Re: The debate
Re: "Why are there so few voices of reason in climate debate?"
Because it is a stupid debate whose opposite sides are stacked with people who think that attempting to predict and control climate makes sense. Most of the dedicated proponents are still, on both sides, people who prosper as long as this is an issue and funding flows into 'climate science'. It is like Democrats and Republicans arguing over how to spend the new taxes they create and ignoring the voices of people objecting to the taxes.
The 'trust us, we are climate scientists' crowd has, after seven years, produced the same graph as one of the original skeptics did years ago already. They do this with nary a peep about the fact that they completely wrong and the skeptics were right.
The climate is largely a non-issue. We are adapted, as is the rest of the living world to both large long term changes in climate and large short term changes in weather. If we are getting hotter, it is *good* for living things, not bad. Hysteria about species extinction is coming from people with a shallow understanding of evolution. Extinction is a logical outcome of evolution. As environment changes more rapidly, for whatever reason, species extinction is *expected* to increase as the living world responds to the changing selective pressure via the mechanism of evolution through natural selection.
The fact the living world *has* such radical adaptations to wide variations in climate means that this must have happened often. If wide swings were not the norm, you would not see the adaptations. They exist because of *past* conditions that varied. They did and do not anticipate change in the future. If you don't 'get' that last sentence you don't 'get' evolution. If you don't get evolution, you are not likely to have a nuanced view of the effect or lack thereof on living things.
To the extent that anything of real value to the living world is involved, a single species extinction has a vanishingly small chance of having any significant impact. Important genes are preserved across phyla and the most important mechanisms such as encoding proteins in DNA and RNA are nigh indestructible. It is the trunk and the branches and the totality of the leaves that keep the tree of life alive, not individual leaves.
Broadly speaking as far as species extinction goes: If it is important, it is not in danger. If it is in danger, it is not important.
I cite biology here because it is one of the things I know off the top of my head. I was trained in it. To the extent I know any other subject, the climate change industry is also ridiculously at odds with empirical fact.
As an aside, the mealy mouthed words used in alarmist documents such as 'may', 'might', 'could', etc are not how I was trained to express scientific results. You say what your stuff indicates forthrightly. If you can't make some sort of statement you have some or all of a crappy experiment or crappy data or crappy analysis or crappy education. Given the horrendously bad stats involved, I would say the latter is a distinct possibility.
Don't take their word for it. Go back and look at their data, if you can find it and wrest it out of their hands, and attempt to follow their arguments. Strike out the maybes and the coulds and beliefs in consensus and Pascal's Wager and see what you have left. There is not much there. Any alarmist climate change nonsense I have seen completely unravels under any kind of inspection. I do not know a single technical person who has looked at this nonsense and believed it.
Why do *I* bother? Climate change is fake, but the damage climate change alarm does is real. That tax money and those research funds belong elsewhere.