The Perot Museum of Nature and Science opened in December with some serious design bona fides: Los Angeles-based Thom Mayne, a Pritzker Prize winner, was the lead architect. His intention: to evoke curiosity about science.
To do so, he designed a 170-foot-tall square building with an exterior that looks like a cliff face folded into a box. The interior, from what we can see, looks less geometric, with ramps criss-crossing above the floors. You can also take in a view of the Dallas skyline from the museum's four levels.
Sounds like a nice place to learn about science! Which makes the weird science pointed out in this review of the museum, from Bloomberg, so disappointing. Writer James S. Russell likes the building, but takes issue with what is and isn't on display inside:
Yikes. But at least the exhibits are easier to switch up than the building.
I have found a way to make both Colin and Dan Nosowitz have conniptions. Shoot a fox in Yellowstone; one that believes the earth goes through natural warming and cooling phases that mankind has not-so-huge an effect on. OH YIKES! YOU PEOPLE ARE MORONS! HERE'S A MISLEADING INFOGRAPHIC! HOW DISAPPOINTING.
There is nothing "scientifically questionable" about the Dynamic Earth exhibit not including the controversial political topic of mythical man-made global warming. Politics and science are separate things.
It must be disappointing for science deniers like James Russell of Bloomberg when people ignore their pet politics, but science shows that any human signal in the long-term warming trend is so small as to be virtually indistinguishable from the natural signal.
Then again, maybe the science-challenged really don't know that the earth has cooled and warmed cyclically all by itself for millions of years. If not, peruse these graphs from the Vostok and EPICA ice cores that show that our current warming matches nicely with previous cycles and in fact we aren't even close to the maximum warming of previous cycles:
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"
I suggest you also look over this link.
@ bob clemintime,
97% of the attendants at a rock concert favour rock music.
@ African Rover,
Couldn't have said it better... You can't trust many "scientific" studies the rear their head in a political stump speach. A few years down the road you might find that the world is actually round.
$85 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids. Heres where I went,
@ african rover
I suggest you take a look at the second link I posted.
Typically, what I find when people are so quickly to dismiss the idea that humans are impacting climate change, it has to do with them not wanting to change their lifestyles to meet a more sustainable future.
That being said, I do not have the scientific expertise to determine whether or not we have a major impact, and I doubt the any of you do either. So instead we all just believe what we want. Since I try to remain objective on the matter, I don't look at whether or not we are part of the problem, but instead, what the solution will look like. What I see is better, more efficient technology with better air quality and reduced noise. A future where we are not relying on limited resources appeals greatly to me, and I hate the smell of smog. Maybe that is what you who are so quick to disbelieve that we have an impact on climate change should look at. After all, how many of you have degrees and do research in one of the many scientific categories affected by climate change?
I'm ripping off something I saw on YouTube, so please forgive me. The scientist said we have four options:
1. Global climate change is real and we take expensive steps now to stop/correct it.
2. Global climate change is not real and we waste a lot of money trying to stop/correct it.
3. Global climate change is real and we do nothing and experience a global environmental disaster and spend zillions of dollars adjusting to the new Earth.
4. Global climate change is not real and we do nothing.
So which option do you choose? Wouldn't the least risk/best result be scenario be #2?
What if instead of Global climate change the above scenarios were about your health? Anyway, something to think about.
The building is as disorienting as its contents.
A perfect match.
@rettaH_daM: The problem is that we do not have the money to waste and the rest of the world is only on board insofar as it does not adversely affect them. Cyburai's approach is by far the most reasonable and the one that I have adopted for years: Whether or not mankind has anything to do with "climate change" is irrelevant; we all should strive for a cleaner, more efficient future for ourselves, and to leave the Earth better than when we got it.
That, I think, is a position every American could get behind. Now if the monied interests and politicians would just get out of the way.
ignorantia legis non excusat
Rather than talk directly about "Climate Change", I'll mention a less controversial scientific idea: Causation.
IE Actions have reactions.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Over time, the planet has 'sequestered' a large amount of Carbon, which we are now releasing as an energy source.
Actions have reactions.
We live in a society that runs on carbon based energy, and quite simply we can't just snap our fingers and get off it with no side affects and costs. But putting our heads in the sand and trying to pretend that Causation doesn't really exist doesn't change the fact that it does.
The real sad thing about this article is that it's actually about how current scientific knowledge is being suppressed by corporate interests.
Facts...brought to you by,,,the highest bidder. Nice way to educate a nation!