Skeptics misunderstand the uncertainty in science

Skeptics often state that the science of climate change is unsettled and because of scientific uncertainty, action to head off climate change is either misguided or premature. There are two problems with this thinking. One is simply that worldwide consensus has now been reached over the science and the likely causes of global warming in modern history. Yes, there are a few scientists here and there who continue to debate facts and assumptions. But tens of thousands of researchers and scientists across hundreds of countries now agree.

The second problem with those who point to uncertainty in science is their failure to understand it's basic methodology. Quoting from Is the science of climate change settled?

In science, important and novel claims are repeatedly tested by independent scientific groups. A claim is only accepted if it passes all of these independent tests -- if it meets an exacting and rigorous standard.

There is good reason for this. Scientists are their own best skeptics and their research and conclusions are peer-reviewed to withstand the necessary scrutiny and criticism before results can be accepted and published in the scientific literature. To do anything otherwise would confuse and misdirect research and ignore the accumulated body of relevant, prior knowledge that forms the foundation upon which we build.

Ironically, in public or foreign policy, decisions to take action are often made with circumstantial evidence and much more conjecture than facts. Case in point: The U.S. rationale for attacking Iraq that layed claims for WMD and Iraq's connection to 911, apparently based on speculation and fabrication.

Climate change science will continue to advance and answer many more questions, but enough has been settled to know that humans are indeed contributing to global warming and that we are capable of drastically changing the earth's climate if unchecked.