- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The correct science logic is "if it can be affirmed" it isn't hard science. Speculation is fine, what was the Earth like a million years ago? etc.
The confusion over hard and soft science is clear.
If we're going to misallocate trillions we should have some hard science instead of largely invested groups who seek power and control on an unproven theory. As with all ration theory, like "peak oil" millions are going to die and suffer, largely in the poor countries if this fraud isn't refuted. The elite will survive rationing and even feel empowered, large industries will gain at small business expense (there will be large losers as well).
