At the moment the not so convinced and outright skeptical are beginning to get a voice and challenge the convinced by saying their science is not yet good enough. The leaked email episode does not look good for some sections of the climate change debate. Then climatologists complain of the stress that these skeptics cause them. This has me asking the question is climatology a science? Because science is a process of producing theories and hypothesis that can be tested and examined by other scientists and interested observers. This is how science comes to fact and truth. If we do not test what is being presented to us we are an epic failed scientist. Dare I suggest, stressed climatologists find another occupation that is not so stressful.
Climate data has to be shared, there should be no need for top secret classification. We are trying to find out just what is happening if anything is happening at all. The failure to share raw data, gives the skeptic valid argument that we are not being told the truth.
And questions about the parameters of the data that climatologist are using to say, yes the problem is man made and that we make too much carbon, has to be discussed, things like volcanic eruptions, have we had and all time low, high or normal activity, and what effect is the ozone hole having? Why aren't the oceans absorbing the carbon they used too. All these events play a part in the way our climate operates.
There is only one solution we have been advised, and that is to cut carbon emissions. For those who have believed the under tested climate change message there is only fear. Frighten people tend to do some strange and devastating things. Then there is a possibility that when the individual begins to realize just how much cut carbon emissions edict is going to cost, might have sections of the political landscape become a fence sitter or skeptic just to win their next election. This will not be good for the nerves of the convinced.
The countries facing an insecure future because the sea level is higher than normal might do better to find a country that will give their citizens a passport to higher ground. Once monetary compensation is given, they may find themselves floating about on the oceans. The argument is that compensation has been given and we don't have the capacity to help you. Harsh, but a possibility that should not be ignored.
There is much to be discussed, one of the discussions we haven't yet tackled is how much carbon if any do we need to remove from the atmosphere? And if some of the carbon aborbing ideas are introduced how much carbon will they absorb? It would be interesting to find that we need to add carbon to our atmosphere because we reduced the levels to an all time low. And how fast do we lower carbon levels? What happens to climate if carbon levels drop suddenly? Come on scientists. Lets us see you asking questions and hopefully producing some not so vague answers. A carbon emissions reduction stampede could become as dangerous as too much carbon.
