3 ms·
When you're invoking doomsday to obtain grants or subsidies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi
by guscost 14y ago
When you're invoking doomsday to obtain grants or subsidies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
- Karunamon 14y agoIndeed. Anyone asserting that the current body of science is wrong about climate change should be able to back that up with data from non-questionable sources.
- CamperBob2 14y agoWhen you understand that there are no "non-questionable sources," you'll understand the point people are trying to make in this thread. Extraordinary claims may or may not require extraordinary proof -- at least one famous environmentalist said so, anyway -- but extraordinary demands most certainly do.
- Karunamon 14y ago>When you understand that there are no "non-questionable sources" Rubbish. Are you seriously telling me that nobody has done critical analysis of the data who wasn't associated with the energy industry?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]