IMO, the two are not comparable.
Why? Because of the suggested policy prescriptions.
Climate activists want to restrict human freedom for the sake of their hypothesis. Some will go as far as to say human life must be reduced.
Libertarians want to increase human freedom, including the freedom to fail, by taking monetary policy away from bureaucrats.
To me, it is axiomatic that the group who wants to restrict freedom must face a higher burden of proof than a group that wants to increase freedom.
this territory is moderated
the group who wants to restrict freedom must face a higher burden of proof than a group that wants to increase freedom.
Great point. I make that argument frequently.
The point being that global warming was a justification to infringe on liberties, so it needs to be demonstrated at a high level. Similarly, QE was an infringement on our liberties, so it should have born the burden of proof.
reply