Is vitally important in life. But sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes at some of this stuff. You're free to say you're trans species and that you identify as a cat, sure. I'm also free to think you're a fruit cake.
The google says he graduated with a mechanical engineering degree
And using this video to attack his position on the very real position of climate change that is already increasing global conflict around the world, once again, shows the true colors of BBI.
One thing's for certain -- if he's "off the rails", theres a substantial amount of people in some very important positions who are far, far, far, far, far more off the rails.
In fact, this is actually pretty much along the same lines of what Bill Nye *has always* done - present things to younger people in an off-the-wall, whacky format. This is why everyone my age (1989) remembers Bill Nye (and learned from him, growing up).
I've never seen this show, but it's clear to me this lacks context. If this was just some goofy number at the end of the show, it's obviously intended to be mostly a joke.
I'm tempted to reverse google search this link and see which blog you picked it up from. Probably would answer a lot of questions (and provide us our own context).
And please, for the love of all of us who will be alive in past the next 25+ years, can you not shove aside climate change and call into credibility people who are educated enough to explain and warn us about the dire, disastrous consequences of climate change?
Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It's a political and anthropological one, and its effects have already caused some of the biggest issues that are being debated by developed nations today.
RE: The google says he graduated with a mechanical engineering degree
With all his lecturing on climate change I always thought he was a climatologist or something climate related.
Anyway that video was super weird.
It's almost like you don't need to be a climatologist/meteorologist to understand the immense danger facing the entire human race. And shit, it's almost like someone with a background in science can understand the scientific basis for why climate change is occurring, and when it'd be too late to do something about it.
Bill Nye has not "gone off the rails" for making a goofy/weird video (yes, I agree it was weird) - it's pretty clear, given his recent keynote position in the Science March, as well as activism regarding climate change (which has, unfortunately, become politicized), that this is at the very least a tangentially political thread.
Sure, you wrapped it up with a nice bow of plausible deniability. But people on BBI aren't stupid enough to not understand what's going on here.
(I hope I gave my post enough plausible deniability to not get attacked or banned).
I mean, the threat of imminent nuclear war should scare anyone. So should rising sea levels, and devastation of ecosystems that have enormous effects on the global economy among other things.
Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
And does so with less apparent knowledge than the average undergrad cramming for an A&P final, perhaps the fault isn't society's. Likewise Tyson musing about some sort of rationalist Utopia reinforced the limits of his expertise.
be an expert on everything, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to give their opinions. If you're a public figure, you are likely going to have to at some point comment on things you may not be as knowledgeable on. I have a much bigger problem with lawmakers and politicians actively denying and censoring science.
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
but I would be pretty comfortable with the assertion that anti-Vader a are a little more fringe than those who don't believe in climate science or evolution, in their own respective parties.
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
I think it's an issue on both sides and I have no hesitations of calling out anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOers as well when the science is overwhelmingly proving these are safe.
I am just against the politicization of science and while it goes both ways I think its hyper political on one spectrum. I am also biased and admit my worldview may be slanted.
but I don't think climate change, which is universally accepted at this point, requires someone to be an expert in that particular field.
Overall, I agree that I wish science wasn't political and was accepted fact - universally. I know there will always be a line in the sand but I can't believe it's as far out as it is.
RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
You want painful, listen to idiot politicians pretend to understand science, far worse. The shame is that they'll be long dead in the not too distant future when half of Miami is under water.
Coming up next, same politicians will con the American voting public into believing they don't need no stinkin' net neutrality, from the same group of people who once believed that the Internet was a series of tubes.
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
You want painful, listen to idiot politicians pretend to understand science, far worse. The shame is that they'll be long dead in the not too distant future when half of Miami is under water.
Coming up next, same politicians will con the American voting public into believing they don't need no stinkin' net neutrality, from the same group of people who once believed that the Internet was a series of tubes.
Science and public policy is now dictated by the swamp in lower Manhattan called Wall Street. Unfortunately, this isn't reality TV and there are consequences.
RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Everything is political. But what we have to day is not as much science as much as it is corporations and other special interests groups paying for studies that prove their points, regardless of what the facts are. This is on both sides.
The fact that this guy who has some education but is not really any kind of expert on anything has garnered so much attention for speaking politically is sort of sad.
Listen to the idiots in this administration discount/ignore science.
This is super hard to believe and you likely will not believe, but science is more than just climate change.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
RE: Each side has their own things regarding science,
but I would be pretty comfortable with the assertion that anti-Vader a are a little more fringe than those who don't believe in climate science or evolution, in their own respective parties.
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in that.
RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
This is super hard to believe and you likely will not believe, but science is more than just climate change.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
Thank you.
You have to be careful believing even scientists...
they are also people with an agenda and they did not take an oath to tell the truth. They, like in other professions will rely on the credentials as a way to coerce other into believing what they say as fact or truth. It does not mean what scientists say is false, but that they also can be swayed by politics or money.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
The discussion of "science" here needs a clarification
Science is really a process rather than a product. What most refer to as "science" are facts that have been produced by the process of making and testing a hypothesis. But science the product is not immutable. The process is perpetual, and new facts are being produced pretty regularly. Climate change is a good example of that. Unfortunately there all also bad examples: policies based on eugenic science from the 50's are completely abhorent today. So policy based on yesterdays science doesn't always work today, and that gives the naysayers wiggle room.
A good scientist shouldn't have any problem with the dynamics of it, and would probably do very well in politics or law. But in the same way that librarians aren't gregarious, a career in science tends to appeal to those with relatively fixed thought processes. And many of them don't tend to do well outside of their comfort zone.
RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists...
they are also people with an agenda and they did not take an oath to tell the truth. They, like in other professions will rely on the credentials as a way to coerce other into believing what they say as fact or truth. It does not mean what scientists say is false, but that they also can be swayed by politics or money.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists...
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists...
they are also people with an agenda and they did not take an oath to tell the truth. They, like in other professions will rely on the credentials as a way to coerce other into believing what they say as fact or truth. It does not mean what scientists say is false, but that they also can be swayed by politics or money.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
No Eric. You have to be careful. Those who don't practice the scientific method aren't scientists. They are bullshitters. Just like the kid who told the story about scientists planting trees to compensate for helicopter fuel....
RE: RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists...
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
Because, in practice, they support their claims with evidence thereby negating the need for truth oaths.
So was it a lawyer, banker, teacher, or some other non-scientific profession that developed ways to harness energy? Or launch a rocket to the moon? Or develop life saving medical technologies?
Creativity isn't solely expressed by fashion designers and artists.
Yes, he is an engineer...and the OP of this thread is the one off the rails, not Bill Nye
Cornell M.E. who also earned a living for a while as a standup comic. But he plays a scientist on TV :)
Ever hear of Google?
Anyway that video was super weird.
Quack how?
One thing's for certain -- if he's "off the rails", theres a substantial amount of people in some very important positions who are far, far, far, far, far more off the rails.
In fact, this is actually pretty much along the same lines of what Bill Nye *has always* done - present things to younger people in an off-the-wall, whacky format. This is why everyone my age (1989) remembers Bill Nye (and learned from him, growing up).
I've never seen this show, but it's clear to me this lacks context. If this was just some goofy number at the end of the show, it's obviously intended to be mostly a joke.
I'm tempted to reverse google search this link and see which blog you picked it up from. Probably would answer a lot of questions (and provide us our own context).
And please, for the love of all of us who will be alive in past the next 25+ years, can you not shove aside climate change and call into credibility people who are educated enough to explain and warn us about the dire, disastrous consequences of climate change?
Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It's a political and anthropological one, and its effects have already caused some of the biggest issues that are being debated by developed nations today.
Anyway that video was super weird.
Bill Nye has not "gone off the rails" for making a goofy/weird video (yes, I agree it was weird) - it's pretty clear, given his recent keynote position in the Science March, as well as activism regarding climate change (which has, unfortunately, become politicized), that this is at the very least a tangentially political thread.
Sure, you wrapped it up with a nice bow of plausible deniability. But people on BBI aren't stupid enough to not understand what's going on here.
(I hope I gave my post enough plausible deniability to not get attacked or banned).
Kim Jung Il worries me a lot more.
Kim Jung Il worries me a lot more.
I mean, the threat of imminent nuclear war should scare anyone. So should rising sea levels, and devastation of ecosystems that have enormous effects on the global economy among other things.
the first episode is about climate change, and "not that bad". I'd say out of the 5-6 eps we've watched, maybe 3 were worth the time
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
I don't think you know what 'quack' means.
I am just against the politicization of science and while it goes both ways I think its hyper political on one spectrum. I am also biased and admit my worldview may be slanted.
Overall, I agree that I wish science wasn't political and was accepted fact - universally. I know there will always be a line in the sand but I can't believe it's as far out as it is.
You want painful, listen to idiot politicians pretend to understand science, far worse. The shame is that they'll be long dead in the not too distant future when half of Miami is under water.
Coming up next, same politicians will con the American voting public into believing they don't need no stinkin' net neutrality, from the same group of people who once believed that the Internet was a series of tubes.
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
You want painful, listen to idiot politicians pretend to understand science, far worse. The shame is that they'll be long dead in the not too distant future when half of Miami is under water.
Coming up next, same politicians will con the American voting public into believing they don't need no stinkin' net neutrality, from the same group of people who once believed that the Internet was a series of tubes.
Science and public policy is now dictated by the swamp in lower Manhattan called Wall Street. Unfortunately, this isn't reality TV and there are consequences.
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Everything is political. But what we have to day is not as much science as much as it is corporations and other special interests groups paying for studies that prove their points, regardless of what the facts are. This is on both sides.
The fact that this guy who has some education but is not really any kind of expert on anything has garnered so much attention for speaking politically is sort of sad.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Spectacularly awful analogy.
It's amazing how threatened some of you feel by a guy like Nye.
Still don't want him talking about his junk.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
Thank you.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
Quote:
In comment 13440751 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
A good scientist shouldn't have any problem with the dynamics of it, and would probably do very well in politics or law. But in the same way that librarians aren't gregarious, a career in science tends to appeal to those with relatively fixed thought processes. And many of them don't tend to do well outside of their comfort zone.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
No Eric. You have to be careful. Those who don't practice the scientific method aren't scientists. They are bullshitters. Just like the kid who told the story about scientists planting trees to compensate for helicopter fuel....
Quote:
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
Because, in practice, they support their claims with evidence thereby negating the need for truth oaths.
Creativity isn't solely expressed by fashion designers and artists.