Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] So what happened to ice skating?

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tony Spencer <tony AT tonyspencer.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] So what happened to ice skating?
  • Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:10:21 -0400

Where can I find the survey that shows 99% for/ 1% against?


On 7/7/06 2:04 PM, "Michael Czeiszperger" <michael AT czeiszperger.org> wrote:

>
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Tony Spencer wrote:
>
>> You really think they have something against science after reading
>> the page?
>> That page is nothing but science! It has nothing to do with the
>> bible or
>> anything anti-science. These guys spell it out quite nicely:
>>
>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
>
> The way science works is you get lots of contradictory information at
> the beginning, and then eventually you get to the truth as more data
> is collected, and hypotheses are tested and rejected. The term "junk
> science" is really meant to encourage distrust of science in general
> for political reasons, for if there are no facts, only opinion, it
> makes it easier sway public opinion to support things which aren't in
> their best interests. For that reason I don't trust anything that's
> on the junkscience.com site, and the second-hand smoke link I posted
> is just one example.
>
> I haven't personally read about global warming in depth, and I'm sure
> its quite difficult to measure long term climate trends, but have
> read long articles making the case that mainstream science agrees
> with the points made in the movie. Regardless of any specific points
> in Mr. Gore's movie, I do know that the sequence of events
> surrounding "inconvenient" science goes like this:
>
> 1. A consensus emerges among mainstream scientists about a subject
> that's either deemed immoral or not friendly enough to business.
> The mix among scientists is about 70% for/ 30% against.
>
> 2. "Junk Science" springs into action to bring attention to the 30%.
>
> 3. 5 years later its 90% for/10% against.
>
> 4. 5 years later its 99% for and 1% against and even the industry
> lobbyists give up and concede the point and then start arguing it
> doesn't matter anyway.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> _________
> "Kindness knows no shame" -- S. Wonder
> -- michael at czeiszperger dot org, Chapel Hill, NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
>
>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page