Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an expert in climate change, but I read a lot of science paper (mostly cryptography and behavior science) and I understand how science works. I understand it's process, it's limitations. I also see the writing on the wall. I don't like it, I'm not enthusiastic about it, I don't place blind trust in it. It's there, whether I like it or not. There are a lot of uncertainties about the details, but the big pictur…
I agree with you about the first paragraph. Do you think we need more Climate skeptics especially when there is a severe lack of them, and when there is an excessive dogmatism – i.e., you cannot challenge the status quo with the best of intentions and using the same materials/sources, there is a cultural pressure to conform and there is a dire need for strong arming climate catastrophy and apocolyptic motifs? I hope…
The same goes for climate science, our models are increasing in precision. The social pressure is however in the opposite direction than you think. Nobody wants to be seen as crazy, and there is a pressure from the institutions to tone it down. Often the most conservative models are presented as plausible, selected by how actionable they are. Even the plausible models are unpleasant, not because scientists are crazy, but because the situation is that bad, and potentially much worst. Whether it's fixable, or can only be mitigated, or we can only try to adapt, it doesn't matter because we are not doing any of it. We are banking in everything turning out just fine, even if we continue pumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere indiscriminately. This behavior is a suicidal one.
What social pressure would exist to deal with the problem head-on anyway, we don't work like that.
The real power is not being dogmatically sceptical, it's evaluation. Thinking about things and their relationships. There is a difference between poking holes, and throwing the whole tapestry away for the sake of being sceptical.