Struggler quoted: "The point is that science is the best you can do at any given point. So you've got to act on it."
But "The Science" is miserable when it comes to climate science! Which is the "correct" science? Consider:
(i) 'Ooh, we may get 4 degrees warming due to CO2 by 2100. We MUST act on that.'
(ii) 'Steady on, there. Looks like we'll only get 1.3 degrees warming from all causes. What's the hurry?'
(iii) 'What do you guys mean by warming? We may be heading for cooling! Let's act on that!'
(i) 'The missing heat has gone into the deep ocean.'
(ii) 'We don't have evidence to suggest that the quantum of what you call the "missing heat" has in fact gone into the ocean.'
(iii) 'Missing heat?? There is no missing heat to start with. The CO2 warming hypothesis is so incomplete as to be laughable.'
(i) '97% of climate scientists say the science is settled.'
(ii) '97% of those climate scientists polled at the time said the science was settled.'
(iii) 'The majority of scientists say the science is not settled.'
(i) 'Climate scientists are in the best position to make a call on what are the causes and effects of climate change.'
(ii) 'Climate scientists and the institutions for whom they work are proving themselves to be just as much advocates for various causes, as they are for the pure pursuit of knowledge.'
(iii) 'Climate science has become a business, and has therefore lost that position of faith that the community virtually unreservedly once held for Science as a whole.'
So: If we must act on the science, whose views do we act on: (i), (ii) or (iii)?
