Comment Re:n/t (Score 1) 278
There's lots of actual scientific debate, at least when it can get funding and doesn't get censored by the governments that fund it. It's not about "Is the climate changing, in ways that will get us in trouble, because of things humans have been doing?"; that's all settled. It's more about "Precisely how fast is it changing, and in what ways, and who's going to bake first or freeze first, and whose coastline is going to get flooded how fast, and how does agriculture have to adapt to keep us from starving in a few decades or a century, and how much of the ecology can we save while we're at it?"
So laws like North Carolina's ban on considering any global warming effects beyond 30 years? Pretty much criminal, and obviously written by a bunch of 70-year-olds who don't think they'll need a beach house after that, plus some 50-year-olds who think they'll be retired from politics by then. I used to live in Delaware and New Jersey, both states with beach industries constantly affected by erosion and flooding, and North Carolina's coastline is the same way. If the sand washes away your property values drop and then your house washes into the ocean, and when the barrier islands are gone, the mainland starts to go pretty fast also.
I happen to live in NC. The legislature's actions are inexplicable on any range of topics. There are few moderates and many extremists on both sides of every issue. There are less 70 year-olds than you'd think, but 'criminal' is a good word to use, along with 'greedy' and 'ignorant'. Legislating science is a separate topic so I'll stop there.
Not sure what you mean by 'that's all settled'. Studies aren't empirical science; they're statistical projections.A PhD Geologist I knew did his thesis based on Bonneville core sampling and analysis. He assured me that nearly all study results will be interpreted to support the funding source. As for the statistical modeling & analysis, the sample size ratio compared to earth's history is similar to one sand grain vs. a beach.
Can we slow it? Again, there's no empirical way to prove any approach will, or will not, have the desired effect. The proposals are trial and error, on a global scale. All have extraordinary costs. The cost of backfired attempts would be much worse. The only thing we really can say for sure, is that it's time to get the hell away from shorelines and flood plains.