The real issue is that China has FORCED all of the manufacturing there. And they continue to build new coal plants weekly.
It is for this reason why I continue to say that we need to tax ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from. If we do that, then it forces all nations to look long-term, rather than to do what China is doing.
China has forced manufacturing? E.g. by being cheaper and then letting the invisible hand do its thing? I'm not aware of China threatening war, or Chinese gangs going around smashing British-made teapots.
Yes, Chinese industrialisation causes massive ecological problems. But then, so did western industrialisation. You are proposing a tax based on where parts come from. Why that? And using what measures? For me, the reasonable approach is a Carbon tax (or import duty), not based on place of origin, but rather on amount of CO2 released in the production. Of course, that would also apply to fuels (or parts) locally consumed.
The developed world emits less than 40%, with just China emitting more than EUROPE AND AMERICA COMBINED.
For small values of "Europe and America" (i.e. the EU and the US, excluding e.g. Russia, Canada, Mexico and Brasil), barely, and with a much larger population.
The reason why China is increasing emissions and the developed world has slightly decreasing emissions is that they make all our stuff now. We're still driving those emissions by unlimited consumerism, it's just that we outsourced the dirty bits of actually making stuff. That's not good, of course. And it's still our problem - in fact, it would still be our problem if the Chinese were producing that CO2 for their own benefit only. It would just be harder to do anything about it.
The proposed law does not say WHO reproduces it, merely that someone MUST be able to reproduce the results. If the EPA can point to another, independent, study which reproduces the results of the first study, it meets those qualifications.
Scientific studies often cost significant amounts of money to produce - at least, they cost significant amounts of researcher time. Unless a study is extremely controversial or you expect to get very different results, few scientists will spend the time. There is minimal new knowledge to be gained, most journals rarely publish papers on successful reproductions, and a CV that says "I did the same as Williams, the same as Jones, and the same as Mayer, and got the same results in each case" is not a career starter for a scientist, either.
Indeed, most studies that can be reproduced can be reproduced from the published papers. It's just hard work and expensive, which is why it's rarely done. Demanding reproducibility is fine, but demanding actual reproduction (as proof of reproducibility) would kill most science-based initiatives cold. Note, in particular, another law proposed by Lamar Smith that would allow NSF funding only for research that is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies". Take the two together, and you have a requirement for reproduction, but deny funding to do the reproduction. Ooops - how convenient.
Don't you worry. Our vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction work in subzero weather. Why don't you lean out your window and give us the finger so we can see who to thank for your sincere sentiments?
"D" is the the claim that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. That is indeed known beyond even vaguely reasonable doubt - first, from simple accounting (we know fairly well how much CO2 we release) and secondly by isotope fingerprinting (the C we burn is from fossil fuels, which is depleted in 13C, and we can detect the resulting change in the atmosphere).
... For instance, take the end of the end of the Younger Dryas period. Rather than our current warming of 1C in 100 years, the end of the Younger Dryas period was marked by a warming of ~7C in 5 - 50 years.
The Younger Dryas was primarily an event in the Northern Atlantic region, and much less well-defined on a global scale. And we have good candidates for what caused it - primarily a slow-down of the thermohaline circulation as the result of the abrupt emptying of the large glacial lakes in North America.
The changes in air temperature measurements have diverged from the changes in atmospheric CO2 measurements. I was promised that was not possible - a violation of basic physics. I was lied to.
To bad if you listen to people talking nonsense. You certainly were not reading mainstream science. CO2 is not the only climate forcing, and there is plenty of natural and unnatural fluctuation gong on. However, the fact that some guys win at roulette does not change the fact that the house is winning on average. Indeed, even if someone busts the house, the gambling industry still makes a good buck.
You don't, as a rule, steal a car if you expect to get five years in prison. However any semi-rational or career thief will do at least a basic intuitive probability analysis: say the probability of getting caught is 5%, then the "expected " jail time is only 3 months, which may be a much more reasonable price to pay for the available profit, especially for a risk-prone personality.
...which again confirms what studies show: deterrence is not primarily based on draconian punishment, but on a high rate of solved crimes.
It doesn't. The justice system has nothing to do with us being "better" than anyone else, it exists to
(1) interrupt the cycle of reprisals that "code of honor" systems create("An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"), by delegating judgement and punishment to a third party held blameless for actions committed in the line of duty.
(2) discourage future crime through a combination of making an example of criminals caught to dissuade others
[...]
(1) requires that the punishments inflicted be sufficient to prevent the wronged individuals from taking justice into their own hands. Obviously if the crime is particularly heinous or the wronged often inclined to violence that may set the bar rather high.
(2) requires that punishments be sufficiently unpleasant that people who believe they probably won't get caught still don't think it's worth the risk.
Of course, nearly all even semi-civilised countries manage (1) to a very high degree without the death penalty. And (2) has been shown to be spurious over and over again. Criminals don't, as a rule, expect to be caught. If you assume that you are caught, even a moderate prison sentence would be enough to dissuade most crimes. Who would steal a car if he expects 5 years in prison in return?
Well sense we know the fucking formula, why in hell don't we simply invalidate the EU patent in the US and make it ourselves. Then it's not imported and there is no shortage. Hell that's what Taiwan did in regards to the Tamiflu (avian flu epidemic) when the Patent Holder refused to license it. They invalidated the patent for the public health and made it themselves. Got sued in world court and the court agreed with Taiwan. Public health trumped the damn patent law.
Because killing people, even likely criminals, is not a public health issue, and hence does not trigger the exemption clauses in national patent law and international intellectual property treaties.
I have seen studies that suggest that soot from poor people's cooking stoves are just as much to blame.
Soot in general has non-negligible impact, yes. Food from poor people's cooking stoves, on the other hand, has not. First, it's a small amount, compared to industrial and other sources. And secondly, since it comes from small fires without much updraft and without high chimneys, it mostly settles locally. Not too many poor people live close to large glaciers.
It's possible to use technology to let each user see a picture of the comments that they prefer.
You make that sound as if that is a good thing. It is not. The very point of communication is to be exposed to new and possibly uncomfortable ideas. Strong filtering bias is a very real danger - 1000 digital TV channels means I can always find a rerun of Firefly, and I never have to encounter even a news flash. Customised news aggregators allow me to filter out all comments from lefty windbags and/or Austrian economists. I can comfortably live in my bubble of self-imposed ignorance. Don't get me wrong - on a personal level, I of course like the choice. But as a society, we need moderately informed citizens able to have an intelligent dialogue on important issues. How we achieve both is a non-trivial question.
This is really surprising and depressing to me. I don't even see the crime. Since when is it generally illegal to lie, or to lie well? What's next - imprison people who teach martial arts? Or shooting? Or driving (think getaway cars)? Or better, people who teach writing (which can be used for teaching nearly anything)! Down with knowledge! Bring back trial by fire!
You have never seen the price of nuclear power. From massive subsidies to develop nuclear technology (both civilian and military) to subsidised insurance to low-balling decommissioning costs, nuclear energy has been so heavily subsidised, it's not even funny. And that's not even talking about nuclear waste storage, which still is an open problem wherever there are working nuclear installations.
All of what you said would make sense if the evidence was in direct contradiction. Crime rates are not spiking or even raising, but going down significantly over the last 25 years.
Actually, even if this one piece of evidence was not in direct contradiction, the original post would still be crap, a sequence of unsupported allegation connected via non-sequiturs. See "Lack of pirates is causing global warming".
So who's going to go ballistic over the loss of a monopoly?
Let's wait and see how long it takes them to actually build the damn thing, and at what cost. Go look at a map.
If you take that look, be sure to look closely. The plan is to utilize Lake Nicaragua and the San Juan River, which connects it to the Caribbean. That leaves only 10 km of completely new canal (from Lake Nicaragua to the Pacific), although the San Juan River also needs upgrades to make it navigable for larger ships. This is not a new idea, nor an implausible one - see the Wikipedia article.
I have been facing the same problem, and have just accepted the fact I either will have to buy the "smallest" retail display that has at least 1080p (like a 19 or 20"), or custom make something. I have been looking at using an ipad 3/4 LCD connected to a small board and using the displayport on my Macbook air.
I bought a panel off ebay for around $60 USD and am looking at a either a pre-made board at http://dp2retina.rozsnyo.com/ or seeing if someone makes a board for less money. The ipad 3/4 display is eDP so the boards are pretty simple. Then its just making a case for it, which is the hardest part for me!
You mean the guy who got a M.Sc. from Helsinki University or the guy who got a Ph.D. in math from Caltech? Using hashes to manage file in git needs math. Finding a good scheduling algorithm needs math. You don't need all the math all the time - in fact, you probably don't need most of mathematical knowledge at all. But the skills of thinking abstractly and analytically, and a basic understanding of what math can do, are enormously helpful. You can't google something you can't even imagine.
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
Since the 70s? The Iranian revolution was in 1979, with the new constitution coming into force in December. And in 1980 Iraq (under our then-ally Saddam Hussein) invaded Iran, leading to 8 years of war with somewhere between 500000 and 1 million Iranian victims (that's around 250 9/11s if you need a comparison). That looks more like a reactive and defensive stand to me...
i.e. if 97% of funding goes to "pro-agw" scientists, these results would be expected, or vice-versa
Actually, if funding is completely evenly spread among all scientists, and 97% arrive at any one position, hey, presto, they get 97% of the funding.
There is a reason why most countries have a tenure system of one kind or another. It means that tenured professors can say whatever they like without risk to, at least, their personal livelihood. In many cases, even reasonable research funding is guaranteed via their position, no matter how popular or unpopular the position. This enables them to go wherever the evidence leads.
People could agree with you on the cause, but disagree that taxes - in any form - are the solution. Don't confuse a scientific proof with a political action.
This is a legitimate observation. But what is not legitimate is to deny the science because you don't like the political implications. Our understanding of the climate system is not perfect, but it is plenty good enough to understand that we are increasing atmospheric CO2, that that increase leads to a significant warming of the ocean/atmosphere system, and that this warming will have, on average, significant negative effects on established eco-systems and, in the medium term, coastlines. If you don't like to handle this via "taxes", find some other way. Or convince people to live with it as the price of progress. But denying it is not a valid choice.
I am the brain, your thinking organ. Thou shalt not read the DailyMail except purely for entertainment value. Read Hansen's original text, which is much more nuanced, and speaks of a remote possibility under the assumption that we burn all fossil fuels.
You do understand climate change is being used by politicians as argument for even greater government command-and-control of the economy, don't you? Even though there are plenty of solutions which do not require such; those are ignored because they don't fit with the agenda of politicians.
In this, the scientists are fulfilling their role as "useful idiots".
How is that the scientists' problem, or casting the science in any doubt? Facts don't vanish because they have unpleasant political effects, wether necessarily or not. If a largish asteroid were heading towards earth, that would most likely also cause giant government programs to spring up. But would that be a reason for scientist to ignore the rock? Or, historically, entering WW-II caused a giant government intervention in the US. So would it have been ok to keep Pearl Harbour under wraps? Some scientific or historical facts don't jibe well with some political views. But that does not mean that science or history have to bend. It means that the people holding the view need to accomodate the facts, or live with the mental discrepancy. You know, "your own opinion, but not your own facts".
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
The part you are looking for is "the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". You test a hypothesis by comparing the predictions it makes with actual observations. If the observations match the predictions, the hypothesis is confirmed. If not, it's refuted and either rejected or, more often, modified to fit the new observation. Rinse, lather, repeat. After a few hundred years you can compute where a shell will land, or which treatment will enhance survival of cholera infections, or how to design a 3GHz microprocessor, or even how the climate will develop under certain external forcings.
You need to know a system before you can conclude if it is out of balance. You need to objectively consider all possibilities as to the cause. Before interfering with a system, you need to evaluate the costs and risks of your actions.
You mean like the careful evaluation we did before dumping CFCs into the atmosphere, and the one we did before digging up fossil fuels and burning them like there is no tomorrow? Or the one we do before we all send all our cattle onto the common grazing ground?
Science is not perfect, but it has very good self-correcting measures. I'm impressed if you are able to independently understand the CFC/Ozone relationship, as well as the complexities of climate change. But if you do, why do you point to crappy political sites which have no scientific value at all?
Before accepting a research institution's recommendations as "The Word Of Science", you need to scrutinize both their data-gathering methods as well as any potential biases that could affect how the data is processed and interpreted.
But science does not rely on the word of a single researcher or a single research institution. Science is a collaborative effort, with many different actors cross-checking, verifying, and, where possible, refuting their respective results. It is not perfect, but it is, to a high degree, self-correcting.
And of course the government itself is literally dying for a global climate crisis to justify its on-going existence, and create many opportunities for expanding its power.
"The government" actually is many different governments, which, in many areas compete. Moreover, we have had governments in all advanced societies for the last 5000 years or so - basically, since we had advanced societies. It hardly needs to "justify its ongoing existence".
My politics are based on reason.
Does your reason tell you that to substantially engage in any single field of science, you typically need a long, expensive, and arduous education? How do you know that your "reason" is sound? Or at least sounder than that of hundreds of talented people who often spend years or lifetimes trying to discover the nature of reality?
Slashdot Mirror
The real issue is that China has FORCED all of the manufacturing there. And they continue to build new coal plants weekly. It is for this reason why I continue to say that we need to tax ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from. If we do that, then it forces all nations to look long-term, rather than to do what China is doing.
China has forced manufacturing? E.g. by being cheaper and then letting the invisible hand do its thing? I'm not aware of China threatening war, or Chinese gangs going around smashing British-made teapots.
Yes, Chinese industrialisation causes massive ecological problems. But then, so did western industrialisation. You are proposing a tax based on where parts come from. Why that? And using what measures? For me, the reasonable approach is a Carbon tax (or import duty), not based on place of origin, but rather on amount of CO2 released in the production. Of course, that would also apply to fuels (or parts) locally consumed.
The developed world emits less than 40%, with just China emitting more than EUROPE AND AMERICA COMBINED.
For small values of "Europe and America" (i.e. the EU and the US, excluding e.g. Russia, Canada, Mexico and Brasil), barely, and with a much larger population.
The reason why China is increasing emissions and the developed world has slightly decreasing emissions is that they make all our stuff now. We're still driving those emissions by unlimited consumerism, it's just that we outsourced the dirty bits of actually making stuff. That's not good, of course. And it's still our problem - in fact, it would still be our problem if the Chinese were producing that CO2 for their own benefit only. It would just be harder to do anything about it.
The proposed law does not say WHO reproduces it, merely that someone MUST be able to reproduce the results. If the EPA can point to another, independent, study which reproduces the results of the first study, it meets those qualifications.
Scientific studies often cost significant amounts of money to produce - at least, they cost significant amounts of researcher time. Unless a study is extremely controversial or you expect to get very different results, few scientists will spend the time. There is minimal new knowledge to be gained, most journals rarely publish papers on successful reproductions, and a CV that says "I did the same as Williams, the same as Jones, and the same as Mayer, and got the same results in each case" is not a career starter for a scientist, either.
Indeed, most studies that can be reproduced can be reproduced from the published papers. It's just hard work and expensive, which is why it's rarely done. Demanding reproducibility is fine, but demanding actual reproduction (as proof of reproducibility) would kill most science-based initiatives cold. Note, in particular, another law proposed by Lamar Smith that would allow NSF funding only for research that is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies". Take the two together, and you have a requirement for reproduction, but deny funding to do the reproduction. Ooops - how convenient.
Don't you worry. Our vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction work in subzero weather. Why don't you lean out your window and give us the finger so we can see who to thank for your sincere sentiments?
So much for freedom of speech...
D is quite far from certain....
"D" is the the claim that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. That is indeed known beyond even vaguely reasonable doubt - first, from simple accounting (we know fairly well how much CO2 we release) and secondly by isotope fingerprinting (the C we burn is from fossil fuels, which is depleted in 13C, and we can detect the resulting change in the atmosphere).
... For instance, take the end of the end of the Younger Dryas period. Rather than our current warming of 1C in 100 years, the end of the Younger Dryas period was marked by a warming of ~7C in 5 - 50 years.
The Younger Dryas was primarily an event in the Northern Atlantic region, and much less well-defined on a global scale. And we have good candidates for what caused it - primarily a slow-down of the thermohaline circulation as the result of the abrupt emptying of the large glacial lakes in North America.
The changes in air temperature measurements have diverged from the changes in atmospheric CO2 measurements. I was promised that was not possible - a violation of basic physics. I was lied to.
To bad if you listen to people talking nonsense. You certainly were not reading mainstream science. CO2 is not the only climate forcing, and there is plenty of natural and unnatural fluctuation gong on. However, the fact that some guys win at roulette does not change the fact that the house is winning on average. Indeed, even if someone busts the house, the gambling industry still makes a good buck.
You don't, as a rule, steal a car if you expect to get five years in prison. However any semi-rational or career thief will do at least a basic intuitive probability analysis: say the probability of getting caught is 5%, then the "expected " jail time is only 3 months, which may be a much more reasonable price to pay for the available profit, especially for a risk-prone personality.
...which again confirms what studies show: deterrence is not primarily based on draconian punishment, but on a high rate of solved crimes.
I like your signature ;-).
It doesn't. The justice system has nothing to do with us being "better" than anyone else, it exists to (1) interrupt the cycle of reprisals that "code of honor" systems create("An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"), by delegating judgement and punishment to a third party held blameless for actions committed in the line of duty. (2) discourage future crime through a combination of making an example of criminals caught to dissuade others [...]
(1) requires that the punishments inflicted be sufficient to prevent the wronged individuals from taking justice into their own hands. Obviously if the crime is particularly heinous or the wronged often inclined to violence that may set the bar rather high. (2) requires that punishments be sufficiently unpleasant that people who believe they probably won't get caught still don't think it's worth the risk.
Of course, nearly all even semi-civilised countries manage (1) to a very high degree without the death penalty. And (2) has been shown to be spurious over and over again. Criminals don't, as a rule, expect to be caught. If you assume that you are caught, even a moderate prison sentence would be enough to dissuade most crimes. Who would steal a car if he expects 5 years in prison in return?
Well sense we know the fucking formula, why in hell don't we simply invalidate the EU patent in the US and make it ourselves. Then it's not imported and there is no shortage. Hell that's what Taiwan did in regards to the Tamiflu (avian flu epidemic) when the Patent Holder refused to license it. They invalidated the patent for the public health and made it themselves. Got sued in world court and the court agreed with Taiwan. Public health trumped the damn patent law.
Because killing people, even likely criminals, is not a public health issue, and hence does not trigger the exemption clauses in national patent law and international intellectual property treaties.
I have seen studies that suggest that soot from poor people's cooking stoves are just as much to blame.
Soot in general has non-negligible impact, yes. Food from poor people's cooking stoves, on the other hand, has not. First, it's a small amount, compared to industrial and other sources. And secondly, since it comes from small fires without much updraft and without high chimneys, it mostly settles locally. Not too many poor people live close to large glaciers.
It's possible to use technology to let each user see a picture of the comments that they prefer.
You make that sound as if that is a good thing. It is not. The very point of communication is to be exposed to new and possibly uncomfortable ideas. Strong filtering bias is a very real danger - 1000 digital TV channels means I can always find a rerun of Firefly, and I never have to encounter even a news flash. Customised news aggregators allow me to filter out all comments from lefty windbags and/or Austrian economists. I can comfortably live in my bubble of self-imposed ignorance. Don't get me wrong - on a personal level, I of course like the choice. But as a society, we need moderately informed citizens able to have an intelligent dialogue on important issues. How we achieve both is a non-trivial question.
This is really surprising and depressing to me. I don't even see the crime. Since when is it generally illegal to lie, or to lie well? What's next - imprison people who teach martial arts? Or shooting? Or driving (think getaway cars)? Or better, people who teach writing (which can be used for teaching nearly anything)! Down with knowledge! Bring back trial by fire!
i prefer the prieces of nuclear power.
You have never seen the price of nuclear power. From massive subsidies to develop nuclear technology (both civilian and military) to subsidised insurance to low-balling decommissioning costs, nuclear energy has been so heavily subsidised, it's not even funny. And that's not even talking about nuclear waste storage, which still is an open problem wherever there are working nuclear installations.
All of what you said would make sense if the evidence was in direct contradiction. Crime rates are not spiking or even raising, but going down significantly over the last 25 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Actually, even if this one piece of evidence was not in direct contradiction, the original post would still be crap, a sequence of unsupported allegation connected via non-sequiturs. See "Lack of pirates is causing global warming".
So who's going to go ballistic over the loss of a monopoly?
Let's wait and see how long it takes them to actually build the damn thing, and at what cost. Go look at a map.
If you take that look, be sure to look closely. The plan is to utilize Lake Nicaragua and the San Juan River, which connects it to the Caribbean. That leaves only 10 km of completely new canal (from Lake Nicaragua to the Pacific), although the San Juan River also needs upgrades to make it navigable for larger ships. This is not a new idea, nor an implausible one - see the Wikipedia article.
.Now you'll be getting the world you want, where tinpot dictators can brutalize with utter impunity [...]
Not that the US is to blame for all evils, but as a short historical reminder...
During the height of the cold war a vague claim of anti-communism apparently was enough to excuse all kinds of torture and murder.
I have been facing the same problem, and have just accepted the fact I either will have to buy the "smallest" retail display that has at least 1080p (like a 19 or 20"), or custom make something. I have been looking at using an ipad 3/4 LCD connected to a small board and using the displayport on my Macbook air.
I bought a panel off ebay for around $60 USD and am looking at a either a pre-made board at http://dp2retina.rozsnyo.com/ or seeing if someone makes a board for less money. The ipad 3/4 display is eDP so the boards are pretty simple. Then its just making a case for it, which is the hardest part for me!
I smell a Kickstarter here...
See Donald Knuth. See Linus Torvalds
You mean the guy who got a M.Sc. from Helsinki University or the guy who got a Ph.D. in math from Caltech? Using hashes to manage file in git needs math. Finding a good scheduling algorithm needs math. You don't need all the math all the time - in fact, you probably don't need most of mathematical knowledge at all. But the skills of thinking abstractly and analytically, and a basic understanding of what math can do, are enormously helpful. You can't google something you can't even imagine.
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
Since the 70s? The Iranian revolution was in 1979, with the new constitution coming into force in December. And in 1980 Iraq (under our then-ally Saddam Hussein) invaded Iran, leading to 8 years of war with somewhere between 500000 and 1 million Iranian victims (that's around 250 9/11s if you need a comparison). That looks more like a reactive and defensive stand to me...
i.e. if 97% of funding goes to "pro-agw" scientists, these results would be expected, or vice-versa
Actually, if funding is completely evenly spread among all scientists, and 97% arrive at any one position, hey, presto, they get 97% of the funding.
There is a reason why most countries have a tenure system of one kind or another. It means that tenured professors can say whatever they like without risk to, at least, their personal livelihood. In many cases, even reasonable research funding is guaranteed via their position, no matter how popular or unpopular the position. This enables them to go wherever the evidence leads.
People could agree with you on the cause, but disagree that taxes - in any form - are the solution. Don't confuse a scientific proof with a political action.
This is a legitimate observation. But what is not legitimate is to deny the science because you don't like the political implications. Our understanding of the climate system is not perfect, but it is plenty good enough to understand that we are increasing atmospheric CO2, that that increase leads to a significant warming of the ocean/atmosphere system, and that this warming will have, on average, significant negative effects on established eco-systems and, in the medium term, coastlines. If you don't like to handle this via "taxes", find some other way. Or convince people to live with it as the price of progress. But denying it is not a valid choice.
I am the brain, your thinking organ. Thou shalt not read the DailyMail except purely for entertainment value. Read Hansen's original text, which is much more nuanced, and speaks of a remote possibility under the assumption that we burn all fossil fuels.
You do understand climate change is being used by politicians as argument for even greater government command-and-control of the economy, don't you? Even though there are plenty of solutions which do not require such; those are ignored because they don't fit with the agenda of politicians.
In this, the scientists are fulfilling their role as "useful idiots".
How is that the scientists' problem, or casting the science in any doubt? Facts don't vanish because they have unpleasant political effects, wether necessarily or not. If a largish asteroid were heading towards earth, that would most likely also cause giant government programs to spring up. But would that be a reason for scientist to ignore the rock? Or, historically, entering WW-II caused a giant government intervention in the US. So would it have been ok to keep Pearl Harbour under wraps? Some scientific or historical facts don't jibe well with some political views. But that does not mean that science or history have to bend. It means that the people holding the view need to accomodate the facts, or live with the mental discrepancy. You know, "your own opinion, but not your own facts".
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
The part you are looking for is "the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". You test a hypothesis by comparing the predictions it makes with actual observations. If the observations match the predictions, the hypothesis is confirmed. If not, it's refuted and either rejected or, more often, modified to fit the new observation. Rinse, lather, repeat. After a few hundred years you can compute where a shell will land, or which treatment will enhance survival of cholera infections, or how to design a 3GHz microprocessor, or even how the climate will develop under certain external forcings.
You need to know a system before you can conclude if it is out of balance. You need to objectively consider all possibilities as to the cause. Before interfering with a system, you need to evaluate the costs and risks of your actions.
You mean like the careful evaluation we did before dumping CFCs into the atmosphere, and the one we did before digging up fossil fuels and burning them like there is no tomorrow? Or the one we do before we all send all our cattle onto the common grazing ground?
Science is not perfect, but it has very good self-correcting measures. I'm impressed if you are able to independently understand the CFC/Ozone relationship, as well as the complexities of climate change. But if you do, why do you point to crappy political sites which have no scientific value at all?
Before accepting a research institution's recommendations as "The Word Of Science", you need to scrutinize both their data-gathering methods as well as any potential biases that could affect how the data is processed and interpreted.
But science does not rely on the word of a single researcher or a single research institution. Science is a collaborative effort, with many different actors cross-checking, verifying, and, where possible, refuting their respective results. It is not perfect, but it is, to a high degree, self-correcting.
And of course the government itself is literally dying for a global climate crisis to justify its on-going existence, and create many opportunities for expanding its power.
"The government" actually is many different governments, which, in many areas compete. Moreover, we have had governments in all advanced societies for the last 5000 years or so - basically, since we had advanced societies. It hardly needs to "justify its ongoing existence".
My politics are based on reason.
Does your reason tell you that to substantially engage in any single field of science, you typically need a long, expensive, and arduous education? How do you know that your "reason" is sound? Or at least sounder than that of hundreds of talented people who often spend years or lifetimes trying to discover the nature of reality?