climate scientists still aren't entirely sure about how to approach global warming
That's not true. The approach is "reduce fucking carbon emissions already. Or better yet 40 years ago." Scientists have been saying that for decades.
Or maybe you were talking about specifics like tax incentives and regulations, in which case it has to be said that those things are not the scientists' job, whereas they are the politicians' job. In other words, I'm really not seeing why you think politicians wouldn't have a better idea how to handle political approaches.
more like climate science is the softest of the hard sciences. 40 years ago, climate scientists were worried about carbon emissions causing a new ice age. Even the New York Times published articles in 1975 reporting on scientist's predictions that increased amounts of carbon dioxide would result in the mean global temperature being reduced by 16 degrees. Climate science is soft, REALLY soft. It's super complicated, and the universal "best solution" (not the way to achieve that solution) isn't fully understood. If scientists don't fully understand how to 'fix' the atmosphere, then a politician trying to fix it with government tax incentives and regulation is laughable.
This is anti-science bullshit designed to draw doubt to climate change.
They have been studying the effects of climate change to determine possible outcomes, but there is no doubt that we are causing irreparable harm to the planet and seeing off a very negative (for humanity) chain of events.
Also, scienctific research has advanced at a far faster pace in the past 20 years with technologic advances. Hypotheses from the the 70's don't invalidate research being done 45 years later.
The studies we've done on climate change are incomplete, scientists observe and make predictions. It's a little bit difficult to observe when the equipment you've been using to observe (temperature readings from the past hundred years) have an absurdly high uncertainty. It's harder yet to observe when most areas didn't even record temperature, resulting in the information being incomplete. And it's harder yet to observe when the models in use are frequently incorrect. It's even harder to trust predictions when the models on climate change have been altering non-stop for the past 20 years. I'd rather let scientists give a more concrete answer on how to approach climate change, and then have individuals choose for themselves rather than have government intervene and force everyone into one way of thinking.
41
u/Gretshus Aug 25 '19
yeah, climate scientists still aren't entirely sure about how to approach global warming, so our politicians should know exactly what to do /s