Thanks. To me, controlling gas emissions just doesn't seem like a big deal and it certainly seems to be a weak form of political power, especially if something

Thanks. To me, controlling gas emissions just doesn't seem like a big deal and it certainly seems to be a weak form of political power, especially if something like cap and trade is implemented. Moreover, suppose all it means is turning every coal power plant in the world into a nuclear power plant in the next fifty years. That level of intervention, if other CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption were kept relatively constant, seems like a simple test of the human impact hypothesis. Coal operators may not be happy they're being put out of business, but can they prove their product is safe? I'm no climatologist either. But I sometimes know testable hypotheses when I see them. I don't see how a 1500 year model is testable. Even if you're okay with waiting another 1450 years that's still not science. No intervention is being measurable so you should be just as dissatisfied with the science impact claimed there. I also don't see how a solar radiation model is testable. How can we block or change solar radiation? Giant mirrors in space? Or how can we change cloud coverage? I have no problem with other ideas. But ideas without some validation test(s) are really no different than faith-based opinions. I thought that's the big problem for you? Right now, it seems we have a clear hypothesis to explain climate change (note that I think the debate is shifting away from more limited "warming"): Human activities, namely industrialization, have negatively impacted the globe's climate patterns. We also have a clear test: Change human activities, specifically carbon output, and you change the climate. I don't see a better alternative at this time - one that clearly states the problem and proposes a solution. That doesn't mean there isn't an alternative framing and solution. I just haven't seen it. If one denies climate change, then, they aren't offering an alternative to explain and prevent it. If one denies the role of humans, same problem. Neither of these framings are scientific. They present hypotheses without any way of rejecting them. That's faith. Here's another framing that's much simpler: Deforestation has led to climate change. That's a subordinate hypothesis to the one above, but it offers a clear cause to test and a way to do so. Plant more trees because of the role of carbon in photosynthesis. Of course, the problem, if you really want to nail causality, is getting the globe's inhabitants to only plant trees for fifty years and change nothing else. Instead, that will be one intervention among many. But importantly, they'll all tend to share the goal of reducing carbon output. And that seems to be the direction we're headed. Over the next twenty years I suspect we will become much better at controlling worldwide carbon output, at least enough to see any effects. What's beautiful to me about science is if that hypothesis is rejected, and the climate continues to be chaotic, scientists (and their funding agencies) will formulate new hypotheses and tests. The process may seem slow and insulated, but it is self-correcting. If the problem seems to go away - the Arctic starts freezing again - the funding for climate research will dry up. As for politics and science, I'm afraid it's as good as it gets. And it's not bad. When priorities align we put men on the moon, cure diseases, and explain, to some extent, human nature and suffering. For the most part, politicians leave scientists alone because the most difficult quandaries of our time are ethical in nature. Scientists become advisers but not decision makers.