Danger! Sciencytist at work!

MotherJones: New Video: Neil deGrasse Tyson Destroys Climate Deniers
The next episode of "Cosmos" will make the anti-science crowd's heads explode. Here's a preview.

Well... my head IS exploding, all right. But not because I'm 'Anti-Science' but because I see some "SCIENTIST" with same credentials as Sheldon Cooper IGNORING basic high school level physics!

STOP RIGHT THERE, Clown! You are postulating that somewhere on Venus in past time, the climate was the same as tropical earth? That may well be.. maybe at Venus' poles.
- Where is Venus located relative to the Sun and Earth? What is the size of Venus and the size of its atmospheric envelope in relation to Earth's?
ANSWER: Venus is 1/3 closer to the Sun than Earth.
Q: What is the effect on Radiative absorbtion per square meter as a function of distance from the source?
A: Would it be fair to assume that Venus absorbs at least twice as much Solar energy per M2 as Earth? No, you dont need to work the math, just understand the principle, it's not linear, it's logarithmic.
Q: Give relative position from the Sun, and much larger atmospheric envelope, made up of largely CO2, What would you expect the typical mean temperature to be, there, at an altitude where Atmospheric pressure is equivalent to Earth at sea level?

A: Strangely it appears that at that point, the atmosphere would be very hospitable to earth life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

Calling Phileas Fogg!

Now, remember that Venus is 1/3 closer to the Sun and the closer you get to 'Hot', the more 'hot' you absorb, not 1/3 more, LOG function!.
So, considering CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, retaining {for a short time} that Long-wave infrared heat, which is radiated from Venus' surface, then how the hell can it be the CO2 molecule at same pressure as Earth's is also the same temperature?
I DON'T KNOW WHY. A REAL scientist not a 'Celebrity Scientist' could probably tell me why.

Note that in the same wiki the concept of the surface of Venus being earth-like at one time is called "speculation". Same category as Once Speculation the Sun rotated around the earth, IMO. COULD be at Poles .. but the key to a planet's climate is at its equator. am I wrong? I'm listening, Mr Celebrity Scientist!

Back to MJ's breathless pronouncements:

But.... there is no evidence, other than circumstantial WEATHER that the Arctic IS imperiled!

1. The Arctic sea ice extent has been noted the same as now in the late 19th, early 20th century. And before thta, folks were sure there was a Northwest passage in summer.. why?
2.Weather at the poles: The Arctic weather is greatly affected by ATlantic currents periodically changing {AMO}.
And who ya gonna believe on this; a fucking star scientist or a guy who has spent his whole life studying weather and climate?

Note that Mr Celebrity Scientist says there's a difference between Weather and Climate.. EVIDENTLY depending on the points he wants to make.


Now... Mr Celebrity Scientist, Suppose that we were to act on the alarmism, greatly reducing use of Fossil Fuels {God''s own Bio-Fuels, ya know} what do you suppose would be the net effect on earths sociological and economic standards? Will increased fuel costs by dint of taxing and relegating Carbon Credit financial instruments hurt the Rich First world peoples.. or the poor and third world peoples?
- Let them burn dung?

You guys know I get hot under the collar when I see Corruption and Collusion and you know I been railing about BioFuels and the Government/AgriBiz collusion Ethanol SCAM since forever. From what you know NOW, was I right, or not?
- What is the cost of a loaf of bread now vs five years ago? Eggs .. Milk? Think cost of energy has no effect on that?

Did the German Bio-Fuel program cause Rain Forest destruction or not?

Is the German / European 'Sustainable Energy program drastically affect their economy, causing energy starvation for the ordinary fixed income population or not?
I'll do debate, certainly with Chris Mooney of Mother Jones, and even debunk a 'Celebrity Scientist like Tyson.. because I fucking CARE about the lies being told to the future generation. Especially by fuckwads lining their own nests.

Am I pissed OFF at the ignorance and LIES, all in order to put the cost of energy out of the free market and into the hands of 'Our better informed' Bureaucrats.... you bet your fucking ass I am.
And dont forget kids eventually LOSING THEIR FAITH IN SCIENCE as a result of these lies by those claiming to follow the scientific method.

Which they ARE NOT. They are making it political.

 

Fog, I don't need to understand what you just wrote there. All I need to know is that at some point the term "global warming" needed to be replaced by "climate change". What better evidence can you have that this is not "settled science".

 

Mo, I let my emotions get away from me on that.. but it's primarily due to the use of 'denier' in conjunction with the fact that this bullshit is gonna be shown to our schoolkids for years as 'scientific truth'. The FACT is that the issue is poisoned by charge and counter charge.. the REAL issue is the ongoing effect of increased atmospheric CO2.
It's not enough that pols like Gov Jerry Brown make themselves idiots by saying LA airport will be flooded, {impossible without it falling down toward ocean} the fact is that those of a certain political stripe ignore real scientific fact.
So who is anti-science?
BTW: the so-called 97% is every scientist {whether they know shit about atmos physics} referring to manmade CO2 having some effect on climate. PhD in social science is counted.

Added: See my post on the basics. While all the concepts there are based on work of REAL science, I dont expect ANYONE to just take my word for it. Any point you dont understand, do some research. If I'm wrong on anything, let me know. While I love being 'right', I dont like being 'right' for the wrong reasons. Never had that much ego, I hope. And why Irwin Corey is my avatar.

 

I agree the issue is poisoned beyond any reason. My son had to write an essay for school about whether or not creationism should be taught in school. I suggested he write a paper about whether global warming should be taught in school. You know the term "deniers" is used against both climate change skeptics and evolution skeptics. But at least the theory of evolution is supported by fossil records, the climate change models used by scientists can't even predict weather that happened in the past.

Scientific research in general has been compromised to an alarming degree. So much of it is now funded by the government rather than private research institutes and companies with a vested interest so politics has wormed its way into it. We have oodles and oodles of career PhD scientists who rely on government grants for their livelihood. For the few years I worked among them I never saw so much lying, back stabbing, and tribalism in my life. It was truly disillusioning for a person who always had the highest regard for science and scientific research. Remember back when George W was criticized for being anti-science because he cut funding for "scientific research"? Well the actual truth was that he didn't cut funding he froze it. During the Clinton admin and during Bush's first four years government funding for research increased annually at the same rate. At some point the NSF realized that the amount of new and worthy research was not keeping pace with the annual increase in funding so they decided to freeze it. Researchers were just tweaking the same grant proposals that had been declined before and resubmitting them in search of funding. I personally saw it happen even after the NSF slowed their funding. But apparently you are anti-science if you won't fund a hap-hazard, poorly articulated grant proposal. If you say "no" to a research proposal, you're anti-science. If you criticize the Obama administration you're a racist; if you vote "no" against a city tax increase, you're anti-education or anti-firemen; if you ask female activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak at your commencement, you are anti-muslim. The amount of censorship that large parts of society are engaging in is scary. See Bloomberg's comments during his speech at Harvard.

 

Gee, Mo.. what point am I going to quibble about on your post?
No one makes me want to beat my head on a desk as much as Young Earth Creationists. But I believe in Creation as an allegory, and I also laughed at the idea of Big Bang where the whole universe was the size of a fingernail until it exploded... all by itself!
Even Quantum mechanics cannot explain ALL the factors, involved. And Hawking's YouTube 'proof' that God doesnt exist is riddled with DUM! He doesnt seem to mind that history proves we dont know what we think we know.. He's certainly proved that, personally, in the past.

My favorite argument is that Creationists ignore principles of evolution if they are livestock farmers and Humanists (excepting the Sanger Eugenics camp) ignore it for people.

My objection to the Creationist / Warming Alarmist comparison is which of those will cost the entire globe their future? Make the rich richer and the poor poorer?
Of course the same should be applied to the idea that Fundy Christianity is as dangerous as Fundy Islam. Not anymore it aint. That was settled centuries ago.

 

More on Tyson.. here he's caught making {more} shit up to use for effect:
Super Scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn’t Understand Statistics
- When this 'Straw Man' stuff comes up over and over you sorta gotta doubt the credibility of those who use it.
I'm thinking Warhol was a genius. Do a search on Tyson.. note the 'quotes' in returns?
Note they found a picture of him with Bill Nye - who is suited only to teach science to the post Sesame Street crowd- to use without comment.

Note the references to Nexis results. Nexis HAS to be more precise than Google, it's a pay service.

The point is you have to consider the source... I ALWAYS liked the phrase, 'Question Authority' but didn't just do that where those who coined it wanted me to.
*****
Speaking of... here's another gem:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...rs-higgs-boson-doomsday-hes-not-alone-n198766

Somehow I believe there's still more we dont know than we know. I do know that Hawking's youtube video on how quantum physics proves there's no God is full of holes; meaning he's using simpleton logic. Sort of surprising to me, too
In the meantime, how about quit messing with the Higgs Boson?

 

lol... Exposing The Clown Prince of Science ignites a sh*tstorm of haterz. Including a wiki edit war.
but also a few lonely voices for truth
Why Is Wikipedia Deleting All References To Neil Tyson’s Fabrication?

Note that in this series expose there are plenty of links to the facts, themselves. Not just invective.

 

Yeah, there's a squirrel over there... let's not let documented facts interfere with your emotional world view.
I laid it out, there are links embedded in the articles, including to Snopes... but there is of course, for some, a double standard.
In JUNE, I STARTED with Tyson's misinformation Parroted by an ignorant Proggie in Mother Jones on the Hell of a Carbon Venus, which NO scientist of his caliber should ever make. And it was before he was documented making up other shit..
This month, the bullshit hit the fan on a whole different issue. And he was called on his anecdotes.
As a well read Liberal says here, on a certainly Progressive site:
If We Can’t Trust Neil deGrasse Tyson, Who Can We Trust?

"If a pastor or right-wing conservative did it, we’d be calling them out on it immediately. Tyson doesn’t deserve a free pass just because his intentions are pure. It certainly wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) get by in an academic setting, and just because he often speaks to a lay audience doesn’t mean he should make up quotations or fail to cite them if they’re real."

Notice who hates it when I call on Alinsky rules?

Put it this way, Tyson claims he is an advocate for the Scientific method, and that is a theme of his lectures. Yet he makes his examples up in order to knock them down and seem 'Smart'.

 

This is just too good... Since the first post, I've passed on a lot of Tyson beclowning hisself by Twitter, this time it's just too precious to pass on.. especially for an 'eminent sciencytist'
http://twitchy.com/2015/01/01/sad-neil-degrasse-tysons-new-years-eve-observation/

How bout this, mr Genius Sciencytist, who explains the cosmos to us:
Besides all the advances that other tweeters bring up...Now we have a guy who started a record company and owns an airline could do it on his own.

 

So you go by credentials and acclaim, not provability. That figures. Funny how you look at football differently.
Added: As if by magic, here's another Tyson Nugget

"Obama authorized North Korea sanctions over cyber hacking. Solution there, it seems to me, is to create unhackable systems."

Here's my problem... that's so Freepin stupid, it just may be his idea of humor. But then again ... he did think Venus had beaches.