| That's not how science is meant to work. These things are fine if they happen in order: 1. We lack data on a topic so are collecting it. 2. Our data is certain but our understanding isn't. 3. Our understanding has been proven and here are some policies. What's not OK is: 1. Our data shows X and our understanding is certain that Y is happening, so do Z. 2. Our data shows the opposite of X and our understanding is certain that the opposite of Y is happening, so do the opposite of Z. The Newsweek article mentioned above says: “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.” So the gap between proposing to melt the polar ice caps and James Hansen testifying about global warming to Congress was only about 13 years. The point of the scientific method is to build an understanding of a phenomena based on robust evidence, as well as to understand the limits of our own understanding. If a group of people claim to be scientists and then one day invert everything they're saying, then at some point the scientific method has broken down. If they admit that this happened and implement really convincing changes to prevent it ever happening again, then maybe that's recoverable. But if they ignore and try to cover up what happened, that should be the end of that group's credibility and funding. Unfortunately, in this case they have indeed tried to cover it up. |