Some perceptive words in The Age Editorial today:
In the past week, The Age has examined at length the premises of the local debate. These reports have shone a light on fallacies about scientific opinion and uncertainty, economic impacts and global action on emissions.
A key problem in drawing on complex science is that scientists are versed in assessing degrees of uncertainty. The public is not; any unresolved issue is taken as suggesting serious doubt about even a broadly accepted scientific conclusion. And if laypeople are prepared to dismiss the weight of scientific opinion what is left of informed debate?
The existence of dissenting voices is a mark of democracy, but this does not mean that balance in reporting scientific and policy debates is achieved by giving opposing sides equal weight when that ”balance” does not remotely resemble the weight of scientific support for human-caused climate change.
I agree – we should never “silence” or censor the sceptics.
However at some point you have to stop treating what are patently ridiculous arguments as serious.
Creationists, anti-vaxxers and flat earthers – for good reason – are not treated as serious equals in scientific debates.
It is for the same reason “climate sceptics” are not treated seriously by the scientific community.
It is not because they have some powerful arguments and are being “muzzled”.
They are simply wrong.
Indeed, they are not even wrong:
An argument that appears to be scientific is said to be not even wrong if it cannot be falsified (i.e., tested) by experiment or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. The phrase was coined by theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.
The whole “climate science is a scam” is not even wrong because you cannot falsify the argument.
Every piece of evidence for climate science is simply proof of a greater conspiracy.
As I read the comments by sceptics coming to this blog, all I can think is “Not even wrong mate…”