I have followed this debate closely, and I haven't seen anyone on either side put forth detailed policy proposals other than voluntary carbon caps. In my opinion, advanced technology will solve this problem before any major policy changes are needed.
Vested interests have vested interests. Reviews of publications doesn't change that.
The entire point of scrutiny is to discredit and of course it's going to be biased. That's the point. If the science is solid, it'll withstand the scrutiny. And if it's not, it won't.
Any kind of scrutiny or inquiry should be encouraged, regardless of where it comes from.
Once the news cycle has chewed through the "EPA says climate change is not real" headlines and that's soaked in, it will be regurgitated for years to come. No matter how biased the scrutiny.
Biased scrutiny is the best kind. Scrutiny needs to occur and I would rather the people doing it sincerely believe that community at large is wrong rather than someone playing devil's advocate. They should make the best possible case against climate change they can.
And that's why this discussion is pointless, because they are exactly the people who will be fooled by a flawed and untruthful study and are exactly the people who a) will suffer most due to climate change and b) are able to take action to stop it.
At no point. That's how science works. Those who are opposed will bring up the best arguments available, even if those arguments aren't new. They'll get evaluated, rebuffed, accepted, etc. That's how it's supposed to work.
Many of the ideas you currently believe in were at some point rejected and ignored, frequently for decades and sometimes centuries. Bringing stuff up again, over and over, is a good thing.
If you are so thoroughly convinced that you are right, that is the surest evidence that you're doing it wrong. Always allow for the possibility that whatever you believe may be off and can be improved, even by ideas that aren't new.
No, this is not how Science works.
Repeating ad nauseaum the same debunked arguments is not how science works.
Or perhaps you think that is still valid to bring the Thomson atomic model today? Or the flogistum hypothesis?
The only thing those are doing is mudding the waters to stop the actions, nothing more.
Read Blaise Pascal's work where he demonstrated how to create a vacuum experimentally. At the time, everyone thought that was impossible. Pascal calmly addresses tons of detractors (many of whom had real skin in the game). If climatologists can't do that, then their work SHOULD be questioned.
Conservatives get a talking point, people who don't know what a P value is and wouldn't read any of the publications that would cry fowl about this are now a little more sure that it's all a liberal Chinese hoax designed to take away hard won profits from nice American oil companies.
There is no way that's compatible with such a complicated, subtle, and slow-moving field of study like climate science.
Only if both parties to the debate are acting in good faith. In this case, one party has financial and ideological incentives to push for a certain outcome.
After all, you cannot convince someone of something if their paycheck depends upon them not understanding it.
Thing that is false, if there is no climate change thwy still we be studying the climate
You missed a carbon tax, in my opinion the mechanism most likely to make a difference.
> In my opinion, advanced technology will solve this problem before any major policy changes are needed.
I agree with you to this extent: with the current state of affairs, only advanced (and as yet untried) technology can avert disaster. I don't think it is at all likely to happen, and major policy changes were needed twenty years ago.
There's no way to know if that will happen, you're just blindly hoping the magic technology fairy will fix the problem because you hate taxes or liberals or both. Every ton of CO2 we spew into the atmosphere today will stay there for centuries. And there's a lag of decades between the spewing and the feedback effects to be felt, so there's little market pressure to fix the problem now.
"Critiquing" the same hypothesis by sea-lioning ("We're just asking some questions," when the questions have been well answered a hundred times), over and over again for years on end, is very much "anti-science." It's the same minimally-within-the-rules strategy used by the Holocaust deniers, Gamergate shitlords, and the neo-Fascists. It's not debate in good faith, it's a strategy of attrition, an attempt to waste human resources.