“According to University of Austin Research Associate Todd Davidson, preparing for war on climate change means we should disregard scientific uncertainty.” click here
The push for more money to fight climate has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with politics. I’m reminded of a famous saying from Winston Churchill which goes something like this :
“Politics is more dangerous than war. In war you only die once. But in politics you can die many times.”
This is especially true when it comes to climate. The primary reason to not ignore scientific uncertainty is that no scientist alive can show with any level of confidence that the proposed solutions to the wild exaggerated claims being made about climate change impacts will not actually do more harm to the environment and human health than good.
Anyone can make a wild claim. But making a responsible decision requires a higher standard of care.
“While Transactions is a leading scientific journal, these special issue articles are anything but scientific. There are no experiments or tests, or even carefully constructed real world observations. It is all just speculation and computer modeling. This is what alarmist so-called science looks like. It is all about the UN Paris Agreement, not science.” click here
Regardless of politics or religion, climate policies and decisions that are based on beliefs that do not correspond to reality – the way the world really is – will ultimately fail. As knowledge of the underlying science advances climate policies must also advance. Being stuck in a dogmatic “science is settled” attitude is counterproductive. Yes, scientists have differences of judgement and opinion but this is normal. It’s why meaningful discussion, transparency (including making data available), disclosing underlying assumptions, and mutual respect is so important. Avoidance and activism (e.g. here) only serves to fuel ill-will and hostility rather than constructive dialog.
The global climate system is always changing and adjusting, always has, always will. Climates change. Climate is a major challenge, has been a major challenge, and will be a major challenge in the future. A UN committee was not necessary to inform everyone of that.
Climate scientists can certainly advocate as they please. But climate change advocacy such as here is simply misleading and implies that christianity should be against or at odds with the best available climate science. The political effort to get religious organizations on-board to support government funding on global warming or climate change is not new. When consulting business and/or research money are involved even climate scientists can lose their objectivity.
“In 1988, thanks to their efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) held its inaugural meeting. It was sold to the world as an impartial body of scientists but it was never any such thing. Right from the start it had a political purpose which trumped any scientific one: to assert the existence of man-made climate change and to urge dramatic, concerted action to stop it.” click here
“If this is common practice, Washingtonians deserve more details about which outside groups fund Mr. Inslee’s policy team. Substitute the Koch brothers for the World Resources Institute, and the outrage would be predictable. This setup creates real concerns about accountability and interest-peddling. Mr. Schuler knows who pays him, and it’s not Washington taxpayers.” click here