The idea that the exhibit at the Smithsonian “centers on a relatively new hypothesis, based largely in speculation, that extreme climate change in the past made humans incredibly adaptable” is false, as is the claim that there is an “interactive video that lets visitors create future humans that have adapted to warmer temperatures simply by growing taller or adding more sweat glands.”
The first claim is simply a lie – the exhibit does not involve any such hypothesis. This was made up by Greenpeace and Thinkprogress as part of their religious crusade which says that anything funded by David Koch is ritually impure and must be destroyed before it contaminates our souls.
which anyone who has passed ninth grade biology understands as a perfectly ordinary illustration of the idea of natural selection, and is one of thousands of pieces of the exhibit, and the only one that mentions sweat glands or future climate change.
So, no, there are not “real reasons to protest” since the “reasons to protest” are made up by hysterical Greenpeacers and left-wing Christian religious crusaders – who are the very people that caused climate change in the first place with their similarly disingenuous religious crusading against nuclear power!
By the way, the vast majority of David Koch’s charitable giving goes to cancer research. I assume you will also be marching to purge various hospitals of The Bad People and their sin-spreading influence?
And yes, this thread is a satirical attempt to show how Christianity in America has come full circle, such that even the left-wing “progressive Christians” are now leading protest marches against science museums.
Well, now I don’t know WHAT to feel. I lightly mocked the OP without reading his link so I guess I was whooshed, sort of, into giving the “unwitting agreement” mentioned in post 16.
It follows then that the exhibit should be changed to reflect the need to prevent climate change other than telling the people attending that we will evolve to the changes with not much problem.
As pointed many times before the Kochs also give a lot of money to groups that undermine science. In any case, your point here makes no sense, when creationists say that “Hitler supported evolution” they mean that Hitler was just as evil as the evolutionists, the ones complaining here can say that the Kochs have a good point, but it is not the matter at hand.
Oh dear, you should had stopped digging, Greenpeace was founded in 1971, the science of climate change and the investigation of the reasons for Global Warming were proposed at the beginning of the century by Svante Arrhenius and others and then in the 1950’s Plass and others reported that just a few degrees of a temperature increase due to our CO2 in the atmosphere could melt the Polar Ice caps.
As it was shown by your demonstrated ignorance of when science was aware of the issue (and greenpeace is a johnie come lately) you do not have a clue.
Yes, and? Do you think “global warming bad!” is just a religious motto to be embroidered on a sampler to show your piety, or do you actually understand what causes it? Fossil fuels are used instead of the non-climate-change-inducing, safe, non-polluting nuclear alternative because of a disinformation campaign led by environmentalists, especially Greenpeace. This, like human evolution and climate change itself, is a fact.
The woo woo decoder ring is reporting too that there is another stupid issue from the OP.
It is not surprising that the deniers (that are virtually all coming from the right) are apoplectic that the Pope and the Catholics are coming with an encyclical to call all the faithful to accept the science and to get involved into protecting our environment, just like in the evolution case (Catholicism accepted evolution decades ago) the church is late, but it is welcomed to do the right thing.
What is your definition of a “denier?” Is “climate change is real, but that doesn’t mean we should take a sledgehammer to exhibits on human evolution funded by people who don’t understand climate change” part of it? Sounds very puritanical to me. Almost religious.
Scientists and experts do and it is not really hard to follow the science, woo woo proponents like you don’t seem to get it.
And it is a fact that I think Greenpeace is wrong about nuclear power, but thanks to advances in batteries it is likely that this nuclear issue will be a moot point in the near future, in the meantime many liberals like me do appreciate nuclear power.
In any case the point stands, many conservatives really do suffer from a time line syndrome ailment, even when it is pointed that Greenpeace could not had started this the deniers just have no clue about time lines or the march of time.
The religion part is coming from the ones that want to minimize the problems that humanity will encounter if we do not control our emissions. It is also related to the ones that think with** religious fervor** that protecting the environment means less jobs, the ecological disasters in China and India is showing those nations what the USA learned in the 70’s when the EPA was created. In reality you will get less jobs by allowing the environment to degrade, and as peace is an important factor the loss of water supplies made worse by global warming means that the ones that do not want to do the right thing are indeed just wishfully thinking that nothing will happen; they are indeed using faith to ignore what it should be done.
The main protest item has been to request that Koch be removed from the Smithsonian’s advisory board. And since the specific complain is one part of the exhibit that concludes that ‘climate change isn’t a big deal, and we’ll evolve our way out of it.’ it is clear that the compromise should be to make some changes, after all the official position of the Smithsonian is that the Kochs have no say in what it is exhibited.
It is IMHO thanks to the refusal to do anything that is causing the talk to demand a take down, but in the end this is just a freedom of expression issue, the people that are protesting have a right to be heard and the Smithsonian has the right to ignore them, the problem for the Smithsonian is that they are really looking too out of touch when a simple change could demonstrate that indeed they are not following what climate change deniers want to tell the public.
And the point stands, you still have no clue about the issue and the history involved.
