Hi folks,One of the things that I have found so interesting, and confusing, about the climate "debate" is how polarized so much of the discussion tends to be. I don't believe that either "side" is religious about their beliefs, but there is a kind of stridency that gets amped up awfully quick. I came across an approach to thinking about (and acting on) this issue today that struck me because it is such a creative way to cut through the distraction of who is right and who is wrong.
This is an economist's proposal that suggests an approach that is tied to what is actually happening temperature-wise on the planet as we go forward. He says basically that it is an approach that ought to appeal to the skeptics and the believers. Please take a look at the links if this sounds interesting, and see what you think.
By the way, I'm an environmental scientist who works with air quality models - though not global climate models - so I have some understanding of how difficult it is to get clear direction from these tools. I have also been following the global warming news and literature for about 20 years. Personally I don't think the scientific process has been subverted at all. I think whenever the stakes are as high as they are in this debate it is difficult for all of us to remember that things may be, and may turn out, very different than we may think.
More information about text formats