and we should thank the Liberals for such a _marvelous_ performance !
Not being up on American Politics, what is the link here?
I thought that theory was out of favor.
Less "out of favour" and more "never had any scientific attention or merit", also "lacking any archeological or fossil evidence".
See Space Ape!
Mike Strizki says he’s figured out how to store solar energy in a way that could provide the world with an infinite source of year-round, emissions-free power
I think he must mean a continuous source. An infinite source of power is a pretty big claim.
That's All the energy in the universe, plus a great deal more.
Objective Truth may exist elsewhere, but it is unknowable.
It's not unknowable, unless you're working with some really weird idea of "truth" such that it is all in one piece, and the fact that you know that there's a coffee cup sitting on your desk isn't known because you don't know what dark matter is.
An important thing to recognize about post-modernism is that its complete bullshit.
When you try to convince people to do something, that is politics.
I think you've got something of a false dichotomy fallacy going on there.
Science communication is increasingly considered an aspect of science. It's not a required aspect of science, but it is an allowable and increasingly encouraged aspect of science.
So when you try to convince people to understand science, that is science.
When the increased necessity for communicating that science is because people are communication anti-science for political reasons, that can affect how you communicate science, but it doesn't affect that what you are doing is science.
Mann mentions the implication that we need to reduce emissions only to describe the misinformation out there.
But faced with this overwhelming scientific consensus about the threat of human-caused climate change - and, by implication, the necessity to reduce global carbon emissions - fossil fuel interests have in many cases chosen not to accept the evidence, nor to engage in good-faith discussion about possible solutions. Instead, they have opted to deny the problem exists.
What Mann is doing is communicating science. The reason that you're mistaking it for politics is because there are voices trying to miscommunicate science that need to be understood by the public to understand the science.
Michael Mann has a clear political goal. He wants America (and the world) to act to avoid the risks of AGW.
I think that he has a clear scientific goal, he wants people to understand climate science.
A consequence of that understanding is an understanding of the need to reduce greenhouse emissions, but lots of science has policy consequences. Epidemiology shows that we should vaccinate. Physics shows that we should put the front doors of buildings on the ground floor. It's only political if you enter the discussion of how to do it.
In other words, the models don't work at all, what is the excuse that the rubes will buy so we can keep draining science funds for a few more years?
I see someone is upset with science.
Can you show me on the doll where the science touched you?
Science progresses. It is already known that the climate models will improve with improved resolution.
Astronomer's don't know what makes up 90% of the universe. Go attack them for extracting funds for a few more years so you don't look like a climate change denier.
"Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini