June and July have seen this blog start to get some attention (last month alone getting more hits than the previous 5 months together and July is nearly at the same point now). I hope that my work has offered something useful to my readers. What I really hope for is to stimulate conversation and action in adapting to our changing world rather than to be yet another view going along with deniers in endless circular debates. I personally am very optimistic in our potential to meet the changing world and prosper by doing so. I am, however, pessimistic in our ability to overcome this business-as-usual inertia.
In responding to a “sceptic” of science, I developed the following analogy, which I wish to share. Please let me know if you find any errors in it! 🙂
A wife was found with another man, both murdered in her bed (ie. temperature record). Later, the husband was found randomly driving around the streets. He had the victims’ blood on his hands and clothes (ie. global temperature anomaly, night warming trends, longwave radiation brightness changes etc). He had the weapon in his coat pocket (ie. greenhouse gas emissions). No other prints, except for the three individuals were found in the room, nor was there any evidence of forced entry or items being taken (ie. clearly not correlated to solar activity or urban heating effect).
Although he was vague, he didn’t clearly admit to the crime.
Are you telling me that you think that the husband is not responsible or at very suspicious simply because a few years ago a couple were found dead in their bed, which turned out to be the result of house invasion (ie. other climate change events)? Is this a logical use of the available evidence?
This clearly ignores the differences between the two cases; such as the love-triangle, no evidence of a house invasion in the latter event, that only the husband can be traced to the room and has the murder weapon in his pocket and is covered with the victims’ blood and was obviously not attempting to contact the police.
All you’re basically telling me is, because the victim didn’t clearly admit to the crime (ie. the argument that, “we need to be 100% certain of anthropogenic climate change before we take action!”), you think the evidence against the husband is nothing but speculation?