Ken Fabian

To be fair to Ophiolite this was included - - which could equate to the provisionally treating the consensus of experts as true that I think is most appropriate. If, as a scientist, you feel you should confirm it for yourself and then find something that is in error, then point it out - journals accept and publish criticisms as long as there are valid grounds and there are other channels. Standards and Ethics committees or similar are there if malpractice is found; absolutely fraud or other malpractice should be reported and investigated. Ten Oz - I certainly notice fallacies from focus too narrow - local or regional rather than global, one or few indicative measures out of many and too short time scales. And focus too broad - looking at very long time scales that can make current climate change appear trivial.

Ophiolite and I had an exchange in the "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" thread. I did want to continue but the thread was locked (for being overlong) before I could do so. Hope I'm not stepping on toes by starting this thread. Ophiolite asked for responses to this - My own reply was that it is not an appropriate default position to take because most people do not have the ability to evaluate complex science and accepting what the overwhelming majority of experts in a field tell us is not just appropriate, for those who hold positions of trust and responsibility it could be considered negligence for them to fail to do so. Ophiolite replied that many participants here are scientists and it is a correct position for scientists to take but agreed that, for those without the requisite skills, deferring to experts is more appropriate. I still find myself disagreeing. Ophiolite - It may be a matter of semantics - just what you mean by "doubt" in this context - but I think a default position of doubt suggests, intentionally or not, that you won't accept the validity of climate change science (or any other science) until personally satisfied, through personal investigation. That may not be what you mean but I think it requires clarification. My own view is that, even for scientists, treating the work of other scientists as valid should be the default position. It's not a matter of tribal loyalty or science as faith but of trust in the institutions and practices of science. We can quibble - there are some areas of science that I personally think need to lift their game - but climate science is, in it's fundamentals, about maths, physics and chemistry. It's based on the 'hard' sciences rather than the 'soft', without much room for the subjective. And perhaps no area of science has been subject to as much scrutiny as modern climate science. For those involved in oversight within scientific institutions, keeping eyes open for sloppy science, bias and malpractice is good practice but not the same as doubt as the default. Perhaps, for those appointed to a panel of experts by Institutions like the National Academy of Sciences to review a field of science - as happened at President G.W. Bush's request on climate science - witholding any acceptance and doubting everything it might be appropriate but more generally even for other scientists I don't think it is. It looks most appropriate when individual science papers are submitted and published, for experts capable of competent review to provisionally withhold acceptance and begin with doubt and scepticism; in that circumstance it could be the kind of scientist's obligation suggested. For the accumulated body of knowledge within a field - the consensus if you will - an initial position of acknowledged ignorance is, I believe, more appropriate - an "I don't know" rather than "I doubt" - if only because it won't be construed to mean the work of others is provisionally rejected. I never completed undergraduate science - not qualifying as a scientist - but my impression was that students don't begin from a position of doubt but of acknowledged ignorance. Along the way they should learn how and why the widely agreed conclusions within a field have been achieved rather than presented as unassailable 'facts'- ie come to know why it's valid not simply taken on faith. And learn which conclusions are in dispute and why. The end result for a student starting from a position of doubt should be much the same; a confidence in the conclusions that merit it and awareness of the grounds for dispute for those that don't. Making the effort to understand something personally and be well informed is to be applauded and sharing your experiences, of your doubts and how you dealt with them, in places like this is worthwhile. With respect to climate change science Doubt has become a professionally crafted product by and for partisan interests for political gain - to compromise, impede and delay oppropriate and effective government policy. In a context of climate politics where concepts of doubt, scepticism and uncertainty are being misused we need to be especially careful in urging it's wide application. People who don't have the skills and competency or even a real comprehension of scientific scepticism and who may not follow through with it as a process, are being encouraged to provisionally withhold acceptance of mainstream climate change science and oppose policy based on that 'scepticism'. So I'm sceptical about urging doubt as a default place to start with climate science. (edit: last three sentences added after initial post) My own experience is that, whilst the nitty gritty of real science can often be dense and opaque and beyond the non-expert to critique, even ordinary people like myself can recognise misunderstandings, misinformation, logical fallacies, appeals to tribal loyalties, pressing of emotive buttons ie the charlatan's (or politician's or PR/advertiser's or tankthinker's or non-thinker's) tools of persuasion. Most of the commonly repeated grounds for doubt of climate change science can be examined by non-scientists and recognised as weak or invalid.

Whilst I understand the nuances of what you have said I suggest a default position of doubt is not an appropriate one. Most people are not capable of a genuine sceptical critique of complex science and doubting the truth of what an overwhelming majority of experts within a field say until personally satisfied otherwise is a path more likely to lead to error than not. I suggest the default position should be to take what the experts say as true unless there are legitimate grounds for doubt - such doubt then to be followed by thorough and competent investigation. Despite the refrains about falling back on appeals to authority, such deferring to experts is actually the most appropriate position for people without relevant expertise to take. More importantly failure to take the expert advice seriously is, for those in positions of trust and responsibility, potentially negligent and where the consequences can be shown to have resulted in harm to others, it could be criminally negligent. I'm fairly sure that for holders of public and corporate postions of trust, unless you have appropriate expertise yourself and have reasonable grounds to disagree with your peers, disregarding expert advice would be counted as negligent, ie that would in line with precedents of law in most jurisdictions when it comes to questions of negligence. What would make me doubt the science on climate? Were panels of independent experts within the most respected science advisory bodies like US National Academy of Sciences or UK's Royal Society to find egregious errors, inconsistencies or malpractice sufficient to call the fundamentals into question I would pay attention. Such panels have, on the contrary, found the science to be valid and consistent. Those organisations have well and truly earned their reputations for probity, excellence and community service; they deserve to be taken seriously.

No mentions of ocean acidification and how space shades/mirrors allowing CO2 emissions to continue unabated would stil leave that problem unaddressed? Whilst it's not directly a climate problem it is an excess burning of fossil carbon problem of global scale of great seriousness. I'm new here but not new to these kinds of debates. I tend to be bemused by the extraordinary optimism for some kinds of solutions that are combined with extraordinary pessimism for others. We can build a whole space launch infrastructure of types never before tried, at very large scale - some that can only be built and proven feasible at large scale, like space elevators - but better, cheaper, energy storage, that seems to me a key technology that will allow full displacement of fossil fuels by intermittent renewables is fairy dust? Harold Squared - I don't think you have offerred any substantive, feasible solutions to the climate problem - certainly not compared to the many serious studies and proposals that are already out there. I'm not entirely convinced you really accept the mainstream science on climate - but I am only going by what's written in this thread. It's a question that matters; a real depth of commitment to the fundamental goal looks to me like an absolute prerequisite for taking any solutions, let alone the speculative ones through to implementation. I wouldn't like to see people who's optimism and desire for space enterprise is boundless use the depth of concern for the climate problem to mislead the world into supporting speculative climate fixes in order to further their desired investments in expansion into space. My own view is that real depth of commitment is fundamental and essential to both effective policy and it's implementation and I think 'failures' to date are far more down to it's lack than any inadequacies or inappropriateness of the technological approaches that are available. Even now, with a global climate agreement I suspect the governments of most nations remain more concerned with avoiding the inconveniences and costs of doing the minimum necessary than doing the minimum necessary. What may trigger an avalanche of change is the continuing cost falls for renewable energy technologies taking it below that of fossil fuels; that may be as crucial to broad acceptance of the fundamental 'fix the climate problem' goal as the strength of the science on climate.