Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Progressivism

Progressivism Progressivism Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree38Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 28th, 2017, 11:46 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I agree with you in concept. The difference is Faraday received education at the Royal Institute as well as being gifted in science. Nye has created nothing to advance science or impact science. Nye is an entertainer with an agenda. The Nye v Ham debate was like paying $5,000 for a ringside seat at Caesar's Palace to watch two random accountants pulled at random to fight for the ultracrepidarian championship.
Faraday's higher level education largely consisted of a combination of...

1) Self-learning through his study of books that existed in his period, particularly books that he happened to come in contact with during his apprenticeship as a bookbinder.

2) Attending lectures at the Royal Institute that were, as far as I am aware, intended for a general audience.

and

3) Experimentation on his own, as a lab assistant to Davy, and as a professor/lecturer in his later years.

Additionally, the only actual degrees he received were honorary degrees from Oxford (in the 1830's) and from Cambridge (in the 1860's).

But the point is, it isn't important (at least to me) what some framed piece of paper happens to say about someone but, rather, how principled that person is when he or she wields the methods of science.

And, although the Nye versus Ham debate might have been like you say, which I tend to agree somewhat, neither of their sets of arguments during that debate should be discounted because of either of their educational backgrounds.

Indeed, as far as I am aware, the nature of the world does not depend upon what some framed piece of paper which hangs on some office or study wall happens to say about someone.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old April 29th, 2017, 12:21 AM   #82
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Skeptical Science sends out over ten thousand surveys with only two-questions, gets only three thousand back. And that two-question survey that over two thirds of climate scientists who received the survey blew off is the source of 97%.
I'm not sure what particular study you are referring to. But the Cook et al (2013) study can be found here, if that is the study you are referring to.:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8/2/024024/pdf

And its actual methodology and results do not match your description of its methodology and results.

And here is the abstract of said study.:

Quote:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Thanks from RNG

Last edited by baloney_detector; April 29th, 2017 at 12:27 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old April 29th, 2017, 07:07 AM   #83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Faraday's higher level education largely consisted of a combination of...

1) Self-learning through his study of books that existed in his period, particularly books that he happened to come in contact with during his apprenticeship as a bookbinder.

2) Attending lectures at the Royal Institute that were, as far as I am aware, intended for a general audience.

and

3) Experimentation on his own, as a lab assistant to Davy, and as a professor/lecturer in his later years.

Additionally, the only actual degrees he received were honorary degrees from Oxford (in the 1830's) and from Cambridge (in the 1860's).

But the point is, it isn't important (at least to me) what some framed piece of paper happens to say about someone but, rather, how principled that person is when he or she wields the methods of science.

And, although the Nye versus Ham debate might have been like you say, which I tend to agree somewhat, neither of their sets of arguments during that debate should be discounted because of either of their educational backgrounds.

Indeed, as far as I am aware, the nature of the world does not depend upon what some framed piece of paper which hangs on some office or study wall happens to say about someone.
My comparison between Nye and Faraday, though meandering, sort of came down to how has Nye advanced science: creation, invention, etc.

In my opinion, he is a circus barker, a door to door salesman, a used car dealer for his brand of ideology and is a disservice to actual science and has a negative impact.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
Jimmyb is offline  
Old April 29th, 2017, 07:10 AM   #84
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
I'm not sure what particular study you are referring to. But the Cook et al (2013) study can be found here, if that is the study you are referring to.:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8/2/024024/pdf

And its actual methodology and results do not match your description of its methodology and results.

And here is the abstract of said study.:
The one I have is by Skeptical Science. I have the details but not where I am at right now. I will get the details later.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old April 29th, 2017, 09:17 AM   #85
Banned
 
Bentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Someplace
Posts: 61
Cook, what is his background? A cartoonist I believe.

Anyway, the 97% was a fraud.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#6424f248485d
Bentley is offline  
Old April 29th, 2017, 09:29 AM   #86
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bentley View Post
Cook, what is his background? A cartoonist I believe.

Anyway, the 97% was a fraud.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#6424f248485d
Quote:
James McBee Taylor is president of the Spark of Freedom foundation, a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute and former managing editor (2001-2014) of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News.
https://www.desmogblog.com/james-taylor

And the best, he's a lawyer.
RNG is offline  
Old April 29th, 2017, 09:46 AM   #87
Banned
 
Bentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Someplace
Posts: 61
Yes, the 97% is a fraud, from a cartoonist, who also likes to dress up in German WW II uniforms, quite fitting as the AGW crowd is rather fascistic.

Meanwhile, many of the top names in the AGW crowd have large investments in green-energy. And never mention that fact. Talk about conflict of interest.

Anyway, as the models the AGW crowd has used have blown-up in their faces, the facts are clear for any open-minded person to see the big lie that is AGW.

Last edited by Bentley; April 29th, 2017 at 09:54 AM.
Bentley is offline  
Old April 29th, 2017, 09:48 AM   #88
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
My comparison between Nye and Faraday, though meandering, sort of came down to how has Nye advanced science: creation, invention, etc.

In my opinion, he is a circus barker, a door to door salesman, a used car dealer for his brand of ideology and is a disservice to actual science and has a negative impact.
Michael Faraday was helping discover the inner workings of electricity in 19th century England. The Farad is named after him which is capacitance.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old April 29th, 2017, 10:15 AM   #89
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bentley View Post
Yes, the 97% is a fraud, from a cartoonist, who also likes to dress up in German WW II uniforms, quite fitting as the AGW crowd is rather fascistic.

Meanwhile, many of the top names in the AGW crowd have large investments in green-energy. And never mention that fact. Talk about conflict of interest.

Anyway, as the models the AGW crowd has used have blown-up in their faces, the facts are clear for any open-minded person to see the big lie that is AGW.
Top names as in politicians or top names as in research scientist?

And source your claim that the 97% came from a cartoonist, preferably after you read the links I and others have provided.
RNG is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Progressivism

Tags
antiscience, bill, guy, nye



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye -- Face the Flood of Evidence Against Darwinism sumara Atheism 7 June 9th, 2017 03:42 AM
There Are Anti-Abortion Stickers On Arizona Science Textbooks LongWinded Current Events 2 August 22nd, 2015 01:51 PM
Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings LongWinded Current Events 34 March 13th, 2015 08:04 PM
Why The Science Behind Anti-Depressants May Be Completely 'Backwards' intangible child Current Events 1 March 8th, 2015 08:29 PM
Alabama's Anti Sharia Law Bill Shoots Down Judges Anti Marriage Equality Order skews13 Current Events 0 February 12th, 2015 12:14 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.