Changers vs. Truthers

[SoutherDem]

With every debatable issue involving science there always seems to be a relatively small number of scientist (1-5%) who go against the general consensus and speaks out.

We have seen this with the evolution and climate change debates which give the right-wingers the “evidence” they need to stand firm on their opinions. Usually the way to counteract this is to point out the fact that although their 1000, 5000, 10,000 or more sounds like a lot it is usually just a small percent of all of the scientist in the field.

Recently I saw a post which stated 1500 Engineers and Architects wanted a new investigation into 9/11 followed by several who’s replies were basically “about time”.

My questions is why are the vocal few wrong with evolution and climate change, even to the point of being discredited, yet they are praised on the 9/11 investigation?

As I have stated before I am a 9/11 agnostic, I haven’t made up my mind. When I feel one side is right I will read/hear something which puts me back on the fence. Although, I am to the point that I feel even if there is a new investigation it won’t be enough. If a new investigation confirms the 9/11 Commission Report the Truthers will once again claim it is a government cover up and if the new investigation agrees with the Truthers claims will be made that it was bad science, or a witch hunt just to get Bush. :dilemma:
:

[Pharaoh]

1. The international community needs to do

the investigation. Our Government are proven liars.

[SoutherDem]

2. Like the thought, but

I am not sure if that would even silence the loosing side. If the findings were the 9/11 Commission was right they did it not to loose U.S. support. If the findings were the Truthers are right it was to get Bush. My point is many will never be happy or convinced.