Extremism in my view is violence, not demanding a reduction in pollution.
Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable.
No. "Soft sciences" refers to fields which arrogant scientists feel are less deserving due to subject matter, not reproducibility. Social sciences are described as soft science.
Your opinion on social science as a "real" science is up to you, but reproducibility is an issue no matter how "hard" the science is.
I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.
Because obviously scientific findings don't change society by themselves. At a bare minimum, you must publish your results or the scientific findings may as well have never been made. With even non-controversial findings, scientists need to do more, results simply don't speak for themselves, you need to write review articles placing the findings in context, issue press statements in journals, present it at a conference. And that's just to get it known within the scientific community in the absence of opposed nefarious interests.
With climate change specifically, you have powerful industries and motivated ideologues trying to cast FUD on the findings. There's an effort to convince the public that it's far from certain. This approach is having it's intended effects. Scientists and people who realize climate change is happening would be idiots to merely keep presenting dry papers when the public is convinced by scumbags in suits saying "Well, they don't REALLY know do they?"
Science especially doesn't involve data that have been "adjusted" to benefit certain political movements or to increase the likelihood of getting grant money.
You've never read any primary scientific literature or grant applications...
And science really doesn't involve extrapolating a couple hundred years' worth of "adjusted" data across thousands, millions, or even billions of years.
You've never read any books on evolution or geology....
There are too much politics involved.
You've never read anything about medical research...
We want to discuss real science, backed by hard facts, non-adjusted data, and untainted observation.
You've evidently never talked to any scientists of any kind either and may have never talked to any real human before. There is no such thing as "untainted observation." If you're observing it, you have your own spin on it. "Non-adjusted data" similarly is a myth. Look out your window at the world. What does the world look like? WRONG. Unless you're on a boat in the ocean, that's not what most of the world looks like. In order to get a real understanding of what the world looks like, you can't just pick the first thing that you see, you need to... adjust it.
You come off like a kid who is telling people how adult relationships should go based on his extensive watching of porno movies. You're arrogant to be dictating on things you don't know about, you look silly, and you're in for real disappointment unless you persist forever in your ignorance.
If the point is to spread terror, the destroying an aircraft seems to be more effective than blowing up a queue. Not only is the visual of an aircraft crashing to the earth more vivid, but it demonstrates that security itself is ineffective.
People tend to forget that the last time that happened, the terrorists didn't have any bombs whatsoever. They just bluffed. 9/11 worked because everyone assumed hijackers would try to live and everyone was safer going along with it because that's what had happened before. Security was ineffective because it's basic assumptions were turned upside down.
That would be exactly true of the gate lines today: we assume terrorists would only care about the plane because last time they only cared about the plane, so we completely ignore another gaping security flaw. The number of terrorists it would take to bring down a plane could probably be more "effectively" used at separate airports in the pre-security line.
Hope I'm not giving Trump ideas here for how to unite the country behind him...
Technically that is we the consumers that are doing that. Offshoring, low quality, etc
Call me cynical, but I keep going back to the MIB quote: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Consumers as a mass of people don't make "choices." In big groups, we behave more like a herd. A stampeding herd of cows doesn't "choose" to run off a cliff, the collective is dumber than any individual. It's up to the ranchers to make decisions for the good of the cows.
Take an astronaut to launch.