The proper question is this: “How many years must the pause continue before you are willing to concede that it might not be a pause in a man-made catastrophe but rather an end to a natural cycle.” There. Simple. With that one question, we”re not asking climate change experts to predict global temperatures like an Oscar race, but rather, we”re asking each expert to provide a figure for how long they”ll continue to call it a “pause” before they are open to the possibility that it’s a conclusion.
If the warming mavens answer, “no amount of time, no amount of data, will ever convince me to alter my position that this is a temporary pause,” they”re rejecting the scientific method and admitting to being an adherent to a faith. But, if they provide a figure for their own personal time limit on calling it a pause, they”re tying themselves down. They”re anchoring the goalpost, and that’s not what you want to do when you”re in the business of keeping it moving.
Every climate expert who is involved in any kind of lobbying for new taxes, treaties, or legislation “ in other words, every advocate who seeks to affect your life and mine “ needs to answer that question: “How many years must the pause continue before you are willing to concede that it might not be a pause but an end.” No one should be allowed to influence public policy on climate matters without providing an answer to that simple question.
These “experts” have hobbled industry, put people out of work, taxed ordinary citizens, and micro-managed every aspect of people’s lives from lightbulbs to asthma inhalers to grocery bags. If the pause lasts longer than the number of years they concede a “pause” should last, there must be a public reckoning. Haul them in front of congressional committees. Initiate civil suits. Be merciless. I”m talking about some heavy-handed draconian Nuremberg Trial nastiness. Call them to account for pushing burdensome public policies while dismissing as “deniers” those who suggested that the pause was not a pause at all, but an ending.
How many years must the pause continue before it’s reasonable to suggest that it might be more than just a pause? A scientist seeking to expand human knowledge will answer that question. A magician looking to deceive a mark won”t.