Tuesday, 7 December 2010
I am a Climate Sceptic, and I Accept the Science
Accepting science and being a skeptic does not mean accepting every piece of research published, - you would for ever flip flop your understanding from one likelihood to another.
It does not mean rejecting things you simply don't want to hear or can't handle.
It means accepting that the most likely is also the most supported by the researchers and their interpretation of the data.
It means not being so arrogant that you think you know better than specialist experts, particularly when most broadly agree.
It means accepting the general direction and conclusions of all the separate threads of evidence.
The only real way to do this is to accept statements from the scientific communities on a subject, while being sceptical of research than contradicts this and highly sceptical, but not immediately dismissive of, evidence from non-expert sources like unqualified blogs and media reports.
It means not accepting something just because it is what you want to hear.
It means not dismissing sound science that adds to our understanding because it contradicts your most cherished beliefs.
It does means rejecting anything that is only supported by the unqualified, or pseudo-science or conspiracy theory, or even conspiracy unless extremely well evidenced.
I accept where the science points. I can never be wrong by doing this because if the research reveals evidence that modifies our understanding, then that is still what I will accept.
If the worlds national science academies start to issue statements saying that AGW is over blown, that is what I will accept. Or if the scientific community band together to declare climatology is using unsound methodologies, then that is what I will accept.
There is a problem if you already believe that AGW is over blown or climate scientists are untrustworthy without real, credible and irrefutable evidence to support this.
That isn't scepticism. It is belief supported by ignorance.