Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Few if any people are questioning how scientists know exactly when the 2017 eclipse will occur at locations along its track, the width of the shadow, and the historical knowledge that lead to such calculations. They are not being blamed for the eclipse so they have no political or economic reasons to question the science. It's not layman's stuff you can pick up by listening to some talk show host yell for 15 minutes. The staff at Fox News has no idea how to create an accurate map like this, or the computers it's plotted on: https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/d...map/index.html
Anti-intellectuals (typically Republicans) cherry-pick "bad" science when it suits them, but trust it the majority of the time because they have no interest in doing the work on their own. Same deal with a rube who rolls coal on bicyclists with his diesel truck but would never have invented such an engine.
"If you respect and honor the scientists who did this work, then spare another moment to think about the scientists whose work is under attack today, and why."
That author is being polite to millions of selectively-ignorant people who populate this country. Of course, they'll claim that understanding climate change is vastly "different" than understanding the movement of planets, since they have little interest in understanding the scientific method.
It's also interesting that Trump is getting the worst flak of his Presidency over his Nazi apologetics, yet his denial of AGW and weakening of pollution controls will cause far more future harm. Both issues say a lot about the people who voted for him.
The celestial bodies move in predictable patterns.
AGW is bunk backed by unproven theories.
I'm glad to see this post has found its intended audience. In two sentences you "discredit" centuries of knowledge. Can we see your I.Q. scores? They must be impressive!
Maybe you'll at least pick up something from the cartoon above. Pikshurs with a few words are easier to follow than the Satanic work of science.
OP, forget it. I believe we are already past the point of no return. That ship has sailed.
Just deal with it like we deal with hurricanes and tornados. There's really no point in trying to change anyone's mind about this. Too late.
Probably true, but if even 1% of the yahoos reading this get nudged in the direction of evidence, the post was worth it.
The issue has taken on serious weight with the Trump administration's war on the EPA, so I'm not about to give up, nor are the scientists. This isn't like Creationism or Flat Earthism, which can be put in the crazy bin while not posing a direct threat to our future.
The celestial bodies move in predictable patterns.
AGW is bunk backed by unproven theories.
No doubt, you can easily explain how such eclipses are predicted.
Anyway, I enjoyed when a scientist tweeted such about 'why do the climate deniers readily accept that an eclipse will occur' (paraphrased).
So, people dislike, for political reasons, the science concerning the Greenhouse Effect (first predicted in 1824), but will accept science about upcoming eclipses.
I guess if Al Gore had predicted this eclipse back in the 1980s, pundits would have denied it.
I don't care enough about eclipses to question anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
