is "masterly inactivity" but it relies on sufficient experience and knowledge to review the evidence. This is very different from refusing to move until the opponent achieves an unreachable target. The fact is that climate science is not alone in experiencing contradictory evidence and uncertainty: doctors face that every day of their professional careers and it's not a recipe to do nothing.
