= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Parapsychology: the control group for science - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (184)
Assuming for the sake of argument that that that's true, so what? After that happens, what's the incentive to fund further research?
Um, I was responding to "why would the old industry fund climatology work at all" - my answer is "they might do it if it would reduce their insurance premiums".
I do not postulate that they would continue to fund further research after that.
"Um, I was responding to 'why would the old industry fund climatology work at all'"
Ok, that's not the question I asked.
Looking back at your comment above, that is a word-for-word copy of what you asked. How have I misunderstood your question? Have I taken it out of context? If so - my apologies - and can you supply the correct context?
Lol, yes you took it out of context. Here is the first part of my question:
"If it turns out that global warming was wildly exaggerated"
So the question is about what happens after anthropogenic CO2 triggered global warming is (hypothetically) debunked as a serious threat.
Doh! yep I didn't realise you meant "after it'd already been debunked". I think we're in "violent agreement" :)