11–20 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attempting to debunk legitimate science without evidence or citation is garbage. How typical that it's the first comment on the story.
How typical that the downvoting standards are selectively applied.
Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
Creation science is a purely religious viewpoint with basically zero physical evidence. Climate science has a clear physical mechanism (CO2 traps more solar energy than N2, O2, etc.) and quite a bit of observation confirming the effect. It's simple to do an experiment showing that increasing CO2 increases a primary mechanism of the greenhouse effect. It's really pretty simple. The only debate is just how significant…
As a supporter of living in a world of sane money, I’d like to see Reuter’s publish an article with a similar title like — “Evidence for gold standard as superior form of money hits 'gold standard': scientists”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creation science is a purely religious viewpoint with basically zero physical evidence. Climate science has a clear physical mechanism (CO2 traps more solar energy than N2, O2, etc.) and quite a bit of observation confirming the effect. It's simple to do an experiment showing that increasing CO2 increases a primary mechanism of the greenhouse effect. It's really pretty simple. The only debate is just how significant…
Wrong.
As a supporter of living in a world of sane money, I’d like to see Reuter’s publish an article with a similar title like — “Evidence for gold standard as superior form of money hits 'gold standard': scientists”
The transition away from the gold standard and years of living in a post-gold-standard world show that fiat is a totally reasonable system of money. I'd love to see you support or justify your claims, so we can at least debate from a basis of shared understanding and fact instead of hyperbole. Your statement is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
I don't think it's fair to so glibly criticise the science. This article isn't the science. I think we, as members of a community that is generally educated to a higher level than other communities should be calling out this nonsense that gets printed because it gives real ammunition to people (among whom it is possible you are a member) who deride climate science on the basis of bad journalism. It's a massive shame because it's an issue with potentially dire consequences.
Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
Scientific fraud is not a thing of the past. It's not even rare.
Karl Popper is turning over in his grave.
As a supporter of living in a world of sane money, I’d like to see Reuter’s publish an article with a similar title like — “Evidence for gold standard as superior form of money hits 'gold standard': scientists”
The transition away from the gold standard and years of living in a post-gold-standard world show that fiat is a totally reasonable system of money. I'd love to see you support or justify your claims, so we can at least debate from a basis of shared understanding and fact instead of hyperbole. Your statement is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.