Difference between revisions of "Settled science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(what does it mean, the science is settled? What science?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Donald Luskin wrote: | + | [[Donald Luskin]] wrote: |
:If you question [[whether]] [[global warming]] is happening, or whether [[human]] activity is causing it, or whether it’s worth doing anything about it, then you must be a crack-pot. You are standing athwart the “consensus of [[scientists]].” You are disputing “'''settled science'''.” You are a “global warming denier,” the moral equivalent of an apologist for the [[Nazi]] holocaust. [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY5OTM1ZThlN2NjYTUzZjVlZmVkMDU3MDZkODM0NDM=] | :If you question [[whether]] [[global warming]] is happening, or whether [[human]] activity is causing it, or whether it’s worth doing anything about it, then you must be a crack-pot. You are standing athwart the “consensus of [[scientists]].” You are disputing “'''settled science'''.” You are a “global warming denier,” the moral equivalent of an apologist for the [[Nazi]] holocaust. [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY5OTM1ZThlN2NjYTUzZjVlZmVkMDU3MDZkODM0NDM=] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Richard Linden]] wrote: | ||
| + | :Those who insist that the science is settled should be required to state exactly what science they feel is settled. In all likelihood, it will turn out to be something trivial and without policy implications except to those who bizarrely subscribe to the so-called [[precautionary principle]] ... [http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:rDsk2aYLzPUJ:www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf+ipcc+summary+before+scientific&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a] | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 14:27, May 23, 2008
Donald Luskin wrote:
- If you question whether global warming is happening, or whether human activity is causing it, or whether it’s worth doing anything about it, then you must be a crack-pot. You are standing athwart the “consensus of scientists.” You are disputing “settled science.” You are a “global warming denier,” the moral equivalent of an apologist for the Nazi holocaust. [1]
Richard Linden wrote:
- Those who insist that the science is settled should be required to state exactly what science they feel is settled. In all likelihood, it will turn out to be something trivial and without policy implications except to those who bizarrely subscribe to the so-called precautionary principle ... [2]