In the case of continental drift, it took almost 70 years to accept the evidence, and allow the science to proceed.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- Gamecock on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- conrad ziefle on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- arn on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- arn on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Peter Carroll on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- conrad ziefle on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- conrad ziefle on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- conrad ziefle on “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
Cool article. I wish Darwin was still around. I would have liked to ask him questions. Seems that liberals are looking at evolution the wrong way esp human. It has ossified into a dogma and it’s hard for others with fresh different views to break through without getting chewed and spit out into pieces. Basically a form of science censorship like political correctness speech being a form of speech censorship.
What a load of crap… 😉
Pardon?
I regard the 97% number as bogus as the feminists’ 77 cents number. There isn’t any real proof to prove either of these, and they get pushed around so much that people believe them. Besides, if there really /were/ a consensus, I’d hope they wouldn’t be so stupid and just kick back and relax. Climate changes. We can’t stop it.
Finnish feminists were aslo claiming that women only get 80% of the wage of what man gets. Finally somebody other than the feminists themselves studied this matter and found – in two separate studies – that finnish women get 96-104% of what equally educated man gets from the same job, with the same amount of work.
Did this revelation change anything? No. The 80% -number is still touted as proven scientific fact. Who would have guessed?
As long as research dollars only go to true believers in the consensus there will be a lot of tru believers.
They are called “paradigms” boys and girls. Always been around, always will be around. The difference with AGW theory is that they don’t want to call it a “paradigm” because “paradigms” shift (change). By using the word “consensus” the research is meant to sound like it’s reached a level of high confidence.
The 97% claim is a Big Lie. See:
http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct
Are the young people in our country no longer rational? When I was young I tended not to believe anything I was told until I had figured it out for myself, but todays young seem to blindly accept this global warming scam and spout the idiocy. I would hope that I am just not meeting the young that are critical thinkers and that their out there seeing the truth.
The continental drift hypothesis – continents moving across the sea floor like ships upon the sea – was wrong, and rightly rejected (no one rejected the obvious fact that continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle). As a physical mechanism to explain the fact that the continents do fit together, it was simply impossible and scientists at the time for the most part recognized that it was impossible. Wegener was unable to answer the “how do they move?” response to his hypothesis.
Despite this, there was actually fairly considerable acceptance, especially in Europe, that the coincidences of geographical fit, various fits of rock types and fossils, meant that some unknown mechanism had caused the continents to move, emphasis on the “unknown”. But science likes explanations, and it’s understandable that continental drift didn’t gain widespread acceptance given that its proponents couldn’t propose a physically possible mechanism for it.
Plate tectonics is not continental drift. And it came about due to the discovery of sea floor spreading, which came about as a result of improved mapping of the ocean floors using modern technology, in the 1950s. Once a reasonable mechanism was discovered and the theory of plate tectonics developed, acceptance was relatively rapid.
How does this relate to climate science? Not at all, really. We know CO2 absorbs infrared and this observation is backed by physics.
First, you have no idea of what you are talking about wrt continents moving
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wegener/
Second, if you want to pretend you are knowledgeable about CO2, move it to this thread.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/why-adding-more-co2-makes-very-little-difference/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/the-latest-attempt-to-rewrite-history/