Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Palin Says 'Bill Nye Is As Much A Scientist As I Am' (cnn.com)
ClickOnThis quotes a report from CNN: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin mocked Bill Nye on Thursday, using the premier of a film that criticizes climate change scientists to call into question Nye's credentials. "Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am," the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee said, according to The Hill. "He's a kids' show actor, he's not a scientist." Palin, who was speaking at the Washington premiere of the anti-climate change film "Climate Hustle," targeted Nye during a rant against the "alarmism" of climate change activists. Palin urged parents to teach their children to "ask those questions and not just believe what Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them" about climate change. Just because Bill Nye may be best known for his role in the popular educational TV series "Bill Nye the Science Guy," doesn't mean he isn't a scientist. In fact, he graduated from Cornell University's School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering. From Wikipedia: In the early 2000s, Nye assisted in the development of a small sundial that was included in the Mars Exploration Rover missions. He holds several U.S. patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes and another for an educational magnifying glass created by filling a clear plastic bag with water.
"...he graduated from Cornell University's School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering."
Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.
Bill Nye is an entertainer... I don't seem to remember reading too many of his scientific publications. But then again, Sarah Palin is also an entertainer. She sure as hell isn't a public servant.
Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am, ...
She kind of correct, but not complete. Bill is as much a scientist as she is, but she isn't (nearly) as much a scientist as Bill is.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If he uses the scientific method, then he's a scientist. Whether Sarah Palin is a scientist, or not, is left as an exercise for the reader.
A scientist is someone who seeks to find the truth via the scientific process. Bill Nye is not this. He is an actor. He has the potential to be a scientist as we all do and he has some degrees that could allow him to have a leg up in being a scientist compared to some others. Even so, he has chosen to be an actor and an activist. At this stage, he is at most a science enthusiast. Once he starts a serious research project about something we don't already know the answer to and develops his various hypotheses and then proceeds to develop and run a methodology to test them, then I'll call him a scientist.
One would presume that en Engineering Degree would require more than a little exposure to the scientific method. I know that my first year of EE has plenty of lab work which required that I take a logical approach in determining why the chem lab was not performing like the lab notes indicated, or why the nand gate logic was not providing the results that I expected (darn old hexadecimal) or even why the mis-application of current to the transistor made the magic smoke come out.
Bill Nye demonstrates this things, while Sarah Palin demonstrates things like faith and conviction which require no understanding or application of scientific method.
But she's representative of a large group of people who, when confronted with science they don't like, just discard the science, declare the researchers in question frauds, and then assume somehow the universe will be okay, because, you know, apparently the universe owes specific ideologies a big favor, and would never dream of having physical laws that would create some sort of problem for that ideology. In Palin's case, she's a pretty hard right Christian, so I'm fairly certain she believes God would never make oil harmful, because, well, God loves oil and wants us to burn as much of it as we can possibly can.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A scientist is someone who seeks to find the truth via the scientific process. Bill Nye is not this. He is an actor.
He's a popularizer. Just like Carl Sagan, Popularizers are despised by many in science, because they are considered "actors" and they are equally despised by people like Sarah Palin, Who are in fact, either idiots, or trying to look like one. If you've heard her speeches lately, she is virtually incoherent.
And in fact, is there a shit to be given when a person is right? As I recall, Bill is calle "The science guy"
Unless of course, you ascribe to Sarah Palin's brand of science. Whic isn't science at all, but denial of science.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You don't need a degree, research budget and to be published to be a scientist.
Science is a methodology for studying the natural world that is the best method we have for separating out human weaknesses in the process, anyone can do it. But to do science and practice it you need to follow the methods. Sarah Palin hasn't followed those methods at any time in her entire life, Bill Nye has.
He is a science communicator. He goes to scientific research and presents it to the public in an understandable way. When he has questions, he asks scientists.
Sarah Palin does not consult scientists. That's why Bill Nye is considered an authority when he speaks. Not because he contributed, but because what he says is based on scientific research.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Engineering is Applied Science. Science is a method of studying the natural world, engineering uses scientific principles and methods in applications in the real world, rather than theoretical one.
Engineers are scientists. You'd have to be a moron to believe they aren't.
Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.
He hasn't done any engineering, he's an actor. Like any other actor he ranks below anyone that isn't a sales or marketing guy.
I realize that denialists are reduced now to calling anyone who believes in AGW a "Stupid CacaHEad, and that's the extent of their argument, but tell me. If Bill Nye was a carpenter, or a plumber, does that mean his views are wrong on AGW?
You see, denialists have backed themselves into a corner. They call Nye "not a scientist so he's wrong", But who gives a damn? They don't believe scientists who they say are scientists? Need a frggin program to keep up with deniers now.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
He doesn't claim to be a scientist. He calls himself a "Science Guy". This is a complete straman that Ms. Palin made to beat up on rather than address the actual science that many people, (yes, including that "Science Guy") are trying to bring up. But Mr. Nye could turn out to be 10 kittens in a man-suit, and it wouldn't change anything.
This kind of attack on a person rather than the idea is the kind of thing you do when your actual argument is crap and you know it.
Most of the critics aren't even real critics; in that they're not attacking any climatological theory, but rather partaking in various forms of fallacious argument, in many cases, like pseudo-scientific purveyors before, simply repeating discredited claims over and over and over again.
Here's the facts. CO2 absorbs and the emits certain frequencies of solar radiation. In other words, CO2 traps energy. No matter how you try to handwave it away, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy is trapped in the atmosphere, raising atmospheric, surface and ocean temperatures. Coupled with CO2's reaction with seawater to alter sea pH levels, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more pronounced the effects get. You can wave your hands and jump up and down about how the poow whittle cwitics are so badly abused, but the fact is that the one group that counts, which is atmospheric scientists, say very clearly that human CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the lower atmosphere because it is trapping energy. This is not in the least bit controversial, and has been known for over a century.
The only controversy is that it's going to cost lots of money, and it's going to reduce the profits of some very rich people. But that's an economic and political controversy, that fossil fuel companies and an exceedingly small number of critics who have any real credentials at all are trying to make into a scientific one.
The universe does not give one single fuck about the Koch Brother's investment portfolio. It doesn't give one single fuck about how much you have to pay for gasoline to go to work, or much it costs to transport tomatoes to your local grocery store. It does not give one single fuck about Saudis, Russians, OPEC, Canadian tar sands, or the price of jet fuel. It doesn't give one single fuck how you feel about the physical properties of CO2. It does not give one single fuck whether you want to ignore those physical principles at all. What is is, so demonstrate some capacity to think like an adult and try to imagine a universe in which we are captives of physical laws, and where our actions actually can have fairly significant effects.
Or continue to be a child, and grasp at every pathetic straw the likes of Spencer, who makes a lot more money spreading bullshit about his former field of research than anyone actually actively in that field does.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You don't fight with such vigor to shut out debate unless the foundation of your argument is suspect.
Interesting comment.
As an exercise in honesty, if I were to assert that the moon is made out of green cheese, would you feel inclined to make a logical argument to refute my assertion?
From where I sit, I would simply tell any moron who diligently tried to back up that assertion that they were imbeciles and completely not worth a response - but that's me.
From the summary: Palin urged parents to teach their children to "ask those questions and not just believe what Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them"
Bill Nye would enthusiastically agree that kids (and adults) should "ask those questions and not just believe what (ANYONE, including) Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them."
But he was a popularizer, just like Sagan was.
So you think that Carl Sagan was despised by many in science? I don't think so. I can't discount that are aren't some scientists in the world who don't like the man, but I doubt that it is true that many in science would think that. The fact that you found a couple of links of Sagan-haters from an "Austro-Anarchist Libertarian" patent lawyer and a whacky Christian disabled person is pretty meaningless.
There are people who find themselves in the unenviable position where science is inconvenient to their beliefs for either political, religious or financial reasons. Those people can't argue on an equal basis since scientists have facts, measurements, mathematics etc while they have just their gut feeling that all the scientists must be wrong. So they go after the scientists themselves, as well as anyone who communicates science to the masses (like Bill Nye). If the person wanting to belittle the science has heard of the person then they can attack them directly, but otherwise they will spread FUD about scientists all being in it for the money or all participating in a giant conspiracy to raise taxes.
So it isn't that people are targeting popularizers; they will go after everyone they can and cherry-pick any weakness that they think they have found. In this case, Sarah Palin has tried to belittle anything that Bill Nye says on this subject by pointing out that he is not a scientist. But if all he does is report what the climate scientists say, then it doesn't matter what his qualifications are. Sarah Palin is NOT as much of a scientist as all the scientists that Bill Nye talks about.
Reenacting a famous scientific experiment is still science. It's not ground breaking. It's meant to teach. The foundations, while rudimentary, are still the base of all higher education and knowledge.
True, but also irrelevant. It's all shorthand for something or other.
I can spend half a second saying 'global warming is bullshit' and move on to my next point.
Or I can spend several minutes explaining that what I specifically mean is not that the climate isn't warming, not that greenhouse gasses don't trap heat, not that climate models don't predict warming, not that ice cores don't indicate 'unprecedented' warming, but that
1. My own experience with radiative and convective transfer models tells me to only believe their outputs to one or two decimals places
2. My own experience with nonlinear and partially-observed dynamical system tells me that that third and fourth decimal place usually bite you in the ass
3. Greenhouse gasses aren't a uniformly reflective blanket, the ground isn't a uniformly emissive blackbody, and actually measuring absolute reflectivity and emissivity in the LWIR is a lot harder than people think it is
4. Ice cores notwithstanding, if there wasn't a thermometer to calibrate the old ice, it's still extrapolation,
and finally:
5. Given all of these very real complications and given academic scientists' unfortunate tendency to sweep these sorts of deep rabbit-holes under the rug, no waydo I have confidence that the often-drastic economic policies that are often floated as remedies to this "problem" are even remotely justified, especially given that the aforementioned solutions sound like the same collectivist BS the socialists have been advocating for the last century-and-a-half, this time with a new excuse.
But that's a mouthful to get out every time. So I just say 'global warming is bullshit' and move on to stay ahead of the next bit of sloppy thinking the commies are going to try. The sad thing is, the shorthand is repeated so often that people start to think of it as the substance of the argument instead of a symlink to it.
What denialists like myself go after is demonstrably false predictions by 'scientists' in the past that were disproved long ago. When they said there'd be no snow last year 2000 they were simply wrong.
Who is they? NO scientist I know would ever say such a thing. The models used predict the warming moving north, with the greatest warming in the upper latitudes, but not remotely snow free. The CO2 content in the air would have to approach the Cambrian age, and that isn't going to happen.
Anyhow, give me the cites. There is no misunderstanding of the concept of science when you make a false prediction. If it is wrong it is wrong and it doesn't matter what kind of scientist they are if they make a wrong prediction .
You really have made an extraordinary claim AC. Prove it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Sorry, you lose. Suppression of data is a huge red flag.
Not just teach.
It confirms.
It's been done a hundred times before? So what? It doesn't hurt to do the experiment again. And again. And again.
And if repeating the experiment doesn't quite result in what you might expect? Hey, that's good science. Now it's time to go figure out why.
And if I claim to be a scientist, but I don't tell anyone how to reproduce my results? I'm either a fraud or an idiot. Maybe both.
(And if the words "trust me, I'm a scientist" escape my lips, I'm an asshole as well as not behaving like a scientist.)
The best way to teach science is to do science. Every kid in a science class performing an experiment should think of themselves as a scientist (aside from the ones cheating, that is).
It's educational to read up on the actual history behind the science of Vitamin C, and the importance of repeating experiments.
Now it's controversial to be skeptical about what the weatherman says.
Depends really. If the weatherman says it's raining out, every other weatherman says it's raining out and you look out and it's actually raining, then if you remain skeptical of what the weatherman says, then it's not so much controversial as a bit nuts.
Also, climate isn't weather and if you believe it's so unpredictable, I'll bet you $50 that it won't snow in London in the whole of August this year. To sweeten it a bit how about you get $100 if you win but I only get $50 if I win.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You didn't address any points he made.
Typical
The predictions do pan out. Denialists don't accept them because they read a cold day outside their as refutation of AGW.
The peer reviewed research is out there, and much is online. All you have to do is read it. You want Uncle Ol to have storytime when he reads it to you all? Mann, the Boogyman of the Denialist movement has been reviewed so many times, and found not in error that his detractors don't realize that they did a terrible disservice to themselves. The satellite versus ionosphere measurements cited on so many denialists webpages have been correctd and brought into agreement, even by further research by the author. But you won't see that tidbit on the denialist cites, they continue to push the old and incorrect stuff. I've read the paper. It's online.
I've provided many, many cites and links to actual peer reviewed articles, as either evidence or refutation.
And I don't do it to impress or educate you or any denier. You have your mind made up, and it is based on political will, and not science. I do it because there are people out there who are wondering, perhaps not having their minds made up, perhaps wavering somewhere between truth and politics.
Because I've found that we need a lot more people who believe in science, and not so many people who believe in incorrect things, brought to them as science, by politicians who are paid for their version of the truth.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.