6 comments on “What an extremely strange question

  1. If the evidence changes, then any conclusions drawn from that evidence must be re-examined to see if they must also change.

    Of course, if you are a “true believer” (in whatever), then any evidence which, if it were genuine, would force you to change any of your prejudices must, at the minimum, be disregarded if not actively discredited.

  2. “when the official science catches up with the real world”

    Haha, apparently that’s only gonna happen in another decade. 10 years sans warming could just be a glitch

  3. “Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin

  4. I don’t know about the real science, but the media has continue preaching fire and brimstone, long after the planet refused to carry on warming up.

    I like carbon taxes, because:
    1) We have to tax something, and if we make them revenue neutral, only producers of fossil fuels will lose, society might even gain
    2) They can be increased / decreased depending on whether they are having the required effect
    3) They are more easily forecastable than carbon pricing
    4) If global warming turns out to be a big con, nothing will have really been lost

    Therefore all you need is carbon tax and bugger off to all the other bans, subsidies and other crap

  5. “and bugger off to all the other bans, subsidies and other crap”

    Except that never happens …

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>