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.
we're all equal, right?
If Sarah Palin had any less brain activity we could legally harvest her organs.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"...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.
Sarah Palin the Science Witch just doesn't have the same ring to it.
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...
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.
I don't think anyone's not a scientist as much as Sarah Palin's not one.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
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.
Except he has. His B.S. predates his acting carrer by a few decades.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
"...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.
Frequently, engineers do science and scientists do engineering.
The difference between engineering and science is often one of intent rather than activity. Very broadly speaking, engineering is about making things that work, whereas science is about trying to understand how and why they work.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The full quote: "Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am, and I know all about the weather and stuff. You know how much weather we get in Alaska? Tons. Most every day there's some kinda weather, the wind's blowin' or the rain's rainin'... Shoot, I can see all of that from my house sometimes. I'm an expert."
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.
At least the posters don't say "The earth is not flat and nobody knows why."
Filter error: eblome
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Not sure how Palin plans to dismiss the legions of real scientists who have all concluded that climate change is real, and man made.
Of course Bill Nye never did any primary research on climate change, but he knows enough to recognize real science.
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.
"...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.
I wouldn't call someone with a physics PhD who writes generic software a scientist, would I call someone with an engineering degree who did original engineering work in aerospace and later specialized in science education a scientist? I'm not sure, I guess it's it's a bit of a philosophical distinction.
Either way he's clearly far more of a scientist than most people, Palin especially.
I stole this Sig
You can't call her a cunt, she lacks both the depth and warmth.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Sarah Palin is just stating the truth Bill Nye only has a degree in Engineering not in Science"
Uhh, it's called a Bachelor's of Science - Engineering degree - a BSE. Bill has one. You're a fucking idiot.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
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.
He helped build this thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which is on Mars now, so he has.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
He has Oriental connections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Congratulations, you've caught Sarah Palin saying something false and dumb. With that kinds of investigative gumption, you may also get the scoop on developing stories like "Local Bear Shits in Woods". Keep the "news" coming!
she clearly has been experimenting with something
So, say theoretically I could pick the science teacher for my kids' school. The science teacher can be:
A) Bill Nye Science Guy, or
B) Sarah Palin.
Hmmm.. which to pick, which to pick....
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I know why... because the Earth was not formed on some super-sized griddle like a pancake, but in orbit around the Sun where it's own gravity would cause it to form into a sphere-ish oblate form.
what? Heresy... let me find a torch and pitchfork
"UVBY Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789". Astronomical Journal 90: 1247
Yeah. Just famous for being famous. Let me know when you can get through the abstract.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
A scientist is someone who seeks to find the truth via the scientific process. Bill Nye is not this. He is an actor.
Actually he is an engineer and arguably a scientist too. He also happens to be an actor, scientific advocate, writer, and several other things besides. Unlike Sara Palin he actually has a talent beside self promotion. If you want to call him a citizen scientist, fine, but he's much more involved in science than 99.9% of the population. Particularly one former governor of Alaska.
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.
To do good engineering, you need to do good science. And to do good science, you most likely need to do good engineering as well.
This is a perfect example of the extremists view that their firmly held and fervently believed ignorance is just as valid as scientific facts and reality.
Can we just stop listening to then yet? Yes they ARE entitled to their beliefs, what they are NOT entitled to do is force their ignorance into governance, science, or the health and welfare of the nations people.
I don't think she reads anything, at all. That book lernin is just a tool of the devil anyways dontcha know
Now it's controversial to be skeptical about what the weatherman says.
I've lived too long.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
In that case..I am as much a politician as Palin is...
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."
Because of her intelligence and solid platform?
Ohhh -- sorry, I got those two mixed up.
she clearly has been experimenting with something
I am pretty sure it is limited to different methods of ingesting ethanol, which we all know is God's Drug, and perfectly wholesome and sinless to imbide. And if someone throws a few punches at someone else after a few, whose counting, (or even remembers the next day)?
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Does this mean she's willing to listen to people who are climate scientists? Probably not but if so that's progress on her part.
You can get a BA in a science. It means you skipped the math and other hard parts.
You can also get a BS in pure liberal arts bullshit. It almost always means the liberal arts school perceives what their 'education' has done to the value of 'BA', hence they try to gloom onto the academic rigor maintained in the sciences...'Science Envy'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
By weatherman I think you mean physics.
Bill Nye is every bit as much a scientist as she is, and more. But of course such a simple concept as "as much" not being an upper limit is beyond her.
What more does she need to know all about Russia.
Same thing with climate change.
She sees snow in Alaska so she knows climate change is not real.
What more do we need to know?
I think he only suggested that if you lie to your shareholders for short term profits you may end up in jail. That is what Exxon is being investigated for. Lying to shareholders. They knew the science of global warming. Their own scientists told them that it was happening, that CO2 was the culprit, and that it posed a threat. They realized that this was a threat to their business so they decided to deceive their shareholders. It turns out that is illegal.
Really.
Why is Snark Required?
Many engineers do science, just like many scientists do engineering. Real life is messy like that and not segmented like college, even though some degrees like EE and physics share a majority of subjects, if not classes. When I got my EE degree I was able to apply the classes I'd taken through the physics department towards the enginering degree. Like E&M and waveguides. As far as I could tell, the covered the same material, but physics was more concerned with derivations while engineering was closer to practical work solving problems Lots of problems. Hundreds, maybe thousands each semester. Contrast this with physics whee you might solve a dozen problems a semester, but the answers can be a dozen or more pages long. Look at Paul Dirac, he had an engineering degree.
There's something a little predictable about Palin and Lamar Smith inviting along Bill Nye the science guy instead of a "real scientist", i.e. one with impeccable climate science credentials, then using the argument "but he's not a real scientist".
I used to work in experimental nuclear physics. All the lab apparatus, ie the detectors, were designed and built by the physicists, primarily the grad student for a PHd thesis. Same goes for STMs. I used to know one of the physicists who designed and built one of the first STMs including designing the computer hardware from chip level, doing board design, etc. Not only that, but he wrote the software himself.
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.
Really? Water refracting light rays is now patentable?
But I think the fairest analogy would be this: I'd conclude that Bill Nye is as much a scientist as Sarah Palin is a politician.
that a Job Creator can use to make more jobs. Now don't you feel silly (you becha)?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He holds a patent on filling a bag with water?
because of God. I'm not sure how to counter that sentiment. Reason and logic won't work because, well, if they did then we wouldn't be having this conversation...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The news-bit about Mr. Nye's call to prosecute "deniers" was submitted to Slashdot yesterday, but did not make it. He was quoted as:
When the opponents of the supposedly scientific theory you like are not merely wrong or even stupid, but are criminals, you immediately stop being a scientist even if you ever were one (and Mr. Nye was an engineer before becoming an entertainer). You become a totalitarian asshole...
If Governor Palin is wrong, it is was when she compares herself to him.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nobody serious has ever claimed there weren't some blind zealots on the climate change side because on EVERY issue there are blind zealots. There really are people who get their undies in a serious bunch on both sides of the airline peanut issue. Over peanuts, literally.
But at this point the only people left denying climate change entirely are the blind zealots and the politicians, because even the paid shills have limits.
I have heard of schools that offer a BA in a science field (and yes, with the hard parts) but I have never heard of one that offers a BSc in an arts field.
Those schools that offer a BA in a science field do so for reasons of their institutional history. Kind of like the PhD, which is a Doctor of Philosophy degree, but can be awarded in many disciplines that are not closely related to philosophy.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
There are schools that offer both a BS and BA in some sciences. The BA is basically 'arm waving', they take the 'baby versions' of all the usual bears. Yes they have baby p-chem...p-chem without math? It's fulfilling a market demand, sad. Gives 'almost graduated' students a soft landing and graceful exit.
Also liberal arts schools that only give BAs. Usually their science departments are less than well respected. No PhD programs, etc. A few of the least respectable of these have simply tried to 'get away from the distinction of BA/BS' and called everything a BS.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
a nobody said something and its news why?
A terribly ignorant woman?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Congratulations, you once again going the masses of people THINKING Sarah Palin was wrong, but in your epic smugness forgot to fact check.
Oops! Don't worry, your shame will only last for a few generations (shame on that level transmits via DNA).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I suspect the real quote was "Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am a public servant."
From Wikipedia: "A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science."
You can have a degree in Medieval Art History and still be a scientist as long as you adhere to the scientific method.
She was the Governor of Alaska and before she was John McCain's running mate, she had sky-high bi-partisan approval ratings - some of the highest for any governor in the nation at the time. She attacked corruption in her state in BOTH parties angering both Republican and Democrat officials as she knocked out a bunch of "big oil" related bad politics. Average Democrats in Alaska only turned on her when she was the Republican VP candidate.
After all the hatred heaped upon her by liberals, even to the extent of hacking into her personal e-mail and dumping it for the whole world to go through, nobody found any corruption in messages she never thought of her political opponents would ever see. Contrast this with Hillary, who has done everything she could possibly do to keep even her government documents hidden from the courts and the public. After Democrats took advantage of Alaska's unusual ethics laws and filed a whole raft of lawsuits against her to try to destroy her, she resigned as governor, stating that this would save both her family and the taxpayers of the state a large amount of money, which indeed it did. All the lawsuits went away and the taxpayers saved a ton of cash and she was never found guilty of anything. All those lawsuits were as phoney as a Gloria Allred atack - tons of news and political attention designed to hound some office holder or candidate but as soon as the candidate/politician is out of the way the suit is dropped. Amazing, right?
I am fascinated that the idiots who always call her stupid raise the following issues:
They claim she said she could see Russia from her house. She never said this. Tina Fey who impersonated her on SNL said it and stupid morons who don't know any better think Sarah said it. (Who's the REAL moron?)
They howl that she was seen writing a reminder to herself on her hand with a pen, as proof that she needs to read her speeches. They ignore the fact that their hero, Obama, has used TWO teleprompters to speak with elementary school kids, AND that in the year she was VP nominee the teleprompters at the RNC convention failed and she gave her entire speech off-the-cuff (she was so good, viewers did not know that the teleprompters had failed).
They complain that she is unintelligible. She's actually quite easy to understand. She has a parenthetical speaking style not uncommon in rural America, and probably amplified by trying to avoid "gotcha" sound bites that Democrats have repeatedly used to attack her. She's generally as grammatically correct as any other politician but with more complex sentences which anybody with a sufficient IQ can easily understand but the simple-minded who can only follow sentences with single nouns and single verbs find very confusing. If you cannot understand Sarah Palin then Comedy Central is probably the ideal source of news and information for you.
They love to attack anything she say as crazy or insane, even when it is objectively true. The article is a good example. Sarah is not a scientist and neither is Bill Nye, although she never pretended to be one and did not mislead millions of Americans into thinking she was one as Bill Nye did. So not only is he no more a scientist than she is... he's less honest.
They disagree with her on policies - which is normally fine in America, but to the modern American leftist any opposing idea is EVIL and any opposing viewpoint must be suppressed. So much for being "open minded" and "tolerant"
It's ridiculous to say that someone who has a degree is that which the degree says they are. This is how insurance companies get away with claiming that denying medical services is done by their "doctors". While, in fact, these are people with MD education who work full-time as insurance adjusters. Professional credentials are lost without practice. Would someone who was a programmer 20 years ago be a credible "programming expert"? Would they be that even if they accomplished something of note 20 years ago? Would you trust them on their opinion on a piece of software whose source they never saw? Then why would a former gynecologist be qualified to judge what type of medicine a cancer patient need? Or why would a TV actor's judgement of subtle scientific difference between "scientifically certain" of whether a hypothesis been proven, as opposed to"scientifically sound" opinion of whether a hypothesis been proven, would be a judgement worth listening to? Having a scientific education qualifies him to study the subject matter... not to comment on it because other scientists have studied it.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That's about as much a "call to prosecute 'deniers'" as Sarah Palin is still a governor. On a related note, when you resign your job before finishing your term, you also cease to have the right to be called "governor".
I really do.
The dumbest person in public life.
Your strawman would not even look nice in a schoolyard.
I have no idea what kind of "exposure" it requires, but in practice, engineers think and reason very different from scientists. There are few people who manage to be both good engineers and good scientists. (Bill Nye, IMO, is neither.)
There is a point where "science ignorning" becomes "criminal negligence". Especially when you continue to pollute the planet for personal profit.
Neat how the RWNJ's are ignoring the part where that's talking about prosecuting companies that spent hundreds of millions on denying climate change to protect their company profits, Same as the cigarette and asbestos industries spent decades denying that their products were inherently harmful.
Look, Denialists, lets make a deal: you guys can all move out to the Maldives. If it was all just a hoax cooked up by Al Gore, you can enjoy your beachfront property, sipping martinis and mocking those stupid liberals. If it's not a hoax, then you can all go fuck yourselves under rising sea waters.
Deal?
Denialism is a fraud, designed to fool people into thinking that Climate Change is not real for the benefit of those who perpetuate the lie.
If happens here on Slashdot too. On numerous occasions, I've corrected someone's erroneous view of climate science (e.g, it's not falsifiable, it's a conspiracy, it's the sun, it's the moon, it's gravitational lensing, it's not warming, climate models don't correlate to observations) only to find them pasting the exact same next time. First time, possibly an honest mistake. Second time? Deliberately lying.
The deception is happening on a larger scale than slashdot of course. SO the question is, why WOULDN'T we? I fully expect litigation to begin sooner or later: denialists have cost us wads of money by delaying action and therefore made the problem worse. I see no issue with extracting that money from the people who caused the extra expense. Why shouldn't they pay their bill?
Classic.
And you know because of what exactly?
... and done well. She's got you all nicely polarised and arguing about an irrelevance in black and white terms.
Now you're all wound up and ready to go forth and argue with your family, friends, and workmates in similarly polarised terms.
The purpose is to shift the window away from rational & considerate discussion to polarised arguing. She's won.
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
And by "successful" I mean a) verifiable; b) falsifiable; [openscience.org] c) verified; d) not falsified.
Excellent. So the theory of AGW is, in essence that CO2 (and certain other gases) absorb infrared radiation passing through the troposphere and trap heat (or more generally, energy) the more CO2 (and other GHG) molecules between the surface of the earth and the outer edge of the atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped. So: 1. Arrhenius verified this experimentally in the 1800s. Please explain to us, in detail, why this cannot be verified.
2. Naturally, if Arrhenius verified it experimentally, you would naturally think it could be falsified by repeating what Arrehenius did and getting no result. In fact, all one would need to do is verify that the radiative properties of a column of CO2 was the same as a that of a non-GHG (say, nitrogen).Please explain how such an experiment would not falsify the hypothesis.
3. Please explain again, where Arrhenius went wrong. How is his result not 'verified'?
4. When was Arrhenius' result falsified? Note the date and the published paper that articulates where he went wrong.
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.
I don't have to explain anything — I'm trying to neither convince nor force others into changing their way of life. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.
If you wish to offer citations to satisfy my earlier challenge, go ahead. Each entry will have two links: one to a publicized prediction, the other — to its confirmation several years later. Follow-ups not containing such entries will be returned unopened.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
From what I understand from popular culture, scientists have a general disdain for engineers, they will often make jokes at the engineer's expense and then follow up with a "Bazinga!"
This is Palin using the Trump-like tactic of saying something outrageous in order to get free media attention.
And, we play into this every time.
On average.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't have to explain anything
You said: Probably. They are just awfully hard to find. Forget individual scientists, we can't even identify successful scientific theories about climate... And by "successful" I mean a) verifiable; b) falsifiable; [openscience.org] c) verified; d) not falsified. I'm (somewhat generously) giving you a chance to explain how this statement is not a lie. It looks like a lie. Now is you chance to prove it's not. Get on with it.
I'm trying to neither convince nor force others into changing their way of life. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.
mm. No. As I explained here climate denialism is a fraud, an organised, deliberate fraud, and sooner or later we will come for those who perpetrate that fraud. Now's your chance to offer a plausible explanation for you earlier statements.
No, asshole. You'll much sooner find yourself hanging from a lamp-post with your Che Guevara T-shirt stuffed into your mouth.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This is not going well for you is it.
Called on your lies, couldn't make a justification, made a guess at my fashion portfolio, got it tragically wrong. Have you made any statements so far that proved to be right?
While you are pondering, also begin a short statement (250 words or less) on the following:
1. Explain how the core hypothesis of AGW (per Arrhenius) is not falsifiable
2. Explain how the core hypothesis of AGW (per Arrhenius) has been falsified.
And show working.
If you don't know Bill Nye, here is more info https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Oh Great Echo Chamber Leader Of All Things Great And Small On Every Slashdot Clickbait AGW Climate Article!
We, The Ignorant Denialists, Do Beseech You!
Tell Us Oh Great Echo Chamberist! Who pays you to spam the internet with your nonsense?
You've read enough of my modus. Cites of research, and asking for denialist research. And I don't care one bit what you think. Your mind is sealed, filled with denial by politicians who you get your denial from, politicians who are paid for their opinion.
Good for you, because there is a class of people who are happier wiht unchanging opinions, be they right or wrong. If you are happy with ideological physics, join the Lysenkoists, the creationists, and others who define their science by policy, not fact. Not a shit is given by me about them or you, other than enjoying poking the denialst and conspiricist anthills to watch you scurry.
But since I find willful denial od physics kinda dumb, perhaps someone who hasn't closed their mind yet might be spared purposeful ignorance. The universe and physics are amazing and wonderful, much more exciting than the world according to Koch and Exxon.
Those are the people I'm trying to reach, not AC's who now see fit to pull the personality card on me. Good luck with that. I am an asshole, you know. But this asshole deals in facts, so calling me one as refutation just gets a "Yup, I'm an asshole".
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
so you are saying because Ben Franklin didn't have a Modern BS degree he was never a scientist?
No, I never said that at all. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Are you sure you responded to the correct post?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
(NB: a 10% cut to the income of the 10% richest people in the world is not sufficient reason in my book)
There you go again. NB: you don't get to dictate what 100,50,20,10,5, or 1 percent of the world's population can and cannot do and can and cannot own. It's called freedom. Suck on it.
Sure he's an actor not a scientist, but I'd still pay to see them both take an exam and score them both on science questions.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
You can't fill the atmosphere with CO2 and have it not act as a greenhouse.
Don Herbert, was Bill Nye's professional antecedent. He brought science to children's television from the 1950's (me) through the 1980's (my children). He was a general science and English major at the University of Wisconsin - La Crosse, flew bombers in WWII, and acted in children's programs such as the documentary health series It's Your Life (1949). see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Herbert
As Mr. Wizard ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Mr._Wizard ), he was my first science teacher. I saw on his show things that I never saw again in my education (breaking a yard stick with a piece of newspaper) or saw only in graduate school, such as Schlieren Optics. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren )
May the fleas of 10,000 camels pester anyone who speaks ill of either Don Herbert or Bill Nye.
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?
It is also an inherently self-disqualifying argument. What if the denialists were right that you shouldn't listen to Bill Nye because he's "not a scientist"? By that logic, you double extra-special shouldn't listen to the denialists, who are also not scientists. Their own argument includes their own defeat; if Bill Nye has nothing useful to say, then they have even less.
There you go using logic again.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There's a fairly famous case where some engineers at Apple were using "Sagan" as a codename for the project they were working on. This wasn't an official name for a released product. There was no marketing collateral, no press releases, no Steve Jobs keynote, no official public use of the name at all. It was just a purely internal codename like so many others. Carl Sagan somehow found out about said codename and promptly sued Apple, also writing "open letters" denouncing and making demands of the company. He lost, of course. But the product team changed their codename anyway... to "butt-head astronomer". Sagan sued again, alleging libel and defamation of character. Again, he lost.
Obviously I never knew the man personally. But he sure seems like a prick to me, to be slinging specious lawsuits around like that.
Imagine all the people...
Just apply some burn cream to your ego and move on.
His was a good joke, and I liked your answer, too.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Data is independent of who voices it.
This isn't even a science lesson - too many people can't separate art and artist, message and messenger. Hell, the next headline over probably has bickering over an AC not using a "real name".
As for me, I find the occasional death threats to be invigorating.
Instead of pretending to be stupid or drunk, consider that I was referring to the line "but in practice, engineers think and reason very different from scientists".
What is it about you that makes you suggest such a thing? From your earlier posts I get the impression that it may be because you hate scientists intensely but maybe not engineers - how about you supply the real reason behind your strange comment so that we don't have to guess based on your posting history.
How about an answer this time instead of running away rubbery figures boy?
He's an entertainer for a kid's show, nothing more.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
If I had two opinions on a scientific matter given to me, one by an engineer (BS in mechanical engineering) and one by a politician (bachelor's degree in communication), and I had to weigh their merits based on the educational background of these people alone, I would go with the engineer. (Yes, I realize this is edging close to the Appeal to Authority fallacy, but Palin did make their "non-scientist" standing an issue so I think this is a valid comparison to make.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Bill is clearly a way better speaker than Al Gore is. You know, the guy that created the Internet. Hey, I have to take that barb. Too easy.
Down to brass tacks. Yes things are warming up. We see that in earths history as well. What we see is things warm up and then we see an increase in CO2, not the other way around. So to say CO2 causes GW - not so fast. Let's see proof. So far there is no scientific method proof of it. There is plenty of proof it isn't based on the increased CO2 levels and that 15 year period where we didn't warm up. You know, the one that the IPCC says they have no idea how it happened. The one that showed their models don't work, and disproves their theory. You only need one counter example to disprove a hypothesis. We have about 15 years of experimentation to show it's wrong.
Now they want to jail anyone that disagrees with them. They can't have people thinking for themselves. Should be a big sign to everyone that they know they're wrong.
BTW, don't look at the deforestation of the Amazon, and many other things that probably really are heating things up. Can't tax those things so they don't care.
Oh and if you have proof that CO2 traps, warms things, I'll take just about anything that shows it somehow is warming things up - please let me know. I mean actual scientific method type proof. You know, something real.
Bill is clearly a way better speaker than Al Gore is. You know, the guy that created the Internet. Hey, I have to take that barb. Too easy. Down to brass tacks. Yes things are warming up. We see that in earths history as well. What we see is things warm up and then we see an increase in CO2, not the other way around. So to say CO2 causes GW - not so fast. Let's see proof.
Okay, and by the way - thank you for a reasoned response. One of the times of interest is the Cambrian era, with a mean atmospheric oxygen content around 63 percent of the modern era the mean atmospheric CO2 content was around 4500 ppm, which is some 16 times the pre-industrial level settled upon as a baseline.
the mean surface temperatures were 7 degrees C higher than today over the duration.
Sea level was rising frmo 30 meters to 90 meters over present levels Note as with all these long ago measurements, the data becomes a bit fuzzy. As well, there are other factors to consider, volcanic heating or cooling, and that depends on the droplet size of the sulfuric acid created by eruptions. precession of the earth, the increasing intensity of the sun. So many things that can affect the average global temperature, with even larger effects on local weather. Here's a nice level site regarding volcanos. http://volcano.oregonstate.edu...
The so called snowball earth, when the world may have been covered by glaciers - the arguments are whether it was completely covered or almost covered, was probably warmed by underwarer volcanic activity thet reeased CO2 into the atmosphere - I suspect the oceans might have been fizzy for a good while? Those ice ages, the Marinoan, Sturtian and perhaps another were long long ago as in 700 million years ago or more, so we have ot deal in generalizations. But it can work whne combined with other evidence.
Now back to more recent times,The Devonian had about 75 percent of the O2 levels, 2200 ppm or 8 times the preindustrial level, the men temperatures were around 6 degrees C above present day levels. Sea levels started out around 190 eters higher and fell to 120 meters higher during the Devonian. The carboniferous had a Oxygen level of around 160 percent higher than now - alomst 33 percent, and mean CO2 of around 800 ppm Temperature over the period was similar to present day, but fluctuated. Ocean levels were falling from 120 metersthen rising to 80 meters above present day.
THere is the setup. There were glaciation periods, some of which are believed, to have been partially started by carbon sequestration such as during the Carboniferous. This is th etime when most of the plants that made coal were living, and as they died, they sequestered the carbon portion of their material.
Okay. You cannot get a really clear picture of the energy retention effects of the atmosphere from that, and it is used mostly as test cases to see what likely happened. The interesting thing isa correlation can be made. Not proof, but that comes later.
As most know we can take samples from ice cores of atmospheric composition and isotopic composition, as well as inclusions that can tell us about events such as volcanic activity in the form od dust, Many proxies can be inferred atmospheric content temperature precipitation gas composition, even solar variability.
And as usual the further back you go, the more dating error, so a plus or minus must be assigned, in manner similar to carbon dating.
More correlation. also used as a check.
But we all know that correlation is not causation. And interestingly enough, some of the strongest evidence of causation comes from off planet earth. But before we take off for the stars, we need to understand the core concept.
The gaseous aspect surrounding a planet is of course known as it's atmosphere. And as humans have found out, the composition of that atmosphere has an effect upon it;s
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Now it's controversial to be skeptical about what the weatherman says.
I've lived too long.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
"But Bristol is as much a virgin as I am"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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.
You confuse "fight with such vigor to shut out debate" with "make a solidly backed argument and point out your opponent's basic logical and factual flaws". and people often do that not because their argument is suspect, but because they believe the results of their opponent's argument will be disastrous.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I think he only suggested that if you lie to your shareholders for short term profits you may end up in jail. That is what Exxon is being investigated for. Lying to shareholders. They knew the science of global warming. Their own scientists told them that it was happening, that CO2 was the culprit, and that it posed a threat. They realized that this was a threat to their business so they decided to deceive their shareholders. It turns out that is illegal.
'When Morano asked Nye whether he agreed with other environmental activists that any skeptics should be jailed, he responded, "Well, we’ll see what happens."" Wow, "We'll see what happens", boy he's really attacking them denialists there with that there jail time thing, you betcha.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The case is currently being investigated. Bill Nye is not a lawyer so he's not likely to weigh in on the merits of the case. "Let's see what happens" seems like a reasonable response. Is it OK that Exxon spent millions on a campaign to mislead the public and investors about climate change - even when their own scientists were telling them that it is real, it is happening, and it represents a threat to the business and to society? I think it's morally repugnant, but whether or not it is illegal is up to the courts at this point.
I agree with Bill. Let's see what happens.
Hi. I heard there is intelligent life in /. Now I found it. I thought it was a myth.
Thanks for the response and the time you took to write it. I mean it. If you were here, I'd offer you a beer.
I know about Venus, it rains lead. I think the Russians sent a probe there. It was crushed. That's where we're headed by the way. No matter what we do, we will become Venus eventually.
I wanted to link to the actual 2013 report, however they took it down. No surprise there, they took a beating and had to do a lot of explain'. However there is a BBC story about it here - http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc... . What was indefensible was where they admit there was a pause, yet they were even more sure it was happening than before. That's a very strong indicator there's an agenda, facts be damned. That's basic statistics.. well let's call it what it is - fraud. I'm sure the IPCC has access to real statisticians and they should know the confidence must go down in that situation. Again, unless there's an agenda. Reminds me of a student that knows the outcome of an experiment and fudges numbers to get the correct result. Never mind his actual numbers. Yes, I can tell.
Jail bit - I guess you're not watching the news lately. I see the idea popping up here and there. Not just in the US, other countries like Germany.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://worldnewsdailyreport.co...
well you get the idea, just google "jail global warming deniers" Of course simply questioning if CO2 is the cause wouldn't help you. They don't want any descent or discussion.
Now for the discussion. Things were warmer, very recently in geological time. We had settlements in Greenland, that are coming back into view due to the snow melting. They date to around 1500s (http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/). Before our little ice age. If you look into Venice, you'll find that they were trying to keep out the Adriatic in the 14th century. So let's not be so quick to blame man, it was happening without him. What really gets me is when there is a period that they can't explain, they'll go to whatever they can to try to explain it. If we get an odd hurricane like Katrina or just about anything else happens (too cold, too hot, nothing happened, hurricane, etc) - it's MMGW. No, it's weather. Recently if you look at Mr. Hansen from Goddard Space Flight Center, he said in 2000 that the 1990s was the hottest decade in the 20th century. Then he had to admit it was really the 1930s. He blamed it on a y2k bug - yea, right. IMHO, it was a lie and he got caught.
So how do you explain these things? The 1930s being hotter than every other decade since up to 2000? How do you explain clear indications that prior to the 1600s it was warmer, much warmer? How do you explain with record levels of CO2, it's not a lot warmer to coincide with their predictions from the 2000 time period? You know the scientific method, I think. You come up with a hypothesis and then if something doesn't work out, you're wrong. They've been doing this for years, and there is still no indication they have it right yet. I'm starting to see where they're finally admitting other gases have a role in this. Before, nope - it's only CO2. Again, a clear indication of an agenda.
Having said that, I don't disagree that it's getting warmer. Maybe we can do something about it. Let's find what is really causing it to warm up and go from there. CO2 seems to be a good scape goat. Everyone produces it, let's tax it. As if that'll do anything more than make a few people very rich. It would go a long way towards their credibility if nobody could make money from the carbon tax. It must be spent on fixing it, not making Mr. Gore well beyond rich. It
I think he's an idiot. Not even those of us in the US use that sort of distinction.
My logic is that pots don't get to call kettles black. And that the loudest voices screaming about AGW are academics with nothing to lose for being wrong, activists/businesses with something to gain, or zealots with a new excuse for their socialist fantasies.
In isolation, yes. On a big wet planet with lots of sources, sinks, and feedback mechanisms...it's not clear how much. Because real science with real predictive power is hard, but soundbytes and slogans are easy.
Now it's controversial to be skeptical about what the weatherman says.
I've lived too long.
Absolutely not - especially since many prominent "sceptics" are weathermen.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Saying this as a conservative.... Why does anyone give a shit what she says, other than we all like to watch train wreaks, witness the Trump media storm. She's a total embarrassment to the right wing.
So, if Slashdot is going to post this crap, they should give equal time to "Reverend" Al. Both sides have their idiots.
Just another day in Paradise
Brian May, we all know as the guitarist of Queen, completed a BS degree in Physics at Imperial College London. He did thesis work toward the Ph.D. in Astronomy in the early 70s and shared co-authorship on two papers.
In October 2006, he returned to Imperial and completed his Ph.D. thesis and was awarded the degree, Doctor of Philosophy in Astronomy. Therefore, Mr Brian May, has earned the title, Dr.,
Is Dr. Brian May, a Scientist?
Wrong question - it should be: Is Sarah Palin just as much a Scientist as Dr. Brian May?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
so you not only cherry pick data, but you also cherry pick quotes, ie, quote mine, in order to inaccurately portray someone's words. hardly surprising.
He isn't talking about private citizens, random ignorant cranks ont he internet (such as yourself).
He's calling Exxon one...because Exxon admitted to knowing about global warming years ago, yet continued to fund and sow doubt for all that time.
It's not totalitarianism, it's simple justice: they knew its bad, admitted as much in private, yet continued to act otherwise in public and even try to convince the public that the science was wrong.
Tobacco did the same thing. The lead industry. Several others.
This isn't a new phenomenon, and neither is the idea that it's criminal negligence.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
In isolation, yes. On a big wet planet with lots of sources, sinks, and feedback mechanisms...it's not clear how much. Because real science with real predictive power is hard, but soundbytes and slogans are easy.
We know the sources outweigh the sinks. We know the system is accumulating energy, and we know roughly how much. The scientific consensus is driven by a convergenece of real science: changes in ocean chemistry, satellite radiance measurements, CO2 measures, thermometers, bouys, and, of course, simulations. We'd be fools not to devote a ton of effort to simulations. You want to know exactly how the weather in Des Moines will look in the afternoon 10 years from Tuesday? That's an interesting question, but not a good critique of the main conclusion. Seems like the soundbytes comes from your side. "AGW is a religion." Yeah? How so? "I'm more of a scientist thabn he is?" Really? 'Cause she sure *seems* like an bloviating gadfly.