Tkmp This Week s Aurora Was Even More Spectacular From Space
It not that Savonarola didn ;t have a point. He lived at a time wh
stanley thermos en the Catholic church had become a con, a way for those in power to extort money from the poor to buy political influence and luxury 鈥?not always in that order. Many people had gotten the idea that you were
stanley us doing some service for God by building yourself a pretty house and filling it with pretty art of even prettier half-naked women. Savonarola preached about turning away from the frippery of the world and turning to faith. He also got a following by being a proud Florentine. His sermons always contained a hint that, after a purge, Florence as a godly city would rise over a corrupt Rome. Then things got scary. People would go to his speeches and, seized with a kind of hysteria, and run home to destroy everything pretty in their house. Painters, including Botticelli, burned their own work. Some painters were simply too afraid to do any new work. Once people were done ridding themselves of their beautiful possessions, they turned their eye on their neighbors. We think of the famous Bonfire of the Vanities, as an event at which people hurled their own fine clothes and artworks and even pets into the fire, but in truth, many were throwing in the property
stanley mugs of their immoral neighbors 鈥?which had been collected by gangs of children that went around pounding on doors and searching houses. A fire was Savonarola greatest achievement, but it also brought him down. As time went on, people Dxzi Your Confessions Are Completely Safe With This Plush Pope
published an article based on an internet survey of climate chan
stanley cup ge deniers. In it, he argued that his evidence strongly suggested that people who don ;t believe in climate change also believe NASA faked the Moon landing, and that the US government created AIDS. Yeah. So that made people a little mad on the internet. But wait 鈥?it gets better. Because then he published a psychological study of the people who criticized his first psychological study. So OK, Lewandowsky has already
stanley cup called a bunch of conservative bloggers paranoid conspiracy nutjobs in his first paper, which was published in Psychological Science. Though admittedly he used slightly less incendiary academic language to say so. And these bloggers respond by saying that actually the paper is based on fake evidence 鈥?that basically a bunch of lefty warmists took the survey, pretended to be climate change deniers, and checked all the I ;m crazy boxes. So then in the new paper, Lewandowsky writes about what he calls recursive fury of these climate change deniers inventing conspiracy theories to account for the fact that he calls t
stanley quencher hem conspiracy theorists. This is even better than the Alan Sokal hoax of the 1990s, or the Hakin9 scandal of the 2010s! But then, a few days after the second paper was posted, the scientific journal where it appeared took it down, mostly in response to criticisms about factual errors from the bloggers named in the paper. Which 鈥?say what you like about cl