The Science is Settled?

Eli,

I was speaking to a doctor the other day about weight control and he said that after all this time, the science is not settled about weight control. Turns out the body is incredibly good at storing calories and tries its damnedest to hang onto calories.

Well it seems to me if the science is not settled on weight control, how could it possibly be settled on climate change. Don't get me wrong. I believe there is a greenhouse effect. I believe climate changes due to that and I believe man has an impact. But leaping from those beliefs to the prescription we need a hydrocarbon starvation diet is a bit much.

I would imagine the feedback loops from carbon are much more complex than the models suggest. Like the human body is really good at hanging onto calories, maybe the Earth is much better at adapting to climate change than we have contemplated.

As luck would have it, a note arrived in my inbox this morning, from Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog. Norwegian research institutie, SINTEF has published a report, "Consensus and Controversy," which states, among other things,

Based on the present review of this debate there are several conclusions to be drawn. The first and simplest one is that considered as an empirical statement, the assertion that “doubt has been eliminated” on AGW is plainly false. Although as documented the level of agreement in the scientific literature that AGW is occurring is quite extensive, the magnitude of dissent, questioning and contrarian perspectives and positions in both scientific discourse and public opinion on the question of AGW evidently contradicts such a proclamation.

I think the Greens do themselves a great disservice by making some of their ludicrous assertions, like the science is settled or their completely fabricated claims about hydraulic fracturing. It is a zealotry not conducive to rational argument.

Bill