Eric Worrall, Watts Up With That
“If the science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science?” [ The Australian Attorney General George] Brandis said on Tuesday.
“Wouldn’t it be a much more useful allocation of taxpayers’ money and research capacity within CSIRO to allocate its resources to an area where the science isn’t settled?”
[...] In my opinion George Brandis is spot on – government climate scientists are caught in a political pincer of their own making.
If climate science is settled enough to make confident predictions, why do we need so many climate researchers? If climate science is not settled, why do climate scientists keep pretending it is?
You don’t have to be a climate scientist, to smell the “inconsistency”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment