Use of Climate Science in Regulation

Energy & Infrastructure
,
1

This policy establishes a clear distinction between proven climate science—based on total scientific consensus without countering evidence—and speculative or theoretical climate projections. This policy ensures that regulations affecting public welfare, economy, and national infrastructure are based exclusively on widely accepted scientific facts, preventing regulation based on unproven theories or apocalyptic narratives.

Scope

This policy applies to all regulatory frameworks and decisions that pertain to climate-related impacts on public infrastructure, environmental standards, economic policies, and any initiatives addressing climate change.

Definitions

  1. Proven Climate Science: Climate knowledge that has achieved full consensus within the scientific community, is based on reproducible data and studies, and is supported by definitive, verifiable evidence without countering scientific arguments.
  2. Speculative or Theoretical Climate Projections: Hypothetical or unproven climate scenarios that include theories or models with conflicting scientific perspectives or evidence, and which have not achieved full consensus across reputable scientific bodies.

Policy Statement

  1. Consensus-Based Regulation Only: Regulations shall be enacted solely on the basis of proven climate science that has achieved total consensus within the scientific community. Only findings universally accepted and confirmed without substantive scientific opposition shall be used to influence policy or regulatory actions.
  2. Requirement for Full Scientific Agreement: Any scientific findings used to justify climate-related regulations must be supported by an uncontested body of evidence. Findings with any significant counter-evidence or lack of total scientific agreement shall not be considered grounds for regulatory action.
  3. Transparency and Disclosure of Scientific Basis: Any regulatory proposal must include a documented basis in proven climate science, with public disclosure of the data sources and studies demonstrating full consensus. This disclosure must show that all supporting evidence is accepted across the scientific community without substantive dissent.
  4. Exclusion of Speculative Narratives: Regulatory actions shall exclude any apocalyptic or extreme climate scenarios that have not reached complete consensus or are based on speculative models. Only universally accepted, empirically proven scientific information may be referenced in regulatory development.
  5. Independent Verification: Prior to implementation, each climate-related regulation must undergo independent verification by a panel of scientists specializing in relevant climate fields to confirm that it is grounded in proven science with total consensus.
  6. Public Communication of Scientific Basis: Communications regarding climate-related regulations must clearly state the scientific basis with evidence of universal consensus, avoiding language that suggests speculative or contested science as a basis for policy.
  7. Protection of Constitutional Rights and Human Progress: Regulations must align with Constitutional law, ensuring that they do not infringe upon individual rights, freedoms, or protections. Additionally, any proposed regulation must undergo a comprehensive impact assessment to confirm that its potential effects on human life, economic cost, innovation, and human progress are not more detrimental than the issues it aims to address. Regulations shall not impose a burden on society that outweighs their intended environmental benefits, safeguarding both individual liberties and the potential for continued human advancement.

Implementation

Regulatory bodies must comply with this policy by demonstrating reliance on proven, uncontested scientific findings when developing climate-related policies. Independent verification will be conducted prior to the enactment of any regulation to ensure adherence. Any proposed regulation based on contested or speculative science shall be deemed non-compliant and shall not proceed.

Review Cycle

This policy will undergo review every five years to reflect any advancements in climate science. Only scientific findings with total, uncontested consensus will be considered in amending regulatory approaches, ensuring that regulatory actions are consistently based on universally accepted climate knowledge.

1 Like
3

This policy is too specific, and points 1 and 2 are dead on arrival. Consensus is not a foundational idea or principle of the scientific method. It leads to what we have now: your experts vs. my experts and orthodoxy. The data, predictions, experimentation (reproducible), and all the rest of it should be the only criteria that apply. Your standard is too high a bar for any science to persuade, requiring total consensus—humans can’t even totally agree that 2 + 2 = 4.

1 Like
4

Unfortunately when most science is funded by government stooges, the stooges can force the consensus. This is a tough one.

5

I like the general idea of what this proposed policy intends to accomplish, but I too think that this sets the bar much too high. It is difficult to get complete scientific consensus on anything that is at all complex; climate science is arguably one of the most complex fields of science. In my view what needs to be fixed is the extreme reliance on government funding for so much of scientific research, which in turn is controlled by un-elected bureaucrats who increasingly align with left leaning politicians who are more likely to continue to fund their agencies. What is needed is a public grant funding process that is truly fair and unbiased, so that scientists from all points of view can produce credible research which can then be evaluated through normal peer review processes.

6

I agree wholeheartedly. I would also suggest a thorough investigation into the green new scam and prosecute all those promoting it.

1 Like
7

It does not state consensus, it requires full uncontested evidence.

8

It doesn’t require consensus, it requires uncontested evidence. No laws or regulation should be set by consensus.