It seems clear to me that if a group (such as EPA) wanted to get an objective scientific
judgment on climate change science, CRU et al., and therefore the IPCC, might be the last place that they would want to rely on.
Not exact matches
Ashley Anderson, a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for
Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, stated that «When people encounter an unfamiliar issue like nanotechnology, they often rely
on an existing value such as religiosity or deference to
science to form a
judgment.»
The Democratic National Convention elevated
climate change on the party's list of electoral priorities, a move that's meant to energize progressive voters while casting shadows
on Trump's
judgment related to
science and the environment.
But while
science can quantify
climate change risks in a technical sense, based
on the probability, magnitude, and nature of the potential consequences of
climate change, determining what is dangerous is ultimately a
judgment that depends
on values and objectives.
In no way do my values suggest that debate should be curtailed: I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature and that the public be put in a position where it can make an informed
judgment about the voices that are opposing mainstream
science on crucial issues ranging from
climate change to vaccination.
Following a
judgment by a Dutch court that the government must step up the fight against
climate change, a prominent international lawyer recently proposed that the International Court of Justice rule
on climate science so that the scientific disputes in this area can be settled.
As that
changes, thanks to the magnificent
science now being done
on climate, they'll need some appreciation for how to manage situations described 2,500 years ago by the Hippocratic aphorism, «Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous,
judgment difficult.