I'd rather have unanswerable questions then unquestionable answers; Climate science has become far too unquestionable.
There is always room for debate, especially in the face of consensus. Without it astronomers burn and science dies.
There is always room for debate, especially in the face of consensus. Without it astronomers burn and science dies.
Where there isn't room for debate is the claim that there's actually an ongoing debate within the scientific community about the basics of climate change. That's just not true at the moment, and claiming otherwise is mistaken at best, and corporate propaganda at worst.
Seems to me climate science is constantly being questioned.
It’s questioned publicly by roughly half of the most powerful politicians of the most powerful country in the world, and t try uat country’s current leader. It was and still is questioned publicly by many of the most powerful companies in the world.
Can you be more specific? Are there particular questions or areas of research within the broad domain of climate science that you believe have been surpressed or ignored by the scientific community?
It doesn't help that the text of things like the green new deal speaks so much about "ending oppression" and not about "this is exactly what's necessary to reach carbon stability". It takes what should otherwise be a scientific discussion and drags it into the mud of progressive politics.
Here's an example to what I'm talking about[1]:
> "It aims to “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities and youth.”"
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/climate/green-new-deal.ht...
And it is a interesting philosophic question. How do we know, what we etc.
Funny thing that.
Stop with the bad-faith distractions.