Um, Bill Nye is a top scientist? He has a degree in mechanical engineering. He’s a pretend scientist. Is this Tyson’s “recipe for disaster?” It’s not objectively true…

Quote:As Donald Trump cracks down on the EPA and USDA, saying their public-facing documents will be under review, astrophysicist Neil ­deGrasse Tyson tells us when it comes to science, “If you base policy on things that are not objectively true . . . it’s a recipe for disaster.”

An outlook like that is “the unraveling of all that drives the growth of wealth in our nation and in the world,” he told us Wednesday.

“Ever since the Industrial Revolution we have known that innovations in science and technology are the engines of tomorrow’s growth economy,” Tyson said. “If you don’t recognize that . . . you are undermining the future wealth of the nation. If there is no science happening here, other countries . . . will pass us by, and that’s inconsistent with the idea of making America great again.”

“Science Guy” Bill Nye says he will participate in the proposed March for Science in Washington, DC, but what he’d “prefer is for these [anti-science] people to come around.” If people would “just accept it we could all get to work,” Nye said.

http://pagesix.com/2017/01/27/top-scient...1469015914

Question to Tyson...Who is undermining innovations in science?
Question to Nye......Who is stopping your work?

I call fabrics on both assertions.

Taking public facing information down is a wrong headed move by Trump. That's our information, we paid for it.

"Pretend Top Scientists are uber-Liberal" is a more appropriate headline.

(01-28-2017 12:11 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Um, Bill Nye is a top scientist? He has a degree in mechanical engineering. He’s a pretend scientist. Is this Tyson’s “recipe for disaster?” It’s not objectively true…

Quote:As Donald Trump cracks down on the EPA and USDA, saying their public-facing documents will be under review, astrophysicist Neil ­deGrasse Tyson tells us when it comes to science, “If you base policy on things that are not objectively true . . . it’s a recipe for disaster.”

An outlook like that is “the unraveling of all that drives the growth of wealth in our nation and in the world,” he told us Wednesday.

“Ever since the Industrial Revolution we have known that innovations in science and technology are the engines of tomorrow’s growth economy,” Tyson said. “If you don’t recognize that . . . you are undermining the future wealth of the nation. If there is no science happening here, other countries . . . will pass us by, and that’s inconsistent with the idea of making America great again.”

“Science Guy” Bill Nye says he will participate in the proposed March for Science in Washington, DC, but what he’d “prefer is for these [anti-science] people to come around.” If people would “just accept it we could all get to work,” Nye said.

http://pagesix.com/2017/01/27/top-scient...1469015914

Where did Nye call himself a top scientist? Did you fall for clickbait?

I notice you weren't prodding at Tyson's credentials.

(01-28-2017 12:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Question to Tyson...Who is undermining innovations in science?
Question to Nye......Who is stopping your work?

I call fabrics on both assertions.

Calling for the EPA to have all content and research approved by politicians is the answer to both.

Even the National Geographic was criticizing the left for their position on agriculture.

Trump has the true top people in the USDA now.

So playing a scientist on tv can make you one in real life? Damn!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Nye has a masters degree...IN SCIENCE!

Yes yes... "The Science Guy" is the foremost expert in the field of science.

(01-28-2017 03:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I think Nye has a masters degree...IN SCIENCE!

He's an Engineer, not a scientist. His degree is in engineering, not in a science.

I am as much of a scientist as he is.

I hate agreeing with Nye here. But the information needs to be out and public.

Where I disagree with the climate warriors here is that I want all the data, the raw data, open to the public. They want the summary data open because if they give out all the raw data people can use it to critically look at their results. Many times people have had to sue for the locations and lists of climate base stations and the raw data by those stations.

This is a few years old so maybe some of these scientists have changed their minds, but they definitely had strong dissent against the climate change proponents.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Quote:You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Quote:“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.”
— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

Quote:“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”
— South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

(01-28-2017 08:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I hate agreeing with Nye here. But the information needs to be out and public.

Where I disagree with the climate warriors here is that I want all the data, the raw data, open to the public. They want the summary data open because if they give out all the raw data people can use it to critically look at their results. Many times people have had to sue for the locations and lists of climate base stations and the raw data by those stations.

I don't think any climate "warrior" has any problem putting the raw data out there, so long as the people digesting the data are held to the same standards of other scientists, lest be left with another "Vaccines cause autism" debacle.

(01-28-2017 12:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Taking public facing information down is a wrong headed move by Trump. That's our information, we paid for it.

The Trump administration didn't take it down.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...es-about-/

Quote:Back in October, the Obama administration laid out how it would manage the digital transition. The National Archives and Records Administration would preserve every piece of content the Obama administration published online — everything from blog posts and Tweets to transcripts and Snapchat stories.

The National Archives would also freeze and archive any content posted to whitehouse.gov, then the Obama administration would hand over the domain to the Trump administration. The archived content is now accessible at ObamaWhiteHouse.archives.gov, including pages about climate change, health care, civil rights and LGBT issues.

So if we’re going to be nit-picky, it was the Obama administration that removed whitehouse.gov’s pages about these issues, along with every other piece of content their team ever published.

The Trump administration started off with a blank slate. When populating the website with their own content, they did not create pages about the four issues Takei mentioned. They did, however, create six pages about issues that defined the Trump campaign: energy, foreign policy, jobs and economic growth, military, law enforcement, and trade.

The Trump administration didn't take it down, they just didn't put it back up. Instead they chose to populate their White House page with issues that were core to their campaign.

1) Delay Trump getting his appointees in place
2) Have bureaucrats and Obama holdovers still running things go too far in the Trump administration's name
3) Call the press and tell them the Trump administration is going too far
4) Have "celebrities" express outrage

This is going to take a while to sort things out and some people are going to end up finding that their government union can't keep them from getting fired after all.

Every other administration in memory had at least half of its cabinet positions confirmed and sworn in by the Monday right after innaguration.

Schumer is a **** and is delaying the inevitable for only one reason. To make it harder for the government to run effectively.

Screw home. I hope McConnel uses the nuclear option Schumer so famously espoused when it comes to the Supreme Court seat.

(01-28-2017 11:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I don't think any climate "warrior" has any problem putting the raw data out there, so long as the people digesting the data are held to the same standards of other scientists, lest be left with another "Vaccines cause autism" debacle.

That's not at all true. Sorry but NASA, NOAA, and others heve routinely hid raw data when asked for it. And saying "I'm only to give you the data if you come to the same conclusion, is not science, it's politics.

Bill Bye... LOL

(01-29-2017 01:03 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 11:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I don't think any climate "warrior" has any problem putting the raw data out there, so long as the people digesting the data are held to the same standards of other scientists, lest be left with another "Vaccines cause autism" debacle.

That's not at all true. Sorry but NASA, NOAA, and others heve routinely hid raw data when asked for it. And saying "I'm only to give you the data if you come to the same conclusion, is not science, it's politics.

I'll need a source on that before I believe it.

And I didn't say they had to come to the same conclusion, just that they have to follow the same rules every other scientist and organization does, and that is a clear, testable hypothesis with sourced information and transparency in your conclusions to allow other people to replicate and test on their own.