When the mood takes me I like to add links to Skeptical Science's Global Warming Links Directory. I only ever add skeptic links, that's because I'm not sure that I'm scientifically literate enough to spot a bias in pro-AGW material. So I read a lot of skeptic material, which I have to say I'm largely sceptical of myself. Now here's some words from the GWPF website that just caught my eye "Even with the impact of climate change on extreme weather, the best
advice is it will be several decades before science is able to unpack
the impact of climate change from natural variability."
I filed that under 'It's natural variability', but perhaps I should have added a new skeptic argument to reflect the way natural variability has been couched in an uncertainty argument over time. I'd like to ask the author Graham Lloyd of The Australian why his is the best advice.
Lloyd isn't denying AGW but I wonder whether never ending nuanced scepticism from journalists is worse.
Uncertainty as an argument for inaction is a logical non starter. Uncertainty in other fields, such as insurance, security etc, is a cause for increased action and investment.
ReplyDeleteUncertainty as an argument for inaction is a logical non starter - Rabbit meet headlights!
DeleteI think you're spot on Lazarus, and uncertainty in AGW has been addressed by scientists. But it doesn't seem to be explained very well, just been looking at this one on SkS , think it could be simpler
ReplyDeletehttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Uncertainty-in-Global-Warming-Science.html