“The Science” has become the latest buzz word used widely in social and political circles. It’s used to refer to any scientific or pseudoscientific finding that derides humans as the main cause of climate change. It is used to give the impression that all of “the science” states the same thing.
“The science says…” or “I've read the science” you might hear people say. But what science? What sciences says what? What have you read? Worthy questions indeed. Ross Garnaut’s report or the latest book by Tim Flannery? Hopefully a specific answer comes and one can investigate for themselves. Putting the comments into perspective.
The problem for “the science” is that there are many credible climate scientists who bring plenty of evidence to suggest that the human element and the predicted effect of the carbon tax are both grossly overstated. Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are two Australian examples. No doubt followers of “the science” would disagree with this assertion.
Real science should welcome comment on their findings. Yet “the science” lambasts any criticism.
“The science says…” or “I've read the science” you might hear people say. But what science? What sciences says what? What have you read? Worthy questions indeed. Ross Garnaut’s report or the latest book by Tim Flannery? Hopefully a specific answer comes and one can investigate for themselves. Putting the comments into perspective.
The problem for “the science” is that there are many credible climate scientists who bring plenty of evidence to suggest that the human element and the predicted effect of the carbon tax are both grossly overstated. Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are two Australian examples. No doubt followers of “the science” would disagree with this assertion.
Real science should welcome comment on their findings. Yet “the science” lambasts any criticism.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment