If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Bill Nye, the "please stop being science denying idiot" guy   (nytimes.com) divider line 494
    More: Hero, Big Man on Campus, age of the earth, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Inhofe  
•       •       •

25733 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:17 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



494 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-18 10:05:26 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Geology, astronomy and evolutionary biology all have MUCH MUCH bigger collections of supporting evidence. And with all three one could dig up or point a telescope at something that would falsify them. There are no concealed models or raw data sets. There is no attempt to invoke Pascal's wager to force people to accept them. And in these fields, peer reveiw is done reasonably thoroughly (though from what I hear still not perfectly) unlike in climatology where it's a pat on the back from a like-minded buddy.


It is simultaneously sad and amusing how incorrect you are.

Climatology is very much the same, and relies on the same types of evidence. The models are all built based on that evidence as priors (in a sense, climate change models are build off of more evidence than the other three historical sciences).

Anyone working in climatology would quite literally build a career off of destroying a major consensus climate change model. I am sure that many have tried; there is a veritable army of graduate students and postdocs who all want to make a name for themselves. And yet, it hasn't happened yet.

The claim that the models are generally quite good is far more parsimonious than the claim that there is some sort of dark conspiracy keeping the AGW deniers down.

You are familiar with the concept of parsimony, I hope.


mainstreet62: Wait for it.......they use theories that became proven fact, and apply those facts to the real world.


The word "proven" shouldn't be used when discussing science. Science demonstrates evidence that supports claims, it doesn't prove anything.
 
2013-06-18 10:05:45 AM

Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario

Que?

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.

The "firmament" was added in English translations to make logical sense to the reader:

http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm

It refers to the earth's crust, under which is water tables and pockets of deep water from whence geothermal activity originates. Above the earth was the cloud cover, which again is water based.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Then why does Genesis 1:16-17 say that the sky, moon and stars are set in "the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth?"

Again, added to the English translation. This is the terminology of the KJV for the Hebrew word fo ...


OK, I'll concede the point. How then do you rationalize the Bible getting everything about the inception of the universe and life in the wrong order, and having two different timelines in Genesis I and II? Other than it's a story made up by people who didn't know enough to come up with a better explanation, like all mythology, and that it's an anthology of often conflicting myths, prayers and oral history? It's fairly well documented that people believed the earth was flat prior to the theorizing of Greek astronomers in the 2nd century BC, so it's counterintuitive to conclude that the ancient Hebrews were any exception.
 
2013-06-18 10:08:45 AM

THE GREAT NAME: MaliFinn: THE GREAT NAME: MaliFinn: If you seriously dislike Bill Nye then you have a problem in your head.  The guy's goal in life is to change the world by encouraging kids to use science.  People who have a problem with this:
- Religious zealots who are offended that their faith isn't logical
- Political enemies of anything that exposes the negative consequences of greed
- Assholes who mock intelligence and education because they are insecure

I like this comment because of how cleverly you've disuised your "if you disagree with me you're a bad person" opinion as something reasonable.

The truth doesn't need people to agree with it.

You sound pre-pubescent.


People are more prone to making broad, absolute declarations when they are seeking opposition to help confirm or refute their assumptions, but also when they know they are right and attempting to provide guidance for others:  I'm not young, I'm old and crotchety and too slow to keep from running over idiots who like to jump out into my path.

i208.photobucket.com

STELLAAAAAAA!
 
2013-06-18 10:10:01 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Meh. He's boring, stiff and vaugely creepy. He's definitely no Carl Sagan by a long shot.


Or to be redunant, an engineer.

/engineer
 
2013-06-18 10:10:56 AM

ph0rk: The word "proven" shouldn't be used when discussing science. Science demonstrates evidence that supports claims, it doesn't prove anything.


Sure it does. While scientific evidence supports claims of magnets sticking to iron, cobalt, or nickel, me sticking my a magnet on my refrigerator proves it.
 
2013-06-18 10:11:12 AM

Holy Banana: I wonder what would happen if Bill turned out to be this reality's incarnation of the Doctor...

*ponder!*



He's one of them.


/we're everytime
 
2013-06-18 10:11:46 AM

mainstreet62: Sure it does. While scientific evidence supports claims of magnets sticking to iron, cobalt, or nickel, me sticking my a magnet on my refrigerator proves it.


FTFM
 
2013-06-18 10:13:59 AM

steamingpile: Never said that did I? My point remains we are a speck on the planet that has been here billions of years and will be here a lot longer. The issue is we still have no idea why life formed and what precious variables have to happen for it to occur and what has to happen for it to cease.



And for most of those billions of years the planet was uninhabitable. Environmentalism isn't about literally saving the earth. It's about saving humans from killing ourselves with pollution. Unless you think that fog flowing around Chinese cities is just man's hubris.
 
2013-06-18 10:15:30 AM

mainstreet62: ph0rk: The word "proven" shouldn't be used when discussing science. Science demonstrates evidence that supports claims, it doesn't prove anything.

Sure it does. While scientific evidence supports claims of magnets sticking to iron, cobalt, or nickel, me sticking my a magnet on my refrigerator proves it.


One data point does not a proof make.
 
2013-06-18 10:17:19 AM
Y'know, it's always funny.  A guy comes in and says "But there's no evidence of anthropogenic climate change!" and then when asked to provide evidence to back up his claims, he disappears. It never fails.
 
2013-06-18 10:18:28 AM

Dadbart: Genesis actually describes, in simplistic terms, the correct sequence of events as discovered by science. From Big Bang on. That was written long before science spelled it out. How did they know? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Ancient Aliens theories.


Magic. It's the magic that reveals it to be a fairy-tale. Stuff like talking serpents, The continuation of the species after Adam and Eve had two sons. That kind of stuff.
 
2013-06-18 10:23:24 AM
FTA:" the increasingly well-understood connection between rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and warming "


yet no warming in last 15 years even though co2 continued to increased.... i bet its all Bush's fault or maybe its not all about co2?


/consensus = fact
//scientific method, how does it work?
 
2013-06-18 10:23:36 AM
Bill Nye played a big role in developing my love of science. Because of his show I became curious about science, began to read more and ended up stumbling into Carl Sagan. I never turned back. Thanks, Science Guy.

Skywolf the Scribbler:

I  am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

And I just need to point out that you might not know what intelligence is. While the definitive definition is still under debate (cognitive psychology is a hoot), none of the viable options look anything like what you typed out. It's fine to have a lay-definition of a concept, but you should probably know a lay definition won't get much traction on Fark.
 
2013-06-18 10:24:04 AM

Joe Blowme: et no warming in last 15 years even though co2 continued to increased.


wat
 
2013-06-18 10:24:47 AM

cameroncrazy1984: ThrobblefootSpectre: He's boring, stiff and vaugely creepy.

Are you sure we're talking about the  same Bill Nye?


I guess it's just that I grew up listening to carl Sagan explain relativity, and reading his books on cosmology. Somehow Bill doing experiments with marbles and construction paper just seems more like Sesame Street playtime for the dumbed down ADHD millennial generation. Yep, sincere heartfelt opinion.

Which would I rather do as a young high school student, smoke a doob with Carl and discuss the possibility of life on other planets, and the formation of black holes? Or sip a cup of tea with Bill, and listen to his opportunistic political jabs about climate change after a bunch of people died? Ugh.

Sigh. I miss carl.
 
2013-06-18 10:25:22 AM

mbillips: Oh, btw, catastrophic AGW denial is the latest fallback position for global warming deniers (I won't call them skeptics, because skepticism requires a mind open to new information).

Step 1 was: There's no such thing as global warming.
Step 2: Global warming is real, but not human-caused.
Step 3: Global warming is real, and includes human causes, but it won't hurt us. We'll be growing strawberries in Alaska!

Step 4 comes when we have to build 20-foot sea walls around all major coastal cities, and wars are breaking out over scarcity of food and fresh water: Global warming is real, and human-caused, and catastrophic, but it's too late now.


People, don't fall for this man's trick. Neither he nor anyone in the cliamte alarmism camp has any business specifying restrictions on how sceptics are "allowed" to question climatology. Don't let him suggest any kind of "single jeapordy" rule where we are allowed one "attempt" and must then give up. He is misrepresenting the critical relationship between advocate and sceptic in science, which is, quite simply, that any and every hole in the advocate's proposal can and should be discovered and exposed by the sceptic. Science requires this and if the advocate doesn't like it, as user mbillips appears not to, well that's just tough luck.
 
2013-06-18 10:25:41 AM

mbillips: OK, I'll concede the point. How then do you rationalize the Bible getting everything about the inception of the universe and life in the wrong order, and having two different timelines in Genesis I and II? Other than it's a story made up by people who didn't know enough to come up with a better explanation, like all mythology, and that it's an anthology of often conflicting myths, prayers and oral history? It's fairly well documented that people believed the earth was flat prior to the theorizing of Greek astronomers in the 2nd century BC, so it's counterintuitive to conclude that the ancient Hebrews were any exception.


I read back through the chapters to check, and I don't see a contradiction. I agree, it does not correlate to the theory of evolution.

Genesis 1:

1 The universe, including the earth
2 The entities of light and darkness
3 Sky, earth, and cloud cover
4 Continents or one continent and ocean
5 Flora
6 Celestial bodies to actually account for producing light so that people may have a choice whether or not to believe in God
7 Fauna
8 Humanity

Genesis 2:

1 Universe and the earth (vs 4)
2 Humans created after flora (vs 5-7)
3 Humans created after animals (vs 19)

Apropos the Israelite and early culture's misconceptions of physical laws, it has to do with the immutability of facts. They may have believed one thing to be true, but it does not mean that the Bible upholds it; simply, it is a series of documents originally written for the Israelite culture, and not for ours, and as such the syntax reflects the way that the cultures viewed things. The New Covenant specifically notes that the end times will be a trial for Christians, and one part of that may well be the simple fact that historical events lose credibility over time until they are known only from historical majority evidence, and therefore some people choose to consider them fables. If people inhabit the earth until the year 3 million A.D., then perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge will be known only from old legends and books and will be perceived by some as a myth despite the majority of historical evidence in favor.
 
2013-06-18 10:25:53 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Somehow Bill doing experiments with marbles and construction paper just seems more like Sesame Street playtime for the dumbed down ADHD millennial generation


Well, yeah. What did you think his show was for, college students?
 
2013-06-18 10:26:16 AM
i'll ask again what i asked in a previous red-lit thread:  if christianity is so awesome, and the bible is so perfect, why do people have to try to pass off creationism as science?
 
2013-06-18 10:26:29 AM

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?


Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.
 
2013-06-18 10:26:44 AM

ph0rk: mainstreet62: ph0rk: The word "proven" shouldn't be used when discussing science. Science demonstrates evidence that supports claims, it doesn't prove anything.

Sure it does. While scientific evidence supports claims of magnets sticking to iron, cobalt, or nickel, me sticking my a magnet on my refrigerator proves it.

One data point does not a proof make.


OK, 10,000 magnets then, smartass. :-P
 
2013-06-18 10:26:49 AM

THE GREAT NAME: People, don't fall for this man's trick.


Like you should talk. All you've done in this thread is handwave about a "rubber-stamp" that you can't prove.
 
2013-06-18 10:27:05 AM

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]


I have nothing but respect for Nye and anyone else trying to bring science to kids.  But when I was a kid, Mr. Wizard might as well have invented science.
 
2013-06-18 10:27:19 AM

utah dude: science is just another religion.


Only if you follow it religiously
 
2013-06-18 10:27:49 AM

THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.


I never said it's science because "it's got graphs and formulas." I said it's science because it provides hypotheses and experiments based on proving or disproving said hypotheses. So far you have done nothing to disprove that assertion.
 
2013-06-18 10:28:18 AM
i30.photobucket.com

You've come a lone way from SPEEEEEEEED WALLLLLLKER!
 
2013-06-18 10:29:03 AM

BetterMetalSnake: Bill Nye played a big role in developing my love of science. Because of his show I became curious about science, began to read more and ended up stumbling into Carl Sagan. I never turned back. Thanks, Science Guy.

Skywolf the Scribbler:

I  am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

And I just need to point out that you might not know what intelligence is. While the definitive definition is still under debate (cognitive psychology is a hoot), none of the viable options look anything like what you typed out. It's fine to have a lay-definition of a concept, but you should probably know a lay definition won't get much traction on Fark.


I have an eidetic memory and a grasp of logic which may indicate that I have more complex than average neural interconnections. Regardless, I have to make the decision to open a new tab and review how electricity works, and to read back through books on quantum physics, to maintain a working knowledge of those and other subjects.
 
2013-06-18 10:29:18 AM

THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.


You have consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, both experimental and historical. You have no credibility, so please - by all means - cite some peer reviewed work that supports your position.

Difficulty: Throwing up your hands and shouting that climatology isn't a scientific discipline is equivalent to you admitting you can't back up your claims.
 
2013-06-18 10:29:20 AM

THE GREAT NAME: ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: cubic_spleen: THE GREAT NAME:

The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.

The fact that you are too dumb to understand the science doesn't make the science wrong.

Actually, I agree that failing to understand science does not make science wrong. But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

How do you feel about geology, astronomy, and evolutionary biology?

Geology, astronomy and evolutionary biology all have MUCH MUCH bigger collections of supporting evidence. And with all three one could dig up or point a telescope at something that would falsify them. There are no concealed models or raw data sets. There is no attempt to invoke Pascal's wager to force people to accept them. And in these fields, peer reveiw is done reasonably thoroughly (though from what I hear still not perfectly) unlike in climatology where it's a pat on the back from a like-minded buddy.

Beware: judgements will be made.

Let me check my worry pocket - oh look, it's empty.


Your posts in this thread this morning have all the credibility and value of my post-blackout beer shiats.
 
2013-06-18 10:30:37 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.


Idiot or troll?
 
2013-06-18 10:30:47 AM

mainstreet62: ph0rk: mainstreet62: ph0rk: The word "proven" shouldn't be used when discussing science. Science demonstrates evidence that supports claims, it doesn't prove anything.

Sure it does. While scientific evidence supports claims of magnets sticking to iron, cobalt, or nickel, me sticking my a magnet on my refrigerator proves it.

One data point does not a proof make.

OK, 10,000 magnets then, smartass. :-P


You still haven't proven anything about magnetism. Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science. If this semantic point wasn't hammered into your head, your science instructors fell down on the job.
 
2013-06-18 10:31:37 AM

nekulor: Your posts in this thread this morning have all the credibility and value of my post-blackout beer shiats.


Apropos of nothing but I could never drink enough beer (if that's all I was drinking) to black out. I have always had a high tolerance.
 
2013-06-18 10:31:39 AM

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: People, don't fall for this man's trick.

Like you should talk. All you've done in this thread is handwave about a "rubber-stamp" that you can't prove.


Still got no evidence for those massive positive feedbacks?
 
2013-06-18 10:32:04 AM
It's sad that in this day and age, with six American flags on the Moon, we still have a sizable population in this country that actually believes that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
 
2013-06-18 10:32:59 AM

Joe Blowme: FTA:" the increasingly well-understood connection between rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and warming "


yet no warming in last 15 years even though co2 continued to increased.... i bet its all Bush's fault or maybe its not all about co2?


/consensus = fact
//scientific method, how does it work?


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignifica nt -years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-A st onishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organi sed.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-cl im ate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/14/global-wa rm ing-appears-to-have-slowed-lately-thats-no-reason-to-celebrate/

"But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.  "

Thank god we dont have to worry about studying it anymore because we have a consensus, end of discussion.
 
2013-06-18 10:32:59 AM

ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.

You have consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, both experimental and historical. You have no credibility, so please - by all means - cite some peer reviewed work that supports your position.

Difficulty: Throwing up your hands and shouting that climatology isn't a scientific discipline is equivalent to you admitting you can't back up your claims.


Please explain...
 
2013-06-18 10:33:17 AM

THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: People, don't fall for this man's trick.

Like you should talk. All you've done in this thread is handwave about a "rubber-stamp" that you can't prove.

Still got no evidence for those massive positive feedbacks?


What? Read any of the climatology papers. You're the one claiming there's no evidence. You can't even name one single paper that has no evidence. Not even one.
 
2013-06-18 10:33:34 AM

ph0rk: You still haven't proven anything about magnetism.


WTF, yes I have. I've proven that a magnet will stick to a surface made with iron, cobalt, and/or nickel.

ph0rk: Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science.


Math IS science, dude.
 
2013-06-18 10:34:22 AM

THE GREAT NAME: ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.

You have consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, both experimental and historical. You have no credibility, so please - by all means - cite some peer reviewed work that supports your position.

Difficulty: Throwing up your hands and shouting that climatology isn't a scientific discipline is equivalent to you admitting you can't back up your claims.

Please explain...


Well, for one, consistently claiming that zero climatology papers out of about 19,000 have evidence of anthropogenic global warming, despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-06-18 10:34:37 AM

markfara: Sounds like this guy is up to his neck in college-age 'tang. . . .


This is nothing new for Ol' Bill.  I saw him in a bar like 20 years ago when he was just a local Seattle celebrity and while he was polite to me when I spoke to him, much more of his attention was focused on all the women that wanted to talk/dance/fark.
 
2013-06-18 10:34:48 AM
Science is *not* "just another religion.

It is the antithesis of religion.

Religion requires blind faith in and acceptance of the impossible, a fair amount of naivete, and rejection of common sense.

Science requires research to determine what's possible, rejection of naivete and vigorous exercise of common sense.
 
2013-06-18 10:34:59 AM

mainstreet62: Math IS science, dude.


One might say it is the purest, most rigorous science.
 
2013-06-18 10:35:47 AM
But he noted that "if there's more heat driving the storm, then there's going to be more tornadoes," and added that the question "is worth investigating."

Too bad we have a low in tornadoes this year.    Oh, I see.. maybe it is more tornadoes  because of global warmininzm but we
just banked up all that energy this year so we can have a powerful one that is noted simply because it hit a populated area.

Maybe they can stop making houses out of sticks in tornado alley.
 
2013-06-18 10:35:59 AM

utah dude: science is just another religion.


Umm, NO. Religions are imaginary, lightning is real.
Wanna see?
 
2013-06-18 10:36:53 AM
There is an odd corner of science that he tends to avoid that I wished had more coverage. If you start with the hypothesis that the world is flat, you can run experiments to successfully navigate based on a flat world and it works.  You can also navigate all the way around the world using the same assumptions and it still works.  The fact that a key part of the hypotheses is wrong doesn't mean the science is wrong, it means the assumptions about reality relating to the experiment are wrong.  That isn't bad science, it is stupid science. Either way, sometimes that can lead to good science.  We found out a great deal about chemistry because of some very broken concepts in alchemy.  Astrology funded many of the early developments in astronomy observations as well as providing a stable nomenclature.  I would like to think that humans have grown beyond fluffy pseudoscience that but reality has lead me to a different hypothesis.
 
2013-06-18 10:36:59 AM

mainstreet62: ph0rk: You still haven't proven anything about magnetism.

WTF, yes I have. I've proven that a magnet will stick to a surface made with iron, cobalt, and/or nickel.


No, you haven't. You've provided more data points supporting the claim, but you haven't proven anything about the mechanisms involved.


mainstreet62: ph0rk: Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science.

Math IS science, dude.


No, it isn't.
 
2013-06-18 10:37:37 AM

vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.


I saw his approach as; you can be an idiot all you want but stop trying to pass your stupidity onto the next generation.
 
2013-06-18 10:37:52 AM

Dadbart: "we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) "

Always wondered why many people think some aspects of religion and science are mutually exclusive. Genesis actually describes, in simplistic terms, the correct sequence of events as discovered by science. From Big Bang on. That was written long before science spelled it out. How did they know? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Ancient Aliens theories.



Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
No it doesn't!
Oh you're serious?

Oh btw which genesis? 1 or two, they are both different then things happen in different orders in each book.

Lay it all out for us.
Please proceed.
 
2013-06-18 10:37:52 AM

THE GREAT NAME: mbillips: Oh, btw, catastrophic AGW denial is the latest fallback position for global warming deniers (I won't call them skeptics, because skepticism requires a mind open to new information).

Step 1 was: There's no such thing as global warming.
Step 2: Global warming is real, but not human-caused.
Step 3: Global warming is real, and includes human causes, but it won't hurt us. We'll be growing strawberries in Alaska!

Step 4 comes when we have to build 20-foot sea walls around all major coastal cities, and wars are breaking out over scarcity of food and fresh water: Global warming is real, and human-caused, and catastrophic, but it's too late now.

People, don't fall for this man's trick. Neither he nor anyone in the cliamte alarmism camp has any business specifying restrictions on how sceptics are "allowed" to question climatology. Don't let him suggest any kind of "single jeapordy" rule where we are allowed one "attempt" and must then give up. He is misrepresenting the critical relationship between advocate and sceptic in science, which is, quite simply, that any and every hole in the advocate's proposal can and should be discovered and exposed by the sceptic. Science requires this and if the advocate doesn't like it, as user mbillips appears not to, well that's just tough luck.


You're making claims without supporting them, which isn't very scientific.  If you would like to provide evidence that contradicts man-made climate change, please do, but you have yet to do so.
 
2013-06-18 10:38:47 AM

Nutsac_Jim: But he noted that "if there's more heat driving the storm, then there's going to be more tornadoes," and added that the question "is worth investigating."

Too bad we have a low in tornadoes this year.    Oh, I see.. maybe it is more tornadoes  because of global warmininzm but we
just banked up all that energy this year so we can have a powerful one that is noted simply because it hit a populated area.

Maybe they can stop making houses out of sticks in tornado alley.


So you're saying it's not worth investigating, because people build their houses out of wood?

I'm having trouble following your logic, here.
 
Displayed 50 of 494 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report