Leo Hickman: Can we also have a referendum on whether to take climate science seriously or not?

Posted: January 23, 2013 by tallbloke in government, Measurement, Politics, Uncertainty

I was surprised and delighted to see Guardian Eco-Journo Leo Hickman propose this on Twitter this morning. However, by the time I’d typed two words of congratulation, he’d already had second thoughts. Who else here would like to see a referendum  on whether to take climate science seriously or not? Join our poll below the break.

hickman-referendum

Comments
  1. A C Osborn says:
    January 23, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    I voted No, as I don’t think something as serious as the money being spent on Climate mitigation should be decided by a vote, especially after all the Braniwashing carried out by the MSM, Governments and Schools.

  2. TinyCO2 says:
    January 23, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    For a large referendum there would have to be a series of debates. And we all know how well those go for warmists.

  3. Roger Clague says:
    January 23, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    I also voted no. What is or is not serious science is not decided by consensus, such as voting. It is discovered by stubborn individuals, promoted by their supporters and decided by history. Galileo and Darwin were not popular with the politicians and media of their time.

  4. michael hart says:
    January 23, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    I also think it is a fantastic idea for Leo Hickman to take climate-science seriously.

    The thought is a bit late coming to him, though.

  5. Bloke down the pub says:
    January 23, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    Enough people were daft enough to vote to keep the UK in the (then) common market. I’m not confident that I could trust the voters today to vote with any more sense.

  6. Heretic says:
    January 23, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    I voted YES.
    BUT @Roger Clague: +1

  7. Richard Holle says:
    January 24, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Any light we can show into the abyss of CAGW boreholes would be good I think.

  8. greg says:
    January 24, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    Clearly Hickman means a vote on whether his kind of activist journalist rewrite of climate science by activist scientists should be taken seriously.

    Rephrasing would probalby mean something like whether we should let propatgantist eco-activists dictate our lives.

    Perhaps while we’re there we can have a vote on whether climate scientists are worth taking seriously.