One of the common claims in global warming is that we see a trend and we have to act. Never mind that our models don’t predict accurately, never mind we only just beginning to understand climate, a system that is so incredibly complex our supercomputers cannot handle all of the data and calculations with any reasonable degree of resolution, never mind that the models make very different predictions from one another—no, it does not matter. We MUST act.
This is in and of itself NOT science in any way. Science does not act on half the needed evidence. Science does not fill in data where it’s missing because we have to act on the sparse data we have. Science does not say “it’s too important”. Science waits for the data to actually come in. It rejects excessive interpolations and estimates, as in very rarely uses them. Science knows that lack of data can easily lead to false conclusions. Science cares that it might.
Politics is interested only in achieving its own goals and cares nothing of the truth. Half-baked data, missing data, little or no data—matters not. The seriousness of the potential situational outcomes is all that counts. Count we all die? Is it probable? Does not matter. Only “could we”. Dive in, declare an emergency and act in a way that furthers your politcal career. Don’t ask questions, listen to the “authorities”. Silence all who would question or point out the emperor has no clothes. Threaten them with death and jail. Claim the high moral ground. Demand you be listened to and insult and deride all who don’t. Politics can win an argument that pink unicorns exist and are a danger to society if it’s phrase properly and repeated often enough.
Global warming—which catagory does that fall into? I’ll let you make your own choice.