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:
- Climate Science is an immature field that will evolve over time as out understanding of the field improves
- Respect and civil discussions are necessary to advance scientific understanding
- 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.
