(such as the morally repugnant eugenics movement of the 20th Century)?
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf
2007-12-06 08:27:24 · 16 answers · asked by Rationality Personified 5 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Look at the number of people who think the arctic ice is melting in the dead of winter.
This is proof that people take this as an emotional issue and are not thinking.
I thought I would be caught early on that one. You were the only one that got it. I was very surprised!
2007-12-06 08:55:11 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Well, I've conflated global warming denial with child abuse in this forum, so what the heck.
This is a fine example of gobbledygook, of the inflammatory variety. His analysis of each issue is shallow and specious, and they are not analogous.
The science of eugenics was never well founded, quite in contrast to the current science of global climate change.
I would say the average person is concerned about the environment, without the need for some kind of conspiracy contrived by the "educated elite".
What is the political motivation of the 200 scientists in Bali to go over the head of their "keepers", (as I imagine you would charaterise the relationship] and make a direct appeal to policy makers and the public?
2007-12-07 00:32:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not a lot of human beings doubt international Warming exists, yet to assert it somewhat is guy-made is to forget approximately approximately even the main hassle-unfastened logic attainable. It was once plenty warmer than that's immediately, as quickly as some hundred years in the past. England used to have usual vineyards in all places, and we've got here upon previous settlements in Greenland the place vegetation have been being grown on what's now permafrost. each and all of the planets interior the image voltaic device are at the instant warming. we are seeing melting of the Martian icecaps, and atmospheric venting from a number of Jupiter's moons. this may well be a sunlight cycle, and it too shall bypass. cleansing up the planet is often a reliable concept, yet international warming is in basic terms scientific sensationalism it somewhat is creating multiple human beings VERY rich.
2016-10-02 07:05:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Heck yea, it's just an abuse in science!!!
Just like all those crazy scientists who proposed that the earth was round! What a hunk of BS!
Oh, and don't forget about those idiot scientists that used to think that the earth actually revolved around the sun! Everybody knows that the earth is the center of the solar system!
Personally, I don't know why these scientists just can't leave it alone and leave the global warming issues for use right wing politicians and oil executives to deal with?
2007-12-06 10:42:54 · answer #4 · answered by qu1ck80 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's a hysteria that the earth is a globe?
Why this spamming with hundreds of new global warming questions? Read the thousands of proposals in this forum ...
2007-12-07 00:08:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only problem with global warming is not the fact that the Earth is warming up. It is what is causing it.
The Earth is in a constant start of change. Including temperature going way farther back the having people on the planet.
2007-12-06 09:12:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Global warming, no. The fradulent attempts of special interests and right-wing fanaticsto politicize science, yes. For example, the illegal and dishonest efforts of the Bush administration to censor and intimidate scientists for stating their findings that human -caused global wrming is real and the millions oil companies have spent publishing falsified information. The so-caled "sekeptics" will be shown up fo rwhat they really are: either paid flunkies for the oil companies or mentally ill crackpots.
2007-12-06 14:51:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The hysteria part, yes! The global warming/climate change will become a reality in due time, just as it has for millions and millions of years.
2007-12-06 10:55:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Speaking about mixing politics and science, Dr Lindzen, here you go !!!
He might some day die of a lung cancer although he has spent his life trying to prove that there is no correlation between smoking and lung cancers.
The comparison with eugenics is simply ridiculous. Everybody not having real arguments is able to insult his opponent of being a nazi... that just states the level to which he is bringing the debate. That does not seem to me like debating on a rational basis.
2007-12-06 08:44:44 · answer #9 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
LOL that's incredibly ironic that you would cite Lindzen, as pointed out by Nickel.
If you're honestly asking this question, your name does not befit you. Rationality requires evidence to support it.
2007-12-06 09:02:41 · answer #10 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋