Neil deGrasse Tyson: Elected Science Deniers Are a Threat to Democracy

Bill Nye, Barack Obama, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson selfie

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Neil deGrasse Tyson has claimed that the refusal of the Trump administration to bow to every scientific demand presented to politicians is a threat to democracy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says science deniers in White House are a profound threat to democracy

The scientist spoke out as thousands around the world prepare to march

One of America’s most influential and popular scientists has issued a stark warning over what he termed the Trump administration’s rejection of science – saying it is a threat to the country’s “informed democracy”.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of the StarTalk podcast and TV show and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, said when he grew up, the US had relied on science to drive its innovation. But no longer.

“People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,” he says in a video posted on Facebook. “That’s not the country I remember growing up in. I don’t remember any other time where people were standing in denial of what science was.”

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/neil-degrasse-tyson-trump-science-deniers-white-house-threat-democracy-a7696186.html

In my opinion, the problem with people like Tyson is they think they have a monopoly on being right. And there are a lot of reasons for thinking Tyson is not right about everything.

Climate Science in particular has an atrocious track record of failed predictions, dating all the way back to James Hansen’s exaggerated Scenario A.

Nothing bad is happening to the global climate, despite efforts by climate scientists to hype up every twitch of the thermometer.

The only tangible effect of anthropogenic CO2 to date is that CO2 is greening the Earth, stimulating faster plant growth, and more drought resilience across a broad range of species.

Claims by climate scientists that the science is “settled” are unconvincing.

To suggest it is unreasonable to have doubts about alarmist climate projections in the face of such a shambolic track record of failure and exaggeration in my opinion is pure arrogance – personal hubris dressed up as scientific opinion.

Video of Tyson explaining why it is wrong to disagree with him

Update (EW): Replaced the video above with a longer version of Tyson’s presentation

Advertisements

314 thoughts on “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Elected Science Deniers Are a Threat to Democracy

  1. When are real scientists going to stand up and stop insider climate scientists from hiding behind the lab coats of real scientists? These insiders are making a mockery of science and are the real threat to democracy.

    • I’m quite concerned about what is coming to Science once the general public realises what has been done to it (and them) over the past decades – and I’m not just talking about the AGW debacle.

      The Dark Ages aren’t all that far in the past and we can see the desire for the certainties of Religion in the large numbers who blindly believe in the Church of AGW dogma.

      What happens when the ‘dragon’ of Science is slain in front of them, in the MSM and online? When the Scientists, so trusted, turn out shown up as venal liars and hypocrites, prostituting themselves for funding?

      • Most are not hypocrites, prostituting themselves for funding. They just aren’t that good amongst the people who have given the name SCIENCE it’s just respect.
        They aren’t Einstein, they aren’t Newton, Planck or Bohr. They aren’t Maxwell. They aren’t von Neuman. They aren’t Hawking. They are just workmen. Bright workmen. Let’s accept that the IPCC has produced a consensus of bright workmen and give it all the credence that endows. And no more.

      • No, let us not “accept” your premise, or any other false premises, Lee.
        If they believe this malarkey, they are not bright, and they are not doing science the way it is meant to be done.
        And they have neither earned nor deserve a single shred of credence.
        And there is no “consensus”.
        Enough of that BS already, OK?
        How about instead, we start with accepting that?

      • And *I* am quite concerned about “journalists” not being able to tell shit from shinola. After all, “reality” is just that which is repeated relentlessly by the mainstream media (who are desperate for ratings and just love doom and controversy and conflict and yelling and…)

      • Frankly, “science” was the last of our civilization’s institutions that I felt I could still believe. Until my eyes were opened by Ancel Keyes’ chicanery which doomed millions of people to eating a “diet” wholly unsuitable for our species in evolutionary terms, followed by learning the truth about “global warming.” Why would ANYONE trust “studies say” today? Vast amounts of what is published is junk data thrice-massaged, press-fit to a preconceived, paid for “conclusion.”

      • It is a sad situation when people formerly thought of as good scientists rush to politics, not scientific accomplishments, to support their views. There are so many good and dedicated scientists, but the “showboats” are racing towards politicization of science and trying to shift science to a tool of the irrational left. That is the sad part of all this. The seekers of fame, fortune, and leftist political power are defaming science and our scientists. President Eisenhower was prescient and his words warned of the dangers we now face.

      • I’ve said for a long time that science itself is going to be one of the real casualties of AGW promotion.

        Watching it transform into a religious belief system within my lifetime is a tragedy. And it’s actually more susceptible to corruption, simply by replacing ‘morality’ with ‘ethic’ – which carries more weight in terms of self-policing?

      • MarkMcD,

        “The Dark Ages aren’t all that far in the past and we can see the desire for the certainties of Religion in the large numbers who blindly believe in the Church of AGW dogma.”

        To me, a Christian, the “certainties of Religion” seems almost oxymoronic . . if I say “I believe”, it seems many hear; *I KNOW!* . . If I say “I have faith”, it seems many hear; *I am CERTAIN!* . . Rumors of my certainty have been greatly exaggerated ; )

        Seriously, uncertainty is an integral “part” of Christianity (and other Religions), much as it’s a part of science. I think that’s one reason science (as we know it now) was initiated, and until very recently dominated, by Christians . . Hell, the freaking “Uncertainty principle” was the brainchild of a Christian ; )

        – “In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

        “Where no guiding ideals are left to point the way, the scale of values disappears and with it the meaning of our deeds and sufferings, and at the end can lie only negation and despair. Religion is therefore the foundation of ethics, and ethics the presupposition of life.” (Heisenberg 1974)

    • Don’t we do a disservice to real scientists when we call Neil deGrasse Tyson a “scientist?” This guy is a used car salesman. His tiresome mantra about global warming is the used car. Time to move on.

      • I don’t know the guy, being a Brit, but I do know that putting BSc after your name does not make you a scientist.

        It seems to me that there are too many people who see academic science as a community and think that it is up to them to defend all elements of that “community” just because they themselves struggled through a degree in a science subject. Others are naive enough to believe that those magic letters BSc or PhD make you infallible and even if they don’t …. well, your heart will be in the right place ‘cos you’re a scientist, so we’ll back you anyway even though we don’t really understand what it is you are doing. (And sometimes even suspect you might be wrong!)

      • He actually has a B.A from Harvard (physics), a M.S. from University of Austin (astronomy), and an M.Phil. and a Ph.D. from Columbia (astrophysics).
        None of which, evidently, gave him any insight whatsoever into the wonderful world of physical geography.

      • Next question: How much of that education was publicly funded through affirmative action legislation? (just curious)

      • 97% of the problem is the use of the portmanteau description of “scientist”. A butcher, a greengrocer, a pharmacist, a furniture salesman, a tailor are all shopkeepers but their skills are very different. Sure, they do have certain characteristics in common but to lump them all together as shopkeepers is to lose a lot of information. So it should be with scientists – call them what they are, chemists, physicists, biologists, whatever. Of course, accept that they still possess, or should possess, the defining thought processes characteristic of science and so can legitimately express an opinion outside their field. It would do much to suppress the quasi-divine status that the description “scientist” unjustly confers.

      • “Next question: H”ow much of that education was publicly funded through affirmative action legislation? (just curious)”

        –Ridiculous. The guy earns a PhD in astrophysics and you question the legitimacy of his degree on any angle you can.

      • Pop Piasa, the Ivies (like Harvard) do not give scholarships, have “need blind” admissions, and base grants and financial aid entirely on need (not race). So “Affitmative Action” wouldn’t pay anything. Being a minority can be a consideration for admission, of course.

      • Old joke from the British TV series, “All Creatures Great and Small.” Dr. Herriot was discussing with a colleague all the “letters” after his name; DVM, MRCVS, and finally, MKC. “What’s MKC?” he asked, impressed and intrigued. “Member of the Kennel Club!” was the sheepish reply.

        Hey, I’m an EEE (Equine Effluent Engineeer), myself! :-)

      • “Next question: How much of that education was publicly funded through affirmative action legislation? (just curious)”
        Oh about as much as Obama’s – all of it.

      • Michael Jankowski April 24, 2017 at 10:27 am
        Pop Piasa, the Ivies (like Harvard) do not give scholarships, have “need blind” admissions, and base grants and financial aid entirely on need (not race).

        They do now but weren’t doing so in the 80s, however given his parents’ backgrounds I doubt whether he was a financial aid recipient.

      • I had buyers remorse the second I posted that, Last Dem, you are right. His misguided attacks on those who dispute his views have nothing to do with how his education was funded.

      • #Goldrider — MAHFGR. In my youth, a local daily rag had a journalist with a penchance for humor. He added those letters behind his name which he explained as, “May All His Finesse Go Right” !

    • The sad part is that good scientists simply have trusted other scientists regarding climate and the junk science being touted. They do not take the time to find out what is actually being claimed and do not examine it critically. Every time one of these trusting scientists stops and really studies the claims, that scientist becomes a skeptic as there is no other way to be when you apply the real principle and laws of valid science.

      Just the wanton assumption that a trace gas drives the climate should make these scientists pause and think about how absurd that is.

      Neil deGrasse Tyson has not done his homework and makes all kinds of unfounded assumptions regarding climate science that the could not defend with his knowledge.

      • You’re right, higley7. Science operates on the assumption of careful ethical work. Science cannot operate without it. One cannot check all the work of others, even when some of one’s own work depends upon it.

        Scientists are therefore in the habit of granting the ethics and care to others that they have themselves.

        That’s what’s happened with climate science. Other scientists assume quality work.

        But I’ve assessed that work in detail, and it’s not quality. It’s uniformly incompetent.

        Taking advantage, in step the NGOs and the complicit press. The NGOs knowingly and deliberately defame the disbelievers, and the press willfully promote and distribute the accusations.

        Many scientists, in their grant of trust and believing the validity of climate science, go for the misinformation spread by the NGOs and the press.

        Hence the science march, full of well-meaning scientists. Unfortunately they become self-selected shills for incompetent scientists, witnesses for a dishonest media, stooges for outright villainous NGOs, and useful idiots for the totalitarian connivers.

        That still doesn’t explain the outrageous failure of the APS, though.

    • There is a difference between denying science and being skeptical about AGW. Unfortunately, some who should know better mix up the two.

    • The only thing I see from this video is the promotion of political science over data. There is no data that proves CO2 is driving climate to the point whereby we need worry about it versus bigger and more immediate problems eg nuclear war, virus contagions, over population, solar events, poverty, unemployment etc.

      Wasting time on Climate Change has no short term winners other than those who keep promoting it. It is making us all poorer. The “believers” and the “deniers” are equally affected as the money runs out. Meanwhile, we ignore real problems.

      The rump of science is now a “look into it” industry. We need technical solutions to prevent nuclear war this year, not control the weather 100 years from today.

      • Nuclear war is a political issue that does not have a technical fix.

        The last time scientists tried to fix nuclear war was the campaign against nuclear testing in the 1950’s. A Nobel prize winner by the name of Muller deliberately ignored contradictory evidence and declared that the Linear No Threshold (LNT) Hypothesis was correct. This Hypothesis was used to scare the population about the effects of nuclear bomb testing and led to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This may have been a good outcome but it was a perversion of science.

        http://www.radiation-hormesis.com//wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Muller-ToxSci-1-expanded-story.pdf

        By 2012 Low Dose Radiation Research was well on the way to proving that low dose radiation was not a threat, it is probably a benefit, because biological cell repair mechanisms deal with the damage from low dose radiation but are overwhelmed at high doses. This is not surprising because our bodies evolved in a low dose radiation environment (cosmic rays from the sky and radon/granite from the earth). The Obama admin shut down this $10 million research program to focus on Green priorities (biofuel from algae?).

        LNT based NRC regulation was used to shut down the nuclear industry. The Greens allied with the coal industry to shut down nuclear. Using more junk science (AGW), the Green are now allied with OPEC and the Oil industry to shut down the coal industry.

        LNT based regulation has also killed more people than the nuclear industry. In 2012 the Japanese tsunami killed 1600 people in Fukushima prefecture, radiation from the reactors killed no one (2-3 people went to hospital with radiation burns), and 1600 people died as a result of the evacuation of residents of Fukushima to save them from radiation.

        I agree with other comments that science as an institution will be seriously damaged when the AGW hoax is exposed.

    • Interesting –

      I just watched a documentary about Einstein

      which prominently features the way and travails which were neccessary to find empirical evidence to support Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

      https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

      Neil deGrasse Tyson takes a reasonably prominent part in this video, and makes several comments about the process.

      Just a pity he cannot see that the unsupported Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming hypothesis is missing the support that made Einstein – not only famous – but a leading influence in physics.

      Without the empirical evidence observed by Eddington and further confirmed later by a number of astronomists, Einstein would only be ever regarded as an interesting but irrelevant theoretician.

  2. If you’ve got a winning position in a debate, there’s no need to try and shut down those who disagree.

    Tyson’s right about the failure of the (mis)education system to produce people with critical thinking skills and a basic knowledge of Science to help them evaluate what they are told.

    But the ones breaking through that paradigm are those who reject the propaganda, PR tactics and doomsday prophesies of the Church of AGW.

    Computer models are TOOLS, not data, and using them as data merely tells us we now have tools using tools.

    • Old Lawyer’s motto, “If the facts are with you, pound the facts, if they are not then pound the table!”

      • If the facts support, pound the facts. If the facts do not support, then pound the law (physics models). If the facts nor the law support, then pound the table.

      • Modern western schools are Progressive, and Progressivism is, at it’s heart, forced conformity, and the discouragement of independent thought.

    • Computer models are TOOLS, not data, and using them as data merely tells us we now have tools fools using tools.

      There, I fixed that for you.

    • I was disputing with AGWarmists people and they used a lot the word data or evidence. Are you rejecting the evidence? I had to consult the Oxford Dictionary that said evidence is obviously and clearness. Other meaning of evidence is “testimonies and data presented in favor of a conclusion”. About data the Oxford says, plural of datum. Then, datum is thing known or granted, assumption or premise from which inferences may be drawn,

      Then, the mere words data, or evidence, are not determinant arguments, but but words to dispute something.

      • Good stuff. “Facts” are observations about which most of us would not dispute.
        “Evidence” is when we take a fact and use it in support of or to critique some causal hypothesis about the way the world works.
        “I took vitamin C when I had a cold and I got better.” <–anyone around you would agree you had a cold, and you took vitamin C.

        That fact/evidence supports the cold-vitamin C hypothesis, but does not prove it. More is needed.

        A better piece of evidence would be if a group of people were deliberately exposed to the common cold, then half were given vitamin C and the other half placebo. If the group with vitamin C got better quicker, that would be even more convincing "fact"/"evidence" regarding the cold-vita C hypothesis.

        Sure, CO2 is rising. Sure, planetary temps have been rising. Sure, it could be CO2 causing the rise. But that is a pure "ecological fallacy."

        If a model run with and without CO2 is run, and the projection of planet temp is higher with CO2, then that is "evidence," but far from proof. It is evidence, but the degree it can speak to the theory can be examined.

        These models are super complex; any suspect part of the model means the "evidence" of its output is to be questioned. It is practically impossible to have a model like the global warming models be beyond suspicion; they simply have too many assumptions, compromises, limited data, etc. And, the output is still a projection – not something genuinely observed; hence not a "fact."

      • TheLastDemocrat – April 24, 2017 at 8:41 am

        If a model run with and without CO2 is run, and the projection of planet temp is higher with CO2, then that is “evidence,” but far from proof.

        “HA”, no evidence there whatsoever ……. but only a simple “correlation”.

        The act of a researcher artificially increasing the quantity of atmospheric CO2 ppm that is input into the “climate modeling” program and it results in an increase in the calculated planet temps ………. would be no different than …….. iffen a researcher artificially increased the quantity (w/m2) of solar irradiance striking the earth’s surface that is input into the “climate modeling” program and it results in an increase in the calculated planet temps.

        Solar irradiance is the primary source of thermal (heat) energy, …… CO2, atmospheric or otherwise, is NOT a source of thermal (heat) energy.

      • Samuel: It doesn’t even rise to the level of correlation since the model was programmed with the assumption that more CO2 equals more warmth to begin with.

    • And, how truthful is his description of the peer review process?
      ” A rival of mine checks” my idea because “they think I might be wrong”.
      “They perform an even better experiment that mine, and they find out…hey, this experiment matches”.
      Not only is this a completely false description of the peer review process as it is done in the world of climate science publishing, but the assertion that peer review is at the heart of the scientific method or scientific process is contemptible disinformation, as is his implication that repeated and verified experimentation has validated the hypotheses of the global warming alarmists.
      His grave tone, his blithely disingenuous pronouncements…his just plain GETTING IT WRONG when purporting to be setting the record straight have catapulted this man out of the realm of truthful and objective discourse.
      He is now, for all intents and purposes, a shill.
      At best he is a paid political hack, desperate to sustain and retain the source of his easy street lifestyle.
      And at worst…a deliberate liar, or else someone who has managed to be in a position for which he is unqualified and inexpert.

      • I stopped believing in Newton and Einstein when I discovered that their papers were never peer reviewed. /s

      • Yeah Einstein just submitted his papers to some associate editor and they got published, the editors name was Max Planck!

      • He is first and foremost a TV STAR, just like Nye, Suzuki and their overseas counterparts in the progressive social movement. They must project infallibility to maintain their media positions and public followings. Mann and Gore are movie stars with the same eminence front. They know that the world of Hollywood and TV gives them their influence as long as their supporters run those enterprises. That’s why Trump is so dangerous to their version of democracy.

      • Let’s assume that some branch of science is at a standstill and no progress seems possible. One scientist comes forth, brighter and more inspired than all the others, and says that the entire paradigm of thinking is false and he has a better idea. Submit your ideas in writing and we will study it and decide if it meets our approval, his colleagues all say. He submits his paper for approval.. Now we have the genius looking for the approval of others who are not smart enough to understand his work.
        You want to here something hilarious? Mikey Mann thinks that’s him!
        Not really. He knows he a fraud an a liar!

      • Let’s assume that some branch of science is at a standstill and no progress seems possible. One scientist comes forth, brighter and more inspired than all the others, and says that the entire paradigm of thinking is false and he has a better idea. Submit your ideas in writing and we will study it and decide if it meets our approval, his colleagues all say. He submits his paper for approval.. Now we have the genius looking for the approval of others who are not smart enough to understand his work.

        https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/ :)

    • Anyone can declare that they know best. It’s when they use the power and authority of government to punish those who disagree with them that it becomes a problem.

    • Afonzarelli: Right. It brings to mind Ben Franklin being asked what kind of government had been decided upon at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” The danger is that democracy carries the seeds of its own destruction, especially if the electorate is not well educated in how to preserve it.

    • Rather, people who speak against democracy may be a threat to democracy. Like this Tyson guy.

      Obama, on the other hand, “healed” the sea levels years ago and no one sad he was denying facts or science, since it was a simple convenient lie.

      Why it is communists are everywhere?

  3. The reality is that the AGW conjecture is too full of holes to support. If may sound plausable at first but a closer examination finds many problems with. The AGW conjecture depends upon a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by a few trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that have LWIR absorption bands. What the AGW conjecture ignores is that good absorbers are also good radiators so that the so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy. Heat energy transfer in the troposphere is primarily by conduction, convection, and latent heat phase change and not by LWIR absorption band radiation. The radiant greenhouse effect that the AGW conjecture depends upon has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

    • It ignores lots of things.
      I am not sure about that whole radiative physics dealio…I have observed for many a year seemingly smart and knowledgeable folks disagreeing 100% about that very subject, although it seems to be it ought to be something that can be settled with a well designed experiment, perhaps involving lasers and a reflector on the moon, or even a long series of very careful observations of the rate of nighttime cooling in remote and isolated areas.
      Or something.
      But amongst the other things that are ignored are the historical records, both the long term geologic records and the shorter records from human history.
      In each of these records is enough information to cast in grave doubt, or to falsify outright, the ideas of tipping points, runaway greenhouse effects, CO2 as the temperature control knob of the atmosphere, the current time as being uniquely hot or warming uniquely rapidly, a warmer world as an assuredly catastrophic outcome, and every other one of the alarmists bugaboos.
      When one considers the obviously false and easily disproven notion that sea level rise is accelerating, or the astoundingly unscientific fears regarding the falsely named ocean “acidification”, the myopic cherry-picking that leads to the conclusion that the Arctic sea ice will disappear, or that doing so would be a calamity, or any of the rest of the laundry list of impending non-disasters, the only reasonable conclusion is that this is a deliberate disinformation campaign.
      It is simply not possible that so many can be so wrong about so much, shearly by accident or by “bad guessing”.
      And besides for all of that, completely separate from the gigantic mountain of wrongness noted above, is the steadfast and mind-bendingly obtuse refusal to concede any of the benefits of having more CO2 in the air, to acknowledge a single one of the benefits that a warmer planet will bring and have always given us in the past, that there is more to be feared from substantial cooling of our ice-capped and ice aged planet.

      The CAGW conjecture is not merely full of holes…it is full of much stinkier stuff than that.
      It is Kafkaesque.

      • A greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of so called greenhouse gases. A greenhouse stays warm because the glass decreases cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too on Earth. As derived from first principals, the surface of the Earth is on average 33 degrees C warmer because of the atmosphere because gravity reduces cooling by convection. The 33 degrees C is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the pressure gradient, and the hight of the troposphere. 33 degrees C is the number derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. There is no additional radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. Without the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is just science fiction.

      • Yes, I know all about how actual greenhouses work, and agree that to call the influence (or lack of such) of gasses in the atmosphere by that same name is a misuse of the term and a misnomer.
        I actually built and ran a commercial plant nursery for a bunch of years.
        The structure I built is called a shadehouse. In the fall such structures are covered in plastic sheeting to retain heat.
        My experience in those days goes far beyond just being intimately acquainted with exactly how it works and how strong an effect it is, because we had the nursery in a part of Florida that gets very cold during some nights.
        North of Tampa is Pasco county. In Pasco , there are certain locations called “cold pockets”, in which under certain conditions, the temperature will drop to as much as 10 or even 15 degrees below the officially recorded temp at the airport about twenty miles away. Or at the weather station at the University where I was studying when I first began to built the nursery, which was even closer.
        Turns out, such locations are not all that unusual, and people involved in agriculture know all about them. There are likewise warm pockets, which stay a few degrees warmer than surrounding areas under these same conditions.
        The particular condition that causes these colder than normal nights are a clear sky with light or no wind, and dry air. On such nights, in these pockets, air cooled by radiative cooling will drain into low places in the terrain, and the temperature will drop all the way down to the dew point, whatever that point may be. And even sometimes a few degrees colder than the original dew point.
        Being in a place with conditions that could and would wipe out our entire crop and source of income, led me to spend a lot of time outside…basically up all night whenever the air was dry and the winds were light.
        I had thermometers everywhere, and observed firsthand over many long nights over many cold years just how dramatic microclimates could be, and how different the temp could be in a space of a few feet and even inches.
        There were many nights where another disastrous night was averted due to a wispy streak of high cirrus clouds moving in from the Gulf, and the temp, which had been dropping several degrees an hours, bounced up five degrees or more in a matter of minutes!
        Oak trees in this part of the world keep their leaves all winter, and under them is always much cooler in the day and much warmer at night (clear sky and dry air nights with no wind are always the most dramatic for microclimates). Plants that would be dead in the open were 100% fine if moved under a live oak.
        Another thing which always provided a startlingly stark microclimate was any concrete or stone areas.
        We had small and medium sized slabs here and there which we used for various purposes…a dry place to stand while working, etc.
        Our first lesson in the reality of cold pockets and microclimates came in our first year in business.
        One night, after a cold front had passed in October, we walked outside in the morning to find that huge numbers of starter plants in small trays, called liners, were completely dead…killed by frost.
        The reported low in Tampa, the nearest city, was 50 F.
        As many know, frost forms with clear sky and no wind starting at 38 F.
        It does not need to be anywhere near freezing in the actual air temp.
        The first surfaces to frost are always the roofs of cars and other flat sheet metal surfaces.
        Grass will begin to frost soon after, and that includes any low plants on the ground.
        But frost will not form on plants which are sitting on concrete at any temp, and the protection extends out a few inches as well.
        So we had completely dead plants right next to perfectly fine ones, and I mean right next the them…touching each other.
        I have spent a lot of time outside at night, in a lot of places and over a lot of years, before and after the plant nursery thing (I am also an amateur astronomer and avid sky watcher), and I now how to observe carefully and notice things, and remember what i have seen.

        So, yes…a long winded explanation, but I know how radiation and the greenhouse effect works…I was also in college studying subjects from geology and earth history, botany and zoology, physical geography 9including all the classes offered in meteorology and climatology and astronomy, a few semesters of introductory physics, but mostly chemistry in the end.
        I have gotten the idea over the years that there are a lot of people who are publishing climate scientists who have never spent a night outside in their lives, let alone done so on a regular basis.
        Book-learning is fine and great, but there are some things you will never really know unless you get outside where it is happening, when it happens.

      • Yes, I know all about how actual greenhouses work

        We got to about the same point, but different paths.

        I have gotten the idea over the years that there are a lot of people who are publishing climate scientists who have never spent a night outside in their lives, let alone done so on a regular basis.

        I have as well.
        Have you seen my climate work? If you can find it by following the link my name.

      • I recently read a paper that suggest greenhouses keep warm mostly because the inside is isolated from the outside. Whether that is due to discouraging convection or just plain isolation is perhaps debatable but I’m going with the later.

    • The mainstream media is to blame for all this nonsense – they are not doing their jobs. It’s either wilful stupidity because doomism sells / ideology or they *really are* stupid enough to be suckered by a scam of such magnitude.

      • Piper, the MSM ‘job’ is to tell their consumers how to think. They do that by manipulating, ignoring or down right lying about the news.

    • MH,
      It is easier to address your question if you consider that good scientists, like good golfers or good musicians, seem to have innate skills above the ordinary. This is often supplemented by abnormal amounts of practice. You cannot expect any scientists to be top drawer simply because of some degrees and a self-attached label.
      There is no good system at work to select the best scientists through competitions with each other, so it is hard to know who has the best skill set.
      Geoff.

    • Karl Popper author of The Logic of Scientific Discovery and of The Open Society and Its Enemies, his masterwork, and of The Poverty of Historicism. Read them.

  4. This is how the Obama-Soros-Steyer triad intends on subverting the elected government of Donald Trump. Their Russia ploy went nowhere.
    In this case, NdeGT is a surrogate, just like Susan Rice has been in the past for the Obama Admin lies and deceptions, NdeGT is an Obama surrogate willing to say anything, defile their own integrity, and be the useful idiot, no matter how dishonest for the Liberal Cause.

    Trump is an existential threat to their Socialist Progressive Program. A program they thought 167 days ago they had won for another 4 years in the US. Day by day, Trump and his cabinet appointtees are dismantleing Obama’s administrative state. Their real current fear is Trump nominating another SCOTUS justice this summer to replace a rumored retiring Justice Kennedy, the current bench swing vote on many cases.

    NdeGT is a smart man. He has to know the Climate Scam is just that, a science hustle but its long been about politics, not science. The 30 year window the Left had starting in the 1980’s to run their climate hustle come Socialism is closing. They know it. Cold is coming, esp to the Northern Hemisphere, in thenext 5 years.

    To the commenters here at WUWT: Continue to fight for free speech and the against the lies of CO2 Climate Change catastrophism. Do not let the bullying from the Left shut you down. It will become much harder if you do not stand up now.

    • joelobryan:

      You say

      Do not let the bullying from the Left shut you down.

      Why do you suggest letting bullying from the right shutting you down?

      Richard

      • Because the right isn’t on the shoulders of Fabian socialists. It is no surprise the Fabian window uses the image of a wolf is sheep’s clothing to represent one of their methods. Dr Tyson and all CAGW acolytes in the hard sciences are nothing more than tools of the Fabian socialism cabal. Even Mongo saw he was no more than a pawn in the game of life.
        Fabianism is the diametric opposite to Randism. I’ll spare you the boring philosophy of self and insert more comedy.. “on the road ahead of you, always look out for number one..and don’t step in number two”..Thornton Melon played by Rodney Dangerfield in the movie Back to School.
        Self preservation is our most precious instinct. Ergo, self is our most precious possession. Mesh that with our social contract and you will understand Randism.

      • Keith J:

        Having read your reply to my question, I have some advice for you.
        You would do well to stop smoking whatever it is you are on.

        Richard

      • What bullying from the right are you referring to?
        Or do you just believe that since the right is evil, they must be doing some bullying somewhere?

      • Keith, you will notice that when it comes to politics, RC never debates. He gives you one chance to agree with him then starts with the insults.

      • “Thornton Melon played by Rodney Dangerfield”
        Funny yes, but cannot hold a candle to Steve Martin as Navin Johnson:

        Might as well laugh through life…people get uncomfortable when you cry.

      • MarkW:

        You ask me

        What bullying from the right are you referring to?

        These examples suffice.
        YOU claiming on WUWT that I disagree with charitable giving.
        YOU supporting on WUWT a suggestion from ws that I have sex with my son.
        And in this thread YOU claiming

        Keith, you will notice that when it comes to politics, RC never debates. He gives you one chance to agree with him then starts with the insults.

        I wish it were possible to insult you because I would like to, but your behaviour towards me demonstrates you are so contemptible that no insult is possible.

        Richard

      • Humans are animals, specifically mammals.

        “Humans may not use tools and express emotions exactly like other animals, but that doesn’t exempt us from animal status. No two species share exactly the same sets of behavior. But we also share far too much in common to pretend that we are some form of life that transcends animal status.”[1]

        Humans have a pecking order[2] and therefore bulling is a part of that. Therefore as ‘ joelobryan’ basically said, do not let people bully you. Stand up for yourself, because if you do not it will become harder and harder to stand up to these bullies.

        Your question “Why do you suggest letting bullying from the right shutting you down”, is totally wrong
        joelobryan made a statement, “Do not let the bullying from the Left shut you down”. First, it’s the left not the right. Second joelobryan already answered that question with “It will become much harder if you do not stand up now.” and finally your question makes it sound like he wants the left to shut him down, specifically with the words ‘letting bullying’.

        So my question is, why did you twist joelobryan’s words into something completely different?

        Regards
        Climate Heretic
        [1] https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/humans-are-animals-but-humans-arent-animals/
        [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order

      • Climate Heretic:

        Your attempt to twist my words is childish nonsense.

        joelobryan wrote

        Do not let the bullying from the Left shut you down.

        He did NOT write “Do not let the bullying shut you down.”

        I asked why he was not opposing Bullying from the right. To date he has not answered.

        I object to bullying. And I also object to sophistry of the kind your post displays.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney you said, and I quote

        “Your attempt to twist my words is childish nonsense.”

        First off, so you say, but, you have not specified one word let alone several on what I have twisted, even if I twisted your words, which I did not (or I made a mistake) and even if I did you have not taken the time to correct me. Second, your attempt at ‘Childish nonsense’ is an ad hominem attack (bullying) and in doing so makes my post poignant.

        you also said, and I quote:

        “He did NOT write “Do not let the bullying shut you down.””

        I know that and you know that, so what was your point? I said, “Do not let the bullying shut you down.” which was a modified statement of what he said. (whether this modified statement is one he would say, I don’t know)

        you also said, and I quote:

        “I asked why he was not opposing Bullying from the right. To date he has not answered.”

        Then your original question should have been more clear in the first place, for example, “why do you not include bullying from the right?” and hence my rebuttal to your question. It’s up to ‘joelobryan’ to answer you.

        you also said, and I quote:

        “And I also object to sophistry of the kind your post displays.”

        Definition of ‘sophistry’ is, the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false. You again have failed to point out any argument that is false in my post. I asked a question and yet even you have refused to answer it? yet you expect ‘joelobryan’ to answer yours? Let me refresh your memory:

        Why did you twist joelobryan’s words into something completely different?

        You could have answered, “No I did not twist ‘joelobryan’s’, what I really meant was, why did you not include the bullying from the right?. As bullying is just as endemic in the right as it is in the left”.

        Regards
        Climate

      • richardscourtney: Why do you persist in telling lies about me.
        1) One I never said that you disagree with charitable giving. I stated that having the state take other people’s money is not charity.
        2)I never insinuated that you had sex with your son, that was a different poster on the same thread.
        3) Thank you for proving my point that you never debate, only insult.

      • MarkW:

        You provide more evidence of your egregious nature by pretending you did not commit your obscene offences. Crawl back under your stone.

        Richard

    • Climate Heretic:

      In the unlikely circumstance that you are so stupid that you really don’t understand how you twisted my words and thus presented pure sophistry, I point out that you asked me

      So my question is, why did you twist joelobryan’s words into something completely different?

      I gave a complete answer to your question when I replied

      Your attempt to twist my words is childish nonsense.

      joelobryan wrote

      Do not let the bullying from the Left shut you down.

      He did NOT write “Do not let the bullying shut you down.”

      I asked why he was not opposing Bullying from the right. To date he has not answered.

      I object to bullying. And I also object to sophistry of the kind your post displays.

      I will ignore any more of your nonsense.

      Richard

      • richardscourtney

        You said, and I quote

        “In the unlikely circumstance that you are so stupid that you really don’t understand how you twisted my words and thus presented pure sophistry, I point out that you asked me”

        Again an ad hominem attack, by using the word “Stupid”. This makes you a bully thus contradicting yourself when you say “I object to bullying” and hence this makes you a hypocrite. I again repeat myself, since you did not comprehend what I said. I did not twist your words and I did not make an false arguments. You have to be explicit if you are going to get any traction out of this discussion. However, that is not going to happen, because of your last pathetic last statement.

        As for the rest of the following quote (cut and paste) it does not contribute one iota to the discussion and no you did not answer my question. Which is funny because I gave an answer for you. This again indicates that you did not comprehend what was being said. As for your last statement “I will ignore any more of your nonsense.” This actually says a lot about you and your condescending attitude.

        Regards
        Climate Heretic

      • As I stated above, richardscourtney doesn’t debate, he just flings insults at those who dare to disagree with him.
        That and repeating old disproven lies.

      • MarkW:

        You are again polluting this WUWT thread with your far-right bullying from behind your coward’s screen of anonymity.. I notice that another poster has objected to you doing it to him on another WUWT thread today. You really are filth.

        Richard

      • Climate Heretic:

        OK, if it makes you happy, I will say I was wrong when I wrote

        In the unlikely circumstance that you are so stupid that you really don’t understand how you twisted my words and thus presented pure sophistry,

        because I now agree with you that I should have said,
        You actually are so stupid that you really don’t understand how you twisted my words and thus presented pure sophistry,

        Richard

      • OK, simple question. Are you claiming humans are destroying the environment? Or are you claiming the climate changes and humans can do nothing to stop it or cause it? Single sentence answer settles all this sh*t. Give it.

      • 2hotel9:

        Your question is surreal.

        I am objecting to bullying from anyone for any reason.

        Richard

      • You are certainly entertaining, as informative as a rock lying beside the road, all the same entertaining.

      • Oh, and since you can’t answer a simple question with a single sentence you did, in fact, answer it. Why are you still benefiting from petroleum, coal, nuclear and hydro produced energy? Oh, yea, you want everyone else to sacrifice while you continue to live in the modern age. Okey dokey, then.

      • Anonymous troll posting as 2hotel9:

        I have been opposing the global warming scare since 1980.
        See e.g. this.

        Are you another form of the MarkW bot attempting to smear me?

        Richard

      • And yet you can’t just answer the question. You go round and round and round, piling words on top of each other endlessly. Seems as if you are trying the say something without actually, you know, saying it. Go ahead, spit it out.

        Climate changes, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. See how easy it is?

      • 2hotel9:

        Thankyou for answering my question: it clearly says you are another version of the abhorent MarkW bot.

        I am writing to acknowledge to your authors that I appreciate their trouble in amending you as I suggested, but merely changing your name is not sufficient. Your algorithm still needs to be adjusted to make you less predicable.

        Richard

      • Aww, ain’t that sweet?!?! You still can’t type a single, simple sentence. Does your delusional affliction go so far as putting tinfoil over your windows and unhooking your TVs so “they” can’t watch you? MarkW is living rent free in your head, and that is not a good sign.

      • Mods:

        Please check out this 2hotel9 thing that is clearly intended to disrupt threads with surreal nonsense.

        Richard

        [Roger that . . . mod]

      • Not bullying you, just trying to get you to state, in a single sentence, what you claim to believe. Vomiting forth word salad is not helping the cause of real, actual climate science. It is heaping fuel on the fire stoked by the religion of Man Caused Globall Warmining. Actually take a side. Either you are on Humanity’s side or you are on the political left’s side. Middle of the road just gets you run over. Choose.

  5. A case can be made that Obama is one of the scientifically ignorant who had risen to power and denied the scientific method.

    • Leaders are a reflection of the voting public. They are now scientifically ignorant and economically ignorant. I wonder if modern science has become so complex that people can’t understand it and so fall back on “feelings”.

      • People don’t understand science because they really haven’t been taught science in school. We were introduced to the scientific method in 4th grade but our general science began in the third. Even in HS, the kids who weren’t on the college bound track had to have two years of general science while those going to college had to have biology and chemistry. At least. There just isn’t the emphasis on science that there was once.

  6. It’s pretty obvious these people have decided to go all in on the propaganda and lies. I think they are hoping for another El Nino to bump up global temperatures. However, it appears we may be starting to see the beginning of some upwelling cold water in Nino 1-2. It may not lead to anything but if it does we could be in for a couple of cold years.

    To add to this, the PDO appears ready to take on the form of the -PDO while the AMO is trending down. Finally, the coming solar minimum could help erase almost all the warming in the satellite era. Probably too much to hope for but maybe some combination could still have a strong effect.

    • They have been all in, and then some, for a very long time.
      Their lack of moderation in pushing the global warming meme has left them painted into a corner, with no way out and no where else to go.
      Still, reasonable people…honest people…would be looking for a way down from the ledge, a route off the cliff.
      There are worse things in life than admitting one may have been mistaken.

      Telling a lie is one thing…but then swearing to it when you are found out?
      Much worse.

    • It is tempting to hope for cold weather to put an end to this AGW nonsense, but we should realize that warming is better for the world and let them rage on. The really important thing is that not one nickel of public money should be wasted on this baloney!

      • That’s agreed. You really have to be a media-induced climate change paranoiac to think that anything besides normality in weather has occurred in recent decades, unless you are too young to remember or maybe just less tolerant than you used to be of anything that varies from ideal room temperature.

        Either way, you need someone telling you constantly about how bad it’s gotten or you wouldn’t be able to see it for yourself. That’s become a noble (and career-healthy) cause for TV (and radio) personalities who are employed by public networks. They are unwilling to deal with any change of paradigm.

    • No a picture does not say it all. A few graphs and analysis results from peer reviewed papers proves logical justification to support the assertion that CAGW is a cult, not science.

      There is observational evidence that greenhouse gases cause no warming which is a paradox. A paradox is an observation that is not possible if a theory/ (model assumptions) is correct.

      There is a reason the cult of CAGW talks on and on and on concerning the warmest year in ‘recorded’ history. ‘Recorded’ history is the temperature in the last 150 years.

      1)Latitudinal warming paradox (warming in the last 150 years has been primarily high latitude warming not global warming). As CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere and as the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space is at the equator, the most amount of ‘greenhouse’ gas warming should have occurred at the equator.

      2) The earth has warmed and cooled cyclically the past paradox
      It is a fact that the earth cyclically warms and cools, with the majority of the warming occurring at high latitudes. It is also a fact that solar cycle changes correlate with the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet.
      The warming that has occurred in the last 150 years is high latitude warming.

      3) The lack of correlation in the paleo record between atmospheric CO2 levels and planetary temperature
      There are periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 has been high and the planet is cold and vice versa. There is not even correlation in the paleo record.

      There is cyclic warming in the paleo record both poles.

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

      Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”

      …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

      I wonder what caused cyclic warming and cooling on the Greenland Ice sheet in the past? Curious that the same periodicity (time between events, 1500 years with a beat of +/- 400 years) between all warming and cooling events/cycles (including the massive ‘Heinrich’ Event is the same (same periodicity, same forcing function). It is also really weird that the warming and cooling periodicity is observed in both hemisphere.

      Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

      The so called, left have an infinite list of things they would like to spend money on. All of the developed countries have run out of money to spend on everything and our economies are growing slower and slower.

      Spending trillions of dollars which we do not have on green scams that do not work will not stop climate change and will make our economies less and less competitive.

      • Would it be possible for someone to update this graph to include the temperatures from 2013 to 2016?

      • Note also that the Greenland temperature chart has been trending downwards for the last 8,000 years or so. Therefore, CO2 trending upwards while temperature trending downwards. (Bringing the final spike up-to-date does not alter that.)

  7. When we have reputable scientists, with hard and fast proof (esp. concerning so-called CAGW), standing up to the charlatans who parade as scientists, they are shunned and ostracized. This, Mr. Tyson, is scientific fascism, plain and simple.

  8. I affirm that science is vital for the continued wellbeing and prosperity of the world. The more science the better.

    The current problem is that so much which is held out to be science is not worthy of the name.

  9. Tyson spouts the usual nonsense gibberish of AGW fanatics. What’s different with him is that he has an enormous amount of followers/admirers. He’s a complete moron yet so many people love the man. Reminds me of Obama a lot.

    • In-so-far as I have been able to tell, Tyson has published just one research piece in the past 10 years, and that was 9 years ago. Most of his time has been spent as a huckster, i.e. TV, speeches (calling them “lectures” is too kind) book sales and promotions. Now, it’s all about the gravy train. He stopped being interested in “truth” a long time ago.

  10. Tyson said

    Quote

    “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,”

    Unquote

    Absolutely correct. The fake “science” of global warming did it in, along with Gobelki Tepi, the New England Medical Journal and Drax

    People may not be educated but on the whole they are not stupid

    • “People may not be educated but on the whole they are not stupid”
      Exactly!
      From being a very, very “luke warmer”.With next to zero interest in the scam. I suddenly became very, very cold to this global warming and it’s predictions of catostrophic anthropological global armagedon.
      The moment I started to familiarize myself with the ‘climate gate” emails……….the rest as they say is history!
      The evidence of what it is, is all there if the Trump administration needs or wants to refute Obama and his cronies.

      • I saw Jesse Watters of Fox News chasing Al Gore down a hallway a couple of days ago, trying to get Gore to answer questions or come on Watter’s tv show, and all Gore would say was, “I don’t do ambush interviews”.

        Watters did ask Gore if Climategate embarrrassed him, but Gore didn’t answer. So I guess that means Watters is familiar with Climategate. That’s a plus. Watters ought to get some alarmists on his tv show and grill them about Climategate. That would be good entertainment.

    • Socialists don’t trust the people to make the right decisions. That’s why they want government run by experts (themselves) to be empowered to make all decisions.

    • ‘People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,’

      They never had it. Journalists, on the other hand, should pay attention on who sends the message, and not believe everything coming from the Earth Day people. For serious. They believe nothing Exxon or Monsanto says, or what Pielke says, or anything published at wuwt, but they take very seriously every pound of propaganda from the WWF, Greenp, Fiends of Earth and such. Did they get educated in East Berlin or what?

      Can I buy a serious right wing NYT? No? Why is that?

      • “‘People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,’”

        I don’t agree with that. I have been looking askance at the claims of climate scientists since the big fear was Global Cooling, way back when, and none of these scientists, over all these decades of Global Cooling or Global Warming, has ever convinced me that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change. It’s not that I’m particularly smart, but one doesn’t have to be that smart to be able to tell speculation from solid proof, and the climate scientists have *never* provided any proof that humans are making the climate do things it wouldn’t do all on its own.

        And I think at least some people are thinking for themselves even today. Witness the 62 million people who voted for Trump. Witness Brexit. Witness the countless skeptics who are raising their voices, with more voices being added every day.

        But what made me think everything is going to be ok, was when I discussed CAGW with an 11-year-old boy. I had never talked about the subject with him and had no idea what he thought about it, so I asked him, and he said he didn’t believe it was real! I was stunned. Noone taught this to him. His parents are not skeptics or alarmists. He formed this conclusion on his own. Don’t despair. Kids brains are still working. It’s just that lots of them and grownups, too, trust in what they have been told about CAGW by the MSM and the CAGW promoters and have no reason to question them. But if they ever do have a reason to question them, I think they are fully capable of realizing they have been duped.

  11. That someone of DeGrassTyson’s standing could pose with Obama and Nye just floors me. it seems that he, like Brian Cox, might know a lot about cosmology, but not so much about reality and what drives our climate. That’s rather strange, as so much of our climate is driven by cosmic, solar and planetary factors – you know, good old-fashioned physics as opposed to “climate models” that so far have all been wrong.

  12. CAGW is anti-science as it “denies” the utilization of the scientific method in confirming/disconfirming the efficacy of the CAGW hypothesis, which projects 3.0C to 4.5C of CO2 induced warming by 2100.

    Under the strict rules of the scientific method, the CAGW hypothesis has already surpassed the criteria necessary for hypothetical disconfirmation as global warming mean projections ALREADY exceed reality by more than 2 standard deviations for over 15 years:

    Based on known physics of CO2 forcing, an increase of CO2 from 280ppm (pre-industrial level) to current levels (400ppm) should have generated around 0.3C of CO2 forcing, which it has:

    5.35*ln(400ppm/280ppm)*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann constant)*(.5 negative cloud feedback)=.3C

    Because CO2 forcing is logarithmic, the CO2 forcing between now and 2100 (to 560ppm) will be another 0.3C of CO2 induced warming:

    5.35*ln(560ppm/400ppm)*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann constant)*(.5 negative cloud feedback)=.3C

    The .5 negative cloud feedback is an estimate, but even if it were ZERO (which it is not), it would only double total CO2 warming to 1.2C by 2100, which is still sufficient disparity to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis.

    It’s highly likely that the coming 30-year PDO and AMO cool cycles will cause global cooling over the next 30 years, and it’s also highly likely that collapsing solar cycles will have a global cooling effect over the next 100 years.

    Accordingly, it’s highly likely that by 2100, global temps will be cooler than they are now, even with another 0.3C of CO2 warming between now and 2100, and certainly nowhere NEAR the 3C~4.5C of CO2 warming the CAGW hypothesis projected….

    CAGW has, for all intents and purposes, already been disconfirmed.

    CAGW skeptics aren’t the “science deniers”, CAGW advocates are…..

    • +1,000,000

      Yep. The climate models have confirmed the Null Hypothesis for 30 years. The CAGW hypothesis has been thoroughly falsified.

      When this is pointed out to Neil Disgrace Tyson and his ilk, they start babbling about Arhenius and science denial.

      The fundamental problem with CAGW is that it was enshrined as the ruling theory without any testing of the underlying hypothesis. Couple that with their affinity for the Precautionary Principle and you get a very stubborn paradigm. On top of this, you have socialist politicians who see this as the perfect tool to take more control of the private sector, redistribute wealth and increase their own political powers… and you have exactly what Eisenhower warned us about:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/ikes-second-warning-hint-it-is-not-the-military-industrial-complex/

      • David Middleton:

        You say

        On top of this, you have socialist politicians who see this as the perfect tool to take more control of the private sector, redistribute wealth and increase their own political powers…

        Yeah, that describes Margaret Thatcher and why she started the global warming scare; NOT.

        Politicians need to raise taxes and people don’t want to pay taxes so politicians want a tax that people want to pay: the National Lottery in the UK is one such tax that people want to pay.

        When politicians fail to find a tax that people want to pay then they seek a tax that people will not object to paying. Who could object to paying a tax intended to save the world for our children and our children’s children?

        Also, if all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each industrialised country would gain relative economic benefit over their competitors with larger economies. Every country would gain except for the United States which would lose.

        Non-industrialised countries cannot afford to constrain their CO2 emissions as they develop so they are seeking gifted technology transfers and monies from developed countries.

        Political ‘isms’ are not relevant to any of this, which is why governments of all political types support the global warming scare.

        Richard

      • That’s true to some extent. There are plenty of non-socialists who support CAGW-driven taxes, particularly outside of the United States. While supporters of such nonsense are a minority in our Republican Party, it is an alarmingly large minority.

      • David, Republican does not equal conservative. As you say, there are a lot of Republicans who are as statist as their socialist brethren.

      • Richard-san:

        1) Thatcher originally used the CAGW hustle as leverage against striking coal miners…

        It was later hijacked by Leftists as a means to destroy capitalism…

        Both Thatcher Andy the Left unethically used the CAGW hustle for political, not “scientific” ends..

        2) Politicians need to CUT SPENDING rather than steal even more money from the private sector.

        In all democracies, voters eventually learn to vote themselves more and more of other peoples’ money until the economy and society collapse under a mountain of debt, devalued currency and a society filled with envious, weak, narcissistic, spoiled cry babies.

        3) Leftists own this CAGW hustle 100%. One this disconfirmed hypothesis eventually crashes and burns, the blowback against the Left will be profound… and rightfully so..

      • My dad used to say that the government would tax the air we breath if they could find an excuse. Seems they have found one.

      • Richard,

        “Political ‘isms’ are not relevant to any of this, which is why governments of all political types support the global warming scare.”

        … reasonable statement on the SUPPORT of the scare. But where do you turn to fight the scare?

        If we want to end the (as you phrased it) global warming scare and its associated costs, which political ‘isms’ would you suggest we turn to. Socialism … or otherwise? Embrace socialism to eliminate/get rid of the scare?

        30 years ago Thatcher may have used the concept of AGW as a tool, for leverage, but she in no way embraced it as a lifestyle … as a religion. The Thatcher complaint angle plays as well (to others) as the anti-commies pointing out (to you) murders associated with Stalin/Mao/Other commies.

      • SAMURAI:

        You could not be more wrong. Thatcher started the global warming scare for reasons that had nothing to do with her destruction of the British coal industry. And her Conservative political party still supports the scare decades after the coal industry was closed.

        If you want to know why and how she started the global warming scare then read this.

        Richard

      • DonM:

        Why “turn” to anything? Why not attempt to educate your fellow members of your own political party (whatever it may be) that the global warming scare is pseudoscientific nonsense?

        Richard

      • SAMURAI:

        I have answered your completely mistaken post. Please wait and my answer will appear from moderation.

        Richard

    • Under the strict rules of the scientific method, the CAGW hypothesis has already surpassed the criteria necessary for hypothetical disconfirmation as global warming mean projections ALREADY exceed reality by more than 2 standard deviations for over 15 years:

      The models are falsified, the theory is not. It does falsify all conclusions based on the models. The models could be adjusted to better fit reality. Though even if the models match reality that doesn’t prove the theory. Successful modelling amounts to a correlation with a set of parameters, not proof of theory. It gives some confidence you are on the right track, but it is not proof.

      Saying that the theory is falsified is backwards. The theory has to be proven based on existing data, that has not been done. Until then it is not true.

      • Chris-san:

        The CAGW hypothesis is that doubling CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm will cause 3.0C to 4.5C of catastrophic warming by 2100 (ECS), which is roughly 5 to 7 TIMES more than the physics and empirical evidence show is even remotely possible.

        Accordingly, the CAGW hypothesis is already disconfirmed as its hypothetical ECS projections are completely devoid of reality.

        It’s been known since 1824 that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will cause SOME global warming at higher concentrations. That”s not the issue. It’s the value of ECS which is trying to be determined.

  13. What a load on two feet this man is since America is a Constitutional Republic!

    He left his ordinary science career behind,because he is here to save the world!

    A pompous leftist gasbag he has turned into,he is so gosh darn smart,no wonder he is another leftist fool,who actually hates the Republic we live in.

  14. From another Neil Tyson thread,is a comment I posted showing that he is error prone on science matters,creates bogus quotes and is leftist fool:

    “I don’t share the the view that Tyson is a credible science popularizer, when he is wrong too many times on basic science,here is an incomplete list of errors he has made:

    Fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson”

    The rest here.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/21/i-love-neil-degrasse-tyson-but-he-is-wrong-on-climate/#comment-2481973

  15. Did nothing for Astrophysics. Dumbed down science for a generation. No scholarly works. No publishing.

    Manages a planetarium. Remind me again who appointed this hack to speak for “science”?

    • The advocates of the skeptic view on climate science are often no more qualified or completely unqualified in any scientific discipline.

      You can only argue from the science and scientific evidence itself.

      • “no more qualified or completely unqualified in any scientific discipline.” Nice self description, griffie.

      • Obvious evasion of Griffs point, 2hotel9. Scientific credentials matter if the person under discussion believes in AGW. If they don’t, then there are no degree or relevant background requirements whatsoever.

        [Should that not be reversed? .mod]

      • ‘The advocates of the skeptic view on climate science are often no more qualified or completely unqualified in any scientific discipline.’

        Coming from a guy who sounds like Tom Cruise over-acting on a scripted sales pitch, this is almost laughable.

      • Odd that Griff makes a statement and then Chris comes to his side to defend him. Do you two keep in touch?

      • “You can only argue from the science and scientific evidence itself.”

        With respect to CAGW climate science, I would ask: What evidence? You act like there is some evidence out there that proves “the science”. There’s not.

      • Griffin,
        You should tell that to the “Scientists” who have made constant readjustment to the historic climate/temperature data.

      • Is learning a cathedral or a bazaar? Likewise, is a diploma purchased or earned?

        The answer lies in Gutenberg and modern equivalents. The fact that self learning is possible means the scientific method is within reach of anyone regardless of formal matriculation.

        I do not denigrate anyone based on formal education. Including Bill Nye.

    • but to Tyson the skeptic view is no more valid science than Lysenko and the skeptics are the inquisition, not Galileo

      • There’s a big difference.
        It’s trivial to prove that Lysenko was wrong. When it comes to client science, the skeptics have all the facts and science on their side.
        PS: The skeptics have never threatened to jail those who disagree with them.
        Lysenko did, and the AGW crowd would if they ever got the power.

      • Gee Griff,
        You are sounding more and more like the old Reich Obergrubbenfuhrers from the later 1930’s

  16. “When you have people who don’t know much about science and stand in denial of science and rise to power, that is a recipe for the dismantling of our informed democracy.”

    What a piece of gobbledygook.

    • I disagree. It is utterly correct, and we’ve been seeing this for at least eight years.

      With luck, things will soon change, and science can be used effectively once again instead of being abused so badly for political gains.

  17. “And there are a lot of reasons for thinking Tyson is not right about everything.”

    Peculiar how reading a script for a living infuses one with a sense of wisdom.

    • The Hollywood crew certainly thinks reading scripts infuses them with wisdom, maybe we should have Russell Crowe, (played John Nash) and Matt Damon (played Will Hunting) double check the mathematics in the computer models.

  18. Just another EcoStalinist ‘snake in deGrasse’. If he was right why do so many real experts disagree with him??

  19. See my comment of yesterday. Neil Tete de Grasse Tyson. New Scientist calls it nominative determinism.

    • I just wonder how democracy is served by a few activist bully boys who think they know best what is right for everyone else?
      I find that head photograph utterly and nauseatingly repellant because I don’t trust any of them.

  20. It’s not about science, it’s not about democracy its about money! They want money. Nobody keeps them from doing science. Nobody keeps them from electing whoom ever they want to elect. But why should everybody pay for that “science”?

  21. “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable …” .
    ====================================
    It’s an old theme which goes back to Plato and has surfaced from time to time coming from the CC cultists but is usually implied as in Dr Tyson’s statement: that the voters are just dumb and don’t know what’s good for them.
    Dr Tyson is using doublespeak, what he really means is something like this: “… to halt or even slow the disastrous process of climate change we must choose between liberal democracy and a form of authoritarian government by experts, the authors offer up a radical reform of democracy that would entail the painful choice of curtailing our worldwide reliance on growth economies, along with various legal and fiscal reforms. Unpalatable as this choice may be, they argue for the adoption of this fundamental reform of democracy over the journey to authoritarianism …” (The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy 2007) .

  22. “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable …” .
    ====================================
    It’s an old theme which goes back to Plato and has surfaced from time to time coming from the CC cultists but usually implied: that the voters are just dumb and don’t know what’s good for them.
    Dr Tyson is using doublespeak, what he really means is something like this: “… to halt or even slow the disastrous process of climate change we must choose between liberal democracy and a form of authoritarian government by experts, the authors offer up a radical reform of democracy that would entail the painful choice of curtailing our worldwide reliance on growth economies, along with various legal and fiscal reforms. Unpalatable as this choice may be, they argue for the adoption of this fundamental reform of democracy over the journey to authoritarianism …” (The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy 2007) .

  23. Science and technology in the USA is still doing wonderfully well: just look at the results of the fraccing revolution with the abundance of (cheaper) oil and gas it has brought onto the market. Restoration of better living standards for the battlers. Donald Trump is trying to create a better business climate for the agricultural, coal, and oil and gas industries, so Good on Him!

  24. Loved his show – but in my personal opinion he unnecessarily flogged the dead horse of ‘climate change’ on it several times. Claiming something when it isn’t necessarily so and you ignore the inconvenient evidence isn’t science. Its more like ideology. One day I’d love to watch a show like this that doesn’t come with an agenda.

    • Like all tools, a screwdriver can be misused. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns (tools) and The Truth.

    • Likewise, Dr Tyson is a tool. And if all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. Dr Tyson is a tool of Fabian socialists.

  25. This is just part of an obviously coordinated political assault and has nothing much to do with real science.
    The democrat party, of which there is no doubt Nye and Tyson are dedicated constituents, is at it’s lowest point in real political power since the 1920’s and things aren’t looking like they’re going to turn around for some time to come.

    AGW/Climate Change was a perfect vehicle for them to justify almost any social/political changes they desired and the whole corrupt foundation that supports it and thus the years of work to establish it as an accepted fact, is threatened by the current administration. They have to resist and try to mitigate the effects of what is happening and have little ability to do so in the halls of the elected national government or in the vast majority of state governments. They also perceive that the balance of power in the SCOTUS is liable to change against them dramatically in the next few years and so can’t rely on the courts to help them much.

    So democrats having little influence on actions and events through elected offices and foreseeing diminishing ability to mitigate actions in the courts must resort to other means to salvage what they can.
    PR stunts like this and the marches, their highly partisan press, their supporters in academia, and of course passive or active resistance by those in the bureaucracy are what they left to resist with.

    And resist they will with all their fiber and being because it is not only who they are, it is what they are that they perceive to be under attack.

  26. I fear that Mr Tyson is being cut a lot of slack because he is black.
    I recall myself suppressing the urge to criticise the policies of President Obama because on some level I feared that I would be accused of being racist towards him.
    Mr Tyson is not very bright…there…I said it.

    • “I recall myself suppressing the urge to criticise the policies of President Obama because on some level I feared that I would be accused of being racist towards him.”

      That’s what the Republicans in Congress have been doing for the last eight years.

  27. When this debate descends to the level of telling people democracy is at risk because of climate change, you know someone’s clinging to a flimsy life raft.

  28. As one long experienced in the art of digital manipulation, I would love to have the original hi-res image of that trio. Just at a casual glance, it seems to have been manipulated. Patterns in the wallpaper, placement of picture frames, shadows of people on each other – these seen a little unrealistic.
    For some bona fides, here is a manip that I did many years ago when you had many coffee breaks a day while the PC computed:

    Geoff

  29. And China is the most democratic state ever existed. More recently, water flows up the mountain. And the iron in the spinach had to be corrected down several commas. And Alfred Wegener was adversely affected for the theory of plate tectonics for decades. Albert Einstein once said that a scientist who is right is enough and 99 others with different opinion are meaningless. Albert Einstein also developed the theory of relativity, explored gravitation, and posited the following thesis: “There are only two infinite things: the universe and human stupidity, but I am not so sure of the universe.” If I see Bill Nye, Barrack Obama, and Mr. Tyson (who is not the one who has been beaten by Ali but has a similar look) with their stupid faces, I know what Albert Einstein is talking about.

    • >>
      And Alfred Wegener was adversely affected for the theory of plate tectonics for decades.
      <<

      The basic critique about his “theory” (should be hypothesis) was that Wegener was a meteorologist and not a geologist. (Where have I heard similar complaints like that before?) Wegener did not call it plate tectonics–it was called continental drift. And his idea that the continents “plowed” through ocean sea floors wasn’t considered valid.

      Jim

  30. The irony. A march for science. Gobsmacked here :-(

    The moment I saw the introduction: Oh no! – more American-style snake oil salesmanship. It is a circus after all

    • It`s an Algore circus with Soros money. What comes next in this circus: The elephant in the bath room?

  31. The way I see it, CAGW was the Obama administration’s established state religion. It was Obama that was the threat to freedom, not Trump. When you have AGs going after skeptics and big names (Nye, Suzuki, Loretta Lynch, and then Al Gore and his group of 19) wanting to lock people up or prosecuting people for disagreeing. And they think Trump is the threat to democracy? *SMH* https://www.google.com/search?q=lock+people+up+who+disagree+on+climate+change&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs

    • The Left always want to “level” everyone economically. They know absolutely nothing about creating wealth, so the only thing left is to destroy the wealth of those who have it. It actually works politically, up to a point. Make people poor and they support the party that advocates redistribution! Look at Chavez in Venezuela. He completely wrecked his country’s economy to the point where people are going hungry in a country that should be rich. People are killing each other in the streets! Yet he is the hero of the disadvantaged. His gloss is fading away now as his legacy of competency and caring is exposed as disastrous.

      • One young leftist that I debated years ago declared that for any given position there was no “best qualified” for that position.
        Everyone was either qualified or not qualified, therefore everyone in a given position should be paid exactly the same as everyone else doing the same job.
        Needless to say this person was still in college. He also favored pass/fail grading.

      • The Fortune 1000 companies virtually all believe that AGW is real. It amazes me how climate skeptics always trot out far leftists – and only far leftists – as AGW believers, when in fact the corporate world believes AGW is real and requires action.

      • It never ceases to amaze me how the idiot left assumes that anyone with money must be a right winger.
        As to the Fortune 1000, they do what they need to do to stay on the good side of politicians.

  32. A stupid conceited man. Global warming is just one small section of the many thousands of subjects covered by the term ‘science’, and it is global warming and that subject alone in which sceptics question the beliefs of other scientists, but do not question ‘science’ in a generic sense. To attack other very professional scientists – and there are many – simply because they are sceptical to your own views on your own scientific hypothesis is to suggest that you do not have 100 per cent confidence in your own argument. To suggest that to argue the merits of the global warming hypothesis openly from a sceptics point of view is undemocratic is arrogant in the extreme.

    “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,” he says in a video posted on Facebook. “

    What a gross insult to scientists, academics and sensible people around the world who don’t agree with his point of view.

    “That’s not the country I remember growing up in. I don’t remember any other time where people were standing in denial of what science was.”

    I don’t know what period he was brought up in, but he implies that it was then the perfect world. Does he recall such scientific disasters as thalidomide, DDT, breast implants, hip replacements and many more such scientific disasters that resulted in many deaths or lifelong injury. His statements insult us all.

    • Whatever else Mr Tyson may be, he is not stupid. He is a capable self-publicist, a faithful and courageous iterator of the Establishment line on science and someone who undoubtedly assigns to himself the moral high ground for his principled adherence to convention.

      He may also be cynically and competently venal. When the the CAGW scam can no longer be sustained, the lead pseudo-scientific con-artists are unlikely to suffer much. Mr Tyson, like many others, is steering a very sensible course and has pragmatically recognised that ethics don’t pay the bills.

      Being wrong when everyone else is right is customarily forgiveable. Being wrong when everyone else is wrong is tolerable, if not actually merit-worthy. Being right when everyone else is wrong is practically a capital offence.

  33. If he practised what he preached he would get some respect but he provided not one shred of evidence of global warming. His condescending arrogance implying that I have poor judgment and need to think about things more is what really riled me. 40 years as an engineer has taught me a couple of things, one of which is don’t believe everything you hear especially if it comes from someone who doesn’t have the humility not to judge you. Bad fail Tyson. Lots of unconvinced middle of the roaders will not enjoy your pronouncement. Forget the politics and tell me why the sea level rise is not accelerating as predicted and why temperatures are not rising as predicted or why the warming prior to an El Nino peak is anthropogenic and alarming whereas the subsequent cooling is just natural variation. The absolute refusal to even discuss these inconvenient facts, let alone explain them, shows commentators like Tyson are nothing but politically motivated shysters. A genuine truth seeking scientist would make an effort to respond to sceptical enquiries.

  34. That image alone is the exclamation mark – bang! – on Tyson’s impeachment. All three are in the dustbin of history.

  35. The photo of Tyson, Nye, and Obama together in one scene is truly sickening. Tyson, Nye and Obama, like almost all leftsts/Socialists/Comunists/Greenists/Climate Alarmists are always wrong about anything. As Reagan said, ‘It’s not that they don’t know anything, it’s just that they know a lot of stuff that is wrong.”
    Climate Science has a track record of failed predictions long enough to rival the failures of Communism. It springs from the same feeble-minded source.

  36. The guy is just an administrator and front-man. He stopped actually doing science a long time ago.

    While there are plenty who defend the failings of climate science, he just represents those who are too lazy to actually find out what is wrong with it.

  37. For a while after the election some of the Democrat party spoke as if the realized what the problem was; they had betrayed the American people. Sadly, that hasn’t produced any substantial change. They’re back to being their good old arrogant selves.

    The Democrat party has only themselves to blame for President Trump’s victory. If anyone has subverted and damaged democracy, it is them.

    Science isn’t what people think it is. Scientific results are mostly bogus, especially if there’s money involved. Most research can’t be replicated. About half the results can’t even be replicated by the original researchers. It’s called the replication crisis.

    Democracy will be improved when the Democrat party quits listening to its beloved experts, who are usually wrong, and start listening to the people.

    • One flaw in that potential outcome, Bob. The Democrats, like all Socialists, listen to those who confirm their biases. They have no intention of analyzing the facts impartially to inform their policy. When I first heard about this Global Warming thing, I assumed that science was on top of the problem and correct in their “consensus” findings.I thought I should look into it to see how urgent the problem is as I have always been politically active and consider it my responsibility as a citizen to inform myself of public issues. Thus began a journey from simple knowledge seeking to confusion, to disbelief and finally anger as I realized that a massive conspiracy of Socialists and Eco-warriors and Academia and U.N. bureaucrats ( another tribe of Socialists) was taking place before our very eyes.

      Wealth destruction,greed, academic misconduct, political opportunism and anti-democratic propaganda from top to bottom! And most people completely unaware, thanks to establishment shills like Tyson. I fear for the future of science if it can be so easily and completely twisted and corrupted by politics.

      • I fully agree. I think he is a useful idiot who would be mortified if he ever came to understand the reality of the situation.

        In political jargon, a useful idiot is a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause whose goals of which they are not fully aware, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause. link

  38. I like that Tyson fellow, he’s obviously not very good at politics and he’s definitely no Carl Sagan, that’s for sure. But I like the guy.

  39. The 3 climate stooges! The original three stooges probably knew more about climate scientist than they do.

  40. “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Elected Science Deniers Are a Threat to Democracy” Says the “man” who wants to shut down democracy so his fake religion can reign supreme.

    • And the BBC didn’t allow anyone to comment when they reported that story.

      They then had the temerity to wheel on a Green Party spokesman who started talking drivel about getting “cheap” renewables electricity to consumers. Not only is it not cheap, but the Green Party is normally antithetical to anything cheap because they want people to consume less of everything.

  41. A lab coat and a TV show do not a scientist make. The photo above is of three high priests of the Church of Alarmist Climatology. Their proclamations are dogma, not fact, regardless of the intensity of their personal belief in their dogma or their animus toward non-believers. The photo in the link below is proof that we have not yet learned our lessons from history about the evils of state-sponsored science http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/highres_00007939%20copy.jpg . Science that is so sure of itself that it stops asking questions and only pushes answers, indulges in pogroms of religious orthodoxy, condones pseudo-intellectual bullying of skeptics, and seeks to empower itself politically is antithetical to the profession. I am thankful there remain true scientists dutifully collecting and examining evidence and courageously sharing their findings regardless of the reception they expect to receive from their peers, the public, or the halls of power.

    • The linked image is of the Communist Front resistance within Nazi Germany. As we know, both sides subordinated science to the state, not just for military tech, but for support of the murderous state ideology. Would be illuminating to have someone make a similar propaganda poster out of the selfie of the CAGW troika in the lede photo.

    • The photo above is of three high priests of the Church of Alarmist Climatology.

      So where was Al Gore yesterday?

      • I wonder who will be the first rat to jump off the climate change bandwagon, the first one gets lauded for his or her courage, the rest forgotten.

      • jeanparisot at 5:51 am
        I wonder who will be the first rat to jump off the climate change bandwagon, the first one gets lauded for his or her courage, the rest forgotten.

        I’m not holding my breath.

      • They can Photoshop him in. Photoshopping is to images what Karlizing is to temperature records. Perfectly legitimate technique for climate alarmists.

  42. People need to understand that to liberals, the truth is the liberal narrative about CAGW, not the CAGW science itself. Those are two very different things. Personally, I deny the narrative, not the science. Narratives, by definition, are always wrong. A recent example was the near universal liberal opinion that Hillary was going to win the election. Narratives exaggerate information that supports their position and ignore information that is against their position. Eventually, unless pure luck intervenes, every narrative implodes.

    I am open to all truthful findings about the science.

  43. This attempt by Tyson to take down the “deniers” is another attempt at a straw dog argument. Very popular with the left right now, because they know their real arguments are not popular. In their propaganda, everybody who opposes them is a sexual predator or a troglodyte. So they must be right. And the sneering Bill Maher types feel really good about not being a troglodyte or a dinosaur, so they willingly embrace the AGW lie.

    Early in the video Tyson puts “climate science deniers” in the same category as anti-vaxxers, intelligent design, and anti-GMO activists. Very clever, if he included JFK assassination conspiracy theorists and 9/11 truthers he could include just about the entire population. A recent study on conspiracy ideation that I read in a book about it, “Suspicious Minds”, Rob Brotherton https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ZFZC5X0/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o08_?ie=UTF8&psc=1 says that just about everybody believes at least one conspiracy theory. There are leftist ones and rightist ones.

    But by calling “climate science deniers” anti-scientists he neatly sidesteps the need to provide any facts or reasoning. He puts them in the same category as young earth creationists and neatly dismisses the entire subject. It is the same trick as the stupid science march. They are “marching for science” in opposition to whom? Who is saying science in general is not good? Who are these mythical “science deniers”? Just straw doggies invented by the left to explain their failures.

    Then he goes on to explain how science works, though his idea of peer review is completely scrambled. To hear Tyson describe it, peer review is done by scientists who disagree with the paper being reviewed, and who do actual science to prove or refute it. Very far from the “pal review” that really happens, and even when real peer review is in place it is just a check. The calculations are not redone etc. It makes me suspect that Mr. Tyson has not submitted many papers…

    The video is just a clever bit of propaganda. I don’t know anyone who really denies science. Facts are facts, but if facts become inconvenient you can always call the truth teller a bad name. Works in 6th grade, and that’s as far as many of these rabid lefties ever got.

  44. This is the very best propaganda piece I’ve seen for a long time. Tyson’s scriptwriter frames the debate, in his terms, right from the start.

    The industrial revolution started, mainly but not exclusively, in Britain. It began when engineers invented heat engines that converted the energy from coal into mechanical energy which could do useful work which was previously done by humans and animals. (We still measure output in horse-power.) In some senses it could be argued that the scientists of the day then subsequently unearthed and refined the principles on which the heat engines worked so their performance could be improved. Of course the theoretical scientists of the day certainly did make discoveries in their own right that turned out to be useful which gave us things like electricity.

    However Tyson kicks off telling us it was all ‘science’ (and seemingly had nothing to do with energy). He then quickly and artfully diverts away from this to stop his audience thinking with a long, convoluted description of what his scriptwriter wants us to think science is by talking a lot of non-science!

    The last thing the globalists want us to realise that cheap reliable abundant energy is the bedrock upon which our modern civilisation stands and that the cheaper the energy is the better-off we all will be.

    The Global Warming boondoggle is all about pushing up the cost and reducing the reliability of energy supplies. This explains why we have wood-chips being carted from America to fuel the Drax power station in Britain. Somehow this is ‘good for the planet’ even though it results in an over-all increase in the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere compared with what we would get burning coal because wood chips are ‘sustainable’.

    One suspects that it also explains why certain countries like communist China get a free pass on all this nonsense.

    If anyone reading this is still worried about Global Warming all I can say is watch the weather! If the sun’s behaviour continues on its current path it will soon become blatantly obvious that mann made carbon dioxide doesn’t keep us warm.

  45. Government climate “scientists” are similar to the educated clergy of the monarchs who provided the arguments for the king’s divine right to rule. By supporting power they were allowed to share in the plunder of the king. Climate scientists get to share in the plunder receiving far more than they would deserve for their services. The deity they serve the “federal government” can then get the peasants to voluntarily give up their freedom and property rather than using the sword.

    • “Government climate “scientists” are similar to the educated clergy of the monarchs who provided the arguments for the king’s divine right to rule.” Oop, there it is.

      • More like witch doctors or soothsayers from more ancient times. Divining patterns in chicken bones or the entrails of sheep to determine the future. Gather ’round boys! It’s all in the pitch!

  46. “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,”

    Well, Tyson certainly has so I can’t argue with him on that statement.

    • Perhaps more importantly, peope have not lost that ability and Tyson is very aware of the fact that people know his politics determine his science. That’s why scientists are elevating themselves to the level of gods to keep their political power.

  47. Ignorant has-beens who assume someone else did the work right without checking it are a waste of time too.

  48. I am just staggered by the Olympic standard arrogance of these people. Arrogance combined with scientific illiteracy and no evidence is a potent mix.

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_BaconThe Stapledon-Dyson spheres are not something that Freeman Dyson believes, for Chrissakes; Olaf Stapledon mentioned them in his
        SF novel, Dyson made a brief mention that aliens might make swarm habitats around a star to better utilize solar energy, and maybe we could look for reradiated waste energy and a bunch of people made it into magical full spheres around stars. Jeez, look it all up.

        Offtopic, but an answer. Sorry.

      • The problem is that such structures (Dyson Spheres) cannot orbit a star. The gravitational force inside a hollow, spherical shell is everywhere zero. All you need is basic calculus to prove it. This is true for any force that follows the inverse-square law. The electric force inside a charged, hollow, metal sphere is also zero. It’s why Van de Graaff generators work since the inside of the sphere is at ground potential.

        Jim

  49. Timothy Ball is right.

    If there is any threat to democracy, it is the Green Doctrine that not only will put us out of coal, diesel and gasoline but also out of food.

    It needs the mind set of a sociopath to make claims like Tyson.

    May he burn in hell.

  50. The “March for Science”., besides being a rerun of Lysenko, reminds me of Carl Sagan and the “Nuclear Winter” theme of the 1980’s. Tyson is not the scientist Sagan was, but he is every bit as political.

  51. thousands around the world prepare to march….

    oh for God’s sake….horse puck
    ….and billions did not march

    It’s the same people at every march…..their street party

  52. The claim that the science is settled is not only ridiculous it is a last resort argument by frustrated warmists following endless failed graphical predictions of doom.

  53. Dupe the young first and use them in the power play. Then tell the wise and experienced and moneyed older ones what to do while conducting the taking exercise.

  54. “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable”

    That is right. The problem is that the scientific institutions have not identified the principles that make people able to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable.

    See Science or Fiction´s principles of science (v7.5):
    §1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.

    §2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.

    §3 A scientific inference is logically valid.

    §4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by application of axioms, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

    §5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.

    §6 A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

    §7 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurement results. Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement results and the claimed capability of the concept, there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.

    §8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

    §9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

    §10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

    §11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

    The problem for activitsts and advocates is that by these principles a concept can no be propounded by:
    – appeal to consensus
    – appeal to authority
    – appeal to expert judgement

  55. Well, that did it. While there weren’t many left, I’ve lost the last few little shards of respect I once had for this man.

  56. Eisenhower warned about 2 threats to democracy in his final speech as president. The “military industrial complex” is the better-known of those 2 threats.

    But Eisenhower’s warning, in that same speech, about the scientific technological elite, seems to have been forgotten. Maybe it’s too “inconvenient” for the scientists…

  57. Neil deGrasse Tyson’s video on science denial is a grossly overgeneralized claim based on an erroneous evaluation, in climate science, of the very scientific procedures that he champions. It is obvious that he is using his own ignorance outside his specialty to push trite imagery and false claims of climate alarmists.

    When will real scientists in one specialty apply their own discipline OUTSIDE their specialties to fully examine the issues for proper evaluation?

    Choose a famous scientist in one specialty, convince him/her that you know the “facts” in a different specialty, rely on the fact that he/she is probably too busy to confirm your … “facts”, pay him/her to do a video based on his/her ignorance of the real facts outside his/her specialty. Show THIS to young people, and call it “education”. How malignant can degrading young minds get?

    Yes, I’m alluding to the standby plea, “Think of the children.” If THEY can do it, then I can do it.

  58. Zero respect for the likes of Tyson. He knows little about climate science and it’s failure apparently.

  59. “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,” he says in a video posted on Facebook. “That’s not the country I remember growing up in. I don’t remember any other time where people were standing in denial of what science was.”
    He grew up when scientists and engineers designed rockets and space capsules and went to the moon.
    Some of those same scientists and engineers have studied the data and bounded the warming at 1.8C using methods that served the space program well. (http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/recent-analysis-jan-2017.html)
    Maybe Mr. Tyson should look at how real world science is used to analyze real world problems.

  60. Neil deGrasse Tyson Knows nothing about Science or Democracy.
    He only knows Political Science, an oxymoron.

    • Dennis-san:

      Tyson knows what’s Politically Correct, but doesn’t want to know what’s factually correct…

      PC allows fame, fortune, dinners with the president at the White House, TV appearances, notoriety, prestige in Leftist media and politics, etc.

      Being factually correct in this day and age, unfortunately, “only” provides the truth, virtue, honesty, and often ridicule….

  61. There is a lot of irony in stating that democracy is in jeopardy unless you do what the authoritarians want.

  62. Surely since climate fraternity tell us the science is beyond question we can assume they are charlatans who know nothing about science. Science is defined as being able to produce valid predictions and to be reproducible, so clearly climate science does not exist in reality so it can only be a threat in a virtual world.

  63. The problem I have with Tyson’s position is he, intentionally or not, is contributing to shutting down the the scientific debate on AGW. I fully support more science research but unfortunately it has become so political partisan and no longer a scientific debate. It has become a religiosity either for against an apocalyptic future. Imagine if a scientists were to propose a study about global cooling. What do you believe would be the likelihood of funding such a study regardless of whether or not there was solid scientific hypothesis and credible research? And that is the problem and point. It is so ironic that history is trotted out showing the ignorant of the past for science yet today the same herding and emotional responses is handing right before our eyes.
    Even more ironically for Tyson, his idle Carl Sagan is likely rolling over in his grave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

    • Depends. When your candidate wins, that’s democracy in action. When the other candidate wins that’s a failure of democracy and demands a correction by any means necessary.

  64. When I saw the picture, I was sure that he was talking about Obama and the other science denier he is with.

  65. Fame and fortune fouled the physicists

    Neil is no longer star gazing he is star struck. The problem is he fancies himself as a celebrity now. He has turned actor and we all know how they love their make believe.

  66. Ah-ha, a trilogy of Buffoons! Where “success” comes from being as far behind the curve as possible, and preferably not even connected with reality. But they know that if Propaganda succeeds, it’s better than the Truth.

  67. Celebrity scientists like Tyson are often interviewed and asked to expound on subjects which they actually know very little. As an astrophysicist, deGrasse Tyson knows that CO2 absorbs infrafred radiation, and that the amount of warming of air inside a sunlit container due to added CO2 can be calculated by a scientist. Ergo, “the science is settled”. But, in reality,only to the extremely cursory point that he has been taught as a byproduct of his astrophysics background. Another couple of years’ study of meteorology, atmospheric thermodynamics, and atmospheric physics, and and he might be a little more enlightening about what is “settled” and what is “speculative”. Unfortunately, those details would bore the TV audience that has become his livelihood and a “crisis” is going to result in a lot more paid speaking engagements….

    • If he doesn’t toe the line, he won’t get asked. He knows that and likes being a celebrity. Hey! It’s cool! The president pretends to be his friend! He goes on TV talk shows. He hangs with Hollywood royalty like Cluny and DeCaprio. It’s very tempting to go with the flow. It’s just not right and it isn’t science.

  68. Has anyone seen this cluck’s doctoral thesis? I always thought he was a bit of a hack, but assumed you don’t acquire a doctorate in astrophysics from a CrackerJack box, so that he couldn’t be a complete mouthbreather. After listening to his version of the scientific method and reliability and truth in the video, I begin to wonder if the CrackerJack box is not to be ruled out as a source of his credentials.

  69. BTW, Is anyone else as puzzled as I am by what appears to be a growing trend among the celebrity class to desire to be photographed by professional photographers, pretending to take selfies of themselves and their chums? The level of malignant narcissism is epic.

  70. In the world of confidence schemes, Anthropogenic Global Warming is the ‘Long Con’ version of the game. In all confidence scams, the goal is to ‘liberate’ (steal) as much money from The Mark as possible. In the AGW scam, Joe and Jane Citizen are The Marks and the goal is to steal as much of their tax money and charitable contributions as possible. In the Long Con scam, a sizable Team may be required to sustain the con game over an extended period of time, when the payoff warrants the effort and investment. The greater the payoff, the more each member of The Team shares in their ill-found wealth. Hundreds of Billions of dollars have been conned by the AGW scam to date, and the Long Con Team has been enriched and grown proportionally. Let’s get to know some of the Long Con Team characters……

    The public ‘face’ of the Long Con scam, a attractive and well spoken man or woman, is know as ‘The Face’. In the AGW scam, the 3 individuals shown in the lead photo of this article and similar public note worthies may act as The Face of the operation. They give the perception of authority and credibility to the confidence scheme.

    The ‘Grifter’ is a practitioner of confidence tricks, also know as a con artist. He/she employs tricks and believable-but-false scenarios to secure the Mark’s confidence and prepare them to ‘loosen up their wallets’. The Grifters create scary scenarios and give doomsday “You must act now!” speeches to set The Mark up for the ultimate theft of his money. Many of the scary scenarios created by notable AGW Grifters have been discussed and debunked here on the pages of WUWT. Think of ‘nature tricks’, ‘hockey sticks’, and ‘carbon taxes’, Oh My! There are tooooooo many Grifters in this Long Con game to list.

    The ‘Shill’ is an accomplice to the Grifter and appears to have no apparent connection to the con. Shills are put in place to encourage the Mark to act in the desired way, to relieve them of their money. They often use propaganda techniques like ‘band wagoning’ on the Mark; i.e. “I believe in this and so do 97% of real scientists (the ‘band wagon’). I’m invested in this and you should be also! Get on the band wagon Buddy – Everyone else is!” Note how a falsely conjured statistic (97%) is used to create the ‘band wagon’ perception so the Shill can help set the Mark up to ‘invest’. You can see examples of The Shill comments here, on these pages, every day.

    Skepticism is a well known and very effective antidote to confidence games. That, more than any other reason, is why the term ‘Skeptic’ is so derisively abjured by The Team. The Long Con scam only works when the Mark confidently believes The Teams scary tricks and propaganda techniques, and then personally ‘invests’ in the confidence game. If a skeptical Mark seeks out independent information sources and viewpoints, the false assertions of the Long Con game becomes apparent and it falls apart.

    Skepticism is a healthy perspective, for all who would not be conned.

  71. Someone ought to remind Mr Tyson (and perhaps the entire scientific community) of a few principles regarding science:

    If you don’t make mistakes, you’re doing it wrong
    If you don’t correct those mistakes, you’re really doing it wrong.
    If you can’t accept that you’re mistaken, you’re not doing it at all.

  72. Carl Sagan said much worse things than that.

    I will add, the astronomy production was an absolute disappointment and disaster — I did not see any real footage or images from outer space.

    How is it that Americans for several generations have expended all of that time, talent and treasure to go to other regions of the solar system, and the astronomy presentation was entirely computer generated?

    The history of science was equally plastic fantastic CGI fantasy. Queue up Roger Bacon “advancing science” in the middle ages by “reading forbidden books.”

    It doesn’t work that way.

    • Perhaps that was the problem. To many monks reading forbidden books on how to convert lead into gold.

      And that is not my own opinion. Sir Francis Bacon, the father of empirical science, took a survey of the state of knowledge in his day, and it was indeed poor. One of the main reasons for the poor state of the understanding of nature (among many) was that science did not have any aim or goal, but was made up of people looking for alchemical secrets to transforming base metals and otherwise doing magic to get precious metals.

      He put forward a completely different idea about the goals of science.

      • When Bacon published Novum Organum in Latin in 1620, science had already advanced quite a bit, although the Church was fighting back. Copernicus and Vesalius had published their seminal works in 1543. Gilbert’s On That Great Magnet the Earth came out in 1600, Kepler’s Astronomia nova in 1609 and Galileo’s Sidereus Nuncias in 1610. Harvey’s demonstration of pulmonary circulation arrived in 1628, but he had predecessors, such as Servetus, whose books were burned by the Catholic Church in 1553, when he was executed as a heretic in Geneva by Calvin.

        Not to take anything away from Bacon’s achievement, but the Scientific Revolution was already well under way by the time he sought to delineate its method.

      • Forgot to mention Bruno, burnt by the Church for, among other heresies, suggesting that there was an infinity of worlds. He probably saw stars not visible to the naked eye while in England, where there apparently existed a device similar to a telescope.

        Thomas Digges, in his 1571 book on geometrical methods in surveying, Pantometria, described “perspective glasses”:

        “By these kind of Glasses or rather frames of them, placed in due Angles, yee may not only set out the proportion of an whole region, yea represent before your eye the liuey image of euery Town, Villages &c. and that in as little or great space or places as yes will prescribe, but also augment and dilate any parcel thereof, so that whereas the first appearance an whole Towne shall present it selfe so small and compact together that yee shall not discerne anye difference of streates, yee may by application of Glasses in due proportion cause any peculaire house, or roume thereof dilate and shew it selfe in as ample forme as the whole town first appeared, so that ye shall discerne any trifle, or reade any letter lying there open, especially if the sunne beames may come vnto it, as plainly as if you were corporally present…”

      • Chimp says, ““By these kind of Glasses or rather frames of them, placed in due Angles, yee may not only set out the proportion of an whole region, yea represent before your eye the liuey image of euery Town, Villages &c.”

        When the kids and I were studying Galileo, one of the pictures showed a half-dozen Renaissance men holding telescopes. It did not take long for the teenagers to point out that some of the men were looking down from the balcony and some were looking at the sky. (:

      • The coolest Hologram I ever saw was of a telescope pointed at a house, and you could look in the telescope, and see the pretty girl undressing in one of the windows o(PG13) of the house.

      • Must be something in the teenage mindset, I remember my friends and I pointing out the same thing. And we got our a$$es chewed out for being “disruptive”. Can’t remember which specific portrait it was, do remember it is in National Gallery. Or was. They keep “remodeling” and “improving” the Smithsonian and I really wish they would cut it the f*ck out.

      • Just trying to navigate the obtuse and ever changing requirements of wordpress. At times they are as bad as disqus. Hell, sometimes you can’t use words such as “racist”, other times you can. Almost like an Almond Joy commercial.

      • Hmmm. Another comment lost in cyberspace. Briefly recapping:

        I failed to mention Bruno, burnt by the Church in 1600 for, among other heresies, stating that there was an infinity of worlds. He probably had seen stars not visible to the naked eye while in England, where Digges and others apparently had a “perspective glass” similar to a telescope. Digges mentions it in his 1571 book on surveying, and there are other references to the device.

        Shakespeare probably encountered it through his acquaintance with John Dee, mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, alchemist, diviner, occult philosopher and adviser to Queen Elizabeth I. The Bard likely also knew the Digges family, father and son.

      • Chimp says,, “When Bacon published Novum Organum in Latin in 1620, science had already advanced quite a bit, although the Church was fighting back. Copernicus and Vesalius had published their seminal works in 1543.”

        The Church, by which you mean the Roman Church, was defending its staunch belief in the teachings of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and other ancient Greeks. Galileo fell afoul of Aristotle in about 8 of his doctrines, not just in his geocentrism.

        To answer briefly, Sir Francis Bacon was setting about to try to ween the royalty and courts, and any other readers, from their reliance on the Greeks for their educations and understandings of nature. He then classified the impediments to human understanding of nature, calling them “the idols of the mind.” Next, he laid down the foundation for systematic inquiry, observation, and physical testing as the only way to advance knowledge. It may seem easy, like sailing to the New World was after someone else had already done it, but he began the appeals to the powers that be to admit to an empirical approach to science. His appeal is addressed to a king, because kings held the means for the studies, posts, and schools he envisioned to change the course of science in his country.

        He used the telescope and the microscope as a few examples of the tools that would be needed to assist and guide the mind in observing and interpreting nature. But it was a monumental task to convince people that they did not know everything already, and that knowledge would come not by studying books but by using measurement and experiment.

        Finally, he clearly stated what the goal of science was: “Again there is another great and powerful cause why the sciences have made but little progress, which is this. It is not possible to run a course aright when the goal itself has not been rightly placed. Now the true and lawful goal of the sciences is none other than this: that human life be endowed with new discoveries and powers.” And so for Britain, and the Protestant northern countries, this would prove to stake out the goal of science in understanding axioms and improving life for every day people. Apologies for length.

      • Zeke,

        As I showed both Catholic and Protestant churches were fighting back. Calvin and other Protestants executed scientific heretics, too.

  73. They keep using the words “science” and “democracy” in ways suggesting they don’t know the definitions of either.

  74. People like Tyson are smart enough to be able to tell the difference between speculation and evidence, so they have to know this CAGW speculation is all a big lie they are selling because there is no evidence and they have to know this.

    The Hockey Stick isn’t evidence because of its blatant dishonesty. The “97 percent consensus” isn’t evidence, even if it were true. Celebrities pushing the narrative isn’t evidence. Arctic sea ice extent isn’t evidence. And on and on.

    It’s all speculation to this very day. Very frustrating. When the subject of humans changing the Earth’s atmosphere first became established, I was willing to accept that this might be true. I had no reason to doubt the climate scientists. I figured they must know what they are talking about so I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and waited eagerly for their proof. I didn’t even question the concept at first.

    But as time went along, I could never find a paper or article that offered definitive proof of what they were claiming. At first I was confused because I thought scientists were not supposed to make claims they couldn’t prove, but I found out differently. I went from confused, to being alarmed at the number of unfounded claims, and then got angry because I thought I was watching the destruction of the scienfitic method. I still think that is what I am seeing from the CAGW promoters.

    But, the times they are a-changin’. Lots more attention being paid to the scientific method now. :)

  75. ” the US had relied on science to drive its innovation. But no longer.”

    No longer because of YOU and your ilk, Neil. For whatever reason, otherwise brilliant people suddenly default to the lower brain stem regarding climate. Especially people such as Neil (or Barak) with no particular expertise in climate who inexplicably give in to tingling rather than reason.

  76. Old Neil Tyson loves the sound of his own voice, and he’s clearly got plenty of self esteem.

  77. Here’s a nice bit of counterpoint to the bovine excrement notion that “climate science” is “settled science” that I appeared within a week previously.

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/theres-still-lot-we-dont-know-about-proton

    There’s still a lot we don’t know about the proton

    While even the folks who have devoted decades of 24/7/365 effort to understanding the climate, of which there appear to be very few, have never demonstrated mastery of the subject matter much beyond that shown by Mssrs. Nye and Tyson, their sycophants endlessly repeat the mantra that any questions about what may be involved in perfectly describing the Earth’s climate have been answered long ago. In the mean time, the chumps wasting their time trying to conquer physics are still battling it out over such niceties
    as the radius of the proton, what causes its spin, and whether or not it decays.
    As I have seen the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis explained it is mostly and probably entirely a matter of radiative physics in which the energy from the Sun landing on the Earth is returned to space in the form of, wait for it, those inscrutable protons. Of course Arrhenius who is usually credited with birthing this orphan, did so several decades before the proton was ever observed and named, but what do I know, compared to these geniuses who would like to put any of us that have the temerity to disagree with them in a jail cell somewhere for crimes against our betters

  78. The “emergent truth” he speaks of is that the AGW line is bunkum. And on that, he is correct when he says, “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,”

  79. JohnKnight says, “To me, a Christian, the “certainties of Religion” seems almost oxymoronic . . if I say “I believe”, it seems many hear; *I KNOW!* . . If I say “I have faith”, it seems many hear; *I am CERTAIN!* . . Rumors of my certainty have been greatly exaggerated ; )

    Seriously, uncertainty is an integral “part” of Christianity (and other Religions), much as it’s a part of science. I think that’s one reason science (as we know it now) was initiated, and until very recently dominated, by Christians…”

    While this is an interesting and worthwhile perspective, I would like to suggest that, according to their own words, the early scientists who were Christians did hold the “belief” that nature is subservient to the rule of law, and that these laws can be discovered, understood, and utilized to make life better for every day people. In short, we can rely on the laws of nature as consistent and continuous. And just as there are physical laws which are reliable and consistent, there are moral and spiritual laws, the violation of which “makes all the trouble in the world — whether physical, moral or social.” But this basic “belief” in the rule of law in the universe enabled the patient use of facts, observations, and experiment to discover those laws. The corollary is that these laws, once discovered, could be useful for the improvement of life and the increase of our power over nature.

    “Compared to what?” Well, there are philosophies and outlooks which claim that there is no law, no cause and effect, and no consistency in the physical universe. There was also over awed reverence for the ancient Greek philosophers which froze learning for centuries. Or compared to the Anthropocene Age scientific paradigm shift of the 60’s, which insists that all human activity harms the environment and triggers “tipping points” in nature. –Even turning on lights at night. Gracious.

    • Thanks for the thoughtful response, Zeke.

      “… the early scientists who were Christians did hold the “belief” that nature is subservient to the rule of law, and that these laws can be discovered, understood, and utilized to make life better for every day people. In short, we can rely on the laws of nature as consistent and continuous.”

      And yet, the laws were His, so absolute certainty about their nature was inappropriate;

      For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

      For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

      Mr. Newton was apparently right about some laws . . but not absolutely ; )

      • “Religion and science are two different ways of “knowing”, one based upon faith and the other on doubt.”

        Yes but the “faith” or “belief” these individuals held was that in God’s creation order prevails, and that while there are infinite varieties of forms, they are subject to laws. In other words, every effect must have its cause. (This applies to the moral and spiritual as well as physical.) Discovering laws, understanding causes and effects gives repeatable results, and those were used to improve life in various inventions and tools. And that was the basis of the science of the Reformation and the American Revolution. I think we can say it was successful.

      • Zeke,

        Yes, but the scientific method is now under assault, along with the rest of Western industrial civilization.

        Scientists since the 18th century Enlightenment still believe it’s possible to discover laws underlying observed nature, even if they no longer imagine a Creator or Law-giver. Others however aren’t so sure about immutable laws governing everything from subatomic particles to the universe as a whole, let alone other universes in which different laws apply.

      • JohnKnight says, “And yet, the laws were His, so absolute certainty about their nature was inappropriate;”

        Yes, the limitations our own human understanding are an important theme in the Bible. We are reminded often that we just don’t have the whole picture. God answers Job’s questions with 79 questions of His own. “Do you know the balancing of the clouds? Do you know how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child? Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
        Have the gates of death been revealed to you?”

        So often in life we are only seeing appearances; but we don’t have all the data, and should avoid getting too confident in the explanatory tales we weave. That was once a value in science but now they just want experts to lock in their favorite paradigm and re-write the past to fit it.

      • I would put it differently, based on my own experiences. Belief in God through faith proceeds from witness to His creation. Marvel at any sunset, at any geographical prominence, at any plant, at any animal, and you will know what I mean. Pursuit of science proceeds from a desire for knowledge (curiosity) and–get this–a complete faith in the truthfulness of others, because the fundamental operational principle of science is “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” This is the crux of what is happening with the “global warming” issue: there are those who have chosen to deceive themselves and others about what is true, and what can be inferred from what is true. To choose a lie is profoundly wicked, insofar as God is the source of all truth (not merely scriptural truth). Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously fought against “the lie” as being the worst evil to befall Russia.

        As for the Bible, I accept that it is true, that there is a truth behind the writing that the writing does express, even if it is something we cannot today understand. Moses was not an astrophysicist, so we should stop pretending that he speaks to us as an astrophysicist. But he expressed the truth as it was given him, within the means of his ability to express it. If science cannot accept that there are areas in which we are still ignorant, and remain aware of that fact, then it will be driven by hubris to fill all the gaps with fantasy and declare it to be truth. As I see it, this has substantially happened not only in “climate science” but also with cosmology and maybe some parts of geophysics. A measure of this corruption is the acceptance of computer simulations and mathematical projections as “data” and “evidence.” When our eyes are turned away from witness and instead regard the workings of our own imagination, who has really capitulated to “faith” in the realm of science?

    • Zeke and John.

      Lots of Christians do say that they know for sure that the Bible is inerrant.

      “Jesus loves me! This I know,
      For the Bible tells me so;”

      That ditty, is OK, but saying you know that there was a global flood 4500 years ago which covered the highest mountains because the Bible tells you so is a different matter.

      The early generations of Christian scientists did believe that there were universal laws, which they set out to discover, or at least aspects of reality reflecting those laws. However, their efforts to overturn pagan science adopted by the Church were generally opposed by the authorities.

      Religion and science are two different ways of “knowing”, one based upon faith and the other on doubt. At least in some Protestant denominations, correct theology is that God must remain hidden, that He cannot be known through reason, but only revelation. Otherwise, having faith in Him would have no value. The faithful must believe what is miraculous, outside of nature as normally experienced, incredible and indeed absurd, on blind faith alone, not basing his religious convictions on rational observation.

      As Luther said, “A Christian must tear the eyes out of his reason.” As Early Church Father Tertulian said, “I believe because it is absurd.”

      Protestants come down on the side of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans rather than the Epistle of James.

      Romans says:

      “…because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . ” (Rom. 3:20)
      “…for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom. 3:28)
      “For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'” (Rom. 4:3)
      “Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . ” (Rom. 5:1)
      “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:5).

      But James says:

      “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)
      “…so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26).

      • “Lots of Christians do say that they know for sure that the Bible is inerrant.”

        What do you suggest, O god-man? Fines? Imprisonment? Executions?

        “Romans says …. But James says ….”

        Both are much longer and more complex than that … but you are undermining your case for Christian certaintism something fierce, me thinks ; )

Comments are closed.