Earlier today I posted about climate action scepticism, arguing that climate change scepticism is only one of three important reasons one might have for opposing action to prevent climate change. I pointed out that there is almost no discussion of whether it is worth trying to prevent climate change even if one believes it is occurring and has a material human-induced component. I noted that climate change sceptics foolishly try to shout down anyone that wants - as I do - to oppose action to prevent climate change without opposing the science of global warming, whilst those that advocate action to prevent climate change find it convenient to ignore attempts to question the worth of trying to prevent climate change by construing any questions of this sort as attempts to dispute the mainstream science.
As I write, there are fifty messages on the board. Virtually all of these attempt to dispute the science of global warming, many attacking me (remember, I oppose action to prevent climate change) for not opposing the mainstream science in this matter. The number questioning whether the costs of action to prevent climate change outweigh the benefits? Zero. The number questioning why the BBC or newspapers devote so much space to debating the scientific question and so little to debating the costs and benefits of action? Zero. The useful contribution to opposing action to prevent climate change, given the overwhelming consensus in the policy community in favour of accepting mainstream science in this matter? Zero.
My point precisely.
