B-Man Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Leonardo DiCaprio boarding yacht in St Tropez via helicopter. Can't get more green than that Obama And Leonardo DiCaprio Warn There's No Time Left For Climate Change Denial ... www.huffingtonpost.com/.../barack-obama-leonardo-dicaprio-climate-change_us_57f... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Leonardo DiCaprio boarding yacht in St Tropez via helicopter. Can't get more green than that Obama And Leonardo DiCaprio Warn There's No Time Left For Climate Change Denial ... www.huffingtonpost.com/.../barack-obama-leonardo-dicaprio-climate-change_us_57f... Somebody should ask them if they checked with ALGORE before they decided to predict the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Like Feminist's and the wage gap myth, Alarmists can't help but use the hockey stick graph. No matter how convincing you sound, the second you produce fake "science", your entire argument becomes invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 THE LEFT’S WAR ON SCIENCE: Climate activists step up campaign to cut funding to science museums. Today’s target is the American Museum of Natural History in New York, which is being denounced for taking money from Rebekah Mercer and allowing her to serve on its board of trustees. The activists want her removed because she has also donated to the Trump campaign and to think tanks skeptical of climate alarmism. As the Times article notes, there is absolutely no evidence that Mercer has had any influence on the museum’s climate-change exhibits. Far from downplaying the threat of climate change, the museum has hyped it. I’ve written about the faulty science in its alarmist exhibits, and Edward Rothstein has critiqued its apocalyptic sermonizing. But none of this matters to the green activists determined to shame and intimidate conservative philanthropists even if it means less money for science education: “To politicize science is shameful; to politicize the institutions that are designed to foster greater learning is even worse,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said. The museum’s executives “should acknowledge that they have a healthy endowment — a steady stream of funding — and they should thank Ms. Mercer for her service and talk about a reasonable plan for her to resign,” he said. The chutzpah is astonishing. The only ones politicizing science at the museum are Brune and the other witch-hunters quoted in the Times. One of them is Michael Mann of Penn State, the researcher who produced the infamous hockey-stick graph and has done even more to discredit climate science with his unhinged activism. As usual, the threats to science come from one direction: the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 The activists want her removed because she has also donated to the Trump campaign and to think tanks skeptical of climate alarmism. Good grief - their progress in studying climate science would benefit from having more skeptics involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 What taxes would be required to hold the people responsible accountable? We the people would settle for having incompetent government officials fired once in a while. This is a pretty bad question. Fundamental lack of knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Good grief - their progress in studying climate science would benefit from having more skeptics involved. Science is skepticism. You test everything. Back about 80 years ago, it was assumed that parity was a conserved value in physics. That is, you could change physics from being right- to left-handed (basically a change of sign from positive to negative), and laws would be the same. This had been proven time and time again in classical physics, an was considered a physical law. Until the mid-50s, when there were some particle decays that couldn't be explained because they violated parity conservation. Finally, someone asked "What if parity isn't a conserved value?" which almost everyone scoffed at...except for one Chien-Shung Wu, who composed a simple and elegant experiment to test the assumption, and found out that parity is not conserved (which almost everyone scoffed at again, but her experiment was bulletproof, and quickly reproduced by other parties.) One of the great accomplishments in physics in the 20th century. She won a Nobel Prize for it that same year, which I think is the quickest a Nobel Prize has ever been awarded in Physics, which shows how remarkable it was. It also shows that nothing in science is ever settled: you test and retest everything, even your most basic assumptions. If you're not skeptical, you're simply not a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Science is skepticism. You test everything. Back about 80 years ago, it was assumed that parity was a conserved value in physics. That is, you could change physics from being right- to left-handed (basically a change of sign from positive to negative), and laws would be the same. This had been proven time and time again in classical physics, an was considered a physical law. Until the mid-50s, when there were some particle decays that couldn't be explained because they violated parity conservation. Finally, someone asked "What if parity isn't a conserved value?" which almost everyone scoffed at...except for one Chien-Shung Wu, who composed a simple and elegant experiment to test the assumption, and found out that parity is not conserved (which almost everyone scoffed at again, but her experiment was bulletproof, and quickly reproduced by other parties.) One of the great accomplishments in physics in the 20th century. She won a Nobel Prize for it that same year, which I think is the quickest a Nobel Prize has ever been awarded in Physics, which shows how remarkable it was. It also shows that nothing in science is ever settled: you test and retest everything, even your most basic assumptions. If you're not skeptical, you're simply not a scientist. Does that by any chance relate to the EPR paradox and Einstein's "spooky effect at a distance"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Does that by any chance relate to the EPR paradox and Einstein's "spooky effect at a distance"? No. There's not even any exposition to give. The answer's simply "no." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 No. There's not even any exposition to give. The answer's simply "no." Well, I see no room for skepticism there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Well, I see no room for skepticism there. Feel free to test my statement. I literally could not think of a way to explain that they're not related. May as well ask me if a fish is related to a meteorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Feel free to test my statement. I literally could not think of a way to explain that they're not related. May as well ask me if a fish is related to a meteorite. Fish have been known to inexplicably fall from the sky, and there is the Pisces Austrinids annual meteor shower. Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Fish have been known to inexplicably fall from the sky, and there is the Pisces Austrinids annual meteor shower. Coincidence? Fish have explicably been known to fall from the sky. It's a meteorological phenomenon, not an astronomical one. And I knew you'd bring up the Piscis Austrinids. You're welcome for that low-hanging fruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Fish have explicably been known to fall from the sky. It's a meteorological phenomenon, not an astronomical one. And I knew you'd bring up the Piscis Austrinids. You're welcome for that low-hanging fruit. So you're saying that you smelt that one coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 So you're saying that you smelt that one coming? I figured you'd take the bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I figured you'd take the bait. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Nice. Well, of course I baited you. What, you thought that was a red herring or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Science is skepticism. You test everything. Back about 80 years ago, it was assumed that parity was a conserved value in physics. That is, you could change physics from being right- to left-handed (basically a change of sign from positive to negative), and laws would be the same. This had been proven time and time again in classical physics, an was considered a physical law. Until the mid-50s, when there were some particle decays that couldn't be explained because they violated parity conservation. Finally, someone asked "What if parity isn't a conserved value?" which almost everyone scoffed at...except for one Chien-Shung Wu, who composed a simple and elegant experiment to test the assumption, and found out that parity is not conserved (which almost everyone scoffed at again, but her experiment was bulletproof, and quickly reproduced by other parties.) One of the great accomplishments in physics in the 20th century. She won a Nobel Prize for it that same year, which I think is the quickest a Nobel Prize has ever been awarded in Physics, which shows how remarkable it was. It also shows that nothing in science is ever settled: you test and retest everything, even your most basic assumptions. If you're not skeptical, you're simply not a scientist. Obviously wrong. You didn't mention consensus once. Consensus is above law in the science world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Obviously wrong. You didn't mention consensus once. Consensus is above law in the science world. I thought it was obvious: there was consensus for hundreds of years that parity was conserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I thought it was obvious: there was consensus for hundreds of years that parity was conserved. Then obviously parity is conserved. Experiments and Nobel prizes be damned. Bunch of !@#$ing parity deniers is what you've been fooled by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts