48 karma · joined April 17, 2019
> James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century
> “The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future,”
> a physicist at New York University, proposed that a “red team” of dissenting scientists be established to critique major scientific reports on climate change. A “blue team” of climate scientists would then rebut the criticisms, and the resulting back-and-forth would unfold in public view.
> “They’ve started talking about how they can produce a report that doesn’t lead to some silly alarmist predictions about the future,”
> A key change, he said, would be to emphasize historic temperatures rather than models of future atmospheric temperatures, and to eliminate the “worst-case scenarios” of the effect of increased carbon dioxide pollution
Basically - reduce the outlook of the models for more accuracy, and put together two opposing teams to challenge each others' outcomes. Isn't this what science is all about, rather than one side declaring they're totally correct and infallible?
Good thing the US is a federal republic