Having attended another seminar on Revolutions, a much larger theme is beginning to become present. The theme that comes to the forefront of most of the lectures that have been discussed is the idea of building blocks. That revolutions cannot be started over night and that they must take steps to eventually create the knowledge. Beyond just taking steps the revolution of climate knowledge that was talked about tonight came from many different people. This was the same as the first Revolution lecture that touched on many famous scientists and philosophers about their individual additions to the overall scientific revolution.

In some ways these more scientific revolutions, the climate change and scientific, seem to be very different from what a political revolution is though. When thinking about a political revolution the common concept that there is a breaking point. While there may be events that lead to this breaking point it is mostly more dramatic. The American Revolution comes to mind when thinking about a dramatic revolution. Very quickly a few events eventually launched into a full scale breakaway from England for the United States. In the grand scheme it was only ten years from when tensions began to increase to the point that United States had ended the war. When comparing this to the climate revolution it is almost impossible to compare the two events. The climate revolution, could very easily argued it still going on and being developed. Scientist today still want to learn more and test more theories about the topic.  In this regard there is an extremely large difference between the two types of revolutions that are commonly looked at throughout the world.

Does the length of time that it takes for a revolution to happen effect the legitimacy of the revolution then? The first thought that many have of a revolution is the drastic difference level of knowledge or the process that things are done post the event. Accompanied along with that for many may be the swiftness that this knowledge is spread and accepted. In this regard scientific revolutions develop much slower and for many people the legitimacy of their knowledge for some reason seems to be questioned. Now the question of legitimacy could be connected to political parties in the United States and how certain parties have attached to climate change and others not so much, but it still shows the slower process that the scientific revolutions go through.

However, just because scientific revolutions go through slower processes does it especially mean that the overall goal or function of them is anything less. The more resounding problem might be the way people interrupt a revolution and how they are supposed to function. While a scientific type revolution may take a longer time the feats that it accomplishes is non the less very significant and can change the entire idea around thinking about a topic. Scientific revolutions are as important as the political because unlike political that are ever changing it is safer to say that climate and science are much more lasting.