Mr. Duncan,

We are not capable of predicting the future perfectly but many models used by climate scientists have proven to be remarkably accurate after examining major factors affecting climate in the past and then charting a future climate course using well known facts about the role of Co2 in those models. As you probably know It’s called hindcasting. And scientists can objectively prove that a specific wavelength of infrared light helps warm the troposphere by colliding with specific kind of Co2 molecule and scattering photons across the lower atmosphere, thus continuing to warm the atmosphere more and more. It’s also a basic and proven scientific fact that Co2 can, and does cause atmospheric warming. These facts in addition to enormous amounts of observational evidence testify to the causes of our present problems with Co2. But with little more than a belief that you personally want to accept, you imply that (because we cannot absolutely predict the future), it’s foolish to prepare for the serious climate effects that AGW will very likely continue to cause. Here again you are debating along the same path as does anyone who has read all the scientific and medical research about the carcinogens in cigarettes and how frequently cigarette smoke causes cancer, and then asserts, “What the hell, I might get cancer anyway, so I think I’ll just continue to smoke by brains out.”

Science cannot get everything right all the time but it can help discern trends and what is causing those trends — -such as Co2’s effects on World temperature averages. And since 15 out of the past 16 years have produced more warming and extreme events than any of other years before them, and the only one that did not follow that pattern came in 2nd, I think what is currently happening in our climate begs us to heed the words of climate scientists and reduce our Co2 emissions. Also, scientific principles like the laws of motion can provide us with very accurate knowledge about future astronomical events such as the planetary movement in this solar system, Using those laws and the math that speaks for them we can predict quite accurately how long a “day,” is on Mercury, Pluto, or Mars, etc. or how long it will take any planet to revolve completely around the sun (with literally mathematical precision). So, there are cases in which science has provided us with objective knowledge about the future that we could not personally expect to learn otherwise. So, there are numerous cases where science accurately fills in the blanks that are at first, unknown. But without availing ourselves of the use of relevant scientific information, we would not even be able to verify that we live on a planet at all! And, objective scientific observations have often been used to ascertain many scientific facts.

I hear you about 911? I spent almost a full year debating deniers who believed, or wanted others to believe — such as their theory about an alleged far reaching conspiracy, implemented by a hidden cabal of evil government insiders who supposedly fooled tens of thousands of mainstream scientists, even after a myriad of scientific investigations proved otherwise. No matter if carrying out such a conspiracy would also require fooling the entire New York Police Department and the New York Fire Department, not to mention the US Air Force? But each time I checked out one of the “911 truthers” numerous smoking gun claims, I found that scientific investigations done by Reputable scientists (like those working for Popular Mechanics) reached their conclusions in a perfectly logical and believable way — 911 truthers had a habit of not doing thorough enough research, and of relying on conjectures repeatedly. But When I examined claims about the damming anomalies found and exploited by deniers, I found very few of their “scientific” explanations proved anything. On the other hand, mainstream architects, structural engineers, and physicists etc. did provide convincing evidence about how only two commercial jet airliners COULD bring down both of the largest twin towers, and, how when it collapsed, the rate of acceleration for Tower 7 was affected by varying but rational influences. etc. etc. etc.

So pardon me if I point out that the supposed global warming “conspiracy” is another vast and complicated matter which virtually all of the world’s climate scientists, and almost all the world’s Earth Scientists — numbering in the many thousands, would also need to be in on and support the idea of a supposed hoax — if educated, professional, and intelligent climate scientists are somehow accused of circulating a global warming myth that needs to be constantly coordinated and updated in order to peddle consistently false information all over the world, tell me, how would that help them, and how could that scenario even exist?

The myth about unethical scientists who are associated with liberal governments also make no sense on a number of levels — such as the fact that GW Bush (who withdrew the US from the Kyoto accords) was in office for 8 years, but during all that time (except for a few minor and unsubstantiated claims) there were no cases in which large numbers of downtrodden scientist who knew the supposed truth appeared in public to expose how liberal meanies had paid them generously, but only if they confirmed the “right conclusions?” However, please don’t worry about those researchers losing gainful employment because even if AGW were convincingly and objectively disproved beyond a doubt tomorrow, our scientists would have ample opportunity to research a myriad of other climate issues — all raised out of necessity, because every scientific theory comes with many inherent unknowns which scientists are then determined to study, but scientists can’t answer all the unknowns at once.

We also know that conservative think tanks, denial organizations, and individual who contribute extremely large amounts of money to finance denial organizations are still trying to run the show. Here’s a great link that confirms the vast amounts of money AGW deniers have at their disposal — from funding provided by conservative think tanks, as well as funds from many so called nonprofit groups. In fact, Conservative think tanks really play very active roles in enabling the profits gained by big oil companies to be used to fund denial. So, have you checked out the garages of the typical research scientist — see any cadillacs and/or lamborghinis? Have they got any multiple homes available to them all around the world? Can climate scientists write millions of dollars in checks that effectively can be used to buy elections? Do you really think that some sort of money for research scheme, would not come in second to the combined monetary might of the entire oil industry?

https://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

Here’s how researchers were able to provide accurate examples of how much money is being funneled from biased and wealthy sources in US political races:

“To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010’

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html#jCp

You may not realize it Mr. Duncan but, climate scientists have been actively studying ways to improve Battery storage capacities for years, as well as about developing possible smart energy grids that can divert electricity to high usage areas, and then reduce it when those areas become less active. This concept is about a grid which is extends over large areas and can decide where energy is needed and where it is not, and then be able to rapidly adjust the flow to and from still other areas accordingly. Do you think that in this day of digital devices and rapidly advancing technologies, when one can virtually do things that were not possible a month before, you can’t bet that, with enough research funding, these impressive smart energy grids are very possible?

Nuclear is another alternative, but of course it bears the burden of how to properly dispose of tons of the radioactive waste which possess half lives of thousands of years or more — after the process of producing nuclear energy. Each plant also demands extensive infrastructure viability in order to transport the many tons of required materials that must be used to construct nuclear plants — plus the large expenses needed to man and operate them. And because of tragedies like Chernobyl. And Fukushima, there will always be a risk of breached reactors and horrific damages done by unexpectedly extreme weather events — like hurricanes or tidal waves.

The science needed to make all these things possible is real, and is currently being examined by top notch scientists all over the world. So, if we need it, the likelihood is, that we will get it!

One thing I must repeat though, is that there really are no mandatory commitments required of the many nations that approved the recent Paris Accords. The goals are set merely as reasonable possibilities to focus on, and money provided to third world countries by those who are more developed, in order for them to develop green energy sources and adapt to climate change, is not enforced or mandated by any legal authority. So, by and large, it’s like a gentlemen’s agreement which has been accepted by almost every nation in the world, and there are no penalties inflicted upon wealthy nations which don’t meet their stated goals. You may call this inadequate and wimpy, but it’s a big step forward considering that only a few years ago such an agreement would have been almost impossible.

And Mr. Duncan, yes, we usually do things only when we have to, so that makes reality our single greatest motivator. If the weather continues to become more extreme, while glaciers melt and sea levels rise, while once in a thousand-year extreme weather events continue to happen way too frequently, we will no longer be able to ignore the man behind the curtain who is pulling the levers and pulleys while he operates the machine — the ruthless political machine that’s making sure we all work against our best interests without even knowing the facts.

Why don’t we embrace the truth ?— because the truth is currently considered far too inconvenient and difficult to acknowledge. So, if currently, people with little knowledge of climate science have decided that deniers must be right, while a preponderance of evidence says otherwise — how’s that for a self-fulfilling prophecy?