I wonder if NASA working with the commies identified that no shit, zero doubt, ready or not a big fucking asteroid will hit us in 2040 and smite most of life if actions aren't taken..I wonder if the planet could get its act together. I can see mullah casting doubt, religious saying what took the rapture so long, scientists arguing the data sucks, etc. it'd be like my family on a car trip. Harmony...not.
An asteroid is a clear and present danger. Astronomy is a well established science.
Not to mention all of the impact craters that are still visible on the Earth.
And yet we have an absolutely minimal effort in actual money to really track these planet-level existential threats, and no real effort to figure out how to deal with it if/when it shows up. Who is developing and testing the technology to nudge a comet swinging in from deep space that we only have a year or two to deal with? We are constantly surprised by rocks that appear out of the void and come inside the moon's orbit as they zip by us. If one is boresighting central-PA, what will we do?
Your example says more about humanity's ability to stick its head in the dirt and pretend the threat doesn't exist, than it does about anything else.
Human caused climate change? It's about "models". How many models? Which climate model?
As an aside, it is every bit as much about the initializations. The instrumenting of the planet in order to get accurate current states and inputs to feed the models, forecasts of human activity to predict ahead, and the effort to get historical data from the planet's past in order hindcast the models and to again give initializations. I don't see Nobel Prizes in space, geology, oceanography, glaciology, ecology, or see any prizes given out for instrumentation needed to gather this data.
I'm still waiting for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry or Physics for this work.
Nor do they give out Nobels for meteorology or climatology. Nor are there big analogs for those fields like the Turing Award or Fields Medal.
The logic is pretty easy to follow. If Climate Change is an existential crisis for human beings then the science should be acknowledged by the Nobel Prize committees...
...not a consensus.
That's what committees do. They generate a consensus.
The committee for economics generated a consensus this year and awarded the Nobel in Economics to a scientist who modeled where climate and economics intersect, which is really what we care about. They gave him an award for his modeling
...In the mid-1990s, he became the first person to create an integrated assessment model, i.e. a quantitative model that describes the global interplay between the economy and the climate. His model integrates theories and empirical results from physics, chemistry and economics.
I'm with you on the market-based solutions and bringing in nuclear, for example, but the government controls the incentives through things like carbon taxes and regulatory structure.