Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well excuse me, but those who don't know ought to be taught. So that's what it is you're against is actually teaching people why things might be the way they are. Those folks ask astonishing questions. Might learn a thing or two himself in that arena. But you, you're just too smart for everyone so the heck with the others. Right? it's a waste of time. LOL! Yep you have all the answers."He also said that he wouldn’t debate anti-scientific people — as Bill Nye famously did last month — because “I don’t have the time or the energy or the interest in doing so. As an educator, I’d rather just get people thinking straight in the first place, so I don’t have to then debate them later on.”"Neil deGrasse Tyson: Those ?who cherry pick science simply don?t understand how? it works
he went to Columbia, University of Texas, Harvard, etc...
discuss...
How anti scientific can one be to say he won't debate. So, he has some doubts about his science that he knows he won't win. LOL................way to go Neil!!!!!hahahahahaahaha, he gets no respect from me with that attitude.
To put it in terms you might understand, what Tyson is saying is that he doesnt want to waste is time trying to teach the ignorant. it's like the high school coach from ShitStain, Nowheresville trying to tell Babe Ruth how to hit a ball....
This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!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.
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.
There are people who don't believe that pi is an irrational number.
You don't invite them to your math symposia and give them equal time to speak about why you should ignore all the math which follows from the assumption that pi is irrational.
That's pretty much the gist of what I hear from Tyson.
So, for you no need for checks and balances then? So you don't agree with the democratic society? Much like many political subjects, this is not settled and may never be. To conclude something based on theoretical models that are wrong, is well, wrong. Good scientist ought to embrace someone correcting a blatant error in data.Scientists are not required to divorce themselves from concern about whether people will acknowledge their findings and about the possible ramifications of people ignoring their findings. (Or the possible ramifications of people use their findings for ill, but that is another subject.)
Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is perfectly legitimate for people who study the planet -- or planets -- and who live on said planet to discuss the future of the planet, especially when what they are learning could affect that future.
Dot used the word "morality". Tyson spoke of stewardship.
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.
There are people who don't believe that pi is an irrational number.
You don't invite them to your math symposia and give them equal time to speak about why you should ignore all the math which follows from the assumption that pi is irrational.
That's pretty much the gist of what I hear from Tyson.
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.
I see the problem.
You're a fucking moron.
There are people who don't believe that pi is an irrational number.
You don't invite them to your math symposia and give them equal time to speak about why you should ignore all the math which follows from the assumption that pi is irrational.
That's pretty much the gist of what I hear from Tyson.
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 cant 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...
You mean tools like the scientific method?
Can you point to the experimental trials conducted in determining that CO2 is driving global temperature? And no, I do not want the computer models that have been wrong with every projection.
the funniest thing to see here is this asshat calling those who keep level about this science as misusing the tools available. Meanwhile, the AGW crowd has done NOTHING but misuse scientific tools to draw their conclusions.
So, for you no need for checks and balances then? So you don't agree with the democratic society? Much like many political subjects, this is not settled and may never be. To conclude something based on theoretical models that are wrong, is well, wrong. Good scientist ought to embrace someone correcting a blatant error in data.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.
Well excuse me, but those who don't know ought to be taught. So that's what it is you're against is actually teaching people why things might be the way they are. Those folks ask astonishing questions. Might learn a thing or two himself in that arena. But you, you're just too smart for everyone so the heck with the others. Right? it's a waste of time. LOL! Yep you have all the answers."He also said that he wouldnt debate anti-scientific people as Bill Nye famously did last month because I dont have the time or the energy or the interest in doing so. As an educator, Id rather just get people thinking straight in the first place, so I dont have to then debate them later on."
How anti scientific can one be to say he won't debate. So, he has some doubts about his science that he knows he won't win. LOL................way to go Neil!!!!!hahahahahaahaha, he gets no respect from me with that attitude.
To put it in terms you might understand, what Tyson is saying is that he doesnt want to waste is time trying to teach the ignorant. it's like the high school coach from ShitStain, Nowheresville trying to tell Babe Ruth how to hit a ball....
Well excuse me, but those who don't know ought to be taught. So that's what it is you're against is actually teaching people why things might be the way they are. Those folks ask astonishing questions. Might learn a thing or two himself in that arena. But you, you're just too smart for everyone so the heck with the others. Right? it's a waste of time. LOL! Yep you have all the answers.To put it in terms you might understand, what Tyson is saying is that he doesnt want to waste is time trying to teach the ignorant. it's like the high school coach from ShitStain, Nowheresville trying to tell Babe Ruth how to hit a ball....
As he said, would you debate with flat Earthers? Well, would you?
and then vanishes with the gate reciepts? And dontcha dare tell me you're sitting there with your little 
and 
emoticons enjoying all this.. 
Well excuse me, but those who don't know ought to be taught. So that's what it is you're against is actually teaching people why things might be the way they are. Those folks ask astonishing questions. Might learn a thing or two himself in that arena. But you, you're just too smart for everyone so the heck with the others. Right? it's a waste of time. LOL! Yep you have all the answers.To put it in terms you might understand, what Tyson is saying is that he doesnt want to waste is time trying to teach the ignorant. it's like the high school coach from ShitStain, Nowheresville trying to tell Babe Ruth how to hit a ball....
As he said, would you debate with flat Earthers? Well, would you?
Well excuse me, but those who don't know ought to be taught. So that's what it is you're against is actually teaching people why things might be the way they are. Those folks ask astonishing questions. Might learn a thing or two himself in that arena. But you, you're just too smart for everyone so the heck with the others. Right? it's a waste of time. LOL! Yep you have all the answers.
As he said, would you debate with flat Earthers? Well, would you?
So you're saying that there is proof that CO2 is causing temperature increases? Funny, I keep asking and I get none, nada, zip, zero. So, i can prove the earth is round, but you can't prove that C02 is causing a climate change. Apples and oranges.
Einstein was an Ether Denier
