If you want to build a bridge you need to meet certain criteria. Namely, you need to be a licensed civil engineer*. Why? Because, amongst other unseemly but real and important political factors (like keeping the competition from building bridges), poorly made bridges can readily kill people. That is, lives are at stake.
So, with climate science, shouldn’t we impose some similar set of requirements and licensing conditions on those who not only make predictions about the future but also seek to impose restrictions on people’s lives**? We are, after all, talking about manipulating and changing the way the people can live their lives and earn a living. That is, lives are at stake.
And yet, there are no requirements on climate scientists having a track record of being right or wrong. You get some “consensus” and then you put cap and trade in place and voila! You’ve just screwed millions of people who are now out of work or paying more to do the same work or the like. And then…tomorrow or the next day you discover….you were wrong.
* – I used this phrase “licensed civil engineer” as a shorthand for the, no doubt, dozens or hundreds of actual requirements imposed on the individuals and the firms that, for example, the US government (local, state, or Federal) imposes on those who build bridges.
** – note that I am, in general, opposed to licensure for all occupations. In this post I am merely making an analogy to the world as it is today >>> If you want to build a bridge, then you must be licensed. As such, it makes sense (to me), that if you want to screw with people’s lives vis a vis climate change predictions and policies, then you ought to be “licensed”.