>> |
Anonymous
>>114196http://www.energybulletin.net/18545.html "A historical example will help to make the point. In the 1920s, the distinguished Cambridge geophysicist Harold Jeffreys rejected the idea of continental drift on the grounds of physical impossibility. In the 1950s, geologists and geophysicists began to accumulate overwhelming evidence of the reality of continental motion, even though the physics of it was poorly understood. By the late 1960s, the theory of plate tectonics was on the road to near-universal acceptance.
Yet Jeffreys, by then Sir Harold, stubbornly refused to accept the new evidence, repeating his old arguments about the impossibility of the thing. He was a great man, but he had become a scientific mule. For a while, journals continued to publish Jeffreys' arguments, but after a while he had nothing new to say. He died denying plate tectonics. The scientific debate was over.
So it is with climate change today. As American geologist Harry Hess said in the 1960s about plate tectonics, one can quibble about the details, but the overall picture is clear."
TL;DR: when EVERYONE ELSE BUT YOU IS CALLING YOU AN IDIOT, THEY MAY BE ONTO SOMETHING. TIME TESTED PHENOMENON. OH WOW. DISSENTERS. THEY MUST BE UNDERDOGS AND RIGHT. FUCK OFF.
So what if there's no consensus? Historically butthurt losers have denied the obvious.
|