So that warming period was not caused by mammals. Interesting
It isn't, but government is, so building a consensus is still important. There's no point knowing something about the world if you can't convince the people who actually make policy decisions.This figure of 97% of scientists that people like to quote. Have you looked into how that was arrived at?
Science isn't democratic. It doesn't arrive at it's conclusions by consensus.
We'll all die then. Shame, but good while it lasted.No mammals have a limited temperature range over which they can thrive because they have to regulate their body temperature. A warmer earth also means a more humid earth. Humans control their body tempreature by sweating. Over 40% humidity and sweating ceases to work.
Hot + humid = uninhabitable.
Science isn't democratic. It doesn't arrive at it's conclusions by consensus.
The vast majority, (everyone) assumed that the earth was flat years ago. It didn't mean it was a scientific fact. It was just the general consensus until it was proven otherwise.Errr....yes it does?
FTRThe vast majority, (everyone) assumed that the earth was flat years ago. It didn't mean it was a scientific fact. It was just the general consensus until it was proven otherwise.
I'm not suggesting both sides of an argument should be legitimised. If one side has irrefutable evidential fact, then the other side becomes blind superstition or ignorance.(or in some instances recently, lies)FTR
The earliest documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it was mentioned by ancient Greek philosophers.[1][2] It remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[3][4][5][6] A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's circumnavigation (1519–1522).[7]
Do the minority of people who still believe the Earth is flat have the right to be given equal credibility/platform when presenting their arguments? Some of them think they're scientists and could provide what they would call evidence. Should there be a chapter in text books explaining that there are other people that believe it's flat, so kids it's up to you which side you're on?
What about Evolution? There are many (God botherers) who still don't believe in it... Same applies, but they do get in some text books. Does that legitimise it?
It's about consensus between scientists on how good the science is, not how many of the plebs/priests/politicians agree, or not, and that's arrived at by others scrutinising The Science. Not just accepting the conclusions and saying "Oh well, you're a scientist, so we must take it seriously, despite you being in a tiny minority and perhaps funded by someone who has a vested interest in you coming up with your conclusions, oh and your methodology was shit."
Just because there are two sides to an argument doesn't automatically legitimise both sides.
Last I heard she was carrying on overland to South America to spread her message while a replacement crew burns several tons of carbon jetting in to take the boat home.Can't be arsed to look but did this annoying twat of a child go back home on the boat?