The denier movement pretends to be about asking honest questions about a scientific matter that is both complex and *possibly* fraught with systematic errors. I believe that honest skeptics can play an important role there. But denialism is ALSO about preventing the community consensus in atmospheric science from affecting public policy. They insist on a burden of proof that 99%+ of skilled experts in a field are insufficient - and yet a slim majority of science-illiterate politicians (during the Bush Era) and now a 40% *minority* of science-clueless politicians - should have absolute power to ignore the best scientific advice of the era. This legerdemain and sleight of hand over burden of proof is dismal, ignorant, dishonest and purely a product of left-right fixated ideology. David Brin ☀
Tuesday 6 July 2010
12 notes
-
inlumino reblogged this from jjarichardson
-
inlumino liked this
-
lastchatwithphontaine liked this
-
jjarichardson reblogged this from azspot
-
silas216 reblogged this from azspot
-
abcsoupdot liked this
-
recoveringhipster liked this
-
marco liked this
-
coreburst liked this
-
santailax47 liked this
-
azspot posted this
A GNT creation ©2007–2012
