Two climate developments this week could prove to be significant. First, USEPA Administrator William Wheeler implied that there might be a larger review of climate science. Second, Sanjeev Sabhlok published an opinion piece in the Times of India arguing that climate science was not really a science as yet and should not be used to make policy decisions based on it. If EPA or others were to undertake such a broad review of climate science, Sanjeev Sabhlok’s comments could be the basis for one of the conclusions that might reasonably be reached.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler used an overseas gathering of environment ministers this week to hint that the United States might overhaul the way it uses climate data and modeling. His assertion was included in an official document from the Group of Seven meeting in Metz, France. It remains unclear if Wheeler revealed a potential policy to reexamine climate modeling.
The wording of Wheeler’s comments was contained in the US portion of the meeting comunique: “The United States reaffirms its commitment to re-examine comprehensive modeling that best reflects the actual state of climate science in order to inform its policy-making decisions, including comparing actual monitored climate data against the modeled climate trajectories on an on-going basis.”
Sanjeev Sabhlok’s comments concerning the current status of climate change are very well taken. He argues that Climate science is too primitive to be of any use in making policy. Let it first get its predictions right and become a genuine science, he said. This reflects the views expressed by physicist Richard Feynman’s concerning the basis for valid science.
via Carlin Economics and Science
May 11, 2019 at 10:35AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 