This is the excuse used by those who wish to do nothing. I am 57, so I will
most likely be dead before the worst consequences of global warming occur, but
I care about the world in which my children and their children will live.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu <http://www.frozenlight.eu/>
http:// <http://www.greatpix.eu/>www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
<http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws>Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
<http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/>
Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator
<http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator>
YNWA
> On 10 Oct 2018, at 06:29, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/7/2018 12:54 AM, Jan Steinman wrote:
>>> From: Nathan Wajsman <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Just keep sticking your heads in the sand, deniers.
>> We are in an age where scientific evidence is seen as equivalent to belief
>> in what is heard on Fox News.
>
> This kind of thing drives me crazy. To get away from attacking you, and allow
> my rant full scope, let's look at this statement, reproduced on T-Shirts,
> etc. by Neil deGrasse Tyson:
>
> "The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you believe in
> it."
>
> Anyone who looks at the history of science would know that this is the
> opposite of the truth. At all times in the past, science has not been true.
> It's progress has always disproved what was "known". I can't imagine why that
> isn't still the case.
>
> The other thing that bugs me is "the consensus of scientists" as measure of
> truth. The consensus of scientists was wrong at the times of Copernicus,
> Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, quantum mechanics, and so on, and on, and . . .
>
> Einstein's Special Relativity led to at least one fist fight at a physics
> meeting. His Nobel was not for relativity. Darwin's idea of evolution as
> observable phenomenon holds up, just as falling fruit confirms the
> phenomenological truth of gravity. His ideas of the mechanism are in the
> dustbin, just as understanding of the reasons for gravity have changed.
> Lamark was, in the same way, correct, although again for the wrong reasons.
>
> Further as to the consensus of scientists, consider What Max Plank had to say:
>
> “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
> and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
>
> Climate change, sure; it's always changed in the past. "Climate Change" as PC
> code for Global Warming? Based on history, perhaps not.
>
> Real science is theory, and ever subject to change. Anyone who speaks of
> "scientific truth" is not to be trusted.*
>
> Ranting Moose
>
> * Jan cites "scientific evidence", so he's not on the hook, although Max
> Plank may be. :-)
>
>
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|