Return Home
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:19 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:30 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6138
Location: Ocala, FL
Climate change and evolution are as undeniable as E=mc2, says celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, but "people have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not." "The sooner you understand that, the faster we can get on with the political conversations about how to solve the problems that face us," he says.

"Every minute one is in denial" of a scientific truth, "you are delaying the political solution that should have been established years ago," he continues in what Mashable calls an "emotional and raw" tirade. His message is broken up by news reports about skepticism around vaccinations and climate change denial, and a clip of Mike Pence asking that US educators teach evolution as theory. "When you have people who don't know much about science, standing in denial of it, and rising to power, that is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy," Tyson says. Science is "in the service of civilization," he adds. "It's in our hands."


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:10 am
Posts: 225
The new hero of the atheist and "skeptic" societies.

In my view, he's not teaching science. He's not even talking about it.

He's teaching and talking scientism.

Nowadays a kind of religion for the close-minded skeptics like he is, ironically.

The Richard Dawkins of the 2010s. ;-)

_________________
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
- Max Planck


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6138
Location: Ocala, FL
This was a commentary, not a science lecture. Are you saying he's not a real scientist?


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:58 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6138
Location: Ocala, FL
Neil deGrasse Tyson says it’s ‘very likely’ the universe is a simulation.

At the most recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, recently held at New York’s Hayden Planetarium, scientists gathered to address the question for the year: Is the universe a computer simulation? It’s an older question that you might imagine, and if we interpret it a bit more broadly then it’s really one of the oldest questions imaginable: How do we know that reality is reality? And, if our universe were a big, elaborate lie, could we ever devise some test to prove that fact? At the debate, host and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argued that the probability is that we live in a computer simulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:00 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6138
Location: Ocala, FL
Climate's changed before.
Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”.

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... effect.htm

Pence wants evolution taught as a theory because he wants creationism taught as well. He is a super Christian.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:02 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 392
I can scarcely believe that there are still folk who say climate change is not caused by anthropogenic CO2 (and other) emissions!
It beggars belief. For example, the recent:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -argument/

It's simply a matter of educating oneself.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:16 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:53 am
Posts: 109
Quote:
I can scarcely believe that there are still folk who say climate change is not caused by anthropogenic CO2 (and other) emissions!
It beggars belief. For example, the recent:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -argument/

It's simply a matter of educating oneself.
Also if one educates themselves on 911 they may understand it most likely wasn't a terrorist attack at all . It's similar with climate change ,albeit not as much fear involved, people don't really want to know deeply what the truth is as belief and fear is at play.

_________________
Call it tough Love


Top
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:33 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
The facts on climate change and the rise and source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is provide clearly in this NASA web site. If you desire to denigrate the quality of the science produced at NASA, remember that Tom Campbell was a NASA scientist for a few years. This material is also available from more than one source by government climate scientists in many countries. This is all verified multiply and no one is making it up.
Climate change: How do we know?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 2:05 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:20 pm
Posts: 2
Does anyone know what category Tyson’s simulation preferences fall into? Matrix (physical virtualism), information virtualism…? Not all simulation theories are created equal. And the dogmatic certainty of Tyson about things like anthropocentric global warming doesn’t strike me as the mindset of a quantum virtual reality type thinker.

Does the global temperature rise more or less due to human produced CO2 if no one is around making measurements looking for warming? How much of global warming is just believers nudging up probabilities of warming? How much warming is suppressed by nonbelievers nudging down probabilities of warming? Why do the more objective lower tropospheric satellite measurements not show the same kind of warming as the sparse, less-precise ground measurements? Is it just because the lower troposphere isn’t as sensitive to CO2? What are the models that have shown accurate predictive power? None, a few out of thousands? Is an institution like NASA immune to finding results conducive to more funding?


Top
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Do you have any interest here besides trolling us on climate change and Neil Tyson? Why should we admit yet another climate change troll?

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:07 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:20 pm
Posts: 2
Well, seeing as I've been coming to this forum to read it for several years I have a lot of interest in it. But I've never bothered to sign up to post mostly because it's a moderated forum. I tend to avoid moderated forums. However, when I saw this subject come up, I finally decided to test the waters of the tyranny of the moderation lol. Looking at and measuring the weather and climate changes it. So, how much of AGW is self-fulfilling prophecy by nudging up the probabilities of finding a hotter world beyond the long-term trend and real CO2 effect? And how much is suppressed by nudging down the probabilities of finding a hotter world? It's a legitimate query within the MBT universe. There's no good answer I know but the query is legit. I don't have a horse in the race one way or another in terms of the accuracy of AGW. I want AGW to not be accurate mostly on the grounds that the solution the warmists (and left like Tyson) tend to promote is simply handing power over to government to shove a gun in everyone's face to stop increasing CO2. I don't see that as much of a solution to a global problem full of sovereign nations...just an attempt at a power and money grab; it's just as good a strategy to give people a reason to resist AGW as accept it and therefor not much of a strategy.


Top
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
And your thinking is not very much in terms of logic. Yes there are limitations in data as in there are unknowns and things still to be figured out and explained regarding carbon dioxide in various parts of the earth system, but have you not noticed the extremely abnormal rise in Carbon Dioxide, very high above historical levels? Have you not noticed that while there were for long periods of time alternate glacial melting and refreezing in the arctic and antarctic, there is now severe and simultaneous melting of arctic and antarctic ice covers? Have you not noticed that there is a simultaneous rise in sea level? Put all the data together and it is absurd to claim that there is no case for carbon dioxide to be considered as a cause for temperature rise.

It is not a legitimate approach to pick and choose data to consider in order to claim that the data is not legitimate. If all you are going to do is troll us in this manner, I am personally not going to approve your membership. This board has limitations as requested by Tom Campbell based on the purpose of this board. If you don't like moderated boards, go somewhere else.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:19 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:05 pm
Posts: 75
How is this post related to MBT? Neil Degrasse Tyson is an amazing human being and scientist. He never claims to have all the answers to the universes mysteries, he simply states that science is ever evolving and should be transparent for all members of society. If your avatar uses code which pollutes a world in a Sim game, the results will show in the virtual atmosphere.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
MBT teaches how this Reality works. There is a political situation in this country, and others, which denies well known and established truths discovered by science over decades which do describe how this reality works, at least in the sense of how this VR works, its rule set. The purpose of this denial is simply to allow the present plutocracy to expand its control of humans and increase the wealth accumulation by practices that damage and might destroy the planetary environment with time. While it is a VR, it defines the conditions under which we as avatars here have to exist.

Neil Tyson is a proponent of science and its use to make life and living conditions for humans better within this VR and including how democracy in societies results from societies moving in the direction of compassion and as Tom Campbell would say, becoming love compared to plutocracies and dictatorships.

That is the connection of this thread to MBT.

Ted


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited