Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?

Perhaps I am still locked in the 1980's mindset, but I still like the idea of act local as a means to improving environmental stewardship.
Published on September 19, 2011

There is an interesting post at Watts up With That discussing a recent Forbes article on climate science.

In the broader debate, I wish we could drop labels like “Warmists” or “Deniers.”  Those characterizations are far too simplistic, particularly as it applies to the discussions in the science field.

I agree with several points in this post, namely:

  1. Climate Science is an immature field that will evolve over time as out understanding of the field improves
  2. Respect and civil discussions are necessary to advance scientific understanding
  3. The claim that there is a “consensus” in science ignores who science works

 

For my own part, I am willing to concede that human actions can affect weather and to an extent local climate.  Urban heat islands are just one example of that effect in action.  However, I still believe that the evidence is lacking that those local to regional effects apply to the world as a whole.  Maybe they do or maybe they don’t.  Today, I personally do not believe we know enough about how climate works to categorically conclude one way or another.

Perhaps I am still locked in the 1980’s mindset, but I still like the idea of act local as a means to improving environmental stewardship.

Featured News

MORE NEWS

Etam: 444,000 Semi-loads of Food? Just Another Day on Planet Earth

Etam: 444,000 Semi-loads of Food? Just Another Day on Planet Earth

A friend of mine, always with a keen eye on interesting things, passed on an interesting quote from the CERA Week energy conference the other week. The head of the International Energy Forum mentioned a surprising statistic, as quoted by Javier Blas on Twitter:...