The Forum > General Discussion > Should the wilfully scientific illiterate decide on the validity of scientific issues?
Should the wilfully scientific illiterate decide on the validity of scientific issues?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Page 11
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
If you wish to make comment try doing so an a reasonably lucid manner because
What you have written as a response, whilst not illegible does verge on the unintelligible ,
As for the general standing of AGW, well as a “scientific issue” history is littered with not just the rewards of good science but the wrecks of bad science.
DDT
good for controlling malaria carrying mosquitos
Bad for bald eagles
Thalidomide
Good for controlling morning sickness
Bad for babies who hold an expectation to be born with two arms and two legs
The difference between AGW , DDT and Thalidomide is
We are still at the determination stage with AGW.. whether it is real or just a made up bunch of bull-dust.
We have not implemented an ETS (hey Kruddy – a new indirect tax, real vote winner) yet, so the issues are still theory and no practical damage has been done
Enough people are now opposing the stupidity of this exercise in
Socialism by Stealth
That we might see a worst disaster of thalidomide averted
Because as far as anyones “quality of Life” is concerned
A ETS is akin to having one of your “earning arms” cut off at the elbow
Ie – work harder to pay more tax and go backwards
For what?
A theory, which remains UNPROVEN and discredited by previous fraudulent claims of its proponents