It may surprise you to know that I agree that “climate Armageddon” as it’s being preached is probably false. Humans have a predictable habit of overstating their enemies and their potential dangers. I suppose, from an evolutionary standpoint (if you believe in evolution), that the behavioral trait of being over cautious was selected for as those that were less cautious got eat by bears, or fell off cliffs ect… This is why you won’t read panic into anything I’ve written, nor do I advocate radical changes and then threaten that failure to change will lead to the end of life on earth as we know it. I don’t believe that. As I’ve stated before, IF climate change happens the way the climate alarmists claim (and as I’ve said, I doubt it) the largest consequence would be the affect on agriculture and raising food animals.
It could lead to food shortages, but I suspect that humans, being the resourceful creatures that we are will adapt. I can imagine large scale desalinization plants feeding water to hydroponic farms near the coast if the areas we use to far become arid due to changes…There are solutions even if the climate deniers are right. Ironically, the US is on one of the best positions to deal with a changing landscape imo. We have the land, the technology and he resources to create the environments we need.
As far as cheating scientists. Of course you are right, there are lots of scientists that are unscrupulous, dishonest or just out for a buck, but that’s the point of peer review. Peer review isn’t a democratic process. It works on a LACK of trust. It’s not a group, or a click…I mean, when the body of knowledge sustains a claim over a long period, it can be difficult to break though, but as I said to RET, no one wins notoriety sustaining long held ideas. If you want to be famous, and scientists, like most people want what they do to memorialize them, then you prove the consensus wrong. Einstein did it to Newton and the person/s who prove climate change wrong will be known forever.
As far as my appeal to scientific consensus…Man. Really, go back and read what I wrote! I wasn’t claiming that consensus supported my ideas on climate change, I was pointing out that the media hyped a story about cooling that WASN’T the consensus view in the 70’s. My objection was that “science”, and when I say “science” I mean what the consensus view of science is, didn’t predict cooling. There were several papers on cooling, and rightly so, because particulates and aerosols were causing cooling. Many of the papers even recognized the cause and the fact that they would diminish over a short period of time. NONE of those papers predicted an ice age. Not one, nada. That was the media embellishing on the science of the minority view. Now that mis-information has led to a distrust of science as a body of knowledge (not individuals). Don’t trust scientists, trust the process of science (the scientific method) which is different as it implicitly does NOT trust and requires repeatable, verifiable evidence. All that’s left is interpreting the data, and that seems to me to be the place where the most conflict exists.
Economics is a social science, not a physical one. I think we’d agree that behavior is, by it’s very nature unpredictable, making the equivalent of “peer review” impossible in economics. So their not quite the same, but I understand what you were trying to say.