Take a look at this thought-provoking Op-Ed by Stewart Easterby in today's Wall Street Journal...
A few key excerpts...
"The burden of proof in the climate debate lies with those claiming rising temperatures stem primarily from human activity and not other factors. While the prosecution may feel it has a winning case, the jury's verdict is what counts. Labeling dissenting jurors "deniers" – an insidious association with Holocaust denial – is a losing courtroom strategy. Most people are naturally disinclined to obsess daily about a phenomenon that started long before they were born and won't reach fruition until long after the die."
He continues, "It's true that almost all climate scientists believe human-caused global warming is real. Similarly, American adults understand that expert opinions can change or turn out to be spectacularly wrong. Think of the recently overturned consensus on the link between egg consumption and coronary heart disease, or the reports during the 1970s that a new ice age was imminent. Against this backdrop, calling skeptics "anti-science" is counterproductive, especially since skepticism is the essence of the scientific method."
He ends with, "My advice to the activists is this: you will attract more supporters to your cause if you can pick a name and stick with it, create a clear call to action, enlist a convincing spokesman with a small carbon footprint, tone down the alarmism, and fix the computer models. Most important, listen to the doubters, don't lambaste them." (You'll have to read his Op-Ed piece to fully comprehend his context for these statements...)
Mr. Easterby is not a scientist. He's a sales executive who has worked for three publicly traded technology companies. This said, his Op-Ed piece exhibits more clarity, more wisdom, more common sense, and a higher allegiance to the Scientific Method than many I've heard from "experts" and "leaders" in the climate change community.
And just for the record, I believe climate change is real... However, I find the scientific evidence (both quantity and quality) for human-driven (anthropogenic) global warming to be less than compelling – at least to anyone who understands complex systems, and who really holds the Scientific Method in high regard. Given today's ground truth in China, India, and Africa, I'm even less convinced we (the people of planet Earth) can do anything to significantly change the climate change vector over the next several decades. (See my Posts #93 and #94. They are four years old at this point and still as valid as when I originally wrote them...)
Check out Mr. Easterby's post... profound common sense, wise adherence to classical science, and a tip of the hat to human nature...
Just Thinking,
Sherrell
