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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
I really do.
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?
... 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.
(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.