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.
Whenever Slashdot posts a negative story about Republicans they make sure to mark it as a Republican topic but when its a negative story about Democrats it gets marked as a government topic.
Likewise positive Democrat stories are marked Democrat but positive Republican ones are marked government...
with a complete understanding of all the top climate models and their error statistics, and that not one of them is a blind zealot. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Look climate change may be real (well it is real, it's changing all the time), it may even be man made. Everyone has a right to an opinion, whether it agrees with yours or not. Bill Nye is an actor with a engineering degree. Sarah Palin is a once governor of Alaska. Neither one of them should have the right to put me in jail for disagreeing with them, but that is what Bill Nye suggested. Sorry on this one, I side with Sarah Palin. On climate change, I think people like Bill Nye who try to stifle argument are afraid of something, and it's not that they're afraid they're right. You don't fight with such vigor to shut out debate unless the foundation of your argument is suspect.
if we CHOOSE to be: The Oxford English Dictionary defines "Scientist" as:"One who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences." Bill Nye is certainly as qualified as a student of Climate Science as anyone else; even a serial rapist can qualify to be identified as a scientist if they diligently study one or more of the sciences; a disreputable scientist, to be sure, but a student of science nonetheless.
It is those who reject "climate change" out of hand--with no scientific basis or study, relying solely on their own self interest--who are not scientists. (I would be happier if all politicians had to become ardent and proven students of "political science," on of the fields within "the humanities" field, before they could run for public office.)
Sarah Palin's only notable study of anything but her own self-aggrandizement has been her assertion that she reads "...all of them..." when asked which newspapers she reads. That isn't "study," that's a bald-face lie.
One of the most amusing aspects of denialism is that since they have no concept of the science, they go oafter what the can attack. Personality. That's why we were treated to years of "Michael Mann is an asshole", which was somehow supposed to invalidate his work. Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.
Now Nye, he isn't a person on the same caliber as Sagan. But the attacks are similar.
Carl Sagan, Socialist Jerk http://www.stephankinsella.com...
https://eternian.wordpress.com...
I coud find more of people playing the personality card on people of science. Nye is getting the same treatment as other popularizers like Sagan and N.D. Tyson.
And that's good enough proof that he's on to something, when Deniers single him out for their anti science derision.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes I do. The engineer uses scientifically derived knowledge of loading, strengths of materials in multiple dimensions, scientifically derived equations on the interplay of these forces and strengths and uses that knowledge and applies it in designing the structural details. Using the theoretical average strength of concrete they will develop a size of structure and then direct that the concrete in it meet the strength's they've designed for and develop construction plans and specifications to meet those goals. In other words they take all their scientific knowledge and develop a method and plan to apply that science in the real world. Engineering is Applied science.
If you aren't using science in the design of a structure you're doing what humanity did before engineers. That is simply find someone that built a building before that didn't fall down and try to replicate it without any understanding of why it didn't fall down and the other way did. There are a lot of structures in this world that are still built like that. By using science you can build bigger, taller and better using less materials and in a safer manner both for the builder and the eventual occupants.
Engineer's do things like design buildings, that even if the building is severely damaged by some event (say a earthquake hitting it) that the building doesn't fall down while people are still inside it. They couldn't do that without science.
Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.
Mark Steyn will still be ready and waiting if Mann is even man enough to go to discovery.
Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.
Mark Steyn will still be ready and waiting if Mann is even man enough to go to discovery.
So tell me - Even if Mann is an asshole - even if he's the biggest asshole the world has ever produced, does that make him wrong? In other words, assuming he is, does being an asshole disprove AGW?
By the way, everyone who has written back fell right into my trap.
You see, you have nothing but personality to use to disprove Michael Mann. And you all fell into that steaming pile of denialist shit.
One guy did actually try to add a little science along with his serving of Michael Mann is an asshole. And I don't feel like addressing several people who have politically based physics, so it's your day in the barrel.
Q: Ho wmany investigations of Mann were there?
A. 8 independent investigations.
How many of these investigations concluded that Man was engaging in anything unethical or even just bad science?
A: none of the 8 independent investigations found any wrongdoing.
Q: How many reconstructions were performed on the data of Mann et al?
A. More than two dozen
Q: What were their findings?
A: they support the broad consensus in Mann's research and support the General conclusions of the research.
Side notes, there were other investigations and reconstructions. Including repeated investigations into Mann et al, when the climategate emails surfaced. This was dismissed after 8 more investigations. The reportage by the statistical team that Ed Wegman set up at the request of Representative Ed Whitfield used in statistical recunstruction found some small errors, but nothing invalidating the research, and that paper had plagiarized elements in it.
Joe Barton launched the 2005 investigation which Sherwood Bohlert, the head of the House Science committee called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.
So your elected and revered representatives went after Mann personally. And how many investgations that show he was right do you need?
And you don't have anything else at all. Sad really, trying to argue against science with Lysenkoism.
Your move.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Dr. Roy Spencer provides evidence and contrary opinions.
He also says a lot of stuff that isn't well supported by the evidence. In fact, he once said about his own paper:
"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."
One has to wonder how many of the climate myths that Dr Spencer has said have been a result of what his gut says rather than any evidence; and how much of his evidence is selected to match his gut feeling. His papers and comments do seem to be motivated by the desire to right the supposed mistakes of other climate research.
And yet he claims that it is the climate researchers who are the myopic ones:
They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'...by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption... But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
In his quest to show that climate researchers are wrong, he has stated that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, but also that it causes its own climate change by its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
So take you pedantic ass and fuck off.
A well formed argument there, but I would expect nothing less from someone who consistently can't spell the word climate.