Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Hero, Big Man on Campus, age of the earth, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Inhofe  
•       •       •

25779 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:17 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



493 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-06-18 07:35:16 AM  
Nice to see Phil quoted in the article.
 
2013-06-18 08:16:53 AM  
The planet needs another ten thousand Bill Nyes. Maybe more.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-18 08:17:16 AM  
Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.
 
2013-06-18 08:19:41 AM  
I wonder what would happen if Bill turned out to be this reality's incarnation of the Doctor...

*ponder!*
 
2013-06-18 08:22:22 AM  
BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! ...

(Somebody had to...)
 
2013-06-18 08:23:04 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 08:23:29 AM  

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


I appreciate the effort, as hopeless as the cause is.
 
2013-06-18 08:26:32 AM  

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



It's really about the viewers and listeners. You can make a lot of people believe just about anything if it's repeated loudly and frequently enough with no voice to gainsay it. His fight isn't aimed at the hardcore fundamentalists who take the bible literally and use it to armor themselves against any evidence or at the the distressingly small percentage of Americans who are highly scientifically literate. He's aiming for that big, mushy bit in the middle where a calm voice with facts behind it can actually make a difference.
 
2013-06-18 08:29:00 AM  
Because facts are immutable, and tbh Bill, Neil and even Phil (SPONSER ME YOU BAD ASTRONOMER!) are my new favoirte brain-team.

Stupidity and Ignorance should be challenged often, and challenged in the same unrelenting manner as one would fight an enemy. For they are our great enemy, the enemy of humanity.

/where would we be if we didn't have the Dark Ages?
//cue familyguy.jpg
 
2013-06-18 08:29:05 AM  
Sure, but he's obviously no John Stamos.
 
2013-06-18 08:29:26 AM  
Bill, stop wearing the bow-tie guy.
 
2013-06-18 08:29:35 AM  
Sounds like this guy is up to his neck in college-age 'tang. . . .
 
2013-06-18 08:29:41 AM  

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


It's really about the viewers and listeners. You can make a lot of people believe just about anything if it's repeated loudly and frequently enough with no voice to gainsay it. His fight isn't aimed at the hardcore fundamentalists who take the bible literally and use it to armor themselves against any evidence or at the the distressingly small percentage of Americans who are highly scientifically literate. He's aiming for that big, mushy bit in the middle where a calm voice with facts behind it can actually make a difference.



The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.
 
2013-06-18 08:29:45 AM  

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


Well, it works better for him than most people.  Imagine if Snookie was involved in a science debate and called somebody an idiot.  Nobody would care or give it much weight.  But when Bill Nye the guy who personally taught me science as a child guy says somebody doesnt know what they're talking about... you're going to stop and listen to what he has to say.  Especially if he's in a white lab coat.
 
2013-06-18 08:30:53 AM  

Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]


Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.
 
2013-06-18 08:31:13 AM  
It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.
 
2013-06-18 08:31:25 AM  

oryx: Bill, stop wearing the bow-tie guy.


Bowties are cool.

The Doctor deems it so, it must be true.
 
2013-06-18 08:32:06 AM  

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

I appreciate the effort, as hopeless as the cause is.


there will come a point when it is just ridiculous to try and dispute the science because most everyone agrees that the science is correct.  we are not there yet, we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) but we will get there.

/here comes the science.
 
2013-06-18 08:32:38 AM  
I imagine a few hours later he's at a frat house living a Girls Gone Wild episode on his face.
 
2013-06-18 08:32:54 AM  
So let's see if I get this right:  Bill Nye, the science denying guy, accuses those who not deny science of being science deniers?

He makes about as much sense as the Hapgood Theory of Pole Shift.
 
2013-06-18 08:34:29 AM  
imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 08:34:50 AM  
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?
 
2013-06-18 08:35:21 AM  

PAT CASHMAN RULES

 
2013-06-18 08:35:48 AM  

dv-ous: BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! ...

(Somebody had to...)


media.newschoolers.comView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 08:36:18 AM  
science is just another religion.
 
2013-06-18 08:36:45 AM  

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


Does there really need to be a why? Our little monkey brains can't seem to forget the ego and throw aside a meaning to things that really do not need to have a meaning. Maybe life just exists for no reason other than the fact that it got lucky - both figuratively and literally.
 
2013-06-18 08:37:03 AM  

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?


Aerospace engineer, actually.
 
2013-06-18 08:37:38 AM  

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


I've been on Fark for many years and this is the comment that made me almost choke on my coffee.
 
2013-06-18 08:38:24 AM  

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?


How many PhD's are actually educators? Most are researchers dragged reluctantly into the classroom, where they suck. Teachers don't have to have advanced degrees to teach, especially when they're teaching secondary-school-level science the way he is.

He's a "science guy," not a scientist.
 
2013-06-18 08:38:48 AM  

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

I appreciate the effort, as hopeless as the cause is.

there will come a point when it is just ridiculous to try and dispute the science because most everyone agrees that the science is correct.  we are not there yet, we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) but we will get there.

/here comes the science.


This is generally not how science works.  Unless your name is Lysenko.

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.
 
2013-06-18 08:38:54 AM  
Its 2013 and we still have leaders in states like Ga. getting together to pray for rain during droughts. Do they really believe or are they just out of options?
 
2013-06-18 08:39:08 AM  

utah dude: science is just another religion.


I live with my mom
 
2013-06-18 08:39:34 AM  

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?


He has a Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell and worked for Boeing as an engineer so I think we can safely say he knows more about science than the vast majority of Americans.
 
2013-06-18 08:39:37 AM  

Copper Spork: It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.


Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.
 
2013-06-18 08:39:40 AM  

olddinosaur: So let's see if I get this right:  Bill Nye, the science denying guy, accuses those who not deny science of being science deniers?
He makes about as much sense as the Hapgood Theory of Pole Shift.


A perfect example of how really smart people will look like idiots to an idiot.
 
2013-06-18 08:40:24 AM  
I have a secret nerd crush on Bill Nye.
 
2013-06-18 08:40:57 AM  

Mad Scientist: 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?

Aerospace engineer, actually.


Yes, so he's not a doctor.......this guy is a big phoney!!!!
 
2013-06-18 08:41:11 AM  
*plugs nose* SCIENCE RULES!
 
2013-06-18 08:41:40 AM  
Anyone know of a modern equivalent to his old show?
 
2013-06-18 08:42:08 AM  

steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


Yes because not causing all of it is obviously reason to deny all evidence that some contribution from green house gases due to industrialization are having a marked and measurable effect.
 
2013-06-18 08:42:53 AM  

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?


24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size

Who the fark cares?
 
2013-06-18 08:43:30 AM  

utah dude: science is just another religion.


"Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists."
 
2013-06-18 08:44:17 AM  

steamingpile: Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


Because as we all know, if something can happen naturally, it is impossible for man to make it happen. Even  when six thousand million of them are working together.
 
2013-06-18 08:44:42 AM  
I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 08:46:07 AM  
Bill Nye taught me science for 3 years in middle school.  I have nothing bad to say about him, and he's pretty much dead on right in this case.
 
2013-06-18 08:47:38 AM  

Alonjar: Meh. Science never answers why... only how.


If science answers "how?" questions, then by definition, that includes "how come?" questions. Which is the same as "why?". Therefor science does indeed answer why. :p
 
2013-06-18 08:47:53 AM  

Copper Spork: It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.


In the scientific process, plugging your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't actually qualify as skepticism.  Just FYI.
 
2013-06-18 08:48:16 AM  

What_do_you_want_now: Because facts are immutable


Actually, they aren't immutable.  Our understanding of everything evolves and gets refined as we learn more.  Something that was considered a 'fact' 100 years ago may not be considered one today, or there may be some caveats, or it may be so at the macro level but not at smaller scales or vice-versa.

As an example, 100 years ago, it was considered as a scientific fact that radio waves with wavelengths shorter than 200 meters weren't useful for long-distance communication.  This was before the effects of the ionosphere in bending radio waves was known.  Today, I regularly contact people hundreds and thousands of miles away on frequencies that were once considered only capable of supporting communications of a few miles to a few tens of miles at best.
 
2013-06-18 08:49:14 AM  

dittybopper: As an example, 100 years ago, it was considered as a scientific fact that radio waves with wavelengths shorter than 200 meters weren't useful for long-distance communication. This was before the effects of the ionosphere in bending radio waves was known. Today, I regularly contact people hundreds and thousands of miles away on frequencies that were once considered only capable of supporting communications of a few miles to a few tens of miles at best.


That's an engineering problem, not a scientific fact.
 
2013-06-18 08:49:17 AM  
I would love to spend an hour listening to he and Neil Tyson just...chatting. I wouldn't keep up with even half of it, but their enthusiasm would keep me entertained.
 
2013-06-18 08:50:27 AM  
Paging The Bad Astronomer.
 
2013-06-18 08:51:55 AM  

0Icky0: olddinosaur: So let's see if I get this right:  Bill Nye, the science denying guy, accuses those who not deny science of being science deniers?
He makes about as much sense as the Hapgood Theory of Pole Shift.

A perfect example of how really smart people will look like idiots to an idiot.


Well, to be fair, the article highlights where Bill is over stepping himself and making claims that arent really based on science.  Claiming global warming caused the severity of the Oklahoma tornado's is a bit much.  Any "science guy" worth his salt should recognize that you cant even claim "its the worstest tornado evar!11!! when we've only been recording Tornados for like 50 out of the last 4,540,000,000 years.  In that context, trying to plot some kind of accurate historical pattern is just farking retarded.
 
2013-06-18 08:52:09 AM  
Dr. Laura, now, that's a P.H.D. that really means something.
 
2013-06-18 08:52:20 AM  
Love the Bill-o Faux Tag: "Bill Nye: Believes in man made global warming."

I suppose he also "believes" in atoms, molecules, and other sciencey stuff that's up for debate at the Fox.
 
2013-06-18 08:52:42 AM  

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?


Because you need a PhD to be right? Someone without a PhD isn't qualified to talk about evolution? Or geology? Or astronomy? And what if the PhD is in psychology, does that qualify someone to talk about astronomy? Or does he need 30 different PhDs so we know to listen to him? And what about high school teachers? Should we disregard everything they have to say if they aren't PhDs? Does light stop moving at 299792458 m/s if the person making the statement doesn't have a PhD in physics?

If what someone says turns out to be right most of the time, why does it matter that (s)he hasn't got a signed scrap of paper?
 
2013-06-18 08:53:06 AM  

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


I agree. Dude wears a goofy bow tie, and probably gets more coeds than an entire fraternity.

There are some mysteries that truly are beyond the reach of science.

/warming deniers are out in full force today
 
2013-06-18 08:53:32 AM  
My headline was better.

That said, I respect Mr. Nye as a man of science. His erudition in multiple fields renders him close to being a modern polymath. 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. On examining Mr. Nye's rhetoric, it is incomplete, as is only logical; no one human being can know with absolute certainty what the truth is apropos the origin of reality as we know it, insofar as we (human beings in this time period) were not present to study it. This is a field where the scientific evidence merges with past and future estimations founded on present data, which may have been dissimilar at some other time period, and which therefore may render data at best uncertain and at worst unreliable. Present data which is projected onto past and future estimations is not tangible empirical evidence but rather scientific philosophy. It may be correct, though it is not possible to know without a time machine, if that could be done without violating relativity. Abiogenisis, orogenesis, and macroevolution may have occurred in an infinite universe which was and is somehow not subject to entropic regression. It may have been possible for a singularity to generate forces of physics which forces of physics the same singularity needed to function, though the Big Bang theory is currently controversial. It is also possible that an entity beyond all of reality--all physical and abstract concepts--generated the universe as we know it. Such an entity would match the description of the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic God. If the universe is finite and the being which generated it is beyond the same physical laws, then the being is infinite; if the being which generated the universe is beyond all physical and abstract entities within this universe, then that being is beyond physical laws, relative motion, and the universe itself. Creationism may have occurred, with intelligent design, and intense hydrological processes which were responsible for the confusing rock strata which multiple theories currently exist for. A scholar does not take either of these theories for granted, but rather examines the evidence and develops a perspective based as much as possible on empirical, historical, archeological, mathematical, logical, and literary evidence. This perspective, as with all perspectives, is subject to change if further evidence arises to challenge elements of the perspective.
 
2013-06-18 08:53:53 AM  

steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


Hmmm... I wonder what happened to all that CO2 that was in the atmosphere all those many millions of years ago. Maybe it was fixed into organic molecules in plants, some of which eventually died and fossilized, carrying their carbon into the ground with them, to be buried for all time never reintroduced to the atmosphere unless some species was dumb enough to dig it up and burn it.

And humans definitely don't dig up and burn fossilized carbon, therefore modern atmospheric CO2 increases are not man-made. Right?
 
2013-06-18 08:54:49 AM  
"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.
 
2013-06-18 08:55:12 AM  

Alonjar: 0Icky0: olddinosaur: So let's see if I get this right:  Bill Nye, the science denying guy, accuses those who not deny science of being science deniers?
He makes about as much sense as the Hapgood Theory of Pole Shift.

A perfect example of how really smart people will look like idiots to an idiot.

Well, to be fair, the article highlights where Bill is over stepping himself and making claims that arent really based on science.  Claiming global warming caused the severity of the Oklahoma tornado's is a bit much.  Any "science guy" worth his salt should recognize that you cant even claim "its the worstest tornado evar!11!! when we've only been recording Tornados for like 50 out of the last 4,540,000,000 years.  In that context, trying to plot some kind of accurate historical pattern is just farking retarded.


FTA:

'On the night the tornado hit Moore, Mr. Nye to Mr. Morgan that "you can't say from any one storm that 'this is a result of, let's say, climate change.' " 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."'
 
2013-06-18 08:55:38 AM  

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


"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 time. Neither Science nor Religion nor Philosophy can ever answer the infinity of "why"
 
2013-06-18 08:55:42 AM  
o.onionstatic.comView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 08:56:03 AM  

mamoru: If science answers "how?" questions, then by definition, that includes "how come?" questions. Which is the same as "why?". Therefor science does indeed answer why. :p


lol sort of... the laws of physics say there is no such thing as why.  Everything is just an equal and opposite reaction of what came before it, remember.  I enjoy the variety of responses im getting to that statement though :)
 
2013-06-18 08:56:24 AM  

namegoeshere: I have a secret nerd crush on Bill Nye.


Oops
 
2013-06-18 08:56:28 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-18 08:57:01 AM  

mbillips: utah dude: science is just another religion.

I live with my mom


i think you man (10-10)/10, bro.
 
2013-06-18 08:57:30 AM  

Skywolf the Scribbler: My headline was better.

That said, I respect Mr. Nye as a man of science. His erudition in multiple fields renders him close to being a modern polymath. 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. On examining Mr. Nye's rhetoric, it is incomplete, as is only logical; no one human being can know with absolute certainty what the truth is apropos the origin of reality as we know it, insofar as we (human beings in this time period) were not present to study it. This is a field where the scientific evidence merges with past and future estimations founded on present data, which may have been dissimilar at some other time period, and which therefore may render data at best uncertain and at worst unreliable. Present data which is projected onto past and future estimations is not tangible empirical evidence but rather scientific philosophy. It may be correct, though it is not possible to know without a time machine, if that could be done without violating relativity. Abiogenisis, orogenesis, and macroevolution may have occurred in an infinite universe which was and is somehow not subject to entropic regression. It may have been possible for a singularity to generate forces of physics which forces of physics the same singularity needed to function, though the Big Bang theory is currently controversial. It is also possible that an entity beyond all of reality--all physical and abstract concepts--generated the universe as we know it. Such an entity would match the description of the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic God. If the universe is finite and the being which generated it is beyond the same physical laws, then the being is infinite; if the being which generated the universe i ...


Not sure if that headline would've fit.
 
2013-06-18 08:57:37 AM  

utah dude: [imageshack.us image 600x453]


I wouldn't say that is true all the time.   For example, Homeopathy adherents even admit that their "medicines" have exactly zero molecules of any sort of substance that could help someone.  That is very specific quackery.
 
2013-06-18 08:58:01 AM  

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


It's really about the viewers and listeners. You can make a lot of people believe just about anything if it's repeated loudly and frequently enough with no voice to gainsay it. His fight isn't aimed at the hardcore fundamentalists who take the bible literally and use it to armor themselves against any evidence or at the the distressingly small percentage of Americans who are highly scientifically literate. He's aiming for that big, mushy bit in the middle where a calm voice with facts behind it can actually make a difference.


About damn time someone tried that, instead of hysterical screaming and comparisons to the Holocaust and profiteering on global warming and hypocritical lifestyle choices and actively politicizing the debate for partisan purposes.
 
2013-06-18 08:58:41 AM  
pri.orgView Full Size


He knows more than you do.

That's because he has a master's degree ..... in science!
 
2013-06-18 08:58:44 AM  
If you want to create a world that makes decisions based on science then reason must be at the forefront of the political/legislative process. Simply allowing members of congress and the supreme court to make decisions based largely on their own discretion has to end. When we allow semantics and logical fallacies to be sold to the public as a truth it promotes ignorance, and an idea that any logic can be true if it's framed in an aesthetically pleasing format.
 
2013-06-18 08:59:34 AM  

Carn: Copper Spork: It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.

In the scientific process, plugging your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't actually qualify as skepticism.  Just FYI.


Also that fact that science at all times has things that it asserts are true that are in fact not true but we will only find this out later doesn't mean you can assume "area of science I don't like the conclusions of" is the part that is wrong. Science is right about most things (although the detail will always be refined), so the chances that the part that you dislike is the bit that happens to be wrong is a fairly long shot.
 
2013-06-18 09:00:29 AM  

utah dude: science is just another religion.


Just like atheism, right?
 
2013-06-18 09:00:59 AM  

mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.


I completely agree. Bill is a nice guy, but lacks a lot of the charisma that other educators in the field have. I'm a member of the National Space Society and his interactions have been pretty yawn-inducing for the most part. Probably his most interesting activities has been during his eco war with Ed Begley, which was really entertaining for a while.
 
2013-06-18 09:01:35 AM  

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?

jamespowell.orgView Full Size

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:02:15 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Not sure if that headline would've fit.


Hahahaha good point then

"Bill Nye thinks he's Mr. Rogers and is telling you how to raise your kids"
 
2013-06-18 09:02:32 AM  

mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 324x400]



I preferred Mr Wizard

boingboing.netView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 09:02:52 AM  

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?


I don't see how comparing him to Fox News is going to create a productive discussion on Fark.

That said, no he doesn't have a PhD.  No one says he does.  His highest level of education is a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell.  He still knows a thing or two about science but, most importantly, he's really good at explaining scientific ideas in layman's language.
 
2013-06-18 09:03:31 AM  

Graffito: utah dude: science is just another religion.

Just like atheism, right?


i thought they were the same thing?
 
2013-06-18 09:03:51 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.


What book of Genesis are you reading? Genesis I and Genesis II have conflicting timelines (animals before man in one, vice versa in the other). You have to really twist the description of creation to square it with the science. There's no "And behold, the Lord did cause the tiny to grow great, and the realms of the heavens did hurtle one from the other, and the earth did cool and shrink away from the firmament." Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario (the waters above divided from the waters below, when in fact the earth coalesced before there was any liquid water).

Twisting scripture, of course, is what religious people do, because the obvious conclusion, "Hey, they made this shiat up based on the story-telling methods of mythology," conflicts with their belief system.
 
2013-06-18 09:04:10 AM  

Alonjar: Well, to be fair, the article highlights where Bill is over stepping himself and making claims that arent really based on science. Claiming global warming caused the severity of the Oklahoma tornado's is a bit much. Any "science guy" worth his salt should recognize that you cant even claim "its the worstest tornado evar!11!! when we've only been recording Tornados for like 50 out of the last 4,540,000,000 years. In that context, trying to plot some kind of accurate historical pattern is just farking retarded.


Basically what I said on a more local scale
 
2013-06-18 09:04:11 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:04:26 AM  

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



FTFM
 
2013-06-18 09:04:49 AM  

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 time


How 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?
 
2013-06-18 09:05:04 AM  

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.


Ah fark....

If you are discussing reasonable education fees and student loan interest rates it's all, "Education is useless. You should just be bootstrappy instead! You don't need a fancy degree to make something of yourself. Kids these days need a degree in wiping their asses it seems!'

But once we start talking about Climate change it's all, 'Bill Nye doesn't have enough degrees to comment.'

When he gets backed up by a scientist with degrees then it's, 'Ivory tower academics don't understand the real word!'
 
2013-06-18 09:05:21 AM  
I still want you Bill!

I'm outside your house right now!

john-robert-brown.comView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 09:05:26 AM  

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?


Of those 13,950 articles how many said that man is the primary cause of global warming?
 
2013-06-18 09:05:36 AM  

The Fifth Dentist: markfara: Sounds like this guy is up to his neck bow tie in college-age 'tang. . . .


FTFM

X 2 dammit
 
2013-06-18 09:05:42 AM  

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.



I'll take what Bill Nye says more seriously then anything you have ever said, or are ever to likely say.

Bill Nye is just a better human being then you.

He's also waaaaaay more Academically credible then you.
 
2013-06-18 09:06:00 AM  

DerAppie: 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?

Because you need a PhD to be right? Someone without a PhD isn't qualified to talk about evolution? Or geology? Or astronomy? And what if the PhD is in psychology, does that qualify someone to talk about astronomy? Or does he need 30 different PhDs so we know to listen to him? And what about high school teachers? Should we disregard everything they have to say if they aren't PhDs? Does light stop moving at 299792458 m/s if the person making the statement doesn't have a PhD in physics?

If what someone says turns out to be right most of the time, why does it matter that (s)he hasn't got a signed scrap of paper?


When you factor in the cost benefit analysis of becoming an aerospace engineer and famous tv personality vs a physics phd/researcher, it kind of makes you wonder which one is actually more intelligent.

/Queue but they dont do it for moneys!
//Which would be better for humanity:  Becoming a research phd, or becoming an MBA and hiring 5 researchers?
//Oh no i'm turning a science thread into a philosophy one!  Blasphemy!
 
2013-06-18 09:06:01 AM  

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


Que?
 
2013-06-18 09:06:01 AM  

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 an overwhelming consensus of peer-reviewed evidence was published in the world's leading scientific journal, making the same point, you'd believe it right?

Because you're a "skeptic", right?  Not a troll, certainly.  And skeptics are persuaded by evidence.  So it would be compelling to see a small mountain of papers presenting evidence that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities?  Right?
 
2013-06-18 09:06:13 AM  

utah dude: Graffito: utah dude: science is just another religion.

Just like atheism, right?

i thought they were the same thing?


Can you please explain how proving hypotheses with experiments makes it a religion?
 
2013-06-18 09:06:56 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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?

Of those 13,950 articles how many said that man is the primary cause of global warming?


97% or so.
 
2013-06-18 09:07:04 AM  

steamingpile: Mad Scientist: 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?

Aerospace engineer, actually.

Yes, so he's not a doctor.......this guy is a big phoney!!!!


You're confusing him with this guy:

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


This guy is The Doctor, not a doctor.
 
2013-06-18 09:07:23 AM  

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.


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!!!
 
2013-06-18 09:07:52 AM  

Persnickety: 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?

He has a Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell and worked for Boeing as an engineer so I think we can safely say he knows more about science than the vast majority of Americans.


Keep in mind that an Engineer is not the same as a Scientist.  There is some overlap. You can see it in the three types of engineering degrees.  At the Bachelor's level, you can get a Bachelor of Engineering, A Bachelor of Science in Engineering, and a Bachelor of Engineering Science.  As you proceed on this continuum, you get more theory and less practice.  And some scientists (chemists, physicists, etc.) focus far more on practice than on theory.

In general a Scientist is a seeker of truth.  An  Engineer wants an answer that works, on time, and within budget.

/Yes, I respect Bill Nye.  He is an excellent educator.
 
2013-06-18 09:08:26 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]


Mr Wizard was the shiat.  Bill Nye always seemed like a flashy but not as good substitute, and lets not even discuss Beakman what a hack.

Bill Nye has done much better since he had the TV show IMO.
 
2013-06-18 09:08:59 AM  

dittybopper: What_do_you_want_now: Because facts are immutable

Actually, they aren't immutable.  Our understanding of everything evolves and gets refined as we learn more.  Something that was considered a 'fact' 100 years ago may not be considered one today, or there may be some caveats, or it may be so at the macro level but not at smaller scales or vice-versa.

As an example, 100 years ago, it was considered as a scientific fact that radio waves with wavelengths shorter than 200 meters weren't useful for long-distance communication.  This was before the effects of the ionosphere in bending radio waves was known.  Today, I regularly contact people hundreds and thousands of miles away on frequencies that were once considered only capable of supporting communications of a few miles to a few tens of miles at best.


Thank you for your wise advice, but allow me to clarify my statement.

A fact is immutable regardless of how much we know about it, while our understanding of the fact may grow and change to accept it for what it really is.

I'm not stating this to stagnate our scientific progress because we have all the facts, but rather we should continue to develop ourselves so that we can understand the facts more fully.

Hope this clarifies.
 
2013-06-18 09:09:31 AM  
Why can't science develop a race-neutral test of cognitive abilities?
 
2013-06-18 09:09:31 AM  

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.


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.
 
2013-06-18 09:09:38 AM  

utah dude: science is just another religion.


Sure.  Except that science is reality based. Religions are fairy-tale based. Other than that, they're exactly the same.  Whatever gets you through the night.
 
2013-06-18 09:10:03 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:11:20 AM  

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?

Because you're a "skeptic", right?  Not a troll, certainly.  And skeptics are persuaded by evidence.  So it would be compelling to see an overwhelming consensus of experts agreeing that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities?  Right?
 
2013-06-18 09:13:33 AM  

FLMountainMan: Why can't science develop a race-neutral test of cognitive abilities?


Cultural, educational, and nutritional differences between "racial" groups.
 
2013-06-18 09:14:06 AM  
I have been on Fark and while and done some exhaustive research on this subject, I can confidently say this thread will change no minds and will suck real hard.
 
2013-06-18 09:14:48 AM  

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.


Absolutely.  I'm all for GMO food to be sold, although I agree that accurate labeling is a good safeguard that would allow consumers to make their own decisions.  I'd buy it.

Of course, we all buy genetically modified food every week.  The public accepts one form of genetic modification (phenotypic screening and selective breeding in a field) but not another (directed transfer of genes in a laboratory).
 
2013-06-18 09:14:56 AM  

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 time

How 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?


Because even if God were real and everything about religion was true, there is no possible avenue for anything to answer why existence exists.
 
2013-06-18 09:15:06 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-18 09:15:30 AM  
Bill Nye is one of the major influences in my life to become a Mechanical Engineer. Between him, the Mythbusters and my innate ability to fix/break things, I think I'm finally on a real path for life.

But I have to say it, I HATE BOW TIES!
 
2013-06-18 09:15:41 AM  

namegoeshere: I have a secret nerd crush on Bill Nye.


Me too.

He's sexy. Just sayin'.
 
2013-06-18 09:16:43 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:17:17 AM  
i3.ytimg.comView Full Size

PROFESSOR JULIUS SUMNER MILLER (The Hilarious House of Frightenstein)

/was into science BEFORE there was science!
 
2013-06-18 09:17:46 AM  

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.


A bunch of big words to say "Bill Nye should throw science away and look for Jesus".  Because that is what I think you actually meant to say.  You are part of the problem.  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".

You are what Bill is fighting against.  I hope he wins because your side, the "oh but it could have been JESUS" side are gaddammed morans.
 
2013-06-18 09:18:12 AM  

dryknife: I still want you Bill!

I'm outside your house right now!

[www.john-robert-brown.com image 400x286]


I met her a couple of years ago at a journalism mixer in WeHo. She was freelancing for the NY TImes at the time. She was in her element at the mixer.

Googled her later and realized she has major "issues."

/that photo sucks, she actually quite cute.
 
2013-06-18 09:18:54 AM  

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.


And of course if they said that, the same troll would be here saying "It's funny that they defend a THEORY but don't mention the evidence!"  Except they would write THEORY 72 times bigger, because they don't understand the word in its context and think it makes them look smart.
 
2013-06-18 09:19:25 AM  
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!!!


The ad hominem of "Al Gore supports it and is making hundreds of millions of dollars off of hyping the dangers if it and lives a lifestyle which radically betrays his claim to support fighting global warming" should not be convincing to a rational person; however, it has been one of the biggest causes of the slip of people who believe that global warming is happening.

The community would do well to say "Al Gore is a profiteering, hypocritical idiot but the issue is absolutely real".
 
2013-06-18 09:19:56 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-18 09:20:42 AM  

Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]


science is observation - the rack on the right is merely "what" not "why."  Practically all the greatest scientific minds in human history were also religious...if they could manage it, maybe - just maybe - they're not diametrically opposed...

//feeding troll, meh, whatever
 
2013-06-18 09:21:03 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-18 09:21:09 AM  
Bill Nye was a major influence in my current academic career. I'd love to meet him and to thank him for being awesome.
 
2013-06-18 09:21:32 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-18 09:22:26 AM  

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?


The man has three honorary doctorate degrees. (near the bottom)
 
2013-06-18 09:23:38 AM  
Wow, the trolls are up early today.
 
2013-06-18 09:23:52 AM  

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.


[citation needed]

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?
 
2013-06-18 09:23:59 AM  

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?


well, the only trouble with your little analogy is that bill nye tends to be correct and fox tends to be incorrect. plus fox has a political agenda and bill nye has none.
 
2013-06-18 09:24:05 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:25:28 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]


As a child of the 80s, I couldn't agree more. I think Bill Nye wrote a real nice obituary for Mr. Wizard, though.
 
2013-06-18 09:25:31 AM  

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.

[citation needed]

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?

 
2013-06-18 09:25:59 AM  

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.


Religion and science are two different things.  There have been many very religious scientists over the years who have contributed heavily (Gregor Mendel, for instance).

Oh, and the "Bermuda Triangle" isn't a particularly dangerous area; it's just a highly trafficked one.
 
2013-06-18 09:26:11 AM  

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.


I'll take what Bill Nye says more seriously then anything you have ever said, or are ever to likely say.Bill Nye is just a better human being then you.He's also waaaaaay more Academically credible then you.


Also he's way more ethical than you.

 
2013-06-18 09:26:15 AM  
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
 
2013-06-18 09:26:39 AM  

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.


Wat?
 
2013-06-18 09:27:12 AM  

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.


Nice to see you out early, and wrong again, as usual.
 
2013-06-18 09:27:46 AM  
Oh ffs. Climate change is real. It is, and everyone knows it. The question is what to do about it, because recycling your cardboard twice a month is not going to make any dent in the problems caused by, say, giant garbage tankers and massive rainforest deforestation. This is where the natural and social sciences can really work together.

Go Bill Nye. The man got NASA funding reinstated. He is awesome.
 
2013-06-18 09:27:52 AM  

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.


Then you're an idiot.  The argument is that Al Gore is a hypocrite and a profiteer who has made literally hundreds of millions of dollars hyping the issue.

The correct response to these people is "So, what?  Yeah, he's a hypocrite and a profiteer but that doesn't invalidate the science".

Also, whenever you use the term "denier", you're implicitly undermining your own argument by going all Godwin on it.
 
2013-06-18 09:27:57 AM  

Queensowntalia: oryx: Bill, stop wearing the bow-tie guy.

Bowties are cool.

The Doctor deems it so, it must be true.


damn, beat me to it!

If you have ever watched that show "Life with Ed", Bill is Ed Beagly Jr's neighbor. Trust me, Bill is the more sane one in the neighborhood!
 
2013-06-18 09:28:28 AM  
So who else followed the link and  joined the Planetary Society?

/I love all who advocate science and critical thinking.
//Bill Nye is my hero, no secret about that.
 
2013-06-18 09:30:27 AM  

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.


He has admitted in the past that he wouldn't do well in politics. In the past, he has been full-on eco and government involvement in science, but more libertarian in most of his other views. He is one of those people who just doesn't fit any of the current mainstream political parties very well. The most political he gets involves his push for science and space exploration to whatever party will listen.
 
2013-06-18 09:30:32 AM  

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



Bill had me convinced, but now I'm swinging your way.  Great point, man.
 
2013-06-18 09:30:39 AM  
He was awesome on Penn's Sunday School a few months back.
 
2013-06-18 09:30:50 AM  

frepnog: A bunch of big words to say "Bill Nye should throw science away and look for Jesus".


Invalid argument. I assert that Bill Nye should not discard a theory which has not had direct evidence to the contrary, and should instead evaluate the evidence for multiple theories and reach the conclusion which he believes is most accurate.

frepnog: Because that is what I think you actually meant to say.


It does not matter what you think about me. While I give it consideration, it does not impinge upon who I am and how I actually think.

frepnog: You are part of the problem.


If you consider opposing arguments to be a problem, then I would like to know why that is so.

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".


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.

You are what Bill is fighting against.  I hope he wins because your side, the "oh but it could have been JESUS" side are gaddammed morans.

I operate in academic and moral debates with as entirely a purely logical mindset as is humanly possible, and therefore I do not comprehend the injection of emotion into this academic debate.
 
2013-06-18 09:31:26 AM  
For a "theory" to be scientific, it must be:
1. Naturalistic: cannot be based on presently unknown laws, and must be supported by independent reproducible experiments.
2. Predictive: under controlled conditions, it must predict what will happen, and get it right up to knowable experimental uncertainties.
3. Falsifiable. if no experiment is possible that could refute the theory, it isn't scientific.

cheers
 
2013-06-18 09:31:39 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-18 09:32:31 AM  

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.


It's certainly based on a geocentric universe. Joshua makes the sun stand still outside Jericho.
 
2013-06-18 09:32:45 AM  
When y'all are ready for a real science broadcaster, let me know.  I'll make the Connections.

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 09:32:56 AM  

Want to see just how easy it is to get people to believe you?



Watch Kumare
 
2013-06-18 09:32:56 AM  
Mr. Titanium:

In general a Scientist is a seeker of truth.  An  Engineer wants an answer that works, on time, and within budget.

/Yes, I respect Bill Nye.  He is an excellent educator.


Exactly. I'm not hating on Bill Nye. The man is obviously a gifted educator, and attained an engineering degree where I was unable to (damn Calculus IV and differential equations... those equations are hairy and they shoot back!). Yes, he has a better handle on science that the vast majority of people. And I like him. And I'm not saying he's trying to be something he's not.

But, I couldn't call him as an expert witness about anything but mechanical engineering or science education. He woulnd't survive voir dire on climate science. Dr. Tyson might not either, but he's an astrophysicist.

Maybe what I'm really saying is that presenters need to be careful when they're talking outside of their field of expertise? I mean, would we want the Top Gear crew testifying before Congress on Highway Safety? Yeah, they know cars, but it's a slightly different issue. Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs gave testimony about the state of our skill pool and the necessary skilled trade jobs that run the world and how they're going to go unfilled if we don't do something, but I don't think that would qualify him to talk about macroeconomic unemployment or economic policy.

I believe Bill Nye is on the right side of the argument. He's a wonderful science educator, and does an enormous amount of good.  I'm saying, however, that I would give more weight to the opinion of a doctor speaking within his field than I would the opinion of a beloved science educator speaking outside of the field of science education.

Unless that opionion was "See these papers by these doctors over here."

Crap, is there a way to get my account across that doesn't make me look like a douchenozzle? :)
 
2013-06-18 09:34:59 AM  

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?



Are you still pulling this old con, chimp ninja? For anybody not already aware, these "meta-studies", which are made by environmentalist activist groups, not proper scientists, count virtually all opinions as being in the "pro" AGW group. That includes most rational climate sceptics, suck as myself, who accept that human emissions probably are causing some warming (just not very much).

Because you're a "skeptic", right? Not a troll, certainly. And skeptics are persuaded by evidence. So it would be compelling to see an overwhelming consensus of experts agreeing that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities? Right?

Putting your sarcastic and ranty tone to one side for a moment, scientists are compelled by compelling scientific evidence. Not by some consensus (real or invented). Remember, the consensus once was that the earth was flat. By your logic we would still believe that. We changed our minds because some good scientists concentrated on the scientific evidence, and saw that there was none for the flat earth theory, so they abandoned the theory.

Catastrophic AGW theory (the one with the large positive feedbacks leading to high CO2 sensitivity) should be abandoned too, because it also has no scientific evidence to support it.
 
2013-06-18 09:35:54 AM  

utah dude: science is just another religion.


But you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
 
2013-06-18 09:36:38 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: compelling scientific evidence. Not by some consensus (real or invented).


You mean the compelling scientific evidence of the published papers by those consensus scientists? You know, the ones published by actual climatologists who agree, based on those papers, that global warming is created by man?
 
2013-06-18 09:36:52 AM  

chimp_ninja: 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.

And of course if they said that, the same troll would be here saying "It's funny that they defend a THEORY but don't mention the evidence!"  Except they would write THEORY 72 times bigger, because they don't understand the word in its context and think it makes them look smart.


More sarcastic ranting from chimp ninja.
 
2013-06-18 09:37:14 AM  

FLmassage1: utah dude: science is just another religion.

But you don't have to believe in it for it to work.


Says you. I didn't believe in gravity the other day and it took me four hours to get down.
 
2013-06-18 09:37:28 AM  

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


To be fair, "Why" is often a stupid question.


wjllope: For a "theory" to be scientific, it must be:
1. Naturalistic: cannot be based on presently unknown laws, and must be supported by independent reproducible experiments.
2. Predictive: under controlled conditions, it must predict what will happen, and get it right up to knowable experimental uncertainties.
3. Falsifiable. if no experiment is possible that could refute the theory, it isn't scientific.

cheers


Depends on the details of #3: There are many natural-historical sciences that generate theories that are theoretically falsifiable, but few of them are testable given our current technology.

Similarly, there is a great deal potentially testable hypotheses in the social and behavioral sciences that would be unethical to actually test - You can't just place an infant in a skinner box, no matter your pure intentions.

Falsifiability is a relatively new tenet of science - not that there is anything wrong with that.
 
2013-06-18 09:38:02 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: More sarcastic ranting from chimp ninja.


That's about all you deserve considering you don't strictly seem to understand where the consensus among climatologists derives from.
 
2013-06-18 09:38:40 AM  

Mad Scientist: When y'all are ready for a real science broadcaster, let me know.  I'll make the Connections.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]


loved that show.
 
2013-06-18 09:39:05 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:39:14 AM  

Raharu: 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.


I'll take what Bill Nye says more seriously then anything you have ever said, or are ever to likely say.


Then?  When?

Bill Nye is just a better human being then you.

Then?  When?
Maybe instead of listening to Bill, you should spend more time watching Sesame Street.
Isn't it time for you to go to school and let the grown ups talk?


He's also waaaaaay more Academically credible then you.


Whoa, you used a capital "A".   Sounds like you are really smart and serious.
 
2013-06-18 09:39:44 AM  

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


"Why does it burn when I pee?"
"Because you have a urinary tract infection."

"Why don't we all float away?"
"Because gravity prevents it."
 
2013-06-18 09:39:58 AM  

Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim


There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.
 
2013-06-18 09:40:28 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:41:24 AM  

Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.


Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.
 
2013-06-18 09:41:44 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.

"Why does it burn when I pee?"
"Because you have a urinary tract infection."

"Why don't we all float away?"
"Because gravity prevents it."


Those are really how questions - despite the presence of the word "why".
 
2013-06-18 09:42:22 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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.


If you disagree with scientific evidence, especially on this issue, you want to continue to ruin the planet which definitely makes you a bad person.
 
2013-06-18 09:42:28 AM  

mamoru: steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.

Hmmm... I wonder what happened to all that CO2 that was in the atmosphere all those many millions of years ago. Maybe it was fixed into organic molecules in plants, some of which eventually died and fossilized, carrying their carbon into the ground with them, to be buried for all time never reintroduced to the atmosphere unless some species was dumb enough to dig it up and burn it.

And humans definitely don't dig up and burn fossilized carbon, therefore modern atmospheric CO2 increases are not man-made. Right?


Holy shiat. I never thought of it like that. I definitely believe there is climate change occurring, but I couldn't really say "Yea, we did it." Your statement changes that.
The planet coped before when large amounts of CO2 were present through whatever natural disaster (volcanoes or a small meteor impact I think was the prevailing theory?) . As a response, it sequestered the carbon through natural processes...then we come along dig the crap up and burn it.

/No sarcasm
/Srsly.
 
2013-06-18 09:42:31 AM  
i227.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-06-18 09:43:19 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.


Equivocally? Sure.

yourenothelping.jpg
 
2013-06-18 09:43:29 AM  

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?
 
2013-06-18 09:43:34 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:43:56 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.


I do not deny it. On the contrary, I say that it may have occurred as one theory to explain life. While we do not have presently tangible examples of abiogenesis, however, it remains theoretical.
 
2013-06-18 09:44:38 AM  

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? Beware: judgements will be made.
 
2013-06-18 09:44:49 AM  

ph0rk: cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.

Equivocally? Sure.

yourenothelping.jpg


Sorry, unequivocally. It's 9:45 and I'm trying to stay off caffeine.
 
2013-06-18 09:45:33 AM  

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?
 
2013-06-18 09:47:25 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: ph0rk: cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.

Equivocally? Sure.

yourenothelping.jpg

Sorry, unequivocally. It's 9:45 and I'm trying to stay off caffeine.


Hidden in the snark (or by the snark) was the point that arguing the ambiogenesis angle isn't that helpful. Or, frankly, that relevant - all the shiat that happened after is what is vitally important. Whether or not the first domino fell by chance or was pushed by a random entity is irrelevant to the subsequent process, and only clouds the issue with the general public.
 
2013-06-18 09:47:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: compelling scientific evidence. Not by some consensus (real or invented).

You mean the compelling scientific evidence of the published papers by those consensus scientists? You know, the ones published by actual climatologists who agree, based on those papers, that global warming is created by man?


As I said in my comment, in the part you did not copy into your comment, the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.
 
2013-06-18 09:48:55 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:49:14 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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?


Are you still pulling this old con, chimp ninja? For anybody not already aware, these "meta-studies", which are made by environmentalist activist groups, not proper scientists, count virtually all opinions as being in the "pro" AGW group. That includes most rational climate sceptics, suck as myself, who accept that human emissions probably are causing some warming (just not very much).

Because you're a "skeptic", right? Not a troll, certainly. And skeptics are persuaded by evidence. So it would be compelling to see an overwhelming consensus of experts agreeing that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities? Right?

Putting your sarcastic and ranty tone to one side for a moment, scientists are compelled by compelling scientific evidence. Not by some consensus (real or invented). Remember, the consensus once was that the earth was flat. By your logic we would still believe that. We changed our minds because some good scientists concentrated on the scientific evidence, and saw that there was none for the flat earth theory, so they abandoned the theory.

Catastrophic AGW theory (the one with the large positive feedbacks leading to high CO2 sensitivity) should be abandoned too, because it also has no scientific evidence to support it.


Other than a number of unrefuted recent studies that tend to confirm it, no, "catastrophic" AGW has no scientific evidence to support it.

/You don't have to have a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus in order to have catastrophic impacts on currently existing species and human civilization. A few degrees C will do it.
//All it takes is a little drought in the main food-growing areas, a few meters of sea-level rise and boom.
///On the other hand, it seems that AGW may well have staved off the scheduled Ice Age, so there's that. But having staved it off, turning the world back into a Paleozoic swamp by putting ever-increasing amounts of fossil CO2 in the atmosphere seems ill-advised.
 
2013-06-18 09:49:33 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.


Well, I think it's debatable.  Evolution explains species diversity through natural selection.  It may explain how you get from an amoeba to a bacteria, but eventually if you keep asking "well how did [x]" get there you get to some fundamental building block which either spontaneously came into being, was put there by a god, or aliens, or something else miraculous happened.  Regardless, it's certainly irrelevant to evolution being an exceptionally sound theory describing how life changes over time, and that was my point to the above poster.  The short and sweet version is that religion and evolution can (and should) coexist.
 
2013-06-18 09:50:13 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: (a rubber stamp job in climatology).


How many of your papers have sailed through the rubber stamp job of peer review in Climatology?

Clearly, if it is so easy, you've already secured a tenured post in the discipline and are swimming in a vast pool filled with grant money by now.
 
2013-06-18 09:50:28 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.


Okay. Name one, and explain why a scientific paper which gives evidence for positive feedbacks is not scientific, nor evidence.

Come on. You made the claim. Now you get to back it up. Just name one, and explain how it got through peer-review without simply stating that it was a "rubber-stamp" without any evidence to back up your claim.
 
2013-06-18 09:51:35 AM  

utah dude: science is just another religion.


I just woke up and I can tell, even without coffee, that you are a moron. I live with my mom.
 
2013-06-18 09:53:49 AM  
 
2013-06-18 09:54:22 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Sounds like you are really smart and serious.


In other words, the exact opposite of you.

You've showcased your stupidity on the Politics forum time and time again.

It would be colossal folly for you to even dip a toe into scientific issues. It would be like a mosquito facing off against an incoming 5 mile wide meteor.

So, why don't you let the grown ups handle science matters, OK?
 
2013-06-18 09:54:27 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.

Okay. Name one, and explain why a scientific paper which gives evidence for positive feedbacks is not scientific, nor evidence.

Come on. You made the claim. Now you get to back it up. Just name one, and explain how it got through peer-review without simply stating that it was a "rubber-stamp" without any evidence to back up your claim.



Now now, be fair... that's how science works, but he's doing not-science.  No need for him to provide evidence.
 
2013-06-18 09:54:36 AM  

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?"
 
2013-06-18 09:55:04 AM  

Wulfman: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.

Okay. Name one, and explain why a scientific paper which gives evidence for positive feedbacks is not scientific, nor evidence.

Come on. You made the claim. Now you get to back it up. Just name one, and explain how it got through peer-review without simply stating that it was a "rubber-stamp" without any evidence to back up your claim.


Now now, be fair... that's how science works, but he's doing not-science.  No need for him to provide evidence.


Ooh, that sneaky bastard.
 
2013-06-18 09:56:14 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.


Genesis??? You've got to be kidding me.
 
2013-06-18 09:56:52 AM  
Meh. He's boring, stiff and vaugely creepy. He's definitely no Carl Sagan by a long shot.
 
2013-06-18 09:57:27 AM  

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 for 'expanse', which word is now translated simply as heavens or space.
 
2013-06-18 09:57:54 AM  

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


Are you sure we're talking about the  same Bill Nye?
 
2013-06-18 09:59:22 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-18 09:59:23 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-18 09:59:23 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science


You know how weathermen predict hurricane tracks, professor?

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

They use.......SCIENCE!
 
2013-06-18 10:00:05 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.

Yes because not causing all of it is obviously reason to deny all evidence that some contribution from green house gases due to industrialization are having a marked and measurable effect.


Marked and measurable is how much exactly? Its like the old Simpsons '0 is a number', I'm not saying that's how much just using it for a reference. Is crippling our industry while ignoring other nations causing more green house gasses allowing them to keep polluting? I am sure they will just voluntarily comply in a decade or two when asked to comply.

I am not against controlling shiat like this but let's be realistic about it, trying to put a damn up in the middle of the river while allowing the rest of the water to flow freely accomplishes nothing.
 
2013-06-18 10:02:38 AM  

Allen. The end.: 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.

Genesis??? You've got to be kidding me.


startrek.comView Full Size


/oblig
//hot like an unstable planet
 
2013-06-18 10:03:04 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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.


I'm still waiting on your evidence for this. Where are all these climate papers that show zero evidence? I mean, you're so sure, there must be thousands of examples at your disposal!

Or can you just finally admit now that calling it a non-science is just accusations that you do as a denier to make yourself feel better.
 
2013-06-18 10:03:51 AM  

0Icky0: steamingpile: Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.

Because as we all know, if something can happen naturally, it is impossible for man to make it happen. Even  when six thousand million of them are working together.


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.

There was a picture one time a researcher did comparing mans footprint on the planet by laying the globe flat, we were barely a postage stamp on a post card.
 
2013-06-18 10:04:01 AM  

steamingpile: Is crippling our industry while ignoring other nations causing more green house gasses allowing them to keep polluting?


What?
 
2013-06-18 10:04:44 AM  

mbillips: 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:



I believe we call that a jobs program that will drive down unemployment and stimulate economic growth.

/shovel-ready
 
2013-06-18 10:05:14 AM  

steamingpile: My point remains we are a speck on the planet


You think that 7 billion humans with access to modern technology are "a speck"? And that modern science has "no idea" how the earth is affected by various climate factors?

Jesus, do you underestimate humanity.
 
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.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.
 
2013-06-18 10:39:46 AM  

Skywolf the Scribbler: 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.


Grasp of logic? Let's not go that far, but you do have a talent for being verbose and saying very little. There is a place for you in congress.
 
2013-06-18 10:40:28 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.


For now, most lay sciencers accept Pattern Recognition as the simple index of intelligence.
And then it gets all sciency and hard stuff.
 
2013-06-18 10:40:31 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.

I notice that your mode of debate requires you to change your oponent's claims in the hopes that casual readers are fooled. I will simply respond by bringing their attention to the fact, and they can go back up the thread if they feel like it. Certainly, this trick is going to hurt your credibility more than mine.
 
2013-06-18 10:40:32 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.


He does have you on the skepticism part though.  The four steps you linked is a rational chain of thoughts (call them hypotheses if you like).  As a scientist, it would behoove you to continue to disprove these things in a logical and consistent manner.  This is how science works and if climatology continues to successfully address these issues, it will gain more support.  Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate.  If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.
 
2013-06-18 10:41:43 AM  

ph0rk: No, you haven't. You've provided more data points supporting the claim, but you haven't proven anything about the mechanisms involved.


That's because I didn't include how magnetism actually works.  That's now how scientific papers are written. Ideas are built off of other ideas. If I were to write a white paper on how magnets stuck to my refrigerator, does that mean that I have to include, in detail, how magnetism works every time?

That's why you see citations everywhere.

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

Math IS science, dude.

No, it isn't.


THE HELL IT'S NOT, IT ABSOLUTELY IS.
 
2013-06-18 10:42:44 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: That is my claim (stop changing it).


Was it?

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?


That looks like a claim too. And a stupid one.
 
2013-06-18 10:43:06 AM  

ph0rk: 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.


biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, physics is math, and math is boring.

/math & cs major
 
2013-06-18 10:44:07 AM  

DON.MAC: 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.


You, Sir, have recognized a pattern of human behavior.
The herd moves slowly and only by emotion. Reason is a pathetic no show.
 
2013-06-18 10:45:08 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.


Okay. Name one of them. Have you read them? Surely you've read all of them if you can claim without equivocation (i'm awake now!) that non papers provide this evidence.

So name one of them.
 
2013-06-18 10:45:55 AM  

mainstreet62: That's because I didn't include how magnetism actually works.  That's now how scientific papers are written. Ideas are built off of other ideas. If I were to write a white paper on how magnets stuck to my refrigerator, does that mean that I have to include, in detail, how magnetism works every time?

That's why you see citations everywhere


Ok. Tell you what, go use words like "prove" in lab reports and let me know how quickly you get an A in that chemistry lab course. I'd say tell me how quickly you pass, but standards aren't what they used to be (which is why we have these problems to begin with).

mainstreet62: THE HELL IT'S NOT, IT ABSOLUTELY IS.


Math is a science the same way that bolded caps make your argument stronger.

(They don't, and it isn't).
 
2013-06-18 10:46:46 AM  

dennysgod: You've come a lone way from SPEEEEEEEED WALLLLLLKER!


LOL.

High five!
 
2013-06-18 10:47:06 AM  
While you may argue whether or not global warming is occurring, and man is causing it, what does it hurt to do something to clean up the atmosphere? OMG, we've got fresh air and a livable planet.
 
2013-06-18 10:47:28 AM  
I understand he's not a fan of "Freeze Lightening" either.
 
2013-06-18 10:47:57 AM  

Abuse Liability: Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate.  If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.


No, I won't say that, and I won't answer your silly questions because quite obviously you've already made up your mind and if 13,000 papers proving climate change is anthropogenic don't change your mind, why would I think you would believe me?
 
2013-06-18 10:48:18 AM  

mbillips: 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.


Different translations fix the parts of Genesis.  The areas of the origins of the different stories are well documented.
One odd thing is sex led to original sin which lead to death but biologically it is somewhat true in that cell aging only seemed to occur after sexual reproduction.  Asexual cells are often immortal if they don't get eaten.

The Egyptians had accounted for a round earth when they were surveying out to the current borders near Sudan and Libya about 2000 BC.
 
2013-06-18 10:48:21 AM  

ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: That is my claim (stop changing it).

Was it?


Why have you posted a comment questioning this when you could simply look up the thread and see for yourself? Then you would know for sure, right? Oh yes, because you prefer arguing to discovering facts. Like the rest of the climate alarmists.
 
2013-06-18 10:48:47 AM  

Matthew Keene: While you may argue whether or not global warming is occurring, and man is causing it, what does it hurt to do something to clean up the atmosphere? OMG, we've got fresh air and a livable planet.


Because apparently some people think an entirely new industry will somehow hurt our economy.
 
2013-06-18 10:49:08 AM  

Matthew Keene: what does it hurt to do something to clean up the atmosphere?


because that costs money. money that could otherwise being used to light cigars and buy solid-gold toilets.