What Do You Have Against Listening to Scientists?

[BIGUN 1,306]

Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

Bill Maher last night (Jan. 23, 2015) tackled Republican climate denial and asked what exactly they have against listening to the overwhelming consensus of over ten thousand climate scientists. He brought up a study showing those thousands of scientists agree on man-made climate change, compared to two who don’t.

Bret Stephens argued that climate fear-mongering has been going on for a while, but Maher dismissed that as another Republican talking point. He brought up that study and asked, “Doesn’t that persuade you? The idea of scientific consensus? Don’t you think scientists know more about science than we do?”

Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy. Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[JohnnyMarko 1]

Stopped reading after I saw the name Bill Maher....

Probably my most hated person, left or right...followed closely by that fatass life size troll who directed Sicko

okay, that added nothing....carry on

[BIGUN 1,306]

Not a fan of his "Holier than thou" presentation method and don't watch him much either. Found it on the YouTube sidebar while looking at something else. In this case, the point he's making is valid about listening to scientists.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[lawrocket 3]

BIGUN

Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

Bill Maher last night (Jan. 23, 2015) tackled Republican climate denial and asked what exactly they have against listening to the overwhelming consensus of over ten thousand climate scientists. He brought up a study showing those thousands of scientists agree on man-made climate change, compared to two who don’t.

Bret Stephens argued that climate fear-mongering has been going on for a while, but Maher dismissed that as another Republican talking point. He brought up that study and asked, “Doesn’t that persuade you? The idea of scientific consensus? Don’t you think scientists know more about science than we do?”

Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy. Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI

I think he hit it. I trust scientists with science. Science is about fact. A scientist says, "if you do this, you get an explosive device. I calculate it as 5 megatons of TNT equivalent."n There is science.

A scientist would also say, "I calculate the blast radius of .1 psi over pressure to be 5miles." There is also science

The scientist may also say, "humans have no business building and deploying this device, as it is against the nature and will unjustifiably kill people, and all my scientist buddies agree that this must be stopped."

The latter is not scientific it is policy.

Science is about fact. It is a process and a body of knowledge aquired by that process tan out facts of our universe.

One thing that science does not do it tell people how to act or how to behave. Religion does that. Philosophy does that. That is what policy does. Policy requires the weighing of lots of things and the making of decisions.

This is why scientists are losing trust. Because scientists are becoming politicians with a lab coat. When scientists enter the realm of policy advocacy, they agree to play within the rules of politics.

Example: Ike was among the premier military minds of the last century. His policy toward the USSR was that a nuclear attack by even one bomb on US interests would mean that the U.S. will launch everything it had against the USSR. Period. Many scientists said that was a bad idea, since not only did it mean that any attack by the USSR would be full scale under the scenarios they analyzed, but that such a response would cause much damage to the environment and thus should not happen.

Those were scientists applying environmental considerations to military policy. A scientist with an opinion is just a person with an opinion. That individual's perspective should be considered. But to say something like, "science is irrefutable that nukes should never be used" would be a flagrant abuse of what science is.

I trust scientists when they relate facts. I don't trust scientific opinions any more thN anyone else's. I trust them less when they couch heir opinions as science because then they either are being arrogant and cannot be trusted or they have their heads up their asses and cannot be trusted.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

BIGUN

Not a fan of his "Holier than thou" presentation method and don't watch him much either. Found it on the YouTube sidebar while looking at something else. In this case, the point he's making is valid about listening to scientists.

I made it through his first loaded question that is wholly opinion and not objectively verifiable.


"So you're saying the oceans aren't dying?"

Science is about fact. And this dickhead defender of science opens up with rhetoric like "you're saying the oceans aren't dying." First thing is whether the ocean is alive.

This is the essence of what the pro-science assholes have been pulling. Making claims that cannot be confirmed or even denied.

Now, what if an oceanographer says this. Does it become more trustworthy because an oceanographer says the ocean is dying? In my mind it is even worse when a supposed scientist doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion.

We see this type of thing from climate scientists all the time. Science is about fact. The establishment of fact. Fact. Science has not tolerated conclusions based upon supposition or mere hypothesis. Those conclusions of the future are tempered with probability, which is itself not fact.

Can you understand my point? See the difference between fact and opinion. One is science. The other is not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,990]

>Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy.
>Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while
>Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

Both have points. Scientists don't know much about the process of creating public policy. But ask them "if we enact this public policy, what might happen?" and they are quite good at giving the range of things that might happen. Thus while they are often poor choices to formulate public policy, they are critical during the process.

Science is all about consensus. We use Maxwell's Equations not because they are the only way to represent EM phenomena, but because they have worked well for over 100 years and very accurately represent what happens with EM phenomena. That's the consensus, and almost no scientists question it. The few that do, of course, are welcome to try and come up with something better - but the fact that they are working on that in no way diminishes the value of his equations and the consensus that they work.

This topic - integrating science and public policy - is going to become a big deal over the next weeks/months due to the anti-vaccine crowd. Anti-vaxxing is a form of science denial that has real, tangible and immediate negative consequences. It is also amenable to a public-policy solution, which has been shown to work in the past. Do parents have the right to refuse to listen to science? Definitely. Do they have a right to put a population at risk? That's a much harder public-policy question, but at least now people are asking the right questions - and they have very concrete examples of what happens when you come up with the wrong answer.

The outcome of the anti-vaccination debate will also inform debate on climate change, creationism, the risks of secondhand smoke, GMO foods - basically in any area where there is a very public and politically-based anti-science faction working to secure a desired outcome. I would hope that the result would be that such factions are taken less seriously, but of course that's the scientist in me talking. In reality the issue will probably fade away as the measles scare is dealt with through vaccinations, and the public debate will return to the relative merits of Kim Kardashian's butt.

[BIGUN 1,306]

lawrocket

Can you understand my point? See the difference between fact and opinion. One is science. The other is not.

Absolutely. I can also see Billvon's point regarding, "Science is all about consensus." as in the case of what Maher was pointing out. If you have 10,500+ scientists agreeing on a fact and 2 dissenting "opinions," one has to go with the majority of scientists.

Now, in the case of the scientists who are purchased to find results... that is an issue. Even within academia, if a scientist receives a grant because the proposal will indicate a direction of findings; that scientist is likely to receive the grant - bias would have to enter into the equation.

Although, I don't think it takes a scientist to know that Kim Kardashian's butt is more about science than it is about nature.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 2,026]

lawrocket

***Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

Bill Maher last night (Jan. 23, 2015) tackled Republican climate denial and asked what exactly they have against listening to the overwhelming consensus of over ten thousand climate scientists. He brought up a study showing those thousands of scientists agree on man-made climate change, compared to two who don’t.

Bret Stephens argued that climate fear-mongering has been going on for a while, but Maher dismissed that as another Republican talking point. He brought up that study and asked, “Doesn’t that persuade you? The idea of scientific consensus? Don’t you think scientists know more about science than we do?”

Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy. Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI

I think he hit it. I trust scientists with science. Science is about fact. A scientist says, "if you do this, you get an explosive device. I calculate it as 5 megatons of TNT equivalent."n There is science.

A scientist would also say, "I calculate the blast radius of .1 psi over pressure to be 5miles." There is also science

The scientist may also say, "humans have no business building and deploying this device, as it is against the nature and will unjustifiably kill people, and all my scientist buddies agree that this must be stopped."


Could be the scientists are right, even if for the wrong reasons.

Castle Bravo was the code name given to the first United States test of a dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, as the first test of Operation Castle. Castle Bravo was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States (and just under one-third the energy of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful device ever detonated), with a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 8 megatons (6 Mt predicted), combined with other factors, led to the most significant accidental radioactive contamination ever caused by the United States.

Fallout from the detonation—intended to be a secret test—fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls and spread around the world. The islanders were not evacuated until three days later and suffered radiation sickness. They were returned to the islands three years later but were removed again when their island was found to be unsafe. The crew of the Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryū Maru ("Lucky Dragon No. 5"), was also contaminated by fallout, killing one crew member. The blast created an international reaction about atmospheric thermonuclear testing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skypuppy 1]

kallend

******Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

Bill Maher last night (Jan. 23, 2015) tackled Republican climate denial and asked what exactly they have against listening to the overwhelming consensus of over ten thousand climate scientists. He brought up a study showing those thousands of scientists agree on man-made climate change, compared to two who don’t.

Bret Stephens argued that climate fear-mongering has been going on for a while, but Maher dismissed that as another Republican talking point. He brought up that study and asked, “Doesn’t that persuade you? The idea of scientific consensus? Don’t you think scientists know more about science than we do?”

Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy. Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI

I think he hit it. I trust scientists with science. Science is about fact. A scientist says, "if you do this, you get an explosive device. I calculate it as 5 megatons of TNT equivalent."n There is science.

A scientist would also say, "I calculate the blast radius of .1 psi over pressure to be 5miles." There is also science

The scientist may also say, "humans have no business building and deploying this device, as it is against the nature and will unjustifiably kill people, and all my scientist buddies agree that this must be stopped."


Could be the scientists are right, even if for the wrong reasons.

Castle Bravo was the code name given to the first United States test of a dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, as the first test of Operation Castle. Castle Bravo was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States (and just under one-third the energy of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful device ever detonated), with a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 8 megatons (6 Mt predicted), combined with other factors, led to the most significant accidental radioactive contamination ever caused by the United States.

Fallout from the detonation—intended to be a secret test—fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls and spread around the world. The islanders were not evacuated until three days later and suffered radiation sickness. They were returned to the islands three years later but were removed again when their island was found to be unsafe. The crew of the Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryū Maru ("Lucky Dragon No. 5"), was also contaminated by fallout, killing one crew member. The blast created an international reaction about atmospheric thermonuclear testing.

what you said in no way proves the scientists were right. Again, it is opinion. Others have different opinions about it.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[kallend 2,026]

skypuppy

*********Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

Bill Maher last night (Jan. 23, 2015) tackled Republican climate denial and asked what exactly they have against listening to the overwhelming consensus of over ten thousand climate scientists. He brought up a study showing those thousands of scientists agree on man-made climate change, compared to two who don’t.

Bret Stephens argued that climate fear-mongering has been going on for a while, but Maher dismissed that as another Republican talking point. He brought up that study and asked, “Doesn’t that persuade you? The idea of scientific consensus? Don’t you think scientists know more about science than we do?”

Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy. Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI

I think he hit it. I trust scientists with science. Science is about fact. A scientist says, "if you do this, you get an explosive device. I calculate it as 5 megatons of TNT equivalent."n There is science.

A scientist would also say, "I calculate the blast radius of .1 psi over pressure to be 5miles." There is also science

The scientist may also say, "humans have no business building and deploying this device, as it is against the nature and will unjustifiably kill people, and all my scientist buddies agree that this must be stopped."


Could be the scientists are right, even if for the wrong reasons.

Castle Bravo was the code name given to the first United States test of a dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, as the first test of Operation Castle. Castle Bravo was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States (and just under one-third the energy of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful device ever detonated), with a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 8 megatons (6 Mt predicted), combined with other factors, led to the most significant accidental radioactive contamination ever caused by the United States.

Fallout from the detonation—intended to be a secret test—fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls and spread around the world. The islanders were not evacuated until three days later and suffered radiation sickness. They were returned to the islands three years later but were removed again when their island was found to be unsafe. The crew of the Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryū Maru ("Lucky Dragon No. 5"), was also contaminated by fallout, killing one crew member. The blast created an international reaction about atmospheric thermonuclear testing.

what you said in no way proves the scientists were right. Again, it is opinion. Others have different opinions about it.

So you think that irradiating thousands of square miles of the Earth's surface is the right thing to do. Well, I don't, and neither did a lot of scientists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skypuppy 1]

kallend

************Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

Bill Maher last night (Jan. 23, 2015) tackled Republican climate denial and asked what exactly they have against listening to the overwhelming consensus of over ten thousand climate scientists. He brought up a study showing those thousands of scientists agree on man-made climate change, compared to two who don’t.

Bret Stephens argued that climate fear-mongering has been going on for a while, but Maher dismissed that as another Republican talking point. He brought up that study and asked, “Doesn’t that persuade you? The idea of scientific consensus? Don’t you think scientists know more about science than we do?”

Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy. Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI

I think he hit it. I trust scientists with science. Science is about fact. A scientist says, "if you do this, you get an explosive device. I calculate it as 5 megatons of TNT equivalent."n There is science.

A scientist would also say, "I calculate the blast radius of .1 psi over pressure to be 5miles." There is also science

The scientist may also say, "humans have no business building and deploying this device, as it is against the nature and will unjustifiably kill people, and all my scientist buddies agree that this must be stopped."


Could be the scientists are right, even if for the wrong reasons.

Castle Bravo was the code name given to the first United States test of a dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, as the first test of Operation Castle. Castle Bravo was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States (and just under one-third the energy of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful device ever detonated), with a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 8 megatons (6 Mt predicted), combined with other factors, led to the most significant accidental radioactive contamination ever caused by the United States.

Fallout from the detonation—intended to be a secret test—fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls and spread around the world. The islanders were not evacuated until three days later and suffered radiation sickness. They were returned to the islands three years later but were removed again when their island was found to be unsafe. The crew of the Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryū Maru ("Lucky Dragon No. 5"), was also contaminated by fallout, killing one crew member. The blast created an international reaction about atmospheric thermonuclear testing.

what you said in no way proves the scientists were right. Again, it is opinion. Others have different opinions about it.

So you think that irradiating thousands of square miles of the Earth's surface is the right thing to do. Well, I don't, and neither did a lot of scientists.

yes, and that would be their opinions. but as has been said, a scientist's job is to determine facts, not to write policy based on his interpretation of those facts.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

******Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

Bill Maher last night (Jan. 23, 2015) tackled Republican climate denial and asked what exactly they have against listening to the overwhelming consensus of over ten thousand climate scientists. He brought up a study showing those thousands of scientists agree on man-made climate change, compared to two who don’t.

Bret Stephens argued that climate fear-mongering has been going on for a while, but Maher dismissed that as another Republican talking point. He brought up that study and asked, “Doesn’t that persuade you? The idea of scientific consensus? Don’t you think scientists know more about science than we do?”

Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy. Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI

I think he hit it. I trust scientists with science. Science is about fact. A scientist says, "if you do this, you get an explosive device. I calculate it as 5 megatons of TNT equivalent."n There is science.

A scientist would also say, "I calculate the blast radius of .1 psi over pressure to be 5miles." There is also science

The scientist may also say, "humans have no business building and deploying this device, as it is against the nature and will unjustifiably kill people, and all my scientist buddies agree that this must be stopped."


Could be the scientists are right, even if for the wrong reasons.

Castle Bravo was the code name given to the first United States test of a dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, as the first test of Operation Castle. Castle Bravo was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States (and just under one-third the energy of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful device ever detonated), with a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 8 megatons (6 Mt predicted), combined with other factors, led to the most significant accidental radioactive contamination ever caused by the United States.

Fallout from the detonation—intended to be a secret test—fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls and spread around the world. The islanders were not evacuated until three days later and suffered radiation sickness. They were returned to the islands three years later but were removed again when their island was found to be unsafe. The crew of the Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryū Maru ("Lucky Dragon No. 5"), was also contaminated by fallout, killing one crew member. The blast created an international reaction about atmospheric thermonuclear testing.

Scientists were right? Turns out there were wrong by a factor of 200-300 percent. They thought that a certain isotope of lithium was inert. It wasn't. This they modeled the blast to have a 5MT yield. And ended up being on the low side by about 300%.

Castle Bravo is a fine example of how models can get it wrong when assumptions prove incorrect.

Sure, I would have agreed that atmospheric tests shouldn't be carried out. But then the scientists didnt gets it right what they were supposed to. Yes, physicists can be screw ups, too. See Louis "skygod" Slotin.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnnyMarko 1]

kallend

******Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

Bill Maher last night (Jan. 23, 2015) tackled Republican climate denial and asked what exactly they have against listening to the overwhelming consensus of over ten thousand climate scientists. He brought up a study showing those thousands of scientists agree on man-made climate change, compared to two who don’t.

Bret Stephens argued that climate fear-mongering has been going on for a while, but Maher dismissed that as another Republican talking point. He brought up that study and asked, “Doesn’t that persuade you? The idea of scientific consensus? Don’t you think scientists know more about science than we do?”

Stephens shot back that scientists don’t know that much about public policy. Maher said it’s “hubris” to spit in the face of so much scientific consensus, while Stephens insisted, “Consensus should not rule science.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI

I think he hit it. I trust scientists with science. Science is about fact. A scientist says, "if you do this, you get an explosive device. I calculate it as 5 megatons of TNT equivalent."n There is science.

A scientist would also say, "I calculate the blast radius of .1 psi over pressure to be 5miles." There is also science

The scientist may also say, "humans have no business building and deploying this device, as it is against the nature and will unjustifiably kill people, and all my scientist buddies agree that this must be stopped."


Could be the scientists are right, even if for the wrong reasons.

Castle Bravo was the code name given to the first United States test of a dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, as the first test of Operation Castle. Castle Bravo was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States (and just under one-third the energy of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful device ever detonated), with a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 8 megatons (6 Mt predicted), combined with other factors, led to the most significant accidental radioactive contamination ever caused by the United States.

Fallout from the detonation—intended to be a secret test—fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls and spread around the world. The islanders were not evacuated until three days later and suffered radiation sickness. They were returned to the islands three years later but were removed again when their island was found to be unsafe. The crew of the Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryū Maru ("Lucky Dragon No. 5"), was also contaminated by fallout, killing one crew member. The blast created an international reaction about atmospheric thermonuclear testing.

This thing sure did jack up the atmosphere

[Rick 67]

wow I wonder how far away the camera was

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[lawrocket 3]

A couple of very good examples have shown up in the last couple of days about trusting scientists. My new whipping boy Michael Mann is the perpetrator.

One would think that a climate scientist would either: (1) know something about meteorology; or (2) defer comments to meteorologists about meteorology. Doctor Mann didn't do that.

On Feb 9, Mann tweeted that ""SSTs ~11.5C (21F) above normal off Caps Cod = more than 2x as much moisture in the air. #HowHugeSnowfallsAreMade". This was his attempt to blame the most recent Boston snow depth on warm temperatures.

This was remarkable for theee reasons. The first is that the anomaly where the storm track was was 2.0C. There isn't anywhere near an 11.5 anomaly anywhere on the map or even 5C anywhere near the storm track. A check on weather would have shown that.

The second is that the sea surface temperature was 39F. Which means that Mann alleges that normal SST off Cape Cod at this time is 18F. Kallend can tell you the chances of that.

The third problem was that what happened was the opposite of what Mann claimed. The last Boston blizzard had 1.1 inches of water content yet dropped about 20 inches of snow. Over the last two weeks, Boston has gotten over 60 inches of snow. The liquid water content was 3 inches.

Anybody here ever dealt with an inch of rain in a storm? How about 3 inches in a couple of weeks. It is not unusual. It is also not an atmosphere with massive water content.

So why so much snow? Because it was effing cold. Normal snow water equivalent content is about 10%. Those Boston snows at at 5%. Normal SWE at 32F is 20%, is, 10 inches of snow will yield 2 inches of liquid water if it spontaneously melted. At 14F, the SWE is normally about 5%. 10 inches of snow will yield .5 inches of liquid water.

Michael Mann is generally regarded as an expert. Yet he utterly ignored both the information available to him and fundamental atmospheric science and physics in order to make some anti-science attribution to forward a sociopolitical goal.

Why should we question scientists? Because too many talk out of their asses about shit that are either outside of their expertise or outside of their subjective political or philosophical leanings. To Mann, everything is AGW.

Question is whether Mann is that ignorant of atmospheric physics (scary as the head of the Earth Science Center at Penn State) or whether he just lied about it. I don't know which is worse.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

As an update, Mann has now decided I'm a physics denier.
Wrote Dr. Mann: "If you deny that warmer ocean temps -> greater snowfall w/ coastal winter storms, you are not a climate denier. You are a physics denier."

Now, note what the scientist that I should be listening to did. He caught a lot of heat for his bullshit statement about the cause of the northeast snows. And the. In response, he masterfully crafted a defense that is a non-defense. He put out a general concept that is not deniable. It was a corcumstNce that did not happen.

But put in context, he just called everyone who disagreed with and criticized him a denier. Mr. Scientist decided to change the subject and context from his original statement and then attack critics as denying physics.

Why must sxientists be questioned? This is exactly the reason why. Because science and fact and demonstrating false attribution means that you are a denier.

Note: Bill Nye the Science Guy retweeted it. A self-described "science guy" doesn't have science on his mind.

Alarmists and deniers have positions. And the pursuit of fact isn't one of them. Politics dominates the science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,026]

JohnnyMarko

*********Along the lines of what Lawrocket was speaking of the other day.

..

Could be the scientists are right, even if for the wrong reasons.

Castle Bravo was the code name given to the first United States test of a dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, as the first test of Operation Castle. Castle Bravo was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States (and just under one-third the energy of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful device ever detonated), with a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 8 megatons (6 Mt predicted), combined with other factors, led to the most significant accidental radioactive contamination ever caused by the United States.

Fallout from the detonation—intended to be a secret test—fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls and spread around the world. The islanders were not evacuated until three days later and suffered radiation sickness. They were returned to the islands three years later but were removed again when their island was found to be unsafe. The crew of the Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryū Maru ("Lucky Dragon No. 5"), was also contaminated by fallout, killing one crew member. The blast created an international reaction about atmospheric thermonuclear testing.

This thing sure did jack up the atmosphere




More.

Poisoning the atmosphere we all breathe.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.