Discussion: PalMD, in Too many too soon?, compares the ravings Jenny McCarthy and her friends to actual scientific research.
PZ Myers asks you to visit an Anti Vax poll. Here.
is (to be blunt) outrageous.In other words, clmaite change advocates have brought the current political clmaite (tried to think of another word to avoid the pun but it’s late) on themselves. It is pointless to complain about the radicals and the zealots in the doubters’ camp. There are zealots and radicals on both sides of the debate.The other point to be made about the debate is that it is absolutely sterile for so long as the only policy alternatives are those offered by the major parties at the moment. It seems to me that there is zero chance of reducing emissions to a point which will, on the theories advanced by the proponents of AGW, avoid significant damage to the environment. In those circumstances, why are we not discussing what we do to cope? The answer of course is that it is unacceptable to either side of the debate. The proponents will see that as an effective defeat because the environment has not been saved and the doubters won’t admit that there is a possibility of damage.It is also a function of the politics of the situation. Broadly speaking, there is a right/left divide between the two camps. The planned reduction of consumption and re-distribution of wealth inherent in an ETS is attractive to the left and anathema to the right. That, of course, is the great problem for any sort of clmaite change action. Most people are going to have to suffer a significant reduction in their amenity of life. Garnaut said as much on TV the other day. Try selling that to the Australian electorate.
Shinta, I’m afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. Also, this blog post you are commenting on is about vaccination. To be blunt.
It’s well known that many of the assumptions in neo-classical ecniomocs have little fit with the actuality of the political economy (ie ‘assume perfect competition’). I’ve taught ecniomocs for 15 years and I am yet to meet this strawman neo-classical economist who assumes perfect competition.Social scientists almost invariably critique a school of economic thought that does not exist outiside their imagination. This is because they haven’t bothered to put in the hard yards needed to grasp the subject.Twenty years ago the beef was with economic rationalists . It is worth digging up some of those old critiques as they are now almost universally regarded as ill-informed and worthless. The more the things change I suspect sociological opinionating on climate science is equally without merit (btw I do accept the mainstream view), much like my opinionating on aerodynamics.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Click here to find out!