The debate on active /passive investing is essentially over in academia as well.
I asked you a direct question, which you think you deftly avoided...WRONG.
Any scientific theory almost exclusively accepted by 1 political ideology and denied by another, probably isn't good science.Quote from L-Kabong:
That's a good point. However, the correlation is probably much much stronger between those who see AGW as a hoax and those who identify as Libertarian and hard right on the policy spectrum. Like you. There are plenty of people who don't identify as Liberals yet accept and even embrace the AGW proposition. And there are pepole who find the hard right odious but feel that
AGW is not settled science, that climate science is incredibly
complex and that it is not completely clear what is extent of CO2 forcings in the earth's climate.
You thesis that a strong correlation between political ideology and belief in AGW is self evident proof that belief in AGW is not based on science is ipso fact a thesis that denial or rejection of AGW theory is not based on science. To take your argument further, no one embracing ANY political ideology can reliably assess any scientific theory as one's lens is invariably colored and corrupted by one's political beliefs.
But forget PT. You're right and the whole world is wrong.
