Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.
Murdoc was making this point a few weeks ago in conversation with someone who claimed that Trump’s appointments meant the end of research into climate change and, basically, the end of the world. Literally the end of the world.
My point was that I expected that all sides would have a chance to prove their positions, and if they could prove it they’d get the dollars. If they couldn’t, they’d lose their budgets.
Which is EXACTLY how it’s supposed to work.
That sharp disagreements are real in the field may come as a shock to many people, who are regularly informed that climate science is settled and those who question this orthodoxy are akin to Holocaust deniers.
Two decades of claiming that anyone who doesn’t buy the whole Climate Change theory all the way is a denier with their head in the sand have produced a generation of yes-men and yes-women. But it really appears that “climate science” is more of a belief system than science. If it’s not, it should be pretty easy to prove it.
These people are demanding public policy (and the billions of dollars that come with it) based on their predictions. But their predictions have been spotty at best. Shouldn’t we have some confidence in their predictions before we pay them and harm our citizenry based on their predictions?