Jump to content

Climate Change Consensus?


Recommended Posts

[...] any / all discussion on this forum has absolutely no effect negative or positive on the question of Global Warming in the global sense.

I disagree with that as well... Unless you subscribe to the notion that as individuals we can't have any effect on our global environment?... It's infinitesimally minor, to be sure, but it's making all those bits count that can win elections, for example.

I'm undoubtedly in the minority, but I probably engage in as much social discourse here as anywhere else... Over time, I've learned a fair bit from these pages... Certainly about other people's opinions, if nothing else. wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

Ah shucks, outnumbered again........

Talking about what we can do as individuals then. I see that YYZ voted in a .05 per plastic bag charge that will take effect in 2010 and on the news today a LAWYER said that he might fight it as it is "price fixing" as defined by Canadian Law.

For my part I think the charge should be no less that .50 and that no store should be allowed to charge less. The .05 fee will never force people to switch to reusable bags.

I switched to reusable bags a long time ago, they hold up well but do require you to remember to put them back into your vehicle, backpack etc. when used. Now if they would only legislate a return to paper garbage bags (remember the old waxed ones), these bags may not be forest friendly but they do breakdown and didn't litter our oceans, streams etc.

Tried to find a local supplier but to no avail (other than some giant ones from Canadian Tire designed for yard clean up). Does anyone know of a supplier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the old Tip O'Neill saw about all politics being local? He was commenting more about the nature of issues that motivate people, but I think the observation holds for opinion-formation as well. People are often most influenced by their peers, peers who maybe don't "change the world" in any grandiose sense. Home is where it begins, and the degree of influence diminishes as you go outwards. We are swayed, not just our own direct appraisal of widely distributed "opinions" alone, but very much by the other appraisals we're exposed to. On the rare occasions when we do it at all, we "change our minds" in a very local or personal way.

Sure, a published letter to Time magazine would be more of an ego boost than posting on a tiny internet forum, but it doesn't likely change many minds out there without some "local" persuasion. When we post here, we try to persuade on a small scale, and nothing changes without it. That's what Margaret Mead was getting at in the sappy little quote I tacked on earlier wink.gif.

With respect to this thread, I don't see much real persuasion going on, unless anybody is actually influenced by the "Battle of the Links". Hands up if you are. I guess it reassures some to hear an apparently erudite re-iteration of the convictions they already hold.

e.g. the great cheering for Prof. Plimer comes from people already clearly of like mind. Since I'm not of his "church" (& only doubtfully visiting the other, BTW) I see very little scientific reference in the transcript posted here, and a lot of casual drive-by character assassination and self-promotion. Let me make clear that I am not equipped to question his science, whatever it is, any more than anybody else hear is qualified to validate it. That is for the scientists themselves to sort out, without appeal to the likes of us.

For analogy: Bright a spark as Prof Plimer may be, he boards an airplane with confidence that we get it right, notwithstanding all our passionate discussions about flight ops SOP's, training, licencing etc. He doesn't likely have much to add, won't affect the outcome, DOES have an important stake in the results. Should he be influenced by the gratuitous insults that occasionally tarnish our professional differences?

He is a geologist. One of his beefs is that the atmospheric scientists dominate, to the exclusion of viewpoints from his discipline and others. I happen to know a geologist, probably as renowned within the field as Prof. Plamer, but who does not spend any time denigrating his professional contemporaries for the benefit of a sycophantic interviewer. He does not share Prof Plimer's views at all, but that would be for them to sort out, were they so inclined. I'm not even going to attempt to dredge up one of his many published papers, they are arcane, and I doubt anybody here would digest the formulae or footnotes. But it's the sort of work that thousands of real scientists are poring over, and in Prof. Plimer's geological time frame.

What I would like to see from the nay-sayers, what might accomplish some persuasion, would be an explanation of how so many scientists could be so wrong, WITHOUT relying on accusations of dishonesty or avarice or stupidity or social engineering or ... (pick your diversionary insult), because knowing a few of them, that will fall on deaf ears. Thanks for your input, Prof. Plimer, back to your book-flog.

Cheers, IFG beer_mug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my part I think the charge should be no less that .50 and that no store should be allowed to charge less. The .05 fee will never force people to switch to reusable bags.

That is something that is worthwhile. I would make it $5/bag. $4.98 goes to tax for the feds. $.01 for the manufacture and $.01 for the vendor.

How long would it take before they were no longer available?

Plastic is the scourge of this planet. There's nothing that p!sses me off more than trolling for a 30 lb Chinook and catching a plastic bag. It's happened to me. Not that one bag is a big deal but how many bags have to be drifting in the sea 2 miles from shore that I catch one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my part I think the charge should be no less that .50 and that no store should be allowed to charge less. The .05 fee will never force people to switch to reusable bags.

That is something that is worthwhile. I would make it $5/bag. $4.98 goes to tax for the feds. $.01 for the manufacture and $.01 for the vendor.

How long would it take before they were no longer available?

Plastic is the scourge of this planet. There's nothing that p!sses me off more than trolling for a 30 lb Chinook and catching a plastic bag. It's happened to me. Not that one bag is a big deal but how many bags have to be drifting in the sea 2 miles from shore that I catch one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that YYZ voted in a .05 per plastic bag charge that will take effect in 2010...

I switched to reusable bags a long time ago, they hold up well but do require you to remember to put them back into your vehicle, backpack etc. when used. 

Actually went into effect June 1st this year with relatively muted grumbling. Citizens more concerned right now with (full) plastic garbage bags beginning to mount in city parks due outside workers strike.

An FYI on reusables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to know a geologist, probably as renowned within the field as Prof. Plamer

Who? One of my BSc degrees is Geology, I try to stay in touch with the community. If you can't refer to him by name, maybe you shouldn't refer to him by happenstance either.

(remember the old waxed ones), these bags may not be forest friendly but they do breakdown and didn't litter our oceans, streams etc.

Are you sure? Are you using bleached paper? Is the wax a petrochemical based sealer? Recall the story about McDonald's having to scrap their styro containers for waxed paper that were WORSE for the environment?

What I would like to see from the nay-sayers, what might accomplish some persuasion, would be an explanation of how so many scientists could be so wrong,

Which "scientists" are so wrong? Suzuki, who made his mark as a fruit fly geneticist? Gore, whose science background is what? Should this be a tally of how many agree, how many oppose, motion carried/denied? Here's a better idea: how many scientists who were part of the IPCC now are opposed to it, and why? Conversely, how many were first opposed and now support the IPCC?

Plastic is the scourge of this planet. There's nothing that p!sses me off more than trolling for a 30 lb Chinook and catching a plastic bag.

Yeah, great recognition of what plastic has done there. Any of your lures use petrochemicals? Gee, what exactly do you think your line is made of, cat gut? What's your boat made of, cedar logs maybe? Perhaps we should take those petrochemical feedstocks that are stripped off gas production, and just flare them off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

Actually went into effect June 1st this year with relatively muted grumbling. Citizens more concerned right now with (full) plastic garbage bags beginning to mount in city parks due outside workers strike.

An FYI on reusables.

I guess the broadcastor I heard was confused by the following:

What bags will be banned by the City of Toronto as of June 1, 2010?

Plastic retail shopping bags made of biodegradable or compostable plastic, or plastic retail shopping bags that have metal fittings (e.g., eyelets, grommets) or other non-plastic components (e.g., string, cord, cardboard) will be banned for sale or distribution by retailers as of June 1, 2010.

Why is the City banning biodegradable or compostable bags?

In December 2008, the City of Toronto allowed plastic retail shopping bags into the Blue Bin program. Recyclers use that plastic to make durable goods like plastic lumber and automotive parts. Recyclers cannot use post-consumer plastic that will degrade over time to make durable goods, and therefore the City has introduced this ban as a way of ensuring a sustainable recyclable product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

What I would like to see from the nay-sayers, what might accomplish some persuasion, would be an explanation of how so many scientists could be so wrong, WITHOUT relying on accusations of dishonesty or avarice or stupidity or social engineering

Professor Plimer said it himself.

"Science works on evidence, it doesn't work on consensus, that's what politics is about, and we have a really good example of that. Some years ago we all thought that we got stomach ulcers from an acid stomach, everyone thought that, everyone knew it. All the scientists said this was the case until these two West Australian scientists said: No, no, no, it's due to bacteria. And no one listened. And eventually they had to ingest bacteria, gave themselves ulcers, and showed that the whole scientific community was wrong."

The scientists were all wrong.

Example #2.....

We have all heard of Mad Cow Disease. Once again the vast majority of the scientific community refused to believe a bold theory that is now accepted. I will just post the first few paragraphs.

http://www.mad-cow.org/~tom/prionSP.html

"The Prion Diseases

Prions, once dismissed as an impossibility, have now gained wide recognition as extraordinary agents that cause a number of infectious, genetic and spontaneous disorders

by Stanley B. Prusiner.

Description & History

Fifteen years ago I evoked a good deal of skepticism when I proposed that the infectious agents causing certain degenerative disorders of the central nervous system in animals and, more rarely, in humans might consist of protein and nothing else. At the time, the notion was heretical. Dogma held that the conveyers of transmissible diseases required genetic material, composed of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA), in order to establish an infection in a host. Even viruses, among the simplest microbes, rely on such material to direct synthesis of the proteins needed for survival and replication.

Later, many scientists were similarly dubious when my colleagues and I suggested that these "proteinaceous infectious particles"--or "prions," as I called the disease-causing agents--could underlie inherited, as well as communicable, diseases. Such dual behavior was then unknown to medical science.

And we met resistance again when we concluded that prions (pronounced "pree-ons") multiply in an incredible way; they convert normal protein molecules into dangerous ones simply by inducing the benign molecules to change their shape. Today, however, a wealth of experimental and clinical data has made a convincing case that we are correct on all three counts.

Prions are indeed responsible for transmissible and inherited disorders of protein conformation. They can also cause sporadic disease, in which neither transmission between individuals nor inheritance is evident. Moreover, there are hints that the prions causing the diseases explored thus far may not be the only ones. Prions made of rather different proteins may contribute to other neurodegenerative diseases that are quite prevalent in humans. They might even participate in illnesses that attack muscles."

The scientists were all wrong.

Next on the list....I suspect man-made global warming. I guess it is just like Santa Claus. Some kids just couldn't believe he didn't exist so they cried and cried. They believed it with all their heart despite the few things about it all that never really did make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who? One of my BSc degrees is Geology, I try to stay in touch with the community. If you can't refer to him by name, maybe you shouldn't refer to him by happenstance either.

Maybe you're right that I shouldn't have referred to him at all. Although I'm sure he is quite used to having his name bandied around the geological neighbourhood of the internet, I don't think it is good manners for old friends who have not been seen for several years to cause more of it, and in other neighbourhoods. That's how I would likely feel, anyway.

I did take pains NOT to cite his work (just a very general observation on climate issues), or even to cast an uninformed opinion on its merit (although I suspect it has that in spades). I mentioned it to say that I put a personal face on some of the scientists who apparently don't see things as perhaps you and others here do, and to suggest that refutation did not need to extend to insults. I could try to make contact with him to see if it's OK to point you at his work, which is not directly related to the current issues, but I believe does form part of the historical record (geologically speaking of course wink.gif), or perhaps a PM?. ... off to work ...

Cheers, IFG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as you do with your alleged degree and your anonymity Hadji. In the same vein as in your response to IFG, if you want any of us to take you or your opinions seriously, shouldn't you identify yourself?

I'd like to know who any of you nay-sayers ever hear quoting Suzuki or Gore? You ALL seem to keep holding them up as poster boys to dismiss the other side, yet I've rarely - if ever in the last long while- heard the other side indicating those are the voices to listen to. Whatupwidat? Hmmm?

Just for yuk, I'll see your alleged BSc in geology and raise you a pair of biologists (one with a doctorate and one with a masters) of those I know closely (brother and cousin) who don't believe climate change is bunk at all.

Not that their opinion is any more relevant than any geologist's... rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

I'd like to know who any of you nay-sayers ever hear quoting Suzuki or Gore? You ALL seem to keep holding them up as poster boys to dismiss the other side, yet I've rarely - if ever in the last long while- heard the other side indicating those are the voices to listen to.

David Suzuki: Scientist, Activist, Broadcaster

For over three decades, David Suzuki has been Canada's foremost environmental conscience. From his experiments with fruit flies to his warnings about genetically modified food, Suzuki has made science relevant, interesting and full of wonder to his audiences. As a broadcaster for the CBC, he has issued frank warnings against industry, the economy and his fellow scientists. Passionate and outspoken, he has also won his fair share of critics. But despite, or perhaps because of this, Suzuki remains undeterred in his message.

http://archives.cbc.ca/arts_entertainment/...opics/663-3732/

Al Gore has been the largest name in the debate for years. It would appear that his credibility is going downhill though in some quarters. Perhaps the man-made global climate change types are abandoning him as more facts emerge.

My point...these are huge name people. No individual needs to quote them. They talk and they have gotten a massive amount of media quoting them in the last 5 or so years on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it before and I'll say it again. The banning of plastic garbage bags, especially the LDPE 2 (crackly) ones has nothing, nada, rien to do with "the environment" and EVERYthing to do with grocery store costs.

What do we do now that we don't get our weekly supply of garbage bags with our groceries, living in a high-rise condo? We buy a BOX of LDPE 4 garbage bags at Costco. Notwithstanding I've recycled anything that can be recycled for over 20 years through curb-side or apartment style recovery plans, we still produce garbage that can't be recycled which must enter the condo's waste disposal system. If not wrapped in plastic, the system will go rotten and rat-infested real quick.

For all those who denigrate the use of plastics or who buy into the environmental "sincerity" of grocery store chains, give your heads a shake. It's the irresponsible disposal of those products that become a problem, not the bag itself.

It's all about money, folks. mad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in posting an alleged opinion from an unattributable source, you somehow put a personal face on it...

Right.

.... dry.gif ....

WTF! I replied to you in what I thought and intended to be a conciliatory, Christ! maybe even apologetic tone ... I'm back from a pairing, and there's your come-back.

Well ... Yes, hadji - RIGHT!

I don't know what's so hard to grasp here, or why you've belaboured this. Once again: I mentioned a friend (now dearly wishing I hadn't - it shouldn't be such a big deal) in no way to convince you or anybody else of anything at all, but simply to indicate that when indiscriminate slurs are thrown around, I do put a personal face to unwitting targets of it, and will ignore that rubbish and the contentions they supposedly bolster. I alluded to his credentials only to substantiate why I would grant his 'opinion' any credibility in the first place. I do it - ME! Nobody else needs to bother unless they're so inclined. Is it so unfathomable that I might not wish to take the liberty of tossing out somebody else's name out for possible mud-slinging by a bunch of strangers, in whose evaluation they have no stake whatsoever, in a discussion not even directly related to their work?

IAC, Hadji - Unless I have misread the intent in your posts, there's a tacit implication of bad faith on my part, and I wholly reject it. OTOH, Mitch Cronin has highlighted the central hypocrisy in your own position.

Notwithstanding that, you're clearly an articulate, well-informed guy (I'll assume that's not reciprocated wink.gif), and I can see on other threads you're capable of some manners, so from my POV there should be a potential for civil discourse. If you can possibly set aside that angry-stray-cat demeanor of yours, and you have a real curiosity (why, only you'd know), PM me, ID'ing yourself (anonimity respected), I'll send you his name, and you & your B.Sc. can scan his published work to your heart's content.

Otherwise, I guess there's the rather less honourable alternative to continue your snide, anonymous aspersions. Your choice, I'm way past giving a $#!+

IFG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professor Plimer said it himself .... [etc.etc.] .... The scientists were all wrong

- & -

Next on the list....I suspect man-made global warming. I guess it is just like Santa Claus. Some kids just couldn't believe he didn't exist so they cried and cried. They believed it with all their heart despite the few things about it all that never really did make sense.

Hello, woxof - Nice touch that, the bit about Santa Claus. Nothing like another little serving of condescension.

rolleyes.gif I guess I have to explain that I do know that scientists often get it wrong before getting it right, and there will be many examples of that, so let's narrow the specs a little. I'm vaguely familiar with the mad cow example. Was that desease the the subject of a massive meta-study of generations worth of peer-reviewed publication? and when the blind alleys became apparent, was there continued resistance to the "obvious" truth of the matter, & is there still? & Is that also and still the case with ulcers (not familiar at all with that one)?

Or have we examples of Science taking its proper course? Let me be clear, here, not being flippant, I'd really like to know what you think. I don't think Plimer's "examples" are examples at all, but I don't bring quite the certitude to these issues that you and a couple of others do.

IAC, I'm looking for something more along the lines of "Here's why, in this case, so many scientists are honestly still mistaken." There has to be some honest & intelligent ones, woxof (not that I'm going to mention any!), & I'm not interested in the dupes & crooks & social engineers & conspirators ... wink.gif

And regarding your Prof. Plimer, of the repeated quotes - I try to resist the back and forth batting of chosen links, but forgive me for a couple, just to indicate that Plimer is not universally venerated in Australia from whence he emerges.

No science in Plimer's primer - An Astronomer's Review

I tripped over that on THIS BLOG. Here's ANOTHER PAGE.

They make interesting reading, even if you do have to weave thru' some trash here & there. I say that not for the pro-AGW tilt many (tho' not all) of the writers obviously have, but because it will give anybody with the inclination to make their way through it, a sense of the complexity of the arguments and counter-arguments. It is hard to maintain certainty.

Which brings me to a small irony here, in that one of Plimer's central themes is a supposedly "religious" orthodoxy on the part of the AGW crowd, but here, in this little corner, it's you guys with the utter, blithe certainty that it's all a hoax, against a few of us still hedging our bets (to your great amusement, apparently whistling.gif). It's you guys trying to scare people "witless" with unsubstantiated cries about economic ruin, back to caveman days etc.etc.

And there remains for me the incoherence of the varied objections: GW is not happening, or ... GW is happening but it's not man-made - GW will be adaptable, or ... There's nothing we can do about it so why try etc.etc. Since you all have the same aim (essentially to preserve the status quo), you have the luxury of making the AGW folks argue on many different, contradictory fronts. If you would clearly discount those skeptics here that also, in your opinion, have it wrong, that would be a great credibility booster.

In the meantime, still hedging the bet. Try to give us credit for a little intelligence and good intentions, notwithstanding that biggrin.gif

Cheers, IFG beer_mug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

I'm vaguely familiar with the mad cow example.  Was that desease the the subject of a massive meta-study of generations worth of peer-reviewed publication?  and when the blind alleys became apparent, was there continued resistance to the "obvious" truth of the matter, & is there still?  & Is that also and still the case with ulcers (not familiar at all with that one)?

I have no idea on all three questions. You made a statement on how so many scientists could be so wrong about a subject and I provided two example. The knitty gritty details are for someone else to explain or discover for themselves.

Plimer is not universally venerated in Australia from whence he emerges.

There of course are a lot of people who are going to be opposed to what Professor Plimer says. That seems to be normal in the science community as I have pointed out.

The main point is that a man with apparently huge credibility prior to entering the man-made global warming debate has now entered the debate and shown that it is not all said and done as so many have claimed. There is serious thought and belief that this is not man-made activity causing this as apparently it has happened on a regular basis throughout history.

So before we all jump on the band wagon and spend billions of dollars and affect countless liveleyhoods let's base this on science and not fear, especially when it appears that the climate is not even warming any more(as I type this on another statistically insignificant cool rainy day struggling to make 20°C).

Try to give us credit for a little intelligence and good intentions, notwithstanding that

That is what I have been asking of the posters who responded to me earlier with "clueless" and "anti-intellectual" statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. The three questions were rhetorical. I was always focusing on the GW science. The fact that many other areas of study went down many blind alleys doesn't shed any light on why this one would, if it did at all in the broad sense (it would be surprising, in an effort that massive and widespread, if there weren't some instances of error).

Re: Plimer - I'm afraid I'm not about to place my "faith" so strongly in any one author with a book out. I think you're rather overselling the force of his arguments. In fact I see no reason to hold him any higher than Michael Ashley, the reviewer. Have you got one?

That is what I have been asking of the posters who responded to me earlier with "clueless" and "anti-intellectual" statements.

Fair enough thumbup.gif - BTW, no rush replying, - Off to sleep for me ...

Cheers, IFG beer_mug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

In fact I see no reason to hold him any higher than Michael Ashley, the reviewer.  Have you got one?

I see you posted a link to a site claiming about "the science missing" in Professor Plimers book. I quickly scanned over the very detailed review with most of the stuff beyond the detailed grasp of myself or likely most on this thread.

However one thing jumped out at me in the list of rebuttals against the book Heaven and Earth. It was this statement....

"p199 claims malaria is common in cold climates. No cite!".

Then there is a link to show where malaria is common throughout the world as shown here....

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/distribution_epi/distribution.htm

Of course it shows malaria in the tropical climates. One could jump to the conclusion that Professor Plimer has no idea what he is talking about, the map obviously shows malaria only in the tropics (unfortunately I can't get an original quote from his book so I don't know exactly what Plimer said).

But malaria was in cold climates. As he said in his interview, it is eradicated from areas as wealth increases. In fact Eastern Ontario had a significant amount of Malaria in the 1800's as shown in this link.....

http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/ma...a_in_canada.htm

So when this website dismisses a statement by the good professor on a multitude of subjects, most of them are beyond my knowledge. But when I do happen to find something that I am knowledgable about, I discover that this site is misleading people on malaria in cold climates. Perhaps they should show a global map of where malaria has existed instead where it remains today. I suppose that would cut short another argument though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

&%@$!! - shoulda turned this damn thing off. I'll look at it later, woxof, but you're missing my point. That website isn't in itself either leading or misleading, it's a blog. It's a bunch of contributers, like here - only probably with higher scientific literacy, but believe me, you're not reading refereed stuff there wink.gif. It still gives a notion of the back-and-forth, and the complexity, and every time I venture onto one of those sites, I renew my vow to leave the final judgements to those who do know what they're talking about, instead of allowing the likes of us to get caught up in the politicization.

That's what makes me cautious about your sense of absolute on a subject about which you just concededed only limited knowledge. Gore's brand of certainty ought to be cautionary for yours, don't you think?

Cheers, IFG (now really off to sleep!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

That website isn't in itself either leading or misleading, it's a blog.  It's a bunch of contributers, like here - only probably with higher scientific literacy, but believe me, you're not reading refereed stuff there wink.gif.

Right you are. However, you did post a link to it for everyone to read and I would assume, to form an opinion on this debate. It is a site that sets out to destroy the credibility of the book Heaven and Earth.

I believe your point is to get across on this thread that man-made global warming exists. That's fine.

You posted a link for everyone to read and I did. I would assume that your intention is to question the credibility of this book or put doubt into the minds of those who might believe this book. So I felt it necessary to point out to our fellow readers my opinion on one small part of that blog, a blog which certainly makes itself out to be a credible voice in this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe your point is to get across on this thread that man-made global warming exists.

....oi... IFG can certainly speak for himself, but I think you're missing the point entirely... What he said was that he'd leave that to those much better educated on the particular subject... his own "judgement" left suspended. At least, that's surely the message I got. And, coincidentally or not, that's my point as well. We -- that is, you and I and all who are without intimate knowledge gained through much study -- just don't know, so we ought to listen to those who do. So far, there are many such learned persons who say they feel global warming and climate change has indeed been affected by human activity.... as well, of course, as some who say "not so!"

So unless there are any climatologists visiting these pages, we're not likely to solve that debate here at all, no matter how many links one provides. And no matter how emphatically you or others here claim the contrary. The jury -so to speak- is still deliberating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted this before, and I'll post it again. This is a really good book which mostly tells the story about the history of science; the discoveries, but more importantly, the mistakes. It's about how egos and blind stubbornness resulted in some pretty dumb thing being passed on as science, with the majority being in the wrong, and the minority being right on many occasions. Mob mentality is as much a problem in the science world as anywhere else.

http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly...g/dp/0767908171

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted this before, and I'll post it again. This is a really good book which mostly tells the story about the history of science; the discoveries, but more importantly, the mistakes. It's about how egos and blind stubbornness resulted in some pretty dumb thing being passed on as science, with the majority being in the wrong, and the minority being right on many occasions. Mob mentality is as much a problem in the science world as anywhere else.

http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly...g/dp/0767908171

I agree with your assessment Spinny. Great book.

Chockalicious...agreeable in the max

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...