PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on May 23, 2019, 07:18:33 AM
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/05/23/i-hate-science-because-all-conservatives-hate-science-n2546714
Liberals sure love #Science, but like all conservatives I just hate #Science so very, very much. Did you know that 97% of #Science-people, who clearly love #Science, agree that the global warming climate crisis means we have to immediately give the liberal elite a bunch of our money and freedom because of #Science? Well, we do – and as of a couple of months ago, noted #Scientist AOC informed us that we have exactly 12 years to do it. Okay, 11 years, ten months. Tick tock!
You know it’s true #Science because of the specificity of her 12 years figure. Not 11 years. Not 13 years. Twelve years. Now you’re talking some #Science! What can’t #Science do?
Well, it apparently can’t explain what a fetus is. #Science, according to those who love #Science, does not teach us that the human baby inside the human mother that will indisputably be a human being someday is a human being from day one. It’s unclear what #Science says it is. Take your pick: a miscellaneous clump of cells, a parasite, a cancer analog. But #Science does teach us that whatever it is, #Science won’t let it interfere with the liberal elite’s pro-abortion narrative that destroying it is a morally inconsequential act.
See, the truly useful thing about #Science is its flexibility. It’s not going to let its conclusions be clouded by inconvenient facts, observations or evidence.
#Science is reliable.
Reliably liberal.
-
Liberalism is a religion of hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy and Middle Ages quality science, all wrapped inside a rusting patina of sensitivity and devout adherence to the mantra, even as it changes day after day.
-
Liberalism is a religion of hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy and Middle Ages quality science, all wrapped inside a rusting patina of sensitivity and devout adherence to the mantra, even as it changes day after day.
Well put.
It’s sad that originally the term “liberalism” meant freedom from the old oppressive structures. Now it has become the oppressive structure itself.
-
Well put.
It’s sad that originally the term “liberalism” meant freedom from the old oppressive structures. Now it has become the oppressive structure itself.
That is why when I use the word "liberal" I always add "progressive" as the progressive movement is socialism to a Totalitarian communist push.
-
That is why when I use the word "liberal" I always add "progressive" as the progressive movement is socialism to a Totalitarian communist push.
Today’s liberal Democrat are indeed exactly that. The Green New Deal, the suggestion to outlaw private medical insurance, confiscating weapons from the citizens, tinkering with the electoral college to try to force all elections to favor a single party, all of this is to grab control of the economy and the people by an elite self appointed group.
-
Today’s liberal Democrat are indeed exactly that. The Green New Deal, the suggestion to outlaw private medical insurance, confiscating weapons from the citizens, tinkering with the electoral college to try to force all elections to favor a single party, all of this is to grab control of the economy and the people by an elite self appointed group.
Exactly!
Obamacare was the start of Fundamental Transformation which was Obama's way of saying we had to change the basic principals of the American system to a collective, socialist, then eventual communist system. It was an attempt to transfer 1/6th of the economy to government. The election of Trump slowed, but did not stop Fundamental Transformation. The Democrats will pick right up where Obama left off, only they will accelerate it and may get both Houses in which to do it.
-
It’s weird. The same people who hold #science up as a religion cannot figure out the basic science behind economics to understand why socialism is doomed to fail.
-
It’s weird. The same people who hold #science up as a religion cannot figure out the basic science behind economics to understand why socialism is doomed to fail.
Or the number of genders, because apparently sociology is as relevant to medical science as biology and biochemistry.
-
It’s weird. The same people who hold #science up as a religion cannot figure out the basic science behind economics to understand why socialism is doomed to fail.
What do you expect from people who believe that the host of a scripted kids show is a scientific genius.
-
What do you expect from people who believe that the host of a scripted kids show is a scientific genius.
Or that there are 32 genders....
-
What do you expect from people who believe that the host of a scripted kids show is a scientific genius.
-
Or that there are 32 genders....
Aren't you lowballing that a bit?
-
Aren't you lowballing that a bit?
There's more?
My cat isn't confused. Is the animal kingdom confused, or is this just a human, liberal, progressive thing?
-
There's more?
My cat isn't confused. Is the animal kingdom confused, or is this just a human, liberal, progressive thing?
I'm sure if you decide to label yourself with a new term for a gender the mentally deranged will look upon you as a great living thing to be admired and thousands will use your new term to describe themselves.
-
Aren't you lowballing that a bit?
No shit. Look up a Louder with Crowder segment on YouTube about “There are only two genders. Change my mind.” Hilarious. He has these fat androgynous sjw’s stepping and fetching.
-
I identify as a displaced penied mascu-lesbian. That's a lesbian trapped in a man's body and to make it worse, I have penis envy. Don't judge me.
-
I identify as a displaced penied mascu-lesbian. That's a lesbian trapped in a man's body and to make it worse, I have penis envy. Don't judge me.
We knew that all along about you.
:)
-
I identify as a displaced penied mascu-lesbian. That's a lesbian trapped in a man's body and to make it worse, I have penis envy. Don't judge me.
It size or flexibility that you envy...
-
I hate to say it, but strictly from an optics standpoint, I score that one Nye 1, Tucker 0.
Sadly, Tucker came across as an ignorant bully, and Nye was calm, rational, and sounded like he knew what he was talking about.
I use SOUNDED LIKE quite deliberately there.
Instead of interrupting him every two seconds, Carlson should have calmly asked him "The climate of 1500 was different from 1750, and go back another 250 years and you're in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. So just exactly how is it you KNOW that the present-day climate would be like that in 1750 if not for humans?"
But instead he just foamed at the mouth. I don't usually watch this guy so I have nothing to compare with, but I'm guessing that's just his style. But it really worked against him here.
-
I hate to say it, but strictly from an optics standpoint, I score that one Nye 1, Tucker 0.
Sadly, Tucker came across as an ignorant bully, and Nye was calm, rational, and sounded like he knew what he was talking about.
I use SOUNDED LIKE quite deliberately there.
Instead of interrupting him every two seconds, Carlson should have calmly asked him "The climate of 1500 was different from 1750, and go back another 250 years and you're in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. So just exactly how is it you KNOW that the present-day climate would be like that in 1750 if not for humans?"
But instead he just foamed at the mouth. I don't usually watch this guy so I have nothing to compare with, but I'm guessing that's just his style. But it really worked against him here.
Of course that would be your response. ::)
-
Of course that would be your response. ::)
And yours... makes no sense at all. ::)
-
And yours... makes no sense at all. ::)
I'm actually shocked you watched the video. Or perhaps you just found a "summary" of it?
Oh, and the statement "Nye sounded like he knew what he was talking about". Seriously? He couldn't answer some straight forward questions. All he could do is parrot talking points.
-
Wow. Nye is full of shit.
-
Wow. Nye is full of shit.
He's an engineer, not a scientist, but I don't have a problem with him speaking on the subject. What I do have a problem with is his Far Left, Hollywood bias. He's an idiot too.
-
He's an engineer, not a scientist, but I don't have a problem with him speaking on the subject. What I do have a problem with is his Far Left, Hollywood bias. He's an idiot too.
Why, here's another tidbit from "The Science Guy"
-
I'm actually shocked you watched the video. Or perhaps you just found a "summary" of it?
Oh, and the statement "Nye sounded like he knew what he was talking about". Seriously? He couldn't answer some straight forward questions. All he could do is parrot talking points.
Yeah, seriously. To people who don't approach the subject with skepticism, or know anything about climate science but accept the so-called "consensus"? Yeah, absolutely. You are aware, aren't you, that this guy has made a name for himself as a popularizer of watered-down climate science? Have you forgotten how he's invited onto talk shows on MSNBC etc. to spread the word that the world is about to end unless we do something in the next 10 years?
It would have been easy for Carlson to demolish most of what he was saying. All I'm saying is, he didn't even come close.
I would like to see Nye try to debate Roger Pielke or Judith Curry. Or Anthony Watts, for that matter.
-
He's an engineer, not a scientist, but I don't have a problem with him speaking on the subject. What I do have a problem with is his Far Left, Hollywood bias. He's an idiot too.
Actually I think he's more of an entertainer than an engineer, but... whatever.
-
Actually I think he's more of an entertainer than an engineer, but... whatever.
Yes, I agree. I was speaking more of his educational background, and as this is first and foremost an aviation site, Nye was a mechanical engineer for Boeing. Not a big Wiki fan, but they probably have some of this right.
Nye began his career as a mechanical engineer for Boeing Corporation in Seattle, where he invented a hydraulic resonance suppressor tube used on 747 airplanes. In 1986, Nye left Boeing to pursue comedy, writing and performing jokes and bits for the local sketch television show Almost Live!, where he would regularly conduct wacky science experiments. Nye aspired to become the next Mr. Wizard and with the help of several producers successfully pitched the children's television program Bill Nye the Science Guy to KCTS-TV, channel 9, Seattle's public television station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
-
Yes, I agree. I was speaking more of his educational background, and as this is first and foremost an aviation site, Nye was a mechanical engineer for Boeing. Not a big Wiki fan, but they probably have some of this right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
But he's now regarded as a scientific expert by the progressives.
-
But he's now regarded as a scientific expert by the progressives.
And there you've just made my point for me...
-
And there you've just made my point for me...
And he looked like a buffoon trying to take on Tucker.
In an earlier post you made this statement:
Sadly, Tucker came across as an ignorant bully, and Nye was calm, rational, and sounded like he knew what he was talking about.
So which is it Azure? If "he sounded like he knew what he was talking about" how do you circle back with:
You are aware, aren't you, that this guy has made a name for himself as a popularizer of watered-down climate science? Have you forgotten how he's invited onto talk shows on MSNBC etc. to spread the word that the world is about to end unless we do something in the next 10 years?
So which is it?
And then you said:
It would have been easy for Carlson to demolish most of what he was saying. All I'm saying is, he didn't even come close
Really? Tucker couldn't get him to answer simple questions.
Tucker skewered this guy.
-
You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem... I even put SOUNDED LIKE in all caps to try to make my point clear, but you seem to think I was saying that Nye actually knew what he was talking about.
FTR, no, Tucker kept changing his questions. Nye was 100% on point with his answers. The problem was that his answers were not answers that a scientist would give, and Tucker didn't succeed in calling him on it. At one point Carlson started saying "you don't know, do you..." but at that point he couldn't get a word in edgewise. He should have been asking pointed questions, not trying to talk over Nye. He didn't get Nye to budge, and as far as I'm concerned he's the one that came across looking like a buffoon.
If you can, try to watch that clip from the perspective of someone who thinks Nye really is a science expert. Do you think that anything Carlson said, or got Nye to say, would change their mind about him?
If you think Tucker skewered him, I think you saw what you wanted to see.
-
FWIW, here's what someone on "the other side" came away with from that interview:
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/tucker-carlson-vs-bill-nye-on-climate-change/
-
You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem... I even put SOUNDED LIKE in all caps to try to make my point clear, but you seem to think I was saying that Nye actually knew what he was talking about.
FTR, no, Tucker kept changing his questions. Nye was 100% on point with his answers. The problem was that his answers were not answers that a scientist would give, and Tucker didn't succeed in calling him on it. At one point Carlson started saying "you don't know, do you..." but at that point he couldn't get a word in edgewise. He should have been asking pointed questions, not trying to talk over Nye. He didn't get Nye to budge, and as far as I'm concerned he's the one that came across looking like a buffoon.
If you can, try to watch that clip from the perspective of someone who thinks Nye really is a science expert. Do you think that anything Carlson said, or got Nye to say, would change their mind about him?
Um, no, my reading comprehension is just fine, thanks.
I do believe your writing skills leave something to be desired though. But anyway, enough on that.
If you think Tucker skewered him, I think you saw what you wanted to see.
I saw a man, who has a national cable program, try to question a guest who holds himself out to be a scientific expert. I watched as this guest was questioned, repeatedly, to answer simple questions that would further explain his positions. He couldn't because he didn't have the answers, only "talking points" put out by the progressives. So this "scientific expert" comes to a program, knowing full well the topic of discussion, but didn't prepare, or more likely, he just exposed himself as a fraud and a buffoon.
Tucker is well prepared, he doesn't go into an interview not being prepared. And yes, he ask pointed questions. And I admit, he knows how to trigger progressives and have them reveal their true agenda.
You stated "Nye was calm, rational, and sounded like he knew what he was talking about".
Maybe it's you that only saw what you wanted to see?
-
You stated "Nye was calm, rational, and sounded like he knew what he was talking about".
Maybe it's you that only saw what you wanted to see?
Why would I want to see Nye come across as if he really knew what he was talking about?
That doesn't make any sense.
-
Why would I want to see Nye come across as if he really knew what he was talking about?
That doesn't make any sense.
Your words, not mine.
"Nye was calm, rational, and sounded like he knew what he was talking about".
-
Huh? ???
Seriously, read that Neurologica blog post I linked to. Read the comments too. Some of the commenters thought Nye could have done better, some thought he should have known he wasn't going to get a fair hearing on Fox, but very few of them thought he sounded less than knowledgeable. And these are (I assume, I'm not a regular reader of the blog) people with some background in science, at least in biology or medicine.
If you want to change minds on these issues, you need to read what the other side says and try to understand where they're coming from. If you prefer to live in an echo chamber, then all you'll hear are people who already agree with you.
-
I think you two are not on the same wavelength. I think azure is talking about the surface appearance only. Carlson just comes across as annoyed and Nye is relaxed and smooth. He’s still full of shit though. And I gather azure agrees with that.
-
If you want to change minds on these issues, you need to read what the other side says and try to understand where they're coming from. If you prefer to live in an echo chamber, then all you'll hear are people who already agree with you.
I actually do a lot of reading, daily, from sites on both sides of the aisle. And I don't seek out the cliff note versions or "summaries" like some do. ::)
And the echo chamber comment? Pot, meet kettle.
-
I try to read both sides also, and as I do watch local news get a lot of the Left leaning feeds from the networks. I have a TRUST issue with the so called science that promotes Man's cause of generating CO2 causing climate change. There has been many incidents of cooking the numbers, changing historical data, and using assumptions to purposely get the outcomes they want.
The science has been politicized. We're not talking about scientists making the A bomb, or curing cancer here. We are talking about scientists driving economic policy through what I view as their political masters. Man Made Climate Change is NOT an environmental movement but an economic and political movement. They can't answer these basic questions.
1. What percentage of climate change is naturally occurring and what percentage is due to Man's use of fossil fuels?
2. Where will the money from more taxes, fees, cap and trade, and surcharges on fossil fuels go, and what will it be used for to "fix" Man's role in climate change?
3. How will we know that the "fixes" are reducing Man's portion of climate change? How will it be measured, especially if we have increases, or decreases in NATURALLY occurring climate change?
4. How do we reconcile the impact of much higher energy costs, and higher costs for all products on the poor and middle income earner struggling to make ends meet? Will they get an "energy subsidy" from government?
-
I try to read both sides also, and as I do watch local news get a lot of the Left leaning feeds from the networks. I have a TRUST issue with the so called science that promotes Man's cause of generating CO2 causing climate change. There has been many incidents of cooking the numbers, changing historical data, and using assumptions to purposely get the outcomes they want.
The science has been politicized. We're not talking about scientists making the A bomb, or curing cancer here. We are talking about scientists driving economic policy through what I view as their political masters. Man Made Climate Change is NOT an environmental movement but an economic and political movement. They can't answer these basic questions.
1. What percentage of climate change is naturally occurring and what percentage is due to Man's use of fossil fuels?
2. Where will the money from more taxes, fees, cap and trade, and surcharges on fossil fuels go, and what will it be used for to "fix" Man's role in climate change?
3. How will we know that the "fixes" are reducing Man's portion of climate change? How will it be measured, especially if we have increases, or decreases in NATURALLY occurring climate change?
4. How do we reconcile the impact of much higher energy costs, and higher costs for all products on the poor and middle income earner struggling to make ends meet? Will they get an "energy subsidy" from government?
And if so how will that be paid for? The answer of course, is forced transfer of wealth a.k.a. taxes, in other words, the wet dream of socialists and all other economic collectivists: we take your money ultimately at the point of a gun, and redistribute as we see fit, administered by us, the anointed ones, the elite who know better than you, and who skim much of it for ourselves, so that we never suffer the poverty our policies cause.
-
And if so how will that be paid for? The answer of course, is forced transfer of wealth a.k.a. taxes, in other words, the wet dream of socialists and all other economic collectivists: we take your money ultimately at the point of a gun, and redistribute as we see fit, administered by us, the anointed ones, the elite who know better than you, and who skim much of it for ourselves, so that we never suffer the poverty our policies cause.
Exactly. The main reason I don't trust the scientists, nor the science promoting Man Made Climate Change is due to the above. It is a wealth, and income redistribution scheme as that's what all their "fixes" come down to.
Are China, India, Russia, or other industrialized nations trying to put a lead anchor on their economies over "Man Made Climate Change"? The generate more CO2 than the U.S. by far. We will further reduce our competitiveness if we install more taxes, fees, surcharges etc on fossil fuels and products made from petroleum like plastics where are in everything today.
-
I think you two are not on the same wavelength. I think azure is talking about the surface appearance only. Carlson just comes across as annoyed and Nye is relaxed and smooth. He’s still full of shit though. And I gather azure agrees with that.
Exactly.
My main point is that none of Carlson's questions exposed Nye for what he is, a shallow know-nothing exploiting the global warming problem to promote himself and/or a far left agenda. Nye was smooth, articulate, and to someone who already accepts his line, he would have been the clear winner in that exchange.
A bigger problem, though, is real scientists doing the same thing. Is anyone else here on AAAS? On their community forum over the last few days there's been a second thread about CCS and other proposed geo-engineering solutions. Several people on that thread sounding the alarm. The elephant in the room was mentioned only once that I found (it's an extremely long thread): that the alarmists base their projections on models that have not proven reliable, and that the uncertainty in the climate sensitivity is a factor of 3 or 4. Most radical of all was a retired ethics professor happily embracing a worldwide return to a pre-industrial lifestyle.
These people scare the hell out of me.
-
In general, I like an often agree with Tucker Carlson. However, he needs to relax a bit. Some of the Fox hosts like Hannity (and Bill O'Reilly previously) love to talk over guests, and get hot and bothered. I think this takes away from their message, and credibility. I don't have cable anymore, so don't watch Fox, but occasionally see clips of their shows. They must think getting irritated generates controversy and viewership. Maybe they are right, but it is overly sensationalistic to me. The other networks do it too, and that's a reason I no longer watch any of them and made the decision to cut the cable.
Plus, I hate Comcast and Verizon. Comcast is overtly supporting Biden, and as they own NBC and MSNBC just another Lefty propaganda outlet.
-
The science has been politicized. We're not talking about scientists making the A bomb, or curing cancer here. We are talking about scientists driving economic policy through what I view as their political masters. Man Made Climate Change is NOT an environmental movement but an economic and political movement. They can't answer these basic questions.
1. What percentage of climate change is naturally occurring and what percentage is due to Man's use of fossil fuels?
To answer that question we would need to have a better handle on natural variability. We know more than we did 30 years ago, but not enough to put a number to that percentage with any reasonable confidence. Nye's answer, that ALL of it is due to humans, is the standard activist meme. That's unlikely to be true, but we don't know at this point.
2. Where will the money from more taxes, fees, cap and trade, and surcharges on fossil fuels go, and what will it be used for to "fix" Man's role in climate change?
Good question. The main purpose of those taxes is of course to discourage use of fossil fuels, not to fund specific projects.
3. How will we know that the "fixes" are reducing Man's portion of climate change? How will it be measured, especially if we have increases, or decreases in NATURALLY occurring climate change?
This goes to another thing Nye said, that we can know how much cooler it would be now if we had not added CO2 to the atmosphere. That presupposes we know the climate sensitivity. In principle it IS knowable - but we don't have a good handle on it yet. The pure radiative transport calculation says that a doubling of CO2 will produce roughly 4 degrees C of warming, averaged out over the planet. But depending on the effects of various feedbacks, that could be as low as 1.5 dC or as high as 6.
4. How do we reconcile the impact of much higher energy costs, and higher costs for all products on the poor and middle income earner struggling to make ends meet? Will they get an "energy subsidy" from government?
A good question for the Green New Deal people. Might want to send that one in to be asked during the upcoming Dem debates.
-
^^^^Thanks Azure. Great responses.
Since we know the Earth warms, and cools naturally. If the Earth just happens to cool during the period that we enact climate change driven fossil fuel energy use, how will we know if what we are doing is contributing to the cooling? Conversely, if the Earth warms naturally, will the scientific community then think the measures we put in place aren't working and want more?
It seems like a no win situation here. In addition, NONE of the catastrophic predictions have come true, and now AOC has "reset the clock" with the twelve year statement which some have backtracked from. What will they do when none of these predictions yet again do NOT come true? Give it another twelve years?
As you know, the Green New Deal is really just political propagannda with now basis in reality, and no way to actually implement.
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a36c4be47600f2fa1c8296db4bdea8e1e08cc4706e2e70f7242466f860dc77fa.jpg?w=800&h=505)