3 thoughts on “NYTimes: Australia Turns Its Back on Climate Science”
The government research money dries up because the science is settled? Now, the warmist challenge will be how to reword “science is settled” to mean it is settled, but kinda not really. After finding the warming wasn’t really warming, they have been able to convince everyone the oceans ate the warming and global warming is no longer global warming, it is climate change. So now that we find the science is sorta, almost, but not quite settled. Nearly settled science should be justification enough, for the children’s sake, to continue spending billions on more research and sustainable solutions.
I could not agree more – for several years we have been told that the science is settled – seems only logical to me that if you now know and understand 100% of the problem then what better use of brain power than to research the best ways of existing alongside this known and settled science – But then I am not a scientist so what would I know!
Given the available facts and rationale, where exactly is the illogic?
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
The government research money dries up because the science is settled? Now, the warmist challenge will be how to reword “science is settled” to mean it is settled, but kinda not really. After finding the warming wasn’t really warming, they have been able to convince everyone the oceans ate the warming and global warming is no longer global warming, it is climate change. So now that we find the science is sorta, almost, but not quite settled. Nearly settled science should be justification enough, for the children’s sake, to continue spending billions on more research and sustainable solutions.
I could not agree more – for several years we have been told that the science is settled – seems only logical to me that if you now know and understand 100% of the problem then what better use of brain power than to research the best ways of existing alongside this known and settled science – But then I am not a scientist so what would I know!
Given the available facts and rationale, where exactly is the illogic?