Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[Bully]

Where is Fish??

his carbon tax is going to be finally put to bed

[Psyber]

I read it too. It reminded me of religious debate rather than science.

[Bully]

just find it funny how since labor were put out on their arses that fish hasn't been seen in the politics thread since

[Q.]

just find it funny how since labor were put out on their arses that fish hasn't been seen in the politics thread since

He really should be here to witness the comedy we're currently seeing ... Canadia

[zedman]

Even when 97% of climate scientists are saying it is so? But wait, of course, they are conditioned to think that way aren't they!

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

― Michael Crichton January 2003

[bennymacca]

also requires evidence though.