climate denier in charge of EPA transition

[Dill]

(11-10-2016, 08:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Oh, if you look like a certain animal, then you must also contain it's personality traits. That's Physiognomy.
And everyone knows the Sun rotates around the Earth, and if you sail too far East or West, you'll fall off.
Also 100% of doctors agree that you need to balance the good humors and bad humors in your body through bloodletting.
It's okay if you have a mental health issue, just hook yourself up to these here wires and in a couple short shock therapy sessions, you'll be cured!
Who needs to clean your tools, it's not like there's microscopic things living on them that'll cause your wounds to get infected or anything.
Birth defects are caused by the mother having negative feelings during pregnancy. Maternal Impression.
Everyone is born with a blank slate personality-wise, there's no built-in traits.
The universe is a static size, it doesn't shrink or expand. (That one was Einstein.)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Science is always infallible and people who think otherwise are idiots... until it isn't and they aren't. That's why they call them THEORIES. Climate Change isn't a law. I'm willing to believe there may be some truth to it, but don't you think it'd odd that you're not willing to even consider they are wrong?
Questioning things is the very basis of science. Questioning things where ridiculously huge sums of money are involved is the very basis of common sense.

Questioning things where ridiculously huge sums of money are involved is the very basis of Climate Change denial, that's for sure. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

You list examples of beliefs, many of which were never "scientific", as examples of what--disproved science? Wait long enough and someday what you want to believe will be "science"? The fact those beliefs were disproved hardly establishes science as simply a history of fads and changing opinions with no special claim to authority. Quite the opposite.

It is a truism among scientists that science isn't "infallible," but they do distinguish between scientific and non-scientific methods for assessing "fallible" scientific truth, and that distinction is crux of the climate science debate.

It was Exxon and other extraction industry corporations that funded the current generation of deniers--this after their own research established climate change was anthropogenic--but at this point even they publicly recognize the danger. 

Now the major players in the debate are the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists, on the one side, and free-market ideologues (mostly in Anglo countries) and fossil fuel economies like Russia and Saudi Arabia on the other. They address a public largely science illiterate, and easily confused by claims that "scientists disagree", the climate has always been changing," and "something is wrong with the models."