Don't bother arguing with the hard - money gurus about
the correct policy course.
Not exact matches
In their company
policies can be found instruction that they do not approve of married women or men cheating on their spouses, but it is put in politically
correct and religious wording, of
course.
The practice of science, which includes the packaging of findings from science for use in the public -
policy arena, is governed by an unwritten code of conduct that includes such elements as mastering the relevant fundamental concepts before venturing into print in the professional or public arena, learning and observing proper practices for presenting ranges of respectable opinion and uncertainty, avoiding the selection of data to fit pre-conceived conclusions, reading the references one cites and representing their content accurately and fairly, and acknowledging and
correcting the errors that have crept into ones work (some of which are, of
course, inevitable) after they are discovered by oneself or by others.
The
policy makers can corrupt, in due
course the broader scientific community
corrects.
Now ClimateEthics agrees, of
course, that if the consensus view of climate change science is
correct, enlightened self - interest would support strong climate change
policies.
That doesn't demonstrate who's
policy prescription is
correct of
course, and it remains a viable (if somewhat uncommon) position to acknowledge that despite most climate scientists agreeing that there is a problem, one still might not want to do anything about emissions.
Of
course, a former spouse can also be trusted to give the proceeds of the insurance
policies to the
correct beneficiaries.