Comment Re:Same realm (Score 1) 371
I don't recall that E=mc^2 needed peer pressure (consensus) to win converts.
That's because there wasn't a propaganda industry fightingt its acceptance.
I don't recall that E=mc^2 needed peer pressure (consensus) to win converts.
That's because there wasn't a propaganda industry fightingt its acceptance.
Citation of existing case of this happening needed.
Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press
The irony is the majority of people who are *literate* in science and math (including, what, about 95% of climate scientists?) agree that global warming is real and we need to do something about it. It's the scientifically illiterate who keep trying to claim (with their scientifically illiterate arguments, of course) that it's all a big conspiracy with no scientific support...
Ignore all the stupid people, they don't understand it. Also, ignore all the smart people. Just listen to me, I'm the only one you can trust.
For the past 20 years corporates like Exxon have been trashing the scientists who actually are quite knowledgeable about science, match, climatalogy, etc. They've been undermining public education efforts. They've demeaning any scientist who speaks out as 'greedy', while raking in record profits.
If the public is misinformed about climate change, its largely Exxon's fault.
I'm guessing that the answer is "everyone except the following....." and that list would immediately put those few dozen people under a spotlight, destroying their privacy.
Then everyone would learn how boring that one guy is.
Because its ubiquitous, you'll find it easier to find people to help you manage your list .
That's great. Now we just have to adjust our civilization to work the same as that other advanced civilization that existed 2.5 million years ago, and we're all set.
--Jeremy
Who needs fire anyway?
$4 billion is 0.0003% of our national economy.
Then it shouldn't be a big deal to invest that much in alternative energy and conservation?
The real shame is that while they've been preaching, real issues are being ignored. Mountain top mining goes on. Coal ash fallout continues. The irony is that if they addressed these real and obvious concerns about which few disagree, then carbon emissions would be reduced as a side effect.
Yeah, nobody in the climate change community talks about mining http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2009/2009-06-23-01.asp
From extreme drought, heat waves and floods to unprecedented tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, wildfires and winter storms, a record 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each caused $1 billion or more in damages — and most regrettably, loss of human lives and property
Just like the current global warming debate, climatologists noticed and extremely slight rise in average temperature (less than 1 degree C), and immediately started asking what WE were doing to cause it.
You are quite mistaken on cause and effect.
Actually, the theory of greenhouse gases was understood over 100 years ago, and scientists like Arrhenius made some early predictions that increased CO2 could increase the climate. This was long before we were able to measure a significant increase in global temperature.
If you have an explanation for why increased CO2 would not have a greenhouse effect, please submit your results to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.
With your bare hands?!?
