Neil DeGrasse Tyson on morality of deniers

[Amelia]

I agree, but when they cross over to political activism they lose their scientific blindness as it were. That's when bad science begins to occur. That's when eugenics and "final solutions" are passed from the horrible to the accepted norms of society.

Even if I accepted that statement as fact, are you suggesting that Tyson is a political activist?

I would.. Because he stepped over the line of advocating based on science to activism when his methodology is to ATTACK the opposition rather than convincingly promulgating the science.. His comments about "cosmic perspectives" and "good/bad shepards" are pretty nebulous actually.. Wasted an opportunity to put all those science credentials to work MAKING A SOLID case for the cause..

Is there anything he could say to convince a global warming denier?

His energy will be more usefully applied elsewhere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine Michelson Morley refusing to defend their ether concept while accusing Einstein and other scientists of being ether deniers?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[westwall]

Even if I accepted that statement as fact, are you suggesting that Tyson is a political activist?

I would.. Because he stepped over the line of advocating based on science to activism when his methodology is to ATTACK the opposition rather than convincingly promulgating the science.. His comments about "cosmic perspectives" and "good/bad shepards" are pretty nebulous actually.. Wasted an opportunity to put all those science credentials to work MAKING A SOLID case for the cause..

Is there anything he could say to convince a global warming denier?

His energy will be more usefully applied elsewhere.

Yes, empirical data would certainly change my mind. To date they have presented none.

 

[Abraham3]

Ask him what the temperature WILL BE in 2033...

I'm throwing the bullshit flag on this one. I am sick and tired of this line of yours. If you actually believe that's a significant criticism, you are a HELL of a lot dumber than I gave you credit.

From Chapter 11 of WG1, AR5, "Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability"

How the models and projections have actually fared.

The answer to the question you've assumed couldn't have one.

 

[Amelia]

Warmists and deniers aren't going to change each other's mind.

Warmists are the ones who want to make policy changes so they need to assess how much power they have to make changes on their own, how much damage could be done by polarizing activities, and how much in comparison they could accomplish if they would take another way.

Are their actions or rhetoric working against their goals? If so they need to realize this and make changes. Perhaps there is some middle ground to find. They won't get all they want but they could get something. There needs to be true all-of-the-above energy policies. And rather than putting the government in the position of picking winners and losers, the wealthy could put their money where their mouth is and look for private sector solutions. Oh, and quit acting like Republicans would reverse all environmental protections if Democrat watch dogs weren't standing at the gate barking at them. How well is demonizing Republicans working for them on the environmental front? It may help in elections, but it's not helping make material change. So maybe try something new.

 

[flacaltenn]

Even if I accepted that statement as fact, are you suggesting that Tyson is a political activist?

I would.. Because he stepped over the line of advocating based on science to activism when his methodology is to ATTACK the opposition rather than convincingly promulgating the science.. His comments about "cosmic perspectives" and "good/bad shepards" are pretty nebulous actually.. Wasted an opportunity to put all those science credentials to work MAKING A SOLID case for the cause..

Is there anything he could say to convince a global warming denier?

His energy will be more usefully applied elsewhere.

Good observation.. If he DOES want to be one of those GOOD shepards, write a book about Global Warming morality and all.. I'd read it.. IF -- his argument was based on science and not opinion derived from his personal beliefs....

What would convince ME Amelia is simple.. Start advocating a BROADER understanding of Climate Science. One in which CO2 is not the center focus and the answer to every perceived enviro problem.. This phoney "consensus" has wasted a lot of time and money suddenly discovering the obvious crap we should heard decades ago..

I'm starting to like Climate Science more when the warming pause HUMBLED them into re-thinking the problem.. Better science comes from failure...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Red since 2002
Green since 1990

Trend in global temperature

 

[Stephanie]

No one I know is DENYING there is globull warming, globull cooling it was years ago, now its AKA climate change...

they are questioning the hysteria of the globull warmers and their conceited selves like they can do something about it

let them go build their buildings, do what they want, just leave the rest of us ALONE

 

[Abraham3]

Correct, science does not exist in a vacuum. That's why it MUST divorce itself from "morality". Personal biases lead to falsification of data, and the corruption of scientific enquiry to support a personal goal.

There are bad scientists everywhere, just like there are bad people. That's why the scientific method was developed, to control scientists with personal goals that are outside that of science in general.

It is telling that during the Napoleonic wars English scientists regularly travelled to Paris to confer with their French counterparts on scientific matters.

Scientists aren't obligated to sit back and collect data and analyze and never act on their findings.

It is natural and acceptable for them to feel an impulse to help save the planet for future generations to enjoy. If they conclude that they have enough information to act on, then there is nothing wrong with them acting and encouraging others to do so too.

I agree, but when they cross over to political activism they lose their scientific blindness as it were. That's when bad science begins to occur. That's when eugenics and "final solutions" are passed from the horrible to the accepted norms of society.

What action could they take that could not be characterized as "political" by individuals such as yourself seeking only to quash certain viewpoints by ad hominem attacks? Any action in the public sphere or attempt to affect the behavior of our government or the masses who rule it is inherently political.

 

[westwall]

Scientists aren't obligated to sit back and collect data and analyze and never act on their findings.

It is natural and acceptable for them to feel an impulse to help save the planet for future generations to enjoy. If they conclude that they have enough information to act on, then there is nothing wrong with them acting and encouraging others to do so too.

I agree, but when they cross over to political activism they lose their scientific blindness as it were. That's when bad science begins to occur. That's when eugenics and "final solutions" are passed from the horrible to the accepted norms of society.

What action could they take that could not be characterized as "political" by individuals such as yourself seeking only to quash certain viewpoints by ad hominem attacks? Any action in the public sphere or attempt to affect the behavior of our government or the masses who rule it is inherently political.

Present accurate data.

Stop accusing sceptics of being "deniers" and accept that we have legitimate concerns about how the science is being done.

Stop calling for the incarceration or death of those who's scientific observations run counter to yours.

Refrain from the claim of scientific certainty when that is patently false.

I can go on, but that's a start.

 

[bripat9643]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Those ?who cherry pick science simply don?t understand how? it works

When asked specifically about climate change, Tyson said that the deniers have the same “tools of science” as everyone else, they merely misuse them. “You are equipped and empowered with this cosmic perspective, achieved by the methods and tools of science, applied to the universe,” he said.

The question is, “are you going to be a good shepherd, or a bad shepherd? Are you going to use your wisdom to protect civilization, or will you go at it in a shortsighted enough way to either destroy it, or be complicit in its destruction? If you can’t bring your scientific knowledge to bear on those kinds of decisions, then why even waste your time?”

he went to Columbia, University of Texas, Harvard, etc...

discuss...

He's a pompous imbecile.

 

[bripat9643]

all the anti-AGW *cough* "experts" on this board wouldn't last 15 seconds debating Neil

You're easily impressed by a self-important blowhard.

 

[bripat9643]

Is English not your first language? Or is science just not your forte?

Engineering is my forte, i.e. the real world, where economic considerations come into play, not bugs and bunny calculations and wishful thinking.

And English is mine, and what Neil said makes perfect sense, grammatically and in word usage. I'm not a philosopher of science, but what he said makes sense philosophically, too.

Dr. Suess also makes perfect sense, grammatically and in word usage.

 

[bripat9643]

Scientists aren't obligated to sit back and collect data and analyze and never act on their findings.

It is natural and acceptable for them to feel an impulse to help save the planet for future generations to enjoy. If they conclude that they have enough information to act on, then there is nothing wrong with them acting and encouraging others to do so too.

I agree, but when they cross over to political activism they lose their scientific blindness as it were. That's when bad science begins to occur. That's when eugenics and "final solutions" are passed from the horrible to the accepted norms of society.

Even if I accepted that statement as fact, are you suggesting that Tyson is a political activist?

Ya think?

 

[bripat9643]

Scientists aren't obligated to sit back and collect data and analyze and never act on their findings.

It is natural and acceptable for them to feel an impulse to help save the planet for future generations to enjoy. If they conclude that they have enough information to act on, then there is nothing wrong with them acting and encouraging others to do so too.

I agree, but when they cross over to political activism they lose their scientific blindness as it were. That's when bad science begins to occur. That's when eugenics and "final solutions" are passed from the horrible to the accepted norms of society.

What action could they take that could not be characterized as "political" by individuals such as yourself seeking only to quash certain viewpoints by ad hominem attacks? Any action in the public sphere or attempt to affect the behavior of our government or the masses who rule it is inherently political.

Scientists prove their case before they take any action. In fact, they generally leave taking action to others.

 

[Amelia]

Prominent scientists should be allowed to speak publicly about scientific things and their ramifications without being written off as "activists".

 

[westwall]

Prominent scientists should be allowed to speak publicly about scientific things and their ramifications without being written off as "activists".

When they accuse sceptics of being "deniers" ( a pejorative) they have entered into the realm of political activism. That is simply a fact.

 

[Amelia]

Prominent scientists should be allowed to speak publicly about scientific things and their ramifications without being written off as "activists".

When they accuse sceptics of being "deniers" ( a pejorative) they have entered into the realm of political activism. That is simply a fact.

Once again, even if I accepted that statement as fact, did you hear Tyson call anyone a denier?

 

[westwall]

Prominent scientists should be allowed to speak publicly about scientific things and their ramifications without being written off as "activists".

When they accuse sceptics of being "deniers" ( a pejorative) they have entered into the realm of political activism. That is simply a fact.

Once again, even if I accepted that statement as fact, did you hear Tyson call anyone a denier?

Many, many times....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZYMD0oSQQQ]Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Climate Change Deniers - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Amelia]

When they accuse sceptics of being "deniers" ( a pejorative) they have entered into the realm of political activism. That is simply a fact.

Once again, even if I accepted that statement as fact, did you hear Tyson call anyone a denier?

Many, many times....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZYMD0oSQQQ]Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Climate Change Deniers - YouTube[/ame]

In that clip I heard him use the word "deny" and I heard him use the word "denial". They were used appropriately in the context in which he spoke.

I did not hear him use the word "deniers", much less use it as a pejorative.