Not exact matches
Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion,
science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political
consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to
protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.
When it comes to
protecting an ongoing enterprise of corrupting
science — the Cook paper is only one recent example of an ongoing school of concocting studies claiming Leninist - election - style 90 + % levels of
consensus, and the protectors of this school have every reason to expect that their protection will help the corruption to continue with more papers in this vein — we are out of the too - late - to - prevent realm where charity is appropriate.
And bad
science is
protected and cheered if it's
consensus, no matter how stupid.
World leaders failed to grasp that molding government
science into
consensus opinions would destroy the dynamic vitality of
science that
protects us.
Much different than an individual who signs with an all powerful organisation to
protect the secrecy of its internal workings, and then decides that there is an inevitable corruption of the collected workings by the powerful ellective that can write a policy document to override the
consensus and misrepresent the dissent within the collective writings and the
science.