1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
::::Billions and billions ... it's enough to curdle your milk. Hey, remember when Carl Sagan debated [[Fred Singer]] about the Kuwaiti oil fires being like [[nuclear winter]]? Singer treated Sagan's dire prediction as a hypothesis and said let's wait a week and see if it's correct. It turned out Sagan's hypothesis was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::Billions and billions ... it's enough to curdle your milk. Hey, remember when Carl Sagan debated [[Fred Singer]] about the Kuwaiti oil fires being like [[nuclear winter]]? Singer treated Sagan's dire prediction as a hypothesis and said let's wait a week and see if it's correct. It turned out Sagan's hypothesis was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)
OK what I am not getting is that conservapedia is trying to be a resource. Yet on an article about Carl Sagan you fail to mention'
1. His numerous books
2. His famous PBS program Cosmos
3. Award for Public Understanding of Science presented by the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP)
4. Medal for Excellence in Public Communication in Planetary Science presented since 1998 by the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences (AAS/DPS) for
5. NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal
6. Peabody Award
7. Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction
The only thing you can discuss is that one prediction he made, about kuwait oil fires did not come true?? And you don't even have a source for that prediction?? I realize Sagan is someone you would call liberal and therefore your goal is to smear him, but could you at least make the attempt to pretend to be an actual information source? Come on if you want this site to be taken seriously and not written off as a bunch of disgruntled right wing extremist loons, you have to at least pretend you care about facts and data.