Terms of Use

I acknowledge that there are many opinions on climate change, and I further acknowledge that I am not a climate scientist. But I do read what climate scientists publish, and I have had occasion to be instructed by and interact with climate scientists. Why do I bring this up? Because the overwhelming consensus of science is that 1) the climate is changing at an alarming rate and 2) humans are the primary cause of this change. These points will not be debated on this site. I am perfectly happy to talk about policy responses in light of this science, but, to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, the great thing about science is it's true whether or not you believe it. Claiming the climate isn't changing or that humans aren't causing the climate to change is like claiming smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer. At one point, there was a legitimate scientific debate about whether there was a causal link between smoking and lung cancer, but that debate has been settled in the scientific literature. Although further research could be conducted to establish to a greater level of detail the precise risks of cigarette smoking, further research is not necessary to establish the causal link between smoking and cancer. The same could be said for climate change science. In the past, there was a legitimate scientific debate about whether the climate was changing and whether observed changes could be linked to human activities. These debates have played out in the scientific literature, and many, many alternative explanations for observed climatic changes have been explored. In the end, though, observed changes in the climate cannot be explained without accounting for the release of greenhouse gases associated with burning fossil fuels, land-use changes, agricultural practices, etc. (in other words, human activities). 

As such, debates about whether the science is certain enough to establish a causal link between human activities and climate change are over. They have played out in the halls of scientific institutions and academic journals. Continuing to discuss this is a waste of time in the same way continuing to discuss whether smoking causes cancer is a waste of time. HOWEVER, this is not to say that policy responses to climate change (the "should we do anything?" of the situation), if any, are a foregone conclusion or that any one political point of view has an a priori authoritative voice in the matter. There really are two questions that require separate answers, and the first (are humans causing climate change?) has already been answered by science. The second, however, goes beyond the scope of science: what, if anything, should we do about climate change? I am perfectly happy to entertain multiple answers to this question, including, as some suggest, that we should do nothing. But any discussion of responses to climate change should be informed by the sciences, both hard and social, as well as moral philosophy. 

Discussions on this site, therefore, will be limited to the (in)appropriateness of various policy responses to climate change, informed by what we know from the best available science. Under no circumstances will this website be a forum to "debate" climate science or the consensus view of climate scientists, or to present conspiracy theories suggesting global warming is a hoax. The reference article on climate science will point readers to the appropriate sources establishing the scientific consensus. If readers wish to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the existence and anthropogenic nature of climate change, they will need to find another forum to express their views. Comment boards and discussion sections will be moderated; repeat offenders will be banned.