"... I don't see people choosing sides over E=mc2." He could have omitted that. I'm a huge fan of Tyson, but far too often sciences implications have indeed faced defiance. How long did it take for the world to accept that earth goes round the sun and not vice versa? Or that humans weren't created but rather evolved? He goes on to say "we're changing the climate faster than our culture may be able to respond". More appropriately stated, science comprehends our world faster than cultures capacity to acquiesce. He's still next level genius though.
"... I don't see people choosing sides over E=mc2." Because no one is arguing that we need to get rid of Capitalism and give Government more control over our lives because of E=mc2.Now defend Tyson that he can get something wrong because it is not his area of expertize like the progressives did with Richard Dawkins claiming stress causes stomach ulcers.Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tysonhttp://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/
"Because no one is arguing that we need to get rid of Capitalism and give Government more control over our lives because of E=mc2."Heir, thank you for affirming my point. And it doesn't matter what the issue is or if it's Tyson, or Nye, or Krauss or Kaku or Dawkins... The issue with the science (in this instance, climate change theory) isn't so much that it's some great big fabrication, but rather that the proposals to fix discovered problems potentially put too large a dent in economic or social policies. Then in turn opportunity to be dismissive of the science in general is somehow legitimized via mal-logic no less, despite the % of the scientific community that has already agreed on the science. Again, science comprehends our world faster than cultures capacity to acquiesce.
I'm pretty sure that Capitalism can solve the entire climate change/global warming problem if Capitalism puts its mind to it. The problem is that modern capitalism is far to preoccupied with short term, rather than long term gain. Burning fossil fuels is easy, and profitable. Solving the GW problem is hard, and uncertain, but the person/corporation/scientest that does it would be fabulously wealthy.
If Capitalism solved the entire climate change/global warming problem by providing a means for cheap carbon free energy (Mr Fusion from Back to the Future), environmentalists would protest that we should not use it as it is controversial and dangerous.
And your evidence for that is?
Fracking and Nuclear Power. Environmentalists believe there should be alot fewer humans and we should live without technology in the community.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_%28Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine%29Odd, the "unbiased" Wikipedia has wiretapper David Corn hit piece/story in the Bill O'Reilly entry under Controversy. But Neil deGrasse Tyson entry has no Controversy for his Bush quote fabrication.
I'm all for nuclear power. I don't think nuclear plants should be built on fault lines, but otherwise, I have no problem with them. And Oh My! LOOK OVER THERE!!! I find it amusing that you put unbiased in scare quotes in order to try and discredit Wikipedia while including a link to a Wikipedia article on a piece of fictional TV to try and defend your alleged point.
Post a Comment