Not society in general. It's our POTUS & his admin.https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1020849443287924736 …
-
-
-
Let's just say you have about 750 members between House, Senate, and Executive. Probably way to high, just an example. Compared to over 300,000,000 Americans. I can assure you the 300,000,000 can do a lot more good or bad than the 750. Just because of the sheer number.
-
Meaning we have more riding on ourselves doing the right thing, then worrying about an administration that is miniscule compared to our populaces number. Or the 7.2 Billion other people we share the planet with.
-
We have to take over the reins from the self-serving politicians including 45 to save our planet, it's the ONLY one we got.https://twitter.com/Joshua70mega777/status/1021120501844852737 …
-
Think about it how much governing is actually getting done with all the sexual assualt, scandal, lies, crimes, finger pointing, he said she said. Etc. It's not just Trump these days it seems likes it's literally all of them. Lol
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
“Science” has allied itself with industry and the supposed regulatory agencies (ties like Monsanto with the USDA) in such a way that anyone with an IQ above 10 and a conscience knows that conflict of interest is present. Vote of No Confidence.
-
Science? Has done this? Don’t goof around here. Science is not an entity it is a discipline. Get your grade 3 figured out before you vote.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You ain’t God
-
Correct, Neil isn’t fictional.
-
O O F
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Another scammer is Scott Rueben. He faked 21 clinical trials in pain research. He just made people and data up. He was published in peer-reviewed journals. Sure, we do need to believe scientists. Which ones?https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data/ …
-
But this isn't an argument against science or even scientists. It's an acknowledgement of an unreliable peer review process in one sector, and a call for improving the process. One would be hard-pressed to find very many people who disagree with the notion of improvement.
-
Correct. Who's against science? I'm cautioning against the "urging" of scientists. The facts never speak for themselves; someone is always presenting them.
-
One need only to scroll down this very thread to answer your question. And yes, while the data speak independently of any researcher, the implications of said data do not. So, from where should the "urging" come w/ regard to scientific findings? Scientists or non-scientists?
-
I don't know. Not from Jim Carrey, and not from people poised to make millions or billions from wind farms, etc. You bring up a good point. Very thoughtful. But, I just don't know.
-
I agree, washed up actors & profiteers are probably not going to steer us toward best policy. After all, scientists urged the evacuation of Mount St. Helens, seatbelts in cars & helmets on bikes, & to stop smoking & floss regularly. Thanks for civil conversation. It's pretty rare
-
I love skeptics. You make a lot of great points, and you're polite as well. Best of luck!
-
Thank you, and I very much appreciate your willingness to have a conversation, engage in discourse. I certainly hope nothing I said came across as dogmatic. That would make me a pretty poor skeptic indeed. Best of luck to you as well
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
When I was a kid in the 1960s, I read an article quoting scientists saying traffic jams will be eliminated in the future because people will fly jetpacks to work. I feel deceived and disappointed.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.