Our friend Tom Krannawitter has some thoughts on climate change

HOT AIR?
Those who “advocate” for the cause of “climate change” purport to believe three things:
1. The climate is changing.

2. Climate change is caused by human activities.

3. The prospect for more climate change is sufficiently dangerous to justify urgent public policy changes, all of which mean huge increases in the scope and power of governments. 
My understanding is that most scientists agree with 1. (How could one NOT think the climate changes?) There is some debate about 2, meaning exactly how much human activities influence the climate and in precisely what ways. (These cannot be easy things to measure.) I believe there is wide disagreement, among scientists, about 3.
But this is not the way the subject is ever presented or discussed in public or political arenas today. Instead, it is almost always simplified to a binary choice: Either you “believe in climate change,” or you don’t.
For those skeptics who have not been persuaded that man-made climate change is real AND dangerous enough to warrant huge government programs, they think that climate change activists are just pawns being used by those who have an interest in increasing government power. And there is likely some truth to that. Activists rarely are aware of the help they provide to those who occupy the halls, seats, and bureaus of government power. 
For the pious “believers,” however, they think the skeptics are ignorant rubes who don’t care about “science.” They insist that the “science is settled,” which demonstrates their own lack of understanding not only about the science of nature, but the nature of science. 
Regardless, I am not an ignorant rube. I think science is useful and highly valuable. So I hereby propose an offer: Might we agree that our public policies will be informed by an intelligent consideration of the findings of science? 
I ask only that there be three conditions attached to this agreement:
1. Our public policies not violate the U.S. Constitution. If the Constitution does not allow for something critically important regarding climate change, then let us amend it. 
2. The science must be truly “scientific,” meaning objective. Let us hear from ALL researchers and scholars, even those who might at first appear to be dissenting minority voices and thinkers. Every new scientific discovery, after all, usually begins with a lone voice speaking in dissent. Let us, in other words, NOT hear ONLY from those whose research is funded by, say, the oil and gas industry, AND let us NOT hear ONLY from those funded by Big Green money and government interests.
3. Finally, let ALL our public policies be informed by ALL the sciences. Including the science of economics. 
Sound fair?