Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Cosmos and science ignorance

[Luddly Neddite]

Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Cosmos," How Science Got Cool, and Why He Doesn't Debate Deniers | Mother Jones

Love this man and I think he's right about not "debating the deniers".

 

[mamooth]

The conservative base is still a little confused, being it was shown on FOX. "We love FOX ... but hate science ... what do we do?".

So, they're waiting for orders from above to clarify how they're supposed to react. The show makes a lot of money for FOX, hence their masters will probably order them to restrain the hatred.

 

[Truthmatters]

yes you cant play their game and pretend they have some point.

You either accept KNOWN science or your a brain dead dweeb

 

[USNavyVet]

Neil should know that a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.

 

[Moonglow]

Cosmos again reiterated that if religious suppression of science had not taken place we would be a thousand years more advanced.
Which I am sure turned off the bible thumpers...

 

[Abraham3]

Neil should know that a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.

You know what? I bet he does. That leaves the very real possibility that you are wrong to consider [whatever it is you're considering] a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[USNavyVet]

Neil should know that a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.

You know what? I bet he does. That leaves the very real possibility that you are wrong to consider [whatever it is you're considering] a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

Yes he should. Unfortunately he sides with the flat earthers who think "climate change" is man made. However his show on the science channel last night was interesting.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Cosmos again reiterated that if religious suppression of science had not taken place we would be a thousand years more advanced.
Which I am sure turned off the bible thumpers...

IF you count islam and as well as all Religion...I agree.

 

[mamooth]

So USNavyVet is actually putting forth the crazy claim that global warming is non-falsifiable?

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...

 

[USNavyVet]

So USNavyVet is actually putting forth the crazy claim that global warming is non-falsifiable?

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...

Ad Hominem attacks get you nowhere.

 

[mamooth]

Show some spine, USNavyVet. Are you standing behind your implied claim, or officially running from it now?

 

[USNavyVet]

Show some spine, USNavyVet. Are you standing behind your implied claim, or officially running from it now?

Running? LOL. Go troll someone else.

 

[Abraham3]

Neil should know that a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.

You know what? I bet he does. That leaves the very real possibility that you are wrong to consider [whatever it is you're considering] a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

Yes he should. Unfortunately he sides with the flat earthers who think "climate change" is man made. However his show on the science channel last night was interesting.

What makes you think anthropogenic global warming is not falsifiable?

 

[Abraham3]

I have been told by four different deniers that AGW was not falsifiable. I have yet to get an explanation for that position. What's the hold up?

 

[Abraham3]

I came across a funny link while looking in to this. It's AT LEAST as funny as Skooks doctored clip art.

The rules

 

[strollingbones]

i like cosmos.....and ted talks....that is some interesting stuff....

 

[Abraham3]

This is certainly a point worth discussion on AGW and any other scientific topic of public interest. What I see, however, when I look for arguments on this topic is some very widespread misunderstanding as to what many members of the public believe AGW is theorized to DO. That is, a great many people believe - or claim to believe - that AGW predicts things which it does not.

Climate scientists are not predicting that every piece of matter on the planet's surface, in its atmosphere or in its ocean is going to continually increase in temperature in lockstep with the atmospheric CO2 level. Both theoretically and observationally, warming from the Greenhouse effect is relatively weak and can be and has been overcome repeatedly by transient natural phenomena. The common complaint: that people who accept AGW have claimed it can be responsible for cooling as well as warming is simply false. AGW is simply easily overcome on a temporary basis and thus temporary cooling does not falsify it. The prediction here would be that a transient cause will be found for the hiatus and that warming will resume when former conditions resume. Now this particular point is actually moot. The measured radiative imbalance at the ToA and the increased rate of warming of the deep ocean show quite clearly that the EARTH'S TOTAL HEAT CONTENT IS STILL RISING. There has been no hiatus in warming. The only thing that has changed has been the locations where that heat energy ends up. This is actually off the topic of falsification, but I couldn't let such a faulty assumption go unchallenged.

As was noted in several of the articles I read on this topic, the crucial point is not whether or not warming is taking place (I won't go into how stupid you'd have to be to challenge the thousands and thousands of direct measurements that show that it has) it is whether or not that warming has been primarily anthropogenic.

Falsifiable predictions of AGW

1) Direct measurements of the radiative imbalances at the ToA will show that the Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating away (establishes radiative warming)
2) CO2, methane, ozone or other anthropogenic gases will be found to preferentially absorb IR radiation (establishes the Greenhouse Effect)
3) Humans will be found to be responsible for the vast majority (let's say 95%) of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 (establishes that human activity bears primary responsibility for the CO2-based Greenhouse warming since 1750)
4) By direct calculation, warming from anthropogenic GHGs will be found responsible for the majority (>50%) of the radiative forcing warming the planet (establishes predominance of Greenhouse warming over other effects)

Would anyone care to explain why any or all of these four predictions can't be falsified?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why would he debate a losing argument when he's totally unarmed?

What's he going to do show the only and only lab experiment that shows 200PPM CO2 causing hurricanes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember when Einstein wouldn't debate Relativity?

 

[Abraham3]

Why would he debate a losing argument when he's totally unarmed?

What's he going to do show the only and only lab experiment that shows 200PPM CO2 causing hurricanes?

Who are you talking about?

Tyson?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA... Jesus Frank thinks Tyson is "totally unarmed". Pay attention Skooks, now THIS is FUNNY.