When did NASA turn from an innocuous gov't agency which seemed to have decent ethics to a corrupt, perpetually-lying arm of the extreme left?
When did NASA turn from an innocuous gov't agency which seemed to have decent ethics to a corrupt, perpetually-lying arm of the extreme left?
Here's why I think John Q. Public feels it's okay to weigh in with uneducated opinions on some sciences, but not all:
A lot of people never took physics (or advanced math), not even in high school; but they've seen pictures of physics equations (e.g.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/df/c8/b4dfc89b60e3858c6387228d0d2b39c0.jpg
), and they know that it's beyond them. So they hold off on that, or at least restrict themselves to philosophical (rather than scientific) objections to things like big bang theory.
Similarly, people don't have much to say about chemistry: many took it in high school, but not too many in college--and, again, people can see that it's beyond their ken:
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/39/aa12269-09/img172.png
But biology, on the other hand? Well, shoot, almost everybody took it in high school, and lots took it in college (and some even got high grades). They've seen plants and animals all their lives, and even looked through microscopes; so regardless of the *actual* complexity of the topics, they feel entitled to "contrarian" positions on things like evolution, and the safety/efficacy of vaccines (especially because almost everyone's had experience with those ow-y shots).
And weather? Come on! Let's skip the fact that an education in climate science comprises coursework in calculus/analytic geometry, physics, statistics, chemistry, probability, geography, geology--even chaos theory--everybody has looked at a thermometer! So people feel their opinions on the subject--even if they don't have the scientific background--are entitled to just as much respect as the opinions of those who have had the education, and have made climate science their life's work.
Hint for those uneducated in the requisite fields: your opinions of Schroedinger's Equation (physics) and evolutionary theory (biology) do NOT automatically merit respect. And neither do your opinions about climate science.
Binks wrote:
Rise of sea levels the greatest lie ever told.
Yea I waived my hand and stopped all that sh*t years ago.
bewildered wrote:
When did NASA turn from an innocuous gov't agency which seemed to have decent ethics to a corrupt, perpetually-lying arm of the extreme left?
I think it may have been about the time you became a right-wing conspiracy-believing nut case.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!
I
aerhr wrote:
Hint for those uneducated in the requisite fields: your opinions of Schroedinger's Equation (physics) and evolutionary theory (biology) do NOT automatically merit respect. And neither do your opinions about climate science.
Or to put it another way, stay within your own field of expertise and respect the expertise of others.
Don't be a fool.
Your ABC ran a news special in 2009 called Earth 2100, a program warning its viewers about the dangers of climate change.
ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff said the show “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world.
The first stop is the year 2015.”
A Harvard University professor says, “By 2015, we’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.”
Other voices can be heard saying that “Flames cover hundreds of square mile” and “We expect more intense hurricanes.”
Another voice says, “Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.”
Describing dangerous temperature levels and dropping agricultural production, the news package brings in The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who says, “There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.”
The doomsday predictions for 2015 go further and include $12.00 for a gallon of milk and $9.00 a gallon for gasoline, if there is any gas at all that is.
Then ABC anchor Chris Cuomo, said to Woodruff of the predictions, “I think we’re familiar with some that then ABC anchor Chris Cuomo, who teased the special at the time, said to Woodruff of the predictions, “I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s very soon.
Woodruff replies, “It’s very soon, you know.
But all you have to do is look at the world today right today.
You know, you’ve got gas prices going up.
You got food prices going up.
You’ve got extreme weather.
The scientists have studied this for decades.
They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we’re approaching maybe even a perfect storm.
Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it.”
So much for listening to the so-called experts!
Binks wrote:
Your ABC ran a news special in 2009 called Earth 2100, a program warning its viewers about the dangers of climate change.
ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff said the show “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world.
The first stop is the year 2015.”
A Harvard University professor says, “By 2015, we’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.”
Other voices can be heard saying that “Flames cover hundreds of square mile” and “We expect more intense hurricanes.”
Another voice says, “Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.”
Describing dangerous temperature levels and dropping agricultural production, the news package brings in The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who says, “There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.”
The doomsday predictions for 2015 go further and include $12.00 for a gallon of milk and $9.00 a gallon for gasoline, if there is any gas at all that is.
Then ABC anchor Chris Cuomo, said to Woodruff of the predictions, “I think we’re familiar with some that then ABC anchor Chris Cuomo, who teased the special at the time, said to Woodruff of the predictions, “I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s very soon.
Woodruff replies, “It’s very soon, you know.
But all you have to do is look at the world today right today.
You know, you’ve got gas prices going up.
You got food prices going up.
You’ve got extreme weather.
The scientists have studied this for decades.
They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we’re approaching maybe even a perfect storm.
Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it.”
So much for listening to the so-called experts!
Umm.. Besides the prices (which are subsidized remember), that has all happened. There are more droughts, more forest fires, more floods. Been out west lately?
Fat hurts wrote:
aerhr wrote:Hint for those uneducated in the requisite fields: your opinions of Schroedinger's Equation (physics) and evolutionary theory (biology) do NOT automatically merit respect. And neither do your opinions about climate science.
Or to put it another way, stay within your own field of expertise and respect the expertise of others.
Don't be a fool.
Or to put it another way...shut up and don't scrutinize the "consensus" - the science has already been "settled." No need for anyone to question Global Warming. It is a fact. End of story. Never to be debated. Time to move on.
I bet it is very similar to what the Ptolemics were saying centuries ago.
Sally V wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:Or to put it another way, stay within your own field of expertise and respect the expertise of others.
Don't be a fool.
Or to put it another way...shut up and don't scrutinize the "consensus" - the science has already been "settled." No need for anyone to question Global Warming. It is a fact. End of story. Never to be debated. Time to move on.
Almost right.
It took Einstein to overturn Newton. It took Copernicus to overturn Aristotle and Ptolemy.
You have to be an expert to argue effectively with experts. Otherwise, your odds of being right are ridiculously low and you'll just look ridiculous.
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally V wrote:Or to put it another way...shut up and don't scrutinize the "consensus" - the science has already been "settled." No need for anyone to question Global Warming. It is a fact. End of story. Never to be debated. Time to move on.
Almost right.
It took Einstein to overturn Newton. It took Copernicus to overturn Aristotle and Ptolemy.
You have to be an expert to argue effectively with experts. Otherwise, your odds of being right are ridiculously low and you'll just look ridiculous.
Actually, the climate scientists are the ones looking ridiculous. Everything they predict has to be "modified" each successive year. Have they ever predicted ANYTHING that proved to be accurate? If they were a fledgling mlb prospect with a similar average, that player would never rise above A ball. Heck, he would be jettisoned from the team before the team bus ever made it back home!
Sally V wrote:
Or to put it another way...shut up and don't scrutinize the "consensus" - the science has already been "settled." No need for anyone to question Global Warming. It is a fact. End of story. Never to be debated. Time to move on.
To scrutinize the consensus, at a minimum one would have to actually understand what parts of climate science are broadly considered to be settled.
Passing that hurdle, it would be helpful if one were technically astute enough to evaluate the quality of arguments on either side of topics one deems controversial.
No point in steering now
No Way wrote:
Binks wrote:Your ABC ran a news special in 2009 called Earth 2100, a program warning its viewers about the dangers of climate change.
ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff said the show “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world.
The first stop is the year 2015.”
A Harvard University professor says, “By 2015, we’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.”
Other voices can be heard saying that “Flames cover hundreds of square mile” and “We expect more intense hurricanes.”
Another voice says, “Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.”
Describing dangerous temperature levels and dropping agricultural production, the news package brings in The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who says, “There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.”
The doomsday predictions for 2015 go further and include $12.00 for a gallon of milk and $9.00 a gallon for gasoline, if there is any gas at all that is.
Then ABC anchor Chris Cuomo, said to Woodruff of the predictions, “I think we’re familiar with some that then ABC anchor Chris Cuomo, who teased the special at the time, said to Woodruff of the predictions, “I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s very soon.
Woodruff replies, “It’s very soon, you know.
But all you have to do is look at the world today right today.
You know, you’ve got gas prices going up.
You got food prices going up.
You’ve got extreme weather.
The scientists have studied this for decades.
They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we’re approaching maybe even a perfect storm.
Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it.”
So much for listening to the so-called experts!
Umm.. Besides the prices (which are subsidized remember), that has all happened. There are more droughts, more forest fires, more floods. Been out west lately?
More intense hurricanes? After Katrina the Alarmists promised us more frequent and more intense hurricanes. Well, heck! The last major hurricane (cat 3,4 or 5) was 2004!!! More than a decade ago! What happened to that prediction???
bewildered wrote:
When did NASA turn from an innocuous gov't agency which seemed to have decent ethics to a corrupt, perpetually-lying arm of the extreme left?
I would like to know too!!
Sally V wrote:
More intense hurricanes? After Katrina the Alarmists promised us more frequent and more intense hurricanes. Well, heck! The last major hurricane (cat 3,4 or 5) was 2004!!! More than a decade ago! What happened to that prediction???
LOOK! Squirrel!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150831/us--obama-2eb886721f.htmlIt's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
minky shaboom wrote:
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
The funny thing is it is August here in Houston. Normally, the highs are above 100. It feels like fall now. The highs will be mid-80s. If this is Global Warming - bring it on!!! I love global warming.
Sally V wrote:
bewildered wrote:When did NASA turn from an innocuous gov't agency which seemed to have decent ethics to a corrupt, perpetually-lying arm of the extreme left?
I would like to know too!!
As has been said - "I think it may have been about the time you became a right-wing conspiracy-believing nut case."
Sally V wrote:
Or to put it another way...shut up and don't scrutinize the "consensus" - the science has already been "settled." No need for anyone to question Global Warming. It is a fact. End of story. Never to be debated. Time to move on.
I bet it is very similar to what the Ptolemics were saying centuries ago.
As I said...
I would politely suggest that you have posted nothing indicating above average intelligence. Further, I would suggest that if you wish to play the role of the informed lay person that you would do well to in fact become informed. At least get to within shouting distance of Citizen Runner who (as far as he has represented himself here) is no more than an informed lay person on this topic.
