I’m actually a recently graduated climatologist from Penn State, and a middle-ground anthropogenic climate change supporter. As a person who was a skeptic until I got into the government business, I am interested in finding a common ground between the climate change law supporters (cap and trade, taxes) and the skeptics (primarily those who doubt the IPCC reports or similar scientific studies). I do believe that humans are changing the climate, although I do question the legitimacy of knowing exactly how much the climate has changed based on a small time scale.
Now, being that I want to find a middle ground, I wonder what would climate change skeptics would change in the scientific forum to make AGW more acceptable.
-An education campaign to inform the difference between climate models and weather models (and the fact that the two are distinct in their variables, scales, and outputs)?
-Limitations on the cap and trade strategies (perhaps reducing or eliminating taxes while promoting incentives, such as small reductions in property taxes for deploying renewable energy sources on-site)?
-Removal of the government completely from climate change legislation (having panels of scientists paid solely by non-profits, higher education, and the such)?
-A show of the models for public inspection (essentially a FOIA for climate models; computers nowadays can run the models in short periods of time, so you could input the variables and run them yourself)?
-Honesty and integrity on the part of climatologists (if we showed you how we do things and get our numbers, would we be more believable)?
The possibilities are endless. At the same time, I think climate change skeptics should make concessions, such as:
-Agreeing to reduce oil consumption (actually, not a bad idea, considering that we are beginning to run out of oil, and essentially would be good to run our ’68 Mustang for our grandchildren….)?
-Instead of spending money on anti-climate change politics, divert the money to exploring use of cleaner fuels such as natural gas, and renewable resources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal power?
-Concession of a small, initial job loss which would rebound (research indicates that initial environmental legislation would create a 2% unemployment rate, mainly in the industrial fields, that would be eliminated in 5 years) and would create jobs in a shift in industrial sectors?
There are many more, but I want your feelings on this. I will select an answer as best, but do not be extremist, instead looking for commonalities. Thanks!
- Solar Producer: Energy Resources And The Democrats? (1/17/2012)
- Solar Producer: How Does The AGW Theory, Take Money Away From Big Oil Inc? (10/14/2011)
- Solar Producer: Is The Notion Of Alternative Energy Being Economically Viable Wishing Thinking? (5/6/2011)
- Will the American Physical Society amend its ‘official’ statement on climate change?
- Solar Power: Carbon Credits And New Energy? (11/11/2011)