You can really only know who is right after the fact, before that its all 'my model is more accurate than your model' bullshit.
I always feel like the 'rational' view point is that the climate will change for any number of reasons, some we control and some we don't. We should be prepared.
But folks who have bought into the Global Warming religion (which is to say they stepped away from the science and turned it into a political crusade) if this Solar event causes severe freezing across the northern hemisphere for decades it won't be the political zealots who get hung, it will be innocent bystander scientists, and science in general.
I liked jgc's response to people trying to recruit him to the 'anti-warming' side:
"I've received yet another email indicating that the author thinks I don't believe man is responsible for global warming. This comes about because of an insidious sort of tribalism that has turned conversations about climate change into a 'you're either with us or against us' situation."
This has been my experience as well when I try to discuss the science. People want me to come out as either 'pro-Warming' or 'anti-Warming' and I'm not either. I'm interested in the systems problem that global climate represents.
I see lots of evidence of global warming: Arctic sea ice melt, permafrost melt, growing season lengthening, earlier bird migration, bird overwintering, animal range changes, etc. etc. etc. What evidence do you see that it isn't happening?
So in all my postings here, and when I talk with folks in person, and at conferences and the topic comes up. I start with "The climate changes, we know it changes because we have lots of evidence in the geologic record that it has been very different than today, both colder and hotter. This process is continuous."
And yet you, MaysonL ask "What evidence do you see that it isn't happening?"
When I had stated categorically that it was happening. The only solid difference between my position on global warming and the 'alarmists' that I can find is that I don't believe that humans can control the global climate. I agree we can change our contribution to its change, but I strongly disagree that if we eliminate our contribution that change will stop happening.
I'm a strong supporter of climate science, and I try to keep an open mind to avoid confirmational bias and I seek out conflicting data in an effort to 'keep myself honest' that I'm looking as all the data and not just data that supports my point of view.
And still in some groups if I ask "what is your opinion of this conflicting report?" or "what do you think of Boyd's iron hypothesis?" or any question which reveals that I don't think humans can control the climate, the cry 'Denier! Denier! Denier!' is raised with metaphorical pitch forks and clubs.
Its unsatisfying to just shrug my shoulders and leave but my experience is that anything said once the cry goes up is effectively white noise. So if you have any suggestions on how I might state my position without triggering the 'denier! denier!' mode I'm all ears.
You can really only know who is right after the fact, before that its all 'my model is more accurate than your model' bullshit.
I always feel like the 'rational' view point is that the climate will change for any number of reasons, some we control and some we don't. We should be prepared.
But folks who have bought into the Global Warming religion (which is to say they stepped away from the science and turned it into a political crusade) if this Solar event causes severe freezing across the northern hemisphere for decades it won't be the political zealots who get hung, it will be innocent bystander scientists, and science in general.