Yes I do because I simply do not believe "imperfect science is bad science"
That's your strawman, actually. But if you'd like to argue it, by all means, please do. You'd mostly be arguing with your self, but I'd be willing to add a comment here and there.
This is actually a touch of paranoia on your part. I have no reason to use rhetorical strategies as you say, because I'm not against reasonable action to curtail emissions, locally, and globally.
Locally (meaning the States) I believe we've begun. It's going to be at enormous costs, especially to the poor, but that doesn't seem to matter to anyone that is sounding an alarm. Quite frankly there are millions of people who can't afford conventional power now. That also seems to be of no consequence to the green firms that stand to make (and are beginning to already) MILLIONS. Why can't it be more affordable?
Also, building alternative power sources is going to eject millions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere as well.
It's not as affordable and clean as alarmists think it is, or for that matter, haven't even given it a second thought.
India's argument (whether you like it or respect it, is irrelevant) is why should they stultify their fledgling growing economy when they aren't the nation that has been FILTHIFYING the environment for the past 100 years?
China has a similar argument.
This is a complex situation with many variables to be thought out. High horse moral alarmists, who don't even have a clear understanding of the science except to say "there's a consensus, there's a consensus" (see Interbane's initial posts about all this), aren't necessarily interested in issues like costs because it likely will not toss them into abject poverty.
You do not need to point out climate "experts" to me. I have been doing lots of research on this since Interbane and Robert accused me of being "immoral" for being a climate "denier" (you know, like those other evil deniers that deny the holocaust ever happened).
Speaking of climate experts, guess what? There aren't any experts on climate. Any meteorologist/climatologist that's honest will tell you climate science is enormously complex and unpredictable. There's much that isn't known and much more to learn. I just recently posted a study that states there is much ocean acidification models have been coming up short for years now. As a side note, part of the alarmist rhetoric is to use claim the oceans are acidifying, or are acid. That is factually incorrect and verbally misleading.
I can post other studies that are NOT from special interest groups that indicate models were unable to adequately factor other variables in the environment. There seems to be an incredibly naive misconception that any study published that does not fit in with alarmism is from some evil, coal lover twitching his mustache in some attic.
But that's your problem if your that naive.
Correction - you meant research "PROGRAM" And your actually highlighting one of my favorite philosophers of science - Thomas Kuhn, who I am well familiar with.
Having said that - you've clearly misread Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
What you've done with Kuhn is interpreted how a research program ossifies into science DOGMA. Generating questions that a paradigm is comfortable answering is epistemic suicide. Kuhn was very clear that although dogma has been part of scientific progress throughout history, it also risked progress greatly. It was the outliers who worked outside the framework that have been responsible for the leaps in knowledge and understanding (ie Einstein, Newton, Hubble, etc).
You are poorly and incorrectly attempting to use Kuhnian philosophy to back your argument up.
Actually, if you recall from Structure of Science
, Kuhn indicated that the recurrence of anomalies is an indication that a paradigm [u]is failing at explanatory power.
From that, what are your thoughts about:
Climate models failing to predict an 18 year hiatus
Climate models failing to predicate a hurricane drought.
Climate models failing to predict solar variance impact on climate
Climate models failing to predict the degree of heat absorption by the oceans
Climate models failing to predict cloud and precipitation's impact on the climate over long time scales.
Climate models failing to predict the mother of all el ninos that allegedly is just around the corner.
(Do you want me to list a few more? I'll stop here)
Is all this just "noise" in the system that can be ignored and forgotten about?
How much does "noise" impact the system on longer time scales. Can it eventually cause long cooling trends?
What they actually are are anomalies that the current paradigm can not sufficiently explain with any degree of certainty, let alone PREDICT.
How important is Prediction to you in the current climate science program?
Isn't that a crucial part of Verification?
I'll have to stop here for now because I'm out of time, and because you need some time to rethink how mistaken you've been with all that I've said. Broaching Kuhn was not a very good move either.