Poyndexter, I viewed that video you pointed to and yes it is a strategy for risk mitigation but it is the weak perspective and the one promoting a belief in ignorance rather than a belief in good science. Can you see that point?
i.e
It is so obvious that we see a pseudo climate science trying to force raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen. If I can put it another way, good scientific knowledge is learned, by studying those things that do not fit what you expected. e.g. We want the details, and want to know WHY this particular data set is not conforming to the conventional theories. That is what honest science is all about.
The IPCC is full of major political biases and naturally has a monopoly on being careless with data acquisition and unashamably promotes dodgy data processing. This organisation demonstrated and continues to perpetuate climate research as nothing but junk. e.g. We get this classic eclipse of reason from the IPCC by assuming that anyone could get accurate temperatures from tree rings and rate this above peer reviewed evidence from solar scientists who demonstrate a clear relationship between solar change and climate change. If people know anything about growing plants then you would not need to be a rocket scientist to reason that getting accurate temps from tree rings was impossible.
If we value risk management then we need to put the blow torch to the belly of this shonky IPCC organisation because it is precisely good science that is at risk. Here in Australia this issue of climate changing was never even about science because it is a religious calling and big business for fruitloop scientist David Karoli, rote learner Dr Karl and many others.
