Unfortunately this area of science is compromised by a lot of irrational and anti-human bias, sometimes even with tendencies similar to religion. As an example, consider DDT, it was banned based on little evidence in many countries in the 60s and 70s. India didnt ban it. In Africa malaria killed dozens of millions of people, in India malaria is nearly extinct. And the WHO decided some years ago, to use again DDT in areas suffering seriously from malaria.
That’s sort of the case of “why things bite back” (book about how solutions lead to further problems). Did you see the movie
The Jerk or read the book,
The Lathe of Heaven?
Science is not the same thing as policy, tho it may have policy implications. One of the policy implications of our current global warming is that we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. But this doesn’t tell us how to do that. So people could choose to freeze to death in the dark, or swelter to death in the heat,
OR they could lower their GHG emissions down by 30%, 50%, even 75% by becoming energy & resource efficient and conservative in ways that save them $1000s without lowering their living standards or productivity, and go on alt energy when cost-effective and feasible,
OR we could just let GW happen and kill off 90% of life on earth, as happened 251 mya during the end-Permian great warming, or maybe kill off all of life on planet earth (see esp pg 24 of
columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf ).
Choices, choices, choices.
Which leads to the conclusion that what you call Impact Science though skipping scientific standards for ideological reasons is possibly responsible for dozens of millions of people dying. Science must be about evidence, whenever its about the conclusions and some being preferred its not science but nonsense, often dangerous.
I know the climate scientists (some of them personally) and I trust them (I’ve been following the science like a hawk for over 20 years). My main complaint being that they, as most scientists, are very conservative, striving to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making false claims, so they are reticent to say AGW is happening, unless they are 95% confident (reaching .05 p on the null), with the first studies reaching that in 1995 and the science on anthropogenic climate change becoming ever more robust since.
I trust JPII and BXVI, who have admonished us over and over again to mitigate AGW since 1990, the year I started mitigating AGW, because I happen to be prolife and don’t like killing people. And now I’m laughing all the way to the bank, singing “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be given unto you. Allelu, Alleluia,” having reduced our GHG emissions by over 60%, with still more to reduce and more $$$$ to save.
I’m sort of at the point of thinking that people have this unconscious hatred for their children (who poop & pee & cry as babies and wreck their cars as teens), and sort of hope they get wiped out. No, that just can’t be. They are also cute and adorable. But then why do so many people have abortions? And why are there so many climate change denialists?
Is there a social scientist in the house? Oh yeh, I am one. Well, one thing I can tell for sure (.05 p on the null), there is no such thing as an economically rational man, and we are naked killer apes underneath our monkey suits, and Adam really did bite into that apple pretty hard, and we are descendents of Cain.
Jesus save us!
(Scene from “Sleeper”. Scientists query newly awakened, cryogenically frozen