The little nazis on the Global Warming scene have been thinking. They are frustrated by the public’s unwillingness to completely bow to their superior intellect; they need to create a framework where we WILL do what they say.
Because uncertainty arises in any scientific study, powerful elites find it easy to derail policies by representing the justificatory knowledge as inadequate, even when collective scientific and related judgement supports intervention. To make science more robust against such attacks, Oreskes and Conway recommend the widespread adoption of peer-review procedures, following the model of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with the demand that the public should trust such a process to judge the proper policy significance of scientific uncertainty.
Oreskes, you will remember, was the author of the study Al Gore used in Inconvenient Truth – the study that said there was NO peer reviewed science that disagreed with Al Gore. It was a creepy, fatally flawed study.
And it is beyond hilarious that they want to model something on the IPCC. After all, we just found out what a pile of crap the IPCC report was. It was the quintessential political document . Scientists that disagreed were ignored, liberties of all kinds were taken. Half-assed reports from advocacy groups formed the core of many of its findings. Remember – all glaciers in the Himalayas were going to be gone by 2035.
And then, to demand the public trust them. What a crowd of kooks these people are.
I have another idea. How about a free and open, wide ranging debate?
Ah, but the “Scientists” refuse to engage in that. It might show them up. After all, the public is too stupid to comprehend the wonderfulness of their conclusions. It’s all very complicated. That’s why they have to conspire to exclude papers from skeptics, don’t you know.