4 ms·
I honestly dont know how you infer that from a single use of the word. Hes there to represent the outcomes of the worlds climate science research and is being
by twelvechairs 10y ago
I honestly dont know how you infer that from a single use of the word.
Hes there to represent the outcomes of the worlds climate science research and is being out argued by a loon. That gives all practitioners of science a bad name in my view
- humanrebar 10y agoScience is a set of techniques and tools. It's not synonymous with the conclusions that come from it. It's not 'science' that gravity exists. It's 'science' that we can prove it exists, model it, measure it, and understand its impact in various circumstances. Likewise, AGW is not science. It's good science that proves AGW. Conflating the two is actually harmful because it encourages untrained people (anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, etc.) to misunderstand what science is.
- twelvechairs 10y agoI agree. All im saying is that Cox is doing a bad job of representing this