Science =/= political savvy. Vote cthulhu because why vote for the lesser evil?
@thehomage, the lesser of two evils is still evil
@Spotted Dick, the greater of two evils is IÄ IÄ, CTHULHU FHTAGN!
@thehomage, Good job delivering your propaganda. Cthulhu is pleased
@Spotted Dick, but why vote for the lesser evil?
@thehomage, opinions =/= science. These two wield their opinions like scepters, and less knowledgeable Internet people kowtow to them.
I'd vote for them
@Awc123awc, not even a contest anymore
@Awc123awc, I won't even care what agenda they are for or what party. Hands down they'll have my vote
This, it needs to happen
I think Bill Nye is too smart to go into politics.
@I Are Lebo, that's why smart politicians are hard to come by
@I Are Lebo, ...bill nye only has a BS...Tyson failed out of his PhD program, and transferred to an easier school to finish...
That doesn't sound like genius to me...
@talmet, you should know better than to think academic accomplishments are the only measure of intelligence.
Steve Jobs was a college dropout.
Quentin Tarantino never even attended film school.
There are many more examples I could give, but I think I made my point. (Plus I don't feel like doing any research)
@talmet, Columbia University is widely considered to be one of the best research universities in the world. With all due respect to the University of Texas, which is also a fantastic school, I don't think many people would agree that Columbia is an "easier" school. Either way, obtaining a PhD from one of these universities is an impressive feat.
@MyBlueBlanket, In physics it is an easier program. It isn't a super easy program, true. But it is easier to get your PhD in physics from Columbia than from University of Texas.
@I Are Lebo, of course, but if you are going to get scientific advice, I think it should be from a scientist.
Just like if you get medical advice, it should be from a medical doctor. Or legal advice from a lawyer.
Would you get surgery from someone who only had their bachelors in physiology? Of course not.
@talmet, your point doesn't make sense. I'd commented that they were too smart generally speaking to go into politics. You were the one who brought up their academic accomplishments.
If I wanted advice on physics, of course I'd want to go to Bill Nye. He may not be the best in the field but he is the most likely one to be able and willing to explain it to someone who doesn't have the background to understand an overly complex description.
I was talking about intelligence. Not background.
@I Are Lebo, sorry, I got you confused with another commenter on this picture. And Bill nye isn't even a physicist, it isn't even his field...he's an engineer. He might explain it to you, but why assume he even understands it himself?
My point in my comment to you, was what is the evidence that they are all that bright?
Personally, I think they are both pretty average, maybe a little above average. But neither one is a genius.
@talmet, did you ever watch his show? Or listen to him lecture? Or hear him debate?
Bill Nye is a brilliant man with a background in physics and engineering.
I never said he was the smartest or best. I don't see how that matters. His is one of the most likeable scientists alive, and I admire him for what and who he is.
@I Are Lebo, the only thing I've ever seen him do was debate a creationist. Which is a sign of stupidity, not brilliance.
The creationist isn't going to accept any of your scientific evidence, so it is a waste of time engaging in the debate.
It's like trying to convince someone that their child is ugly...it doesn't matter how "brilliant" your points are, the fact that you are even making the attempt says you're an idiot.
@talmet, so you're saying that refusing to treat someone with differing viewpoints like an adult and being rational is stupid.
I'm sorry, but that makes me shake my head at you. With an attitude like that you guarantee that things will never get better. Regardless of whether or not you are successful, civilly debating and working over your differences is what civilization is based on.
For every insane radical Muslim who thinks they actually have a chance at overthrowing democracy and installing Sharia Law, there's a thousand who aren't insane and understand the foolishness. For every ignorant Christian who thinks everything in the bible is literally true and that the Earth was literally created in seven days six thousand years ago, there's a thousand who aren't complete morons.
When you stop the communication you only make things worse. A lot of people with these ignorant mindsets are only ignorant because they were never taught better. They aren't stupid, they can be taught better.
@I Are Lebo, @I Are Lebo, gah, stupid funny pics bugged and ate my response.
Ok, here it is again...hopefully.
Talking with people is good. But attempting to disprove someone's deeply held beliefs with just words is a waste of time.
@I Are Lebo, wtf...I can't make a post with the word God.....
@I Are Lebo, /$;):) funny pics is bugging out like crazy!
Also, using science to disprove a god is illogical.
By definition, a god is above/outside of nature. Therefore god would not be required to follow the laws of nature.
If you are dealing with someone who believes their god is omnipotent (I.e. Christian), then it's even more of a fallacy. Omnipotent means all powerful.
If an omnipotent god wants to suspend/break/violate scientific Laws, then they can.
@talmet, firstly, it's not funny pics bugging out. It's their awful censorbot that they refuse to get rid of or fix in any way. What I do is before I post anything, I double tap to highlight it all, then copy it, just in case.
And you're right. Attempting to disprove God is pointless. The entire argument is pointless. But the Creationism debate isn't about disproving God or religion. It's specifically the Evolution vs Creationism theories. I watched the entire debate. Did you? I found it fascinating.
It's one thing to say "this is what I believe", it's another to defend it.
@I Are Lebo, I was forced to watch it by a colleague of mine who works in the religious studies department. She wanted me to see it, because according to her, Bill Nye lost and was humiliated.
Their censor program is idiotic...I think it didn't like me using the G word and existence together.
@talmet, your colleague is a moron. Bill Nye showed clear evidence that the world was not created six thousand years ago. That dumbass Ham showed evidence of nothing.
I guess ignorant morons see and hear what they choose to.
@I Are Lebo, which is my point. Arguing with people about their deeply held beliefs doesn't accomplish anything
@talmet, sometimes it gets them to realize that their beliefs are holding them back.
Look, I'm not arguing that you are going to be able to sway ignorant people from their ignorance. All I'm saying is you can't just write them off.
When people aren't made to defend their beliefs, they get even more ignorant. That's what leads to Inquisitions and Jihads.
@I Are Lebo, when people are challenged, it can also lead to them defending their beliefs.
There was a psychological experiment done like 5-10 years ago. They asked subjects how strong heir support for an issue was. They then showed them a logical argument against their belief. And then asked how strong their support for the same issue was. The majority of people had the strength of their believes increased.
It's like if someone makes fun of your sister/brother. Even if you don't really like your sibling, hearing them get attacked makes most people jump to their defense.
@talmet, interesting... That actually makes a whole lot of sense.
I need to think about that for a little while.
STAR WARS SPOILER:
@Jaune Arc, am
@Jaune Arc, I was pissed but then I realized
If you met these guys in real life you'd know they aren't that great of people. Not kidding, childhood was shattered fast.
@RMB, do you have time for the story? I'd love to hear it
Vermin supreme 2016
@Canadian House Hippo, A friendly fascist! A tyrant we can trust!
@Big Bad Butterfree, tye
Too bad Nye is a dick...
@Slayers Den1, all you down voters clearly haven't heard. He actually is a dick. Read it anywhere on the internet honestly. He's a pompous dïck
@HammerOfHerertics, Thank you, I was just thinking the same exact thing. Maybe they'll see this and look it up.
@Slayers Den1, he totally is but he's also had to deal straight ignorance and denial of proven facts. It takes a toll on a guy. But that's also why Nye would be VP
@HammerOfHerertics, Why don't one of you provide some kind of proof? From everything I've seen him in (not just his show) he seems like a quality guy.
@Slayers Den1, he's a hilarious dick though! And Tyson would be the frontrunner so it'd probably be fine still.
@Mister Riddle, most of his arguments are on theories. Basic reading comprehension tells you that a theory is not a fact (as of yet). So, it's an educated guess!
@snarftbob, oh god, here we go with another 'ITS JUST A THEORY' guy.
A widely accepted scientific theory is as close to the truth and facts as you can get. Thosr theories are buils on actual proof and facts to provide an outcome that 99% of the time, is a fact.
@Slayers Den1, he has the right to be a dick
@Captain Penis, He does not have the right to be a dick. Let me go find some proof that he is one though.
@Slayers Den1, I was joking, because I am morally obligated to comment on anything that has to do with male genitalia.
@Captain Penis, Fair enough! I can respect that
@snarftbob, people will deny that the rise in carbon emissions is a cause of global warming. He is a fervent supporter of fighting climate change and many will say it's just a phase in climate and we haven't done anything to cause it. Those are denying facts. Not "theories"
@snarftbob, general definition of theory =\= scientific theory. Refer to tumblretard's comment.
@tumblretard, lol, really? Are you a dumb ash? There are a lot of theories/laws out there that are plainly incorrect. Even Newton's Laws can be proved incorrect based off of speed/size. It's people ASSuming that current theories are correct that cause issues everywhere. That's why the libertards push climate change now and not global warming, cause hey our first theory of global warming actually didn't work out all the time. And guess what? Theory for a long time had the earth as flat. General scientists f_ck things up sometimes!
@snarftbob, Do you try to be as uneducated and ignorant as possible, or are you just born like that? Seriously, after reading most of your comments that's legitimate concern.
@Can yew knot, yeah...way to bring facts
@Slayers Den1, yeah maybe to the bigot hypocritical religious morons. But that's alright, someone's gotta do it lol
@Mister Riddle, so where are your "facts" rooted? Were you around for the last ice age and observed how quickly the temperature changed before after and during the event? What about all the ones before that? What about all those warming periods? Which ones were normal? Which ones were outliers with a 99.7% confidence level? Are we in an outlier based on all this "data" you have? Even if you had a way of finding some "data" from all past ages, how confident can you be of your assumptions for obtaining this data and thus how accurate it actually is? Or are you just observing the warm up (out of the latest little Ice Age) that we have been observing in the Northern Hemisphere with accurate instruments since the 1800s with what you perceive as normal? When scientists can point out facts like these and get shouted down by the establishment, then real science cannot take place and it has effectively become political. I hope that you become enlightened and begin to question perceived experts
@snarftbob, so you're one of those guys who thinks we've had no impact on climate change whatsoever. I'll just take into consideration your ignorance on all future comments 👌
@snarftbob, oh god, another 'OBSERVIAL SCIENCE' guy. Gi back to ken ham, and enjoy your dinosaurs on the arc of noah.
@tumblretard, widely accepted=true?
So...atoms didn't exist until the 1800s? That's when that theory became widely accepted, so before then...atoms don't exist?
Oh, and climate change isn't widely accepted among scientists.
The "97% consensus" you are going to quote was created by Margret Zimmerman (who didn't even have a masters when she did the study), who actually got 45% among scientists that was out of something like 3,146 scientists. (she then excluded over 3 thousand scientists based on not statistically valid reasons and ended up with 75 out of 77 scientists agreeing)
@Mister Riddle, what in your post is a fact?
C02 causing rising temperatures is a theory.
A fact is "today it is X degrees"
I think you need to review the difference between theories and facts.
Human caused climate change is a theory.
@talmet, It appears that you're taking things so out of context that I can't even see our solar system anymore. Oh well.
@tumblretard, no, that's pretty much exactly in context "a widely accepted scientific theory is as close to the truth and facts as you can get"
For a biased, poorly controlled, America
@EatMyAss, why do you say that?
@EatMyAss, lol, wut?
@EatMyAss, and that's different from all the current candidates how?
@Quantum Physicist , "Science" these days is manipulating data to fit the preconceived political narrative of those funding the research, rather than seeking truth.
@EatMyAss, and people who want to mix religion and politics aren't?
@EatMyAss, And by the way, that's the opposite of what science is supposed to be, and that's definitely not Tyson or Nye.
@Quantum Physicist , climate gate. Emails between researchers talking about how to tweak the numbers to prove global warming.
@Blargetha, Just looking at Wikipedia, it appears to be a misunderstanding and an attempt to disprove climate change. I don't really get why people are so adamant about climate change not existing...?
@Quantum Physicist , Because people don't want to admit that there's something wrong, that's our fault, and that we need to worry about. Stupid reasons to deny it. At least big oil companies denying it makes sense, they lose money if we start doing something about it.
@Zhao the Poon Slayer, Nailed it. It bugs me when people assume it's science itself at fault, when it's usually the scientist or the media. For example, the whole global cooling thing wasn't even supported much by scientists, but the media made it into a bigger issue. Here, some people deny climate change based off of that issue, when really global cooling was never a thing. :/
@EatMyAss, You're not entirely wrong. There has been a history of privately funded excitements being manipulated to benefit the company. Particularly energy companies regarding climate change. But saying that for all science, especially governmentally funded excitements, is incorrect.
@D0N RAM0N, that's the "lesser of two evils" fallacy
@Quantum Physicist , Climate change has always existed. The earth has gone through numerous warming and cooling periods. I think the argument should be "are humans able to influence global climate?" And "at what cost to productivity do we worry about whether we can/should do anything about it?"
@big freedom, I agree the earth has gone through various periods of time with different levels of heating/cooling. To your first question, I do believe humans are able to influence the climate, at least to some extent as the evidence suggests. To your second question, we are able to do some things about it (eg- research alternative energy, cut down gradually on fossil fuels) but to a degree the earth's average temperature will change whether we like it or not.
@EatMyAss, how's the job search going bud?
@Quantum Physicist , lol, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even in grade school most teachers don't even allow it to be a source because it isn't credible.
@snarftbob, I never said it was the most reliable source, I was using for a brief overview. Now, do you actually have a response to what I said or...?
@Quantum Physicist , fine I will down vote your sh*t too lol. You would know wiki isn't a credible source if you were actually a quantum physicist.
@snarftbob, And I said it wasn't the most reliable source...? Okay then lol.
@snarftbob, you sound like a douchey prick, I hope you are better in real life
@Quantum Physicist , I don't think that anyone suggests that the earth doesn't go through climate changes (there has been things called "Ice Ages you know...). The issue is that there are people out there that say it's only human caused today and then force this mindset on something that cannot be proved without hundreds/thousands of years of accurate observations through multiple warm and cold ages while measuring our carbon, oxygen, etc levels based off our current output. And these people have made it taboo to go against them while making it very political. On top of all this. Guess who has been banking on this global warming - climate change issue? Hmmm...anyone hear of Al Gore? So could this be influenced by money? No! How can one even begin to think that?!?
@snarftbob, I never say it wasn't political, I said it shouldn't be. Look at Zhao's comment; it's irresponsible to assume that applies with all science. It seems likely this is especially prevalent when you have an industry like oil. I do not like people who try and profit off of this, to be clear.
@snarftbob, Anyways, long story short it is true climate change can be political (though it shouldn't be), but that is not true with all science. Have a nice night.
@Quantum Physicist , it is exactly what they both do. Neither one is actually a good scientist.
Nye isn't even a doctor, all he has is a BS in engineering...
Tyson failed out of his first PhD program and switched to an easier school to finish. He has also written zero major papers in his career...he's at most a mediocre scientist who the media love because he's a big liberal.
@talmet, Fair enough.
@Quantum Physicist , climate change is a theory.
As a theory it must be tested against experiments.
Currently, there is no prediction from the theory that matches actual results. The South Pole is actually growing, not shrinking, high altitude temperatures haven't changed in over 18 years, the North Pole doesn't completely melt in the summer, there have been fewer hurricanes not more, etc...
As such, until the theory makes predictions that agree with actual results, the theory should be viewed as at the very least highly suspect if not completely wrong.
What is your evidence to back up your belief? You say there is some, what is it?
Psst, if it's computer models, that's not real evidence. As you would know if you really were a physicist.
@stillnotginger, s...SAXTON HAAAAAALE
In this threat: climate change/global warming deniers, people who mix the term theory with a thesis, etc.
This... We need this!
I'd become a citizen just to vote for them
I would vote for him.
Yes... Tyson... MIKE TYSON
Tyson no doubt
That ain't mike!
Their campaign is "Thienth and thtrength"
This would never happen. Politicians must have the prerequisite of being at the very top of the bell curve, borderline remedial
Spoiler jar jar kills Vader
I know who I'm wasting my write in vote on next election!