Society should not regulate carbon or CO2 output.

Con's principle counter argument is that because he knows of no other methodology than science, it is our only choice and that we should therefore trust it and believe it. He glosses over the actual drawbacks of the process and instead relies on it's uniqueness and the existence of human error to justify poor process. I would like to inform Con, since he is unaware, that there are many many different methodologies in the world. Suggesting that they are fiction, and that only science exists is wrong. Organizations like ISO and CMMI are built around the idea of process, methodology, and their improvement. Every company in the world has a methodology to do things, many differ widely and some are effective at what they do and others are not. That their goals may differ slightly from academic science inquiry is immaterial, they exist and through their application we understand what represents good process and what is bad process. Now, to narrow the perspective a little. I believe Con is intending to say, though poorly worded, is that science is the only methodology for exploring the world. IE, the modernized practice of age old empiricism, rather than truly claim that science is the only methodology to do anything. But this is really besides the point, even if science was the only method of exploring the world does not automatically grant competence or trustworthiness. Those things need to be born out and verified, not granted by default. Thus, we are left to discuss the actual attributes of the methodology, which I have gone through in detail as to why it is inferior and unsuitable. These drawbacks should not be glossed over so casually. If the only method around was a soothsayer who read chicken bones, it wouldn't make him trustworthy. Since I am familiar with the drawbacks in science, and having had some experience with reviewing process and methodologies, I will oblige Con and provide some of the needed improvements before science can then apply for the job of policy adviser. In it's simple form, it boils down to show all of your work. It's so simple, yet so hard that most scientists I discuss this with utterly refuse, making up any number of excuses as to why this is impossible. Science should formalize the process of data retention, being that most funding comes from the public, this should be done on public servers where it is all instantly available. All modifications, translations, meta-data, and related code used for any formal paper results should likewise be available in a similar manner. An employee of the agency that provided the grant (a non-peer) should periodically review all works done under the grant and vouch for the integrity and accuracy of the information provided and that all works are being made available to the public at large in a satisfactory manner. I believe such a process would fix many of the issues, depending on the accuracy and competence of the oversight body. It would be a boon to the public knowledge base and be healthy for science in general. I reject Con's claim that I implied that the science provides a basis. Quite the contrary, meta-researchers have looked into the success rates of papers and found them lacking. Often significantly: We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it’s easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously. “At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,” says Ioannidis. “There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded. ” [1] In such an environment, how can we even begin to trust results for even an implied claim? What do individual paper citations in the scientific community even mean when they don't show their work? How do we know they aren't manipulating the results? Without transparency and a formalized quality process, we don't know. [1] . http://www.theatlantic.com...