An amazing discovery made concerning the Earth

Right, but it is a very small percentage of error and the existence of error does not invalidate science as a whole.

Nonsense, it is not subject to social pressures at all. I challenge you to document this. Science is subject to scientific challenges.

It actually doesn't mean that at all, it only suggests that certain particles may be able to move slightly faster than the speed of light. The consensus of physicists are skeptical until this can be replicated by others. It will be interesting to see the technical responses to the paper. My feeling is that it will turn out to be like the physicists who thought they had achieved cold fusion in the 80's. New ideas and experiments are valuable for physicists, but not all turn out to be what is hoped for.

It is known that Einstein's relativity theory cannot account for all phenomenon that is observed, but it is so good that it may be many, many years before we are sophisticated enough to refine it further. These challenges are valuable, but they do not upset the consensus of scientific thought when they come out, they only help nudge it onto a better course.

What is important to understand is that this is a scientific challenge, not a "social" challenge, which does not exist in science.

Exactly. Valid objections to science must be sceintific. No social objections are acceptable, including religious dogma, media spin, or political ideology.

 

You confuse and conflate political environmentalists like Al Gore or social environmentalists like the Sierra Club with environmental scientists. Scientists must prove their ideas scientifically and the notion that we can know nothing about complex systems is ludicrous. Just because you aren't capable of understanding a thing doesn't make it that way for all of us.

It doesn't matter. They still have to publish their scientific evidence and conclusions and have them withstand challenge and be accepted by the scientific community. Leonardo and Einstein had flaws and emotions, it didn't keep their science from being accurate.

You don't know what that means.

Show me one scientific paper where this happens. Just one. You simply don't know what you are talking about when it comes to scientific research.

You don't have a friggin' clue, junior. The reason that scientific objections are sometimes ignored is because they are false claims, claims that can't be replicated, claims that fall short of proof, claims that can't withstand critical scrutiny, and many other scientific assessments.

You have no case to make, only rhetoric to offer.

 

Prove it. You can't. You are totally wrong and you don't even realize it. It's just another lame line thrown out by those that deny science.

Not very regularly and when it happens it is proven by other scientists, not politicians, media heads, or effete urban elitists.

PAY ATTENTION!! I just said that science must be swayed by science, it has nothing to do will "opinions". Your failure to understand what consensus means is not my problem. You just keep trying to change the topic every time I ask you to prove one of your cockamamie statements, which you consistently fail to do.

If you have a ambition to teach me something you must hone your logic, learn to find supporting data, and try not to confuse facts with faith.

 

This kind of blithe ignorance and denial of science is costing the Republicans many votes.