chimp_ninja: joeshill: In science, it's generally considered a good thing to continually come up with ways one might disprove a theory, until one can no longer come up with a way to disprove (falsify) a theory or model. In which case, it might be somewhat possible to accept a theory or model as an adequate description of how a process works.In practice, this is done by examining the accumulated evidence from professional studies. Guess what they say about climate change?[www.jamespowell.org image 800x544]But hey, don't believe me. Use this guy's handy page to examine recent publications for yourself.At some point, you need to move off of endless "what ifs", and move on to policy recommendations. At what level of certainty would it be worth considering a new energy policy? 75% confidence? 90% confidence?We make policy decisions on those kinds of margins all the time. When we adjust a tax rate or take military action or move a budget, we're a lot less than 90% certain of the economic and national security outcomes. But we look at the problem, realize that doing nothing has its own price, and say "I'm 90% certain this is the way to go. Let's take action and monitor as we go."And yet, the level of scientific certainty is much higher than 90%. The is backed by meta-analysis of the published evidence, by surveys of publishing professionals, by the public positions of worldwide scientific organizations, etc. The only reason we don't do more is because there is a lot of lobbying power holding us to the status quo. It's literally the same pay-for-opinion whores that told us that the link between cigarette smoke and cancer was nothing to worry about.
utah dude: science is just another religion.
meanmutton: utah dude: science is just another religion.I totally agree, except the exact opposite of that.Faith requires belief absent, or even in the face of, evidence.Science is a method of looking at the world and making determinations based on evidence.
tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?
FLMountainMan: Why can't science develop a race-neutral test of cognitive abilities?
Kinek: The same thing has essentially happened in GMO space. 99% of all studies have returned safe, with the 1% being subsidized as very specific lecturers who profit from tipping the boat. And we're still in the 'WHAT IF' space.
GilRuiz1: PC LOAD LETTER: "why" is continual punting down the road. It's a useless question. "How" is the only relevant thing to ask, as "why" will always be met with more "why" each timeHow do you know that "why" has no answer? Isn't it possible that perhaps there is an answer to "why," but we just haven't discovered it yet?
namegoeshere: I have a secret nerd crush on Bill Nye.
Graffito: Yea, but my gut believes the little red sliver. Besides, there was that one time when the minority were right and everybody else was wrong so I've got that going for me. Most of all - AL GORE!!!
Skywolf the Scribbler: However, I cannot cite him as an example of critical thinking and his statement that individuals should search for the truth for themselves is fallacious. A scientist and a scholar does not flat deny a theory without evidence which directly contradicts it, as so doing may preclude multiple logical possibilities from being examined academically.
dryknife: I still want you Bill!I'm outside your house right now![www.john-robert-brown.com image 400x286]
Bullseyed: It is funny when they feel the need to say things like:"They have gone from watching him explain magnetism and electricity to defending the scientific evidence forclimate change, the age of the earth and other issues they have seen polemicized for religious, political and even economic reasons. "If they really believed in climate change, they wouldn't need to specify "defend the scientific evidence" and could just say "defend climate change". Like a criminal being interrogated, they feel the need to restate minor details thinking they are making their story more believable, but when in reality they're flagging themselves as liars to anyone trained in behavioral psychology.
Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]
Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?
randomjsa: Except for the part where Bill Nye is one of the chicken little types who runs to the nearest camera to blame every weather related disaster on climate change then just moves on when what he just said doesn't match up to reality down the road.
Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenarioQue?
Jorn the Younger: mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.[3.bp.blogspot.com image 324x400]I preferred Mr Wizard[boingboing.net image 410x287]
cameroncrazy1984: randomjsa: Except for the part where Bill Nye is one of the chicken little types who runs to the nearest camera to blame every weather related disaster on climate change then just moves on when what he just said doesn't match up to reality down the road.Seriously. Where did he state that he explicitly had evidence that any specific storm was unequivocally, directly related to climate change?Or are you going to run off without answering any questions that might challenge your worldview?
Skywolf the Scribbler: meanmutton: utah dude: science is just another religion.I totally agree, except the exact opposite of that.Faith requires belief absent, or even in the face of, evidence.Science is a method of looking at the world and making determinations based on evidence.Both of these statements are absolute. Examples to the contrary exist. Historical and literary evidence is evaluated by individuals with academic credentials in religious fields. Forces of physics which are not understood, such as the Bermuda Triangle, remain hypothetical.
Also he's way more ethical than you.
Deep Contact: You won't get a PHD if you say climate change is not caused by man.Just like you won't get a PHD if you say the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids.
tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?This is why we can't have nice things.I'll wait until Natalie Portman writes a paper.
chimp_ninja: Graffito: Yea, but my gut believes the little red sliver. Besides, there was that one time when the minority were right and everybody else was wrong so I've got that going for me. Most of all - AL GORE!!!My understanding of the denier argument is that Al Gore is fat, and therefore climate scientists are rolling around in their gold-plated Ferraris and Sarah Palin is automatically the Channel 5 weathergirl, and such.
Queensowntalia: oryx: Bill, stop wearing the bow-tie guy.Bowties are cool.The Doctor deems it so, it must be true.
TheManWithaPlanet: I wonder if Nye has any political aspirations or what his social positions are...I'd vote for him for almost any office just knowing that he'd be data-driven with regard to his decision making and policy. I'm a faculty researcher at a University(csb) - not a huge deal but you do need to understand research methodologies and the importance of data - and we need far less ideology out of everybody and far more evidence based approaches like what Bill is explaining to everybody who will listen.
THE GREAT NAME: The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.
frepnog: A bunch of big words to say "Bill Nye should throw science away and look for Jesus".
frepnog: Because that is what I think you actually meant to say.
frepnog: You are part of the problem.
frepnog: You try to sound intelligent and knowledgeable by using big words and flashy sentences while what you are really doing is trying to look smart while claiming "JESUS".
mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenarioQue?Genesis 1:7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.1:8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.1:9: And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so.Genesis 11 has land plants emerging before the sun and moon are created in Genesis 14. Not exactly paralleling scientific theory. Not to mention, water-living animals (sponges) predate land plants (in contradiction of Genesis) by 100 million to 250 million years.The "firmament" is a solid barrier between the heavens and the earth, upon which the sun, moon and stars are set. They are "above" and the land and seas are "below." That's pretty much a flat earth. There are other scriptural references to flat earth in the Bible (the four corners of the Earth in Revelation, etc.). That's why early 20th century, fundamentalist science deniers often believed the earth was flat. Unlike today, nobody much listened to them.
Want to see just how easy it is to get people to believe you?
chimp_ninja: tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?So if someone reviewed over three thousand surveys filled out by Earth scientists, and noted that 97% of publishing climatologists answered 'Yes' to the statement "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?", and had his findings reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that would be compelling, right?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 23 2017 10:43:49
Runtime: 0.633 sec (633 ms)