Skepticism is the lifeblood of science and among scientists it is healthy, pushes investigations to be the best they can be so that conclusions can stand the test.

But this process confuses the public, it confuses leaders and the arguments are employed by lobbyists representing special interests to further confuse the democratic processes of decision making.

Therefore, scientists inform culturally and politically intelligent people who then must find a way to communicate the meaning of the science in a manner that helps the people and policy makers to make the best and most prudent decisions.

For those who simply wish to discredit the science or scientist, the burden of proof, your evidence of their errors is required. Non-scientific skepticism is of no value to the debate.

“It has all happened before. It’s natural.”

OK. Produce the evidence. Then we’ll talk. The fact is we have entered an age called the Anthropocene because man has become a dominant force on the planetary systems. Earth is in a “no-analogue” state. That means there is no period in history which reflects the same systems conditions at work. Since 1955 all the indicators turn demonstrably upwards – as noted before with all the hockey sticks. This is not “natural” in any sense. Global warming is not derived by models, but by observation and measurement. Climate change uses mathematical models and observations. With such overwhelming agreement on man-made climate forcing, such a question at this point in time is frivolous. Please “do your homework” first.

“It’s the sun that’s causing this.”

Seriously, do you think that among all the scientists in the IPCC, Potsdam, Hadley and NASA research centers, that the possibility of unusual solar activity has not been evaluated competently to determine if this is a possible influence? Please, consider your own intelligence and research into the issue before questioning the science that has looked into this question with extreme sophistication. Again, this is a frivolous question.

“We can’t even tell the weather a week from now, so how can we know the climate 50 years from now?

It is true that much of climate science can be described as being “uncertain.” It’s the nature of highly complex and integrated systems. Just like weather forecasters. No science on Earth can predict exactly when the first bubble of air will burst from a heating pot of water. There are many interrelated factors, from the level of heat to altitude. Just like forecasting weather: there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow.

But any scientist on Earth will bet you all the diamonds at Tiffanys that in time that water will boil and water will change phase from liquid to vapor.

So it is with climate science. It cannot predict the tipping point or point of no return with mathematical precision - a year, a ppm level. Or exactly how long we can stay on that tipping point. A century, a decade. But it can assert that if certain conditions persist - say a steady warming up, as from a stove heating water or a level above 350 ppm CO2, – then “boiling points” will be reached and the Earth changes into a planet we have never known – terra incognita.

It’s hardly controversial to say that the more we turn up the heat, the faster the change occurs. Water boiling or Earth changing. We stand on the boundary to terra incognita – an Earth environment outside anything civilization has ever experienced. Common sense would advise precaution. But current human activity will take us far into the Unknown Territory, where all is risk.

We also know that the human being cannot survive long if a body temperature is sustained above 41°C. If you get a fever you know it must come down. Must come down. You take aspirin. You drink fluids. You chill. Earth has a fever above “350”. It must come down.

The same is true if the doctor says your cholesterol is too high or you are “dangerously overweight.” The doctor cannot tell you when you will have a stroke or heart attack. But you are risking your life.

For any skeptic, there is always one question that separates the wheat from the chaff: are you willing to risk your livelihood and life and those of your children and grandchildren on your “expert” well-educated analysis? If you are willing to take this risk, like a smoker, are you also willing to accept the democratic choice to penalize or ban your addiction for the good of the whole?