Mike Rowe schools a woman who labels him an “anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative.”

This is great. Mike Rowe, of “Dirty Jobs” does a weekly podcast/Facebook posting called “How I Heard It”.  His “Off the Wall” segments are always enlightening, because, Rowe dishes out some of his characteristic common sense by answering a question or comment from a fan, or in some cases, someone who isn’t a fan at all. I get some of those same kinds of emails he does.

In his latest “Off the Wall” Facebook posting, Rowe replied to a comment made by a woman named “Rebecca Bright”. Bright says she is a fan of the show “How the Universe Works,” which Rowe does the voice over work for, but suggested Rowe to get fired from narrating the show because, according to her, he’s apparently one of those “science deniers” that we often hear about from the left. Although the show was about black holes and galaxies, Mike even managed to work in global warming as an example of why she’s wrong. Here’s the complaint and the response from his Facebook page:

Rebecca Bright writes…

“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show. There are countless scientists that should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in education and science that would sound great narrating the show, example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”

—-

Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going?

First of all, I’m glad you like the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!!

It’s true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able to prove.

As I’m sure you know, it’s OK to make assumptions based on theories. In fact, it’s critical to progress. But it’s easy these days to confuse theory with fact. Thanks to countless movies and television shows that feature Black Holes as a plot device, and many documentaries that bring them to life with gorgeous CGI effects and dramatic music, a lot of people are under the assumption that Black Holes are every bit as real as the Sun and the Moon. Well, maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. We just don’t know. That’s why I enjoyed this week’s show so much. It acknowledged the reasons we should question the existence of something that many assume to be “settled science.” It invited us to doubt.

Oftentimes, on programs like these, I’m asked to re-record a passage that’s suddenly rendered inaccurate by the advent of new information. Sometimes, over the course of just a few days. That’s how fast the information changes. Last year for instance, on an episode called “Galaxies,” the original script – carefully vetted by the best minds in physics – claimed there were approximately one hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. A hundred billion! (Not a typo.) I couldn’t believe it when I read it. I mean, the Milky Way alone has something like 400 billion stars! Andromeda has a trillion! How many stars must there be in a universe, with a hundred billion galaxies? Mind-boggling, right?

Well, a few weeks later, the best minds in physics came together again, and determined that the total number of galaxies in the universe was NOT in fact, a hundred billion. They were off. Not by a few thousand, or a few million, or few billion, or even a few hundred billion. The were off by two trillion. That’s right…TWO TRILLION!! http://bit.ly/2jB0Nq7 But here’s the point, Rebecca – when I narrate this program, it doesn’t matter if I’m correct or incorrect – I always sound the same. And guess what? So do the experts.

When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In general, people like you accused me of “doubting science.” Which is a curious accusation, since science without doubt isn’t science at all.

This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.

You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both “anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now. Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am.

Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a “believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?

Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan. But if you’re trying to get me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.

Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?

I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have & will fight for what’s right.”

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,” it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.

In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If I’m wrong, prove it. Take a step back and be skeptical about your own assumptions. Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself – as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole.

Having said all that, I think you’re gonna love next week’s episode. It’s called Multiple Stars! Check it out, Tuesdays at 10pm, on Science.

Best,

Mike

UPDATE!

Rebecca Bright responds, so does Mike Rowe:

Rebecca Bright You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out.

Mike in his usual style, gets the last word brilliantly:

Mike Rowe Well, I’ve re-read your response twice, and can’t seem to find any additional proof. Look – you’re under no obligation to reply – obviously. Neither am I . But this is your comment. You’re an author, right? You write for a living, yes? No pressure, but come on, Becky. You’re talking to five million people right now. Most writers would kill for a chance to say something meaningful to an audience that size. Dig deep. Be brave. Say something persuasive, but do it quick. My plane lands in twenty….

 

 

Advertisements

317 thoughts on “Mike Rowe schools a woman who labels him an “anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative.”

      • Latitude and Bruce: you are so right and Mike is so cool! And note to all you young’ins: we may be innocent until proven guilty but data are guilty until proven innocent!!! Like perps, data will lie to you and they need “witnesses” to back up their story.

      • I like this:

        you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.

        And in true cultist fashion, she fires back with the same sophomoric drivel that we’ve come to expect from the cult.

        Sounds like I’m going to have to catch up on this show.

    • Rebecca’s logic, saying that he should not have the job unless he agrees with the text he is reading, means that she also thinks anyone who is not a global warmist should not be allowed to have any job.

      Would she be okay with denying a manicurist a job because the prospective employee believed that natural cycles and the Sun drive the climate? What in heck does that have to do with her job? Same thing here. He was hired for his voice not his beliefs.

      • This just underscores how the whole AGW BS story is essentially a secular religion. The heretics must be punished for their heresy.

    • Rowe said the next episode was Multiple Stars…….there’s so many triggers in his reply he much be referring to lib heads exploding

      • I doubt that’s what he meant, since his essay pointedly rejects mindless name calling or jeering. I disagree with Mike Rowe on many things, but I respect the way he communicates and his values, even if they aren’t mine, and his response here was well put. I feel like this sort of comment doesn’t seem like something he would endorse though, just because it’s from the ‘side’ or POV he agrees with. But carry on.

      • I used to refer to Mike Rowe as “the future Senator from Ohio”, but I realize now that that’s one dirty job he might not be willing to do.

      • ricksanchez769

        Agreed. if he writes his own stuff (the response to Becky Bright, as well as many other monologues I’ve heard him deliver on Dirty Jobs), he’s gifted.

        Also good to see a response this brutal in the sense he didn’t ceed any argument to her and he’s directly challenged her to back up her accasations. And he did all this without flaming her.

        Just a wild guess: ‘ole Becky is gonna have real difficulty standing her ground responding to Mike’s intellectual challenge.

        Wild guess #2: Becky will never even try to respond; her entrenched mind-set hates him because of his (totally non-violent, non-criminal) thoughts.

      • Wild Guess #3, Becky will never even read the response since she’s convinced herself that she has schooled him and therefore the conversation is over.

      • @MarkW,

        Correct. It is like playing chess with a pidgeon. All they do is kick over the pieces and then strut around the board declaring victory.

        She is two retorts away from devolving to a charge of racism, sexism, misogyny.

      • @FTOP_T LMFAO good thing I didn’t have any food in my mouth! That is the most precise description of arguing with a global warming/climate change advocate I’ve ever heard – like playing chess with a pidgeon – HAH!

      • I thought exactly the same thing. Clear eloquent and very unbiased, even stating that he supports people having alternative views.

    • “science without doubt isn’t science at all” – so perfect.

      The scientific method is the way we tackle doubt in order to reduce it.

      Politicised abuse as part of an ideology is the way we cement the doubt in place, untouched and even worshipped.

      • #Komrade Kuma: “Politicised abuse as part of an ideology is the way we cement the doubt in place, untouched and even worshipped.” How beautifully expressed, and how utterly correct. Thank you!!

    • But Mike, there is ample evidence that black holes really DO exist.

      Black Holes must exist because that is where all the intelligence of people like Ms, Notso Bright gets sucked in, never to come out again.

      These things are really dense.

      Like, I mean, REALLY REALLY REALLY dense.

      I mean, like, TOTALLY DENSE, y’know?

      🙂

      • there is ample evidence that black holes really DO exist.

        Shur nuff, Black Holes really do exist, ….. likewise, …. White Holes also really do exist.

        Black Holes are thingys where everything gets sucked in and nothing leaves, …… like “centers” of galaxies.

        Whereas White Holes are thingys where everything leaves and nothing ever returns, ……. like the State of West Virginia, USA.

      • @Biff;
        Do you know what a “send up” is, or did you just reflexively get on that particular hobby horse?

      • But this is assuming that she and other like her had intelligence to begin with. I’m not convinced of that.

    • You know, one thing that does strike me about the exchange – Mike gave an extraordinary amount of time to politely and carefully discuss her false claims about him. And her response is “You have FAR too much time on your hand(s) to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s (sic) opinion (sic) or write a novel (sic) at them.” Besides being written in barely coherent English, she is essentially saying her attempts to get Mike fired are not worth Mike’s time in preventing, because he is too busy doing his job.

      Does that make a lick of sense to anyone? I might counter that she obviously has FAR too much time on her hands, to try and get Mike fired from a show she loves.

      • I suspect that Mike is writing for the benefit of all his followers, not just Rebecca. That is what deserves his thoughtful answer.

  1. Bright has a bright idea. Hire an actor. Yes, par for the course for the scientific literates on the left. Now, exactly which actors to thrill us with their acumen.

    • Such a Pythonesque comment I just laughed. Love it. Tell someone to go to hell so nicely they look forward to the trip. Classic.

    • What’s amazing to me is that he writes just like he talks. One easily recognizes his signature polite, relaxed, common sense coming through. It’s remarkable.

    • “ask yourself – as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole”

      OH MY MY, ……. the lefty liberal Democrats will now be demanding he be fired for making such a dastardly “racist” remark.

      • Now that you write it, “black hole” sounds so racist a name for these objects.
        I am sure someone already complained, no need to search.

  2. Mike Rowe, one of the smartest man I have seen talking. His advice about trade schools instead of universities as a way for the young is excellent.

    • As an older-timer with a PhD in atmospheric science I, unfortunately, am concurring more and more with the idea that learning a trade is a better way to go than university. The science and math in universities is becoming so dumbed-down that many students are graduating science/physics programs without even knowing very basic concepts such as derivatives, integrals, logarithms, etc. It is becoming increasingly difficult for professors to provide anything other than “playtime” science to keep the students entertained. “Feel-good” science is replacing the hard science and physics that we had to learn.

      I am sorry for going somewhat off topic, but it is a concern and only getting worse.

      • I disagree. I think you are EXACTLY on topic. It was poor education that gave us “Rebecca Bright”.

        And btw – I love Mike Rowe. Clear, concise and spot-on.

      • Really, you think that? I had to learn all of your examples just for my lowly geology degree. My daughter is an upper division physics major at UC Santa Barbara. She transferred from a southern California junior college where she became proficient up thru differential equations and linear algebra. Three classes in quantum mechanics, along with other standard physics subjects so far. She is in the fight of her life but she is doing it. I don’t think they are “dumbing it down” there.

      • My reply was to Max. I’m not disagreeing with Leghorn or Max necessarily, but I think Max generalized somewhat too far. No doubt most people are not very educated in the maths and sciences, but that does not mean they can’t think critically and possibly hold skeptical views of subjects like climate science. Conversely, just because a person understands math and physics doesn’t mean they have the perspective and background to develop a naturally skeptical approach to subjects outside their field of study.

      • Max,

        I concur with your assessment of the state of higher education. I recently decided to refresh my math background by going back to college. After nearly 60 years, I’m sure I have forgotten a lot of the fine points and didn’t think that it was prudent to try to jump right into partial differential equations. So, I decided to start with a pre-calculus class. After about 5 hours of lecture, I can say unequivocally that the pace is not nearly as demanding or challenging as what I experienced the first time around.

        As a ‘Senior,’ I didn’t have to pay the rather substantial tuition for just auditing the course. I thought that a registration fee of $18 was quite reasonable. However, I then discovered that all the homework and tests were to be administered online, and to get access to My.Math.Lab, I was expected to pay $100 just for a ‘key.’ The hardcover text was something like $190! Beyond that, one was expected to have a scientific calculator. It appears that the classes have been ‘dumbed-down’ to maximize the enrollment and thus maximize the income for the college. I think that many of the students who benefit most directly from a less challenging curriculum might well be better served in some sort of trade school.

      • As a Mechanical Engineer with over 20 years experience in the field, (mostly machine and tool design) I can see coming in the near future a real lack of craftsmen in our industry. We put such an emphasis on scientific and technical degrees, that some of the more hands-on trades like machinists, welders, fabricators, etc…started losing appeal to the kids coming out of HS. We really do need to do a better job of showing just how important trade schools, and the training they provide are to our economy. When the current generation of craftsmen is retired, they’ll leave behind a rather large void in skilled labor and production capability.

      • The hardcover text was something like $190!

        I and some colleagues were evaluating possible textbooks for our department’s introductory Information Systems course. After a while we began to joke about some of the things we we seeing in the texts, and had seen in textbook publishing. Eventually it led to the satire at http://textbookripoff.com/

      • ” a trade is a better way to go than university.”…

        Friend has a PhD Marine Biology….worked for NOAA and the Parks…..went to a Evinrude/Johnson trade school to become a outboard mechanic……now has his own boat repair business and makes a fortune

      • My two cents (or, half-pfennig, in most cases) on this thread:

        I run a walk-in tutoring facility at a junior college; we help students with all levels of Math. Yes, most of our Professors and Adjuncts (myself included) use an on-line website to assign “homework” questions. The costs, even for just an on-line are astronomical [pun intended], but the texts themselves are even worse! I bought my first Calculus text (1972) for $15.95, and I thought that was outrageous.

        But, what is more disturbing is this: students do not even need to do the assignments any longer. One day, just this past December, I was assisting a student and (as usual) I was making a consistent arithmetic mistake (and neither the student nor I was catching the error), so a young lady comes over and offers to assist. She holds her phone up to the screen, and without a nanosecond of hesitation, the correct answer is displayed on her phone! I looked at her (my jaw on the floor), and asked, ‘where did you get that application?’ She answered, it came with the phone. She went on to share that she uses it for every class: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology … … … It would appear there is no limit to what subject these phones can solve questions/problems for.

        I left a message on “Tips and Notes” shortly after this event, and even went to a “Weekday Unthreaded” on JoNova; and yes, I immediately notified my Department Chair and Dean of our School.

        Somehow, the movie “Idiocracy” keeps popping up in my head … … …

        Regards to all,

        Vlad

      • Ralph Westfall,

        Unfortunately, the satire is all too true. Back when i was teaching at Foothill College in the ’70s, the faculty and students were starting to become concerned about the cost of texts (even when they were 1/10th of today’s cost!). Textbook company rep’s were talking about getting books printed on demand with just the chapters covered by the instructors, to keep the costs down. Apparently that never happened.

        Incidentally, I did find the previous edition of the $190 textbook on Amazon for $12.95. I probably couldn’t get away with using it if I was taking the course for credit.

        I do feel sorry for today’s student who is getting courses watered down from the level of the Sputnik Emergency revisions, and paying a lot more for them! But this all does go a long way towards explaining why the current generation of students and recent graduates are taken in by the Media and alarmist PhD’s.

      • The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler,
        Imagine that if we get another Carrington Event (or a regionall EMP, thanks to North Korea). Not only will the infrastructure for delivering food, repairing transformers, and other trivial things of such ilk be impossible, but those who have become dependent on their smartphones probably won’t be able to work simple math problems. The person who owns and knows how to work a slide rule will be king.

    • Not all universities, for sure. And it is reassuring to hear that some still teach the “hard” sciences. But far too many are not, especially in Canada. So much so, that the Canadian operational meteorology course has had to reject graduated students with the supposed degrees in science because they do not have even the basic fundamentals necessary.

      • In a group of “Engineers” visiting a workshop and having the owner show all a Loud Mouth in the group who was a recent receiver of an engineering degree asked what was the “things” on the workbench used for ( a micrometer )

    • Yup. Those engineers look damn silly standing in a field because there’s no concreters, carpenters or sparkies to build the factory they designed.

  3. Mr Rowe’s elegant response speaks volumes as to why he has and should have the narration job for the How The Universe Works program for the last 6 seasons (26 episodes) and to why he should continue to do so for another 6 seasons.

  4. I’d like to recommend Mike Rowe for the post of Presidential Science Advisor, or maybe just President

    • Presidential Science Advisor would be great. President is taken, and requires as particular canning ability to troll the propaganda media these days. Anyone other than Trump would be destroyed because the media are so incredibly biased.

      • I assume you mean “a particularly canny”. I will be using pieces of this to troll my lefty family and aquaintances.

  5. A clever and effective riposte.
    Whether the lady reads it, understands it and reflects on it?
    Doubtful

    • If you follow the link to Mike’s Facebook post. You can read her clueless reply. She didn’t learn anything, just accused him of “writing a novel at (her)”.

      • Writing a novel “at” her?

        So snowflake Becky, who was shown previously to be struggling with climate “science” and black holes, also struggles with cogent thought & English sentence construction.

        PS: 1,285 words now counts as a novel (which, by definition, is fiction; I doubt Becky understood the irony)?

  6. This reinforces my sense that Mike Rowe is one of the most insightful social thinkers of our time. Wow. Thanks for posting this on WUWT!

      • John M. W.: I love your story — it’s great, me and my family love this guy — but, in Mike’s own words: he learned a bit of opera so that he could fake his way into some musicians’ union … so that, in turn, he could then get into some sort of affiliated screen actors’ union.

        Haha! Great story. See the following Mike Rowe personal appearance on CNN [yuck!], in his own words and operatic singing voice, telling this story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MItlvHdoQ-8

      • PiperPaul,
        OK, I’ll admit it – I laughed at your pun. But then, I’m known for my “dad” jokes, so this kind of humor suits me.

  7. Typing and writing must come very easily to him. Amazing, well thought out and articulate answer to something that hardly deserved a reply.

  8. I agree with this gentleman but can he explain his own settled opinion that the number of stars prove that there is no God?Just a matter of logic! Oh and when did we believe the earth was flat? A matter of science history, Cicero knew it wasn’t. Maybe scientists don’t study history or philosophy and should not pronounce on them with as much confidence as when they speak of scientific matters.

    • m e,
      Oh and when did we believe . . .flat

      Well, this idea was promoted a number of years ago (150 ?) in the English speaking world. I’ve looked it up, and so can you.

      About God? I raked up about 5 bushels of Black Walnuts last fall. They prove there is not a loving God, per the Christian teaching. A loving God would put little zippers in these tasty morsels.

      • John F. Hulquist
        Isn’t that a superficial mischaracterization. The real God offers to work with and involve us in our challenges: See Jeremiah 3:33

        ‘Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.’

        Have you thought to ask?

      • As a matter of fact I just pointed out that it is not logical to use the number of stars to prove there is no God .
        It was a comment on Logic. A scientist should be logical. or he will end up believing in Global Warming.

        This is not the proper venue to argue about the existence of God ,so the idea that Victorians decided there is no God should affect our ideas now is beside the point.

        Romans believed the world was an infinitely small point in a vast universe.see Somnium Sciponis a work where ,I believe, Cicero talks of the size of the universe.. I haven’t read it but I expect you can on line.

        .Science text books don’t bother to check facts of history. Maybe they want to influence the minds of science graduates I hope not.

        This why C P Snow warned of the Two Cultures . q.v.

      • “M E January 14, 2018 at 10:51 am
        I agree with this gentleman but can he explain his own settled opinion that the number of stars prove that there is no God?Just a matter of logic! Oh and when did we believe the earth was flat?”

        “M E January 14, 2018 at 4:59 pm
        As a matter of fact I just pointed out that it is not logical to use the number of stars to prove there is no God .”

        You pointed out logic regarding your own false straw man; not regarding any statement Mike Rowe made.

        Mike Rowe did not make any such statement as you claim.

      • I think Mr. Rowe would agree there is no intersection between belief(religion) and science(the physical world).
        Many people make erroneous arguments that try to “prove” there is no God. Beliefs exist in the mind and can’t be proven or disproven. They simply exist- outside the real world. The physical world contains ideas and possibilities that logically can’t be proven(Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem among others).

      • >>
        philohippous
        January 15, 2018 at 7:51 am

        The physical world contains ideas and possibilities that logically can’t be proven(Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem among others).
        <<

        Both of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have been proven (it’s why they are called theorems). However, you may have meant that there are statements in an axiomatic system of logic that can’t be proven either true or false per Gödel’s theorem. In that case, you are correct.

        Jim

    • Apparently, M E can’t read or doesn’t want to. Here is what Mike Rowe actually said:

      “Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. ”

      Next time, M E, read the entire thing, word for word, before making a comment that clearly shows you did not read anything. You just assumed.

      • Thanks I read it and made the remark The idea of the ancient world and medieval world believing the world was flat is erroneous. See ‘The Discarded Image’ by C S Lewis a medieval scholar of Oxford University.Speaking about the world view of Ancient and Medieval times found in Literature
        . That’s what I mean about Two Cultures.
        I said I agreed with the gentleman……..but his historical assumptions were erroneous.Why the flurry of anti religious feeling… ?

    • “can he explain his own settled opinion that the number of stars prove that there is no God?”

      While it seems like a non-sequitur, I’d be interested in this proof! Of course, one would have to define this God that is proven to not exist.

      “Oh and when did we believe the earth was flat?”

      There is no WE. You have your beliefs and I have mine. As it happens, rather a lot of Ohio or Minnesota IS flat!

      “Cicero knew it wasn’t.”

      Well, perhaps he believed it wasn’t. Knowing a thing can sometimes be a lucky coincidence based on something other than scientific evidence.

    • M E

      Just to keep the hair-splitting fair & balanced, Mike Rowe’s text did not claim “his own settled opinion that the number of stars prove that there is no God”. Mike provided a link to an article by Lindsay Brooke, of the Royal Astronomical Society. There is no reference in Mike’s text to the number of stars proving there is no god.

      Your accusations appear to have made out of thin air.

      Knowing how to read and click on links is a good skill to have. You should aspire to it.

      • Thank you! I did read the post. I made a remark about logic.
        My background is in archaeology and ancient history.

        I only look in on this blog because I thought it was a scientific blog where logic would be used on subjects like past climates.
        I have been on line since 1998.so I probably know about links.
        I think we originally had to type them in!
        i don’t use wikipedia as it is biased in my opinion.

        Ideas of the past have been moving since the 19th century except in science text books. In My Opinion.
        I can recommend. “The Idea of Prehistory” by Glyn Daniel of Cambridge University. it appears to be an online text and is enlightening about the world views of Victorian thinkers who believed in a development of Human Society from Noble Savage to Farmer to City Dweller.
        They did no scientific investigation. This Progress of Man is still believed by Green Party politicians. Others also want to break down society so we will all return to that Golden Age.
        It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny by archaeologists and prehistorians.

        Trusting you all will remain logical

      • Thank you! I did read the post. I made a remark about logic.

        What you made was a accusation

        can he explain his own settled opinion that the number of stars prove that there is no God?

        Since he doesn’t appear to at any point claim that the number of stars prove that there is no God, this accusation would appear to be a strawman argument. Unless, you can perhaps link to where he claims this?

        All the rest you have written appears to be mindless flailing to hide the fact you don’t know what you are talking about.

        ~¿~

    • M E writes “I only look in on this blog because I thought it was a scientific blog where logic would be used on subjects like past climates.”

      Have you found logic on any blog (other than a blog on logic)?

      Science is not logic and logic is not science; they are somewhat orthogonal. You can use logic in an argument that starts with measurements or with pure guesswork; either is still “logical”.

      “i don’t use wikipedia as it is biased in my opinion.”

      Of course it is biased. I believe nothing exists that is not biased because bias is detectable only when it does not match your own bias. Thus, nothing can exist that all agree is not biased.

      What makes Wikipedia unique is that you can edit articles and inject your own bias!

      “Trusting you all will remain logical”

      That would be Mr. Spock. For everyone else logic is in the service of argument. Learn the fallacies, use them with skill.

  9. Sorry to tell Rebecca, but she is a coward. First, I am sure Mike doesn’t make up the script for this show. I doubt cosmology is in his area of expertise, which means he is narrator only. Trying to fire a narrator because you don’t like his politics and not because of his work is cowardly. Secondly, not providing logical arguments against Mike’s “beliefs” but rather trying to kill free speech by denigrating and having him fired is cowardly. One of these days these snowflakes are going to run into the real world and will be very disappointed.

    • science without doubt isn’t science at all

      There’s your bumper sticker for 2018 kids, giterdun and slap ’em on!

  10. Thanks Eric, as always. For sharing how Mike Rowe so eloquently defended himself, and science, from that Leftist/Globalist/warmist Hater. It is so refreshing, and also a lesson to all of us on how to put a nasty person like that in her place.

  11. Going to undergrad college in 1968-72, I can say that period produced a gaggle of Rebecca Bright’s. What I find really interesting is they continue to be spawned and you absolutely can’t tell one from the late 60’s from one today. It has to be hard-wired into their DNA.

    The sad thing is you can’t argue or debate any of them. The wiring of their brain precludes it, so you just have to accept it and go on.

    • This has been a glaring obstacle in my quest to discuss anything with today’s post-modernist neo-marxist. Pardon the Jordan Peterson lingo but it is accurate. I’ve found commies/CAGW types/socialists/leftists are generally intelligent in theory but not in practice. I understand the import of emotion, however these are nothing but aged children

  12. Hi Anthony – Just as an interesting aside, Mike Rowe went to the same high school (Overlea HS) and college (Towson) that I did in Baltimore. He went later than I did, so I do not know him in person.

    The area we went to school is (and was) very much a blue collar area. I suspect that environment is where he picked up his support for vocational education (for the trades) and a down to earth view of issues.

    Roger Sr.

    • Roger Pielke

      Nothing wrong with a vocational education.

      I joined Strathclyde Police in 1976 as a 19 year old and was taught to ask questions, lots of questions. I have never stopped asking questions, in fact I ask more now than I did then.

      That’s why I continue to ask questions of AGW, because no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer.

      Worse still, the answers I am given to demonstrate AGW wouldn’t stand up in a kangaroo court, far less a court of law.

  13. The estimate is order of magnitude, so 100B to 2T is just over one order of magnitude, base 10, but perhaps 3 orders base e.

    • It never occurred to me you could count in base e.

      Like 1ₑ = 2.7, 10ₑ = 7.4, 100ₑ = 20.1, 0.1ₑ = 0.37, 1.1ₑ = 3.1. A painful way of counting.

      • A highly advanced extraterrestrial intelligence might just adopt such a system. It is called the “natural log” for a reason by mathematicians.

      • Hugs,
        But if you count base 2 on your fingers you can get to 2^10 -1 before you need to go to your toes. If sheep herders had invented base-2 they could have managed flocks of more than 1,000 on their fingers and it might have set ciphering and papyrus rolls back hundreds of years. 🙂

  14. Thank you Anthony – this is one of the most amusing and ‘right on the money’ pieces I have read on your excellent blog (and I have been reading since the sun was young). And there is stiff competition for that accolade, not just from the authors of the blog articles themselves but also from the well-informed ripostes from your well-educated, intelligent and generally likeable contributors to the comments section. It is such an unalloyed pleasure to read WUWT. Rebecca Bright, right? Honestly folks, you really could not make it up.

  15. I’ve stopped even trying to interact with people who have adopted ‘science’ as a religion. I’ve tried borrowing from Rab C. Nesbitt and asking them if they’ve ever considered letting doubt into their lives but that normally just causes a puzzled expression. Also, hopelessly off topic but I just looked at SKS for the first time in months and the site seems to have attracted less than 100 comments so far in 2018. How much flogging can a dead horse stand?

  16. The problem is this woman will learn nothing. That letter will simply bounce off her and her life will go on without a trace of self-doubt. As the expression goes, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

    • She clearly didn’t. Her response:
      “You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out.”

      • And you see, this is a typical response by someone who was given a polite but pointed set-down and has nothing to say in rebuttal. Her response is NO response.

      • Sara

        What a spiteful little tart she is.

        Mike Rowe took the time to compose a reply, to one of many people who watch and possibly object to him, and she doesn’t have the grace to thank him and respond with a respectful reply.

        ‘Manners maketh the man’. A phrase this ignoramus has never encountered.

      • and we should expect any difference? I’m at a loss with these types. I could have sworn this was the mother of my child retorting in typical angry child-like newspeak. She doesn’t even realize she just admitted she hasn’t a leg to stand on. Or does she? I think these folks know they were outdueled intellectually and have to resort to logical fallacy, which is consistent with the SJW/modern left crowd these days. How unfortunate.

      • Her reply just makes very clear something I suspect Mr. Rowe knows only too well — trying to educate the ineducable may well be the dirtiest (and least productive) job of all.

  17. I’m speechless, Mr. Rowe. Best rebuttal ever. Please write articles for WUWT on a regular basis 🙂

  18. Classic snowflake tactic. Play the person not the ball. Isnt working with Mike Rowe any more than with Susan Crockford on polar bears. Rowe’s response is elegant, with a number of beautifully subtle digs. Thanks for posting.
    The desparation of progressives is now very palpable. The DACA kerfuffle with Dems throwing a government shutdown tantrum. Pelosi denigration of the Trump tax cut producing immediate large bonuses for over 2 million workers/voters. The Mueller Russia collusion investigation exposing Clinton/Obama FISA skullduggery, with more DoJ IG stuff coming this week. And on their favorite CAGW front: Renewables failing. Planet not warming, rather greening. Polar bears thriving. Sea level rise not accelerating. Climate models failing. 2018 will be a fun year for Deplorables and skeptics.

    • ristvan

      Mate, they weren’t subtle digs, they were full on, metaphorical, slaps on the chops.

      And she deserved every one of them.

      Malicious, ignorant tart.

      • HS, agree, but almost always try here to politely understate. “Head up black hole” is priceless. He only omitted the pronoun ‘your’.

    • Ristvan, also something good in Germany: The Parties negotiating over a Grand Coalition skipped the Climate goals for 2020, admittng that they can’t be reached. The Green Party is out of the negotiating circle, because the brave LIbertine FDP withdraw from the first negotition round. The taxes are not up, and there are discussions to lower the corporate taxes.

      • I think there is a clear connection between the coalition and the coal.

    • It was indeed, but given the way America and its leaders , both in private and public sectors, operate these days I would be reluctant to bet on the admirable Mike Rowe continuing in his present employment.

      • Why would you say that? Someone doesn’t like Rowe because his politics don’t include her climate worship nonsense, so he should automatically be fired? Lighten up, Francis. Doomsday is a bit far off, like it or not.

  19. ahhh someone who gets the black hole thing, wow, thanks for sharing. No doubt to the chagrin of many WUWT members.

    OT I know, but what Rowe says is in fact completely accurate.

    • Indeed the only thing humans know for sure is that we surly don’t know.
      We grasp only our human interpretations of reality.

      • tom0mason

        You will of course note, it’s the religious faction of society that claim to know everything.

        I stand to be corrected, but I don’t know of any scientist that has tortured, murdered, raped or molested anyone to prove a hypothesis, without political or religious intervention.

        Yet religion is littered with examples.

      • hotscot, let’s be clear though. Historically, religion doesn’t sniff the devastation that government has unleashed regarding those categories. It is the moral relativism of order followers/dominators who just “uphold the law” who make religion look like a high school scuffle. Sure we could argue for days about the reasons, but history is pretty clear. Rich men and rulers dupe low lifes into doing their dirty work, and that has far and away dwarfed religion, just in the past century. This is not to say that official “religion” operates differently than goverment, because I consider their foundations and mechanisms equivalent. Nor am I dismissing the terrible evils of religion throughout history – they are equally reprehensible.

      • HotScot, once again you speak of what you do not know.
        The religious people that I know are the most humble people I’ve ever met. It’s the atheists who take the lead in claiming to know everything.
        Knowing that there is something in this universe that is greater than yourself, and will always be, is quite humbling.

      • MarkW January 14, 2018 at 6:09 pm

        It’s the atheists who take the lead in claiming to know everything.

        Which is a curious characterisation given atheism is, by definition, the absence of belief.

      • Raven, that’s agnosticism. Atheists claim that the absence of God is proven. A belief which also can’t be proven.

      • “The religious people that I know are the most humble people I’ve ever met.”

        You have little or no experience of Islam, have you?

        Try visiting Saudi Arabia and taking a bible through customs, or proclaiming you are a Christian in much of Pakistan.

      • Raven, that’s agnosticism. Atheists claim that the absence of God is proven.

        Nah . .
        Theists believe in the existence of a god or gods.

        Atheists specifically have an absence of belief.
        They don’t claim proof of anything because the notion doesn’t arise.

        An agnostic perhaps takes an each way bet and neither believes nor disbelieves. I’d suggest that’s because agnosticism kind of drifts into considerations of what is knowable as distinct from what is believed.

        It’s a subtle difference and the logic becomes a little inexact but there ta go.

        Atheism FAQ

        Knowing that there is something in this universe that is greater than yourself, and will always be, is quite humbling.

        Which is quite a prideful statement all on it’s own!

    • Max Borne said that theoretical physics is not science, but philosophy. I say it is bad philosophy, too.

      • Theoretical physics is very good at advising experimentalists in what should be measured next and to what order of precision. A theory (as proposed by a real physicist) is something which can be tested in a number of ways, any one of which failing destroys the theory.

        The problem with a good deal of modern theoretical musings is there is no way to measure a difference in effect of one theory versus another, or to make any measurement at all. When theory becomes disconnected from physical space it strays far into philosophy, but who knows what bright person may invent something that later shows this philosophy to be a better description of the universe than current thought.

      • SRI

        So gravity waves and lensing of light are “bad philosophy””? Wow! Does anybody else know these until-recently theoretical concepts were bad science & philosophy?

        On the other hand, if I remember correctly, Fynman’s “What is Science” video opened with Feynman saying “First, we make a guess…”.

        I don’t know the context for Borne’s statement, but quoting it here as a general indictment of theoretical physics is simply ignorant.

      • Making a claim about something when you know nothing about it is ignorant.

        See Sean Carroll’s the Big Picture for an example of bad philosophy posing as science.

      • The most infamous Harvard exam I ever passed was a ‘Discuss’. Probability theory, one of only two undergrads in the graduate level class. “Markov Chains. discuss’ for half the total 3 hour exam credit. The only two undergrads got the only As in that graduate math class. Larry Kreicher was the acknowledged math genius of my years Harvard class. i was lucky—maybe.
        On a slightly different but clearly related note, Mike Rowe, great as he is, is wrong about black hole uncertainty. (Even though his professed scientific uncertainty plays well in his response). 1. Black hole Event horizons predicted by Einstein’s general relativity have been observed by events just beyond those horizons in more than one galaxy. For example, sustained high energy cosmic rays (Svensmark CGR/cloud hypothesis fails without black holes.) 2. The physical Newtonian motion of stars in spiral galaxies like ours cannot be explained otherwise. 3. Most important, gravitational waves from the merger of black holes exactly as predicted by general relativity (the merger gravitational wave ‘chirp’) have now been detected 4 times in two years by LIGO (the fifth detection was even more interesting neutron stars). Last years Nobel prize in physics. Mike Rowe is a hero, but no human is perfect or has perfect knowledge. His biting retort to Bright’s progessive brown shirt attack on him remains priceless despite his small technical defect.

      • “it can’t be a regular star or any object other than a black hole”

        Correction: “According to current Astrophysics theories, it can’t be a regular star or any object other than a black hole.” Our Astrophysics theories could be (and probably are) incomplete and it could be something we don’t yet know about. Its important to keep an open mind in science. According to current theory, when a star above about 3 solar masses collapses, there is no known force to keep if from collapsing into a Black Hole. The key word in that sentence is known.

      • ristvan

        “1. Black hole Event horizons predicted by Einstein’s general relativity have been observed by events just beyond those horizons in more than one galaxy.”

        Assuming Einstein’s theory is correct. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a pretty youthful scientific guess.

        “2. The physical Newtonian motion of stars in spiral galaxies like ours cannot be explained otherwise.”

        To our limited scientific knowledge of a few thousand years. Again, Newtons theories explain things, but it’s quite convenient in the grand scheme.

        “3. Most important, gravitational waves from the merger of black holes exactly as predicted by general relativity (the merger gravitational wave ‘chirp’) have now been detected 4 times in two years by LIGO (the fifth detection was even more interesting neutron stars).”

        Not being a scientist, but an eternal sceptic, I assume these ‘chirps’ conform to the theories, which I suspect is like saying a hurricane proves CAGW. Perhaps not, I’m just guessing, Richard Fenynman like.

        “Mike Rowe is a hero, but no human is perfect or has perfect knowledge.”

        Damn, are you saying Einstein and Newton could be wrong?

        🙂

        “His biting retort to Bright’s progessive brown shirt attack on him remains priceless……….”

        Top comment, especially the brown shirt bit.

      • eclipse was designed by Eddington to test the the theory’s gravitatiinal lensing prediction. Three out of four sites passed. (The fourth was obscured by clouds.) we now have many gravitatiinal lensing ‘proofs of prediction’. Ditto for Newton.
        Now, I agree none of that provides certainty, see my ebook The Arts of Truth. But it comes close enough for me.

      • ristvan : “2. The physical Newtonian motion of stars in spiral galaxies like ours cannot be explained otherwise.”

        I assume here you mean the motion of stars near the core of Spiral Galaxies which appear to be orbiting around a massive Black Hole. It is my understanding that the Non-Newtonian motion of the start in the arms of Spiral Galaxies is being explained by Dark Matter. Am I wrong about this?

      • Darn typos! I meant to say:

        … It is my understanding that the apparent Non-Newtonian motion of the stars in the arms of Spiral Galaxies is being explained by Dark Matter…

      • This talk about Black Holes makes me wonder what happens if a bunch of Dark Matter collapses into a Black Hole? Would it be a Dark Black Hole? or Very Black Hole? or a White Hole?

      • True…I tentatively accept its existence until a direct observation is made and/or a better theory comes along.

  20. Thanks Mike Rowe, you’ve shown that for some science is a religion filled with unalterable facts. In real science there are only human descriptive approximations to the reality we experience about us.
    Of course some egoist (or chatbots) get very heated about science being facts and proofs, and not human interpretations (aka approximations) of reality, to them I say keep digging for the very foundations of your ideas in science are not as robust as you believe.

  21. I got the same response on here about black holes as he got from Rebecca Bright about climate 😀

    lol

      • I’d send Hawking, since it’s more his business. And he probably wouldn’t require a return ticket.

        (in reality, I DO strongly believe black holes are real, but I strongly suspect they might be slightly different from what we think them to be.)

      • Actually, I think there is already a project in progress to send Dr. Hawkings to Mars so he can study the effect CO2 is having on warming Mars’ atmosphere.

      • Hugs

        Black holes are like aliens. They make for great movies, but would we really want to meet one?

        Besides, if black holes were real, they would hoover up everything, but it seems all we can get is, well, nothing, as it seems they can’t be seen.

        A bit like CAGW I guess.

    • DD

      This is Becky Bright’s complete response to Mike on his web page:

      “You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out”

      This is a hilarious & unorganized response; it’s made even better (worse?) by Mike pointing out Rebecca Bright makes her living as a writer. All this in the first 3 links to Mike’s initial response…

      • That is interesting that she makes a living as a writer. It makes me think of the Victorian writers ( also N American) who wrote by the column inch to make a living. Prolixity is the give away. Never put things succinctly.
        Maybe the lady did it for the publicity and in hope of new contracts to contribute column inch equivalents on fashionable web sites.

      • Out of curiosity, I went to Rebecca Bright’s FB page.
        She appears to be a prolific sharer of links and has 630 followers.
        I scrolled down quite a long way and found precisely zero comments from any of them.

  22. “If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a ‘doubter of religion.’”

    And more significantly, ignorant of the metaphysical demonstration (i.e., the proof) of the creation and maintenance of everything that exists, both material and nonmaterial, by a supreme being, as explicated by Aristotle, the Scholastics, and Thomas Aquinas.

    • Oh no. That “proof” proves nothing of the sorts. Also, you should be aware of undefined constructions like “everything that exists”, since those very quickly escalate as logical errors, as shown by the work put in Principia Mathematica. Natural language allows expressions that don’t have a meaning in all contexts. “Everything that exists” is one of those expressions.

      If you ask me “why we are” here, I wouldn’t invoke a male personality with powers to create stuff, it would just make me ask why that male personality is there. I’d rather just say the reason is logical, and there is possibly not any other option. We have to be here. And that puts me in the corner of determinism / superdeterminism. But I’m open to scientific suggestions here. I do hate the idea of dice, yes. But I accept the quantum theory as a descriptive natural law.

    • please quote aristotle’s explication. you assert something without proof. if there is none, then your little pony is showing.

    • Actually the proof is in Aristotle’s four causes as clarified by the Scholastics and Aquinas, which have never been successfully refuted (as falsely claimed by some on this site). This is not the place, nor I am under any obligation to explain them to you. It is your obligation to correct your ignorance when it is brought to your attention.

      The four causes:

      Material cause: what something is made of
      Formal cause: form, structure, or pattern of the material or matter
      Efficient cause: what brings a thing into being; that which actualizes a potentiality of a thing
      Final cause: the purpose, goal, or end of a thing.

      Hint: An external influence is required for a potential to be actualized. It is not possible for anything to change itself. That requires an unmoved mover.

      If you care to pursue this further, I direct you to Edward Fessor’s The Last Superstition and his Neo-Scholastic Essays. The latter provides background to help understand the former.

    • just what i should have expected.
      squids do something similar when they want to escape.
      you spew a cloud of babble.

      for hugs: the question of ‘why’ implies purpose implies evaluation implies morality – that makes it a really loaded question which can only be applied to alternatives being chosen by an agent.
      the story of the trojan horse is one of taking a thing at face value and unwittingly getting the hidden payload.
      beware the hidden premise!

      • Reminds me of the adage about leading a horse to water. You obviously do not want to drink. Metaphysics addresses the “why,” science does not.

        Take for example, the law of inertia. Ignoring that no one has ever seen an object that is not affected by external forces and how to determine that an object is at rest, this law attempts to describe “what” the motion of an object is if it is not affected by external forces. Metaphysics explains “why.”

      • sri:
        your memories of adages are so trite. i’m obviously not a horse. you’re not anybody’s leader.
        and metaphysics is not teleology.
        you’re a phony and a babbler – second rate to the bone.

      • Gnomish – you appear to be enthralled by illusions and superstitions, that is by scientism and materialism. Alas, there are many others on this site similarly enthralled, believing that science can disprove the existence of God.

  23. Good to see freedom of speech still prevails in the good ole’ U S of A.

    If a BBC science journalist defended himself so valiantly –

    1, He’d be fired for snowflake abuse.

    2, Twitter would demand prosecution for “hate crime”.

    3. Questions would be asked in Parliament about the BBC employing “right wing extremists”.

    The situation would never arise of course since no conservative has ever been seen within a mile of BBC “science journalism”.

  24. Now this is a post to remember, among many memorable posts. Thanks. I saw this on another feed and read it once already, I read it again. It is like a good movie or a book, well worth repeating and keeping.

  25. That was the most eloquent, professional and deva-effing-stating snow-flake bytch-slap I have ever read. And by a country mile!

  26. When I was a youth many decades ago, the education system taught critical thinking. Today, group-thinking seems to be the norm. The Left is actively ‘otherizing’ all that they disagree with.

  27. Can’t prove black holes exist? But….but…but there were three LIGO detections… and – and – and that’s supposed to mean three pairs of black holes swallowed each other… and – and – and…. if you can’t see a black hole and you can’t see God does that mean neither of them exists? (Doing this as a giggle, nothing else.)

    Trillions of galaxies, now, huh? I can’t keep up with the census any more. Does that mean the Universe is flat, round, or an amorphous blob? Is it closed or open? Is it really 42 billion light years in diameter in all directions from Earth at the center, or is that number just a guess based on red-shift protogalactic blobs?

    Last week or the month before, I got a message that two stars in a pair had swallowed each other. I don’t know whether to pop the cork in a wine bottle or just go and feed the birds, and hope that fat kitty who’s been bumming off me doesn’t show up and scare them away. At least my new toaster works.

    • Oh, yeah – Rowe’s response to Ms. Not So Bright was the best and most polite verbal smackdown I have seen in a long, long time. Kudos, and may he continue to prosper in his future.

    • And here’s really one to blow your mind. Since the universe is still supposed to be “expanding,” WHAT IS IT EXPANDING INTO??

  28. So, Rebecca opened her mouth before engaging her brain. Maybe she’s a young person, just finding her feet in the world, unlike Mike Rowe who has probably been around a while. I’ve said many stupid things in my time, but luckily not on the internet. Time to stop gloating, don’t you all think? I’m sure Rebecca has got the message.

  29. I’ve been saying they weren’t real for twenty years and I get called stupid for it, but now that astrophysicists are looking into it I’ll get told to shut up because I don’t have a degree or some other retarded thing.

    Light doesn’t work that way.

  30. I watched the Black Hole episode. Awesome but maybe skipped over the more detailed physics material I was looking for. Still awesome however.

    But one of the scientists commenting in the show said something very profound related to this topic. We should quote this ever now and again.

    “As a scientist, I would rather have questions that I cannot answer, rather than answers I cannot question”.

  31. How many SJW’s like “Rebecca Bright” are part of the #metoo movement, intent on destroying people they may not care for, by accusation and trial by media?

  32. He used one word that may have gone right over her head: INSULAR. If she looks it up she may be even more upset! Ooooo…looking forward to see if this was the take down or if Rebecca speaks again and let’s herself be known a fool.

    • Oh she opened her mouth. It was the trainwreck you’d expect:

      Rebecca Bright You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out.

      To which he replied:

      Mike Rowe Well, I’ve re-read your response twice, and can’t seem to find any additional proof. Look – you’re under no obligation to reply – obviously. Neither am I . But this is your comment. You’re an author, right? You write for a living, yes? No pressure, but come on, Becky. You’re talking to five million people right now. Most writers would kill for a chance to say something meaningful to an audience that size. Dig deep. Be brave. Say something persuasive, but do it quick. My plane lands in twenty….

      As best I can tell, she didn’t return.

    • I find it interesting how she assumes that since Mr. Rowe has dared to openly contradict her, that it is Mr. Rowe who is suffering from an excess of pride.

    • Dog

      Fantastic video. I’m guessing adult beverages were involved. No single human on the planet could be that incompetent (well, I mean, other than a politician).

      • Well and far left ideologues like our fair young lady who pocked a hornets nest and got stung by a thousand words.

  33. It is kind of funny, in my immediate group of engineers, we are all conservatives. I guess we don’t do real work because rebecca says that we don’t do science.

  34. An unfamiliar yet bracing experience, listening to a voice that is thoroughly reasonable, sane, and sensible, not just for a sentence or two but for paragraph after paragraph. I tend to avoid anything connected with pop science, assuming it’s likely to be leftist propaganda, so thanks for the tip! (But it’s “The Way I Heard It” not “How I Heard It”.)

    • Here’s another tip: nothing wrong with “How I heard it”. Now go put your pedantic self into a time-out. We’ll let you know when you have anything else to say.

  35. Rebecca represents, sadly, most Americans who comment daily and confidently about things they know nothing about. It’s why very intelligent people say incredibly stupids things; because their political bias trumps their logic.

  36. Mind you these days all she has to do to get him fired is accuse him of touching her inappropriately many years ago.

  37. There’s only one thing in Mr. Rowe’s excellent putdown of Ms. Bright that is less than brilliant (I want to write “Bright”. but I can’t for obvious reasons). That is his statement “…..it’s easy these days to confuse theory with fact.” I suspect that the word that he intended, instead of “theory”, is “hypothesis”, since a theory has already been proved and may be regarded as fact. (Misuse of “theory” is a very common error.)

    • “I suspect that the word that he intended, instead of “theory”, is “hypothesis”, since a theory has already been proved and may be regarded as fact”

      I would agree with this so long as you mean that “a theory has already been tentatively proved and may be regarded as a conditional fact until a better theory comes along” i.e. Newton’s Gravity being updated and largely replaced by Eisenstein’s theory of Gravity.

      • sorry, but it’s a law of logic that if it is impossible to prove, it can not be true.
        this is the root of your disorder. you insist that nothing can be true – and assert that your statement is true – and you can’t even spot the self contradiction because impaired by inferior cognitive tools. crippled.

  38. I’ve done “Dirty Jobs”. Wastewater Treatment. (Cleaning up what you flush so the people downstream can drink it.) Water Treatment. (Cleaning up what was missed and what waste and undesirable things “nature” might have added before you drink it.)
    This was a gentile and wonderful response to one who has not “cleaned up” the waste she has allowed to entrench itself in her mind.

  39. Never knew Mr Rowe’s political stripe. Never knew his views on “science”. Never knew what was scripted or what was “Mike”.
    Regardless.
    One hell of a voice over man. Maybe the best of the “new crop” of talent.
    As it turns out, a decent writer and thinker as well.
    Still don’t care about his political stripes.
    Right up there with James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman. I think they’ve some acting chops that I have not seen in Mike Rowe.
    I really don’t care about Mr. Jones or Mr. Freeman’s political stripes either.
    Do I have to actually know what is going on in their head to admire their work?
    One has to believe their script writers and the folks that vet the scripts have some integrity. When it comes to the cosmos, is there in the science of the cosmos any reason to not believe what is put forward. Not to say there is all milk and honey in the scientific and academic fields; Sides are taken, and vigorously defended, but mostly those disagreements do not rise to the level of religion.
    Just because one branch of science has become politically and ideologically entangled does not mean we should not believe in science.

    • “I really don’t care about Mr. Jones or Mr. Freeman’s political stripes either.”

      I do. I don’t think Mike Rowe would host the moral degenerate Bill Clinton on his tv show, but Morgan Freeman will, and Morgan will ask this low-life to give us advice on how to live and how to think about things.

      • TA, these are not Mike Rowe’s shows. In some series (Dirty Jobs) he is an on-camera personality, and others, just voice over. I don’t think Mr. Rowe has aspirations to be a newsman. As I noted above, I do not know where the script stops and Mr. Rowe begins. The same thing can be said about Mr. Jones and Mr. Freeman positions.
        As far as “hosting” Bill Clinton, I’ll say it again: They are not HIS shows. He is an employee. The producer and powers that be direct him in what to do, and whom to talk to. Even on “Dirty Jobs”.
        “Know thine enemy”. In that light, it would be fascinating to dig into Mr. Clinton’s mind. Maybe we could even get a legal definition of “is”. And what better subject for “Dirty Jobs” than doing Mr. Clinton’s late night dirty job in the Oval Office.

        Seriously, if one cannot talk with the opposition because we believe them to be the devil incarnate or worse, there is no hope for living in this world. Be a prepper now.

    • After you see Rebecca’s written response to Mike (on his FaceBook page), and seeing she claims to write for a living, you wouldn’t want to pay this lady for anything having to do with the written word.

  40. Awesome reply! Well done Mr. Rowe. Enjoyed watching your shows and even I have done some of those dirty jobs too. Maybe Ms/Miss Bright could learn a thing or two.

  41. Judging from his response to Ms. “Bright,” it is obvious that Rowe is a highly intelligent guy who understands science exactly as it is supposed to be understood. Which leads me to wonder if one of the keys to getting the CAGW narrative to die out would simply be to get the American public and the mainstream media to understand science like Rowe and as most of us in the WUWT community do.

    Once it is understood that attacking the skeptics and questioners of CAGW is akin to attacking science itself, it is just one more step to realizing that CAGW has morphed into a theological and political doctrine more than anything else. Theological and political doctrines are viewed as infallible by their believers, and thus they are not allowed to be questioned. And so it is with CAGW in the minds of the believers. IMHO, Michael Mann (and others of his ilk) can scarcely be blocking his detractors on Twitter for any other reason or reasons.

    The CAGW theological doctrine is largely built on the scientific illiteracy of the American people and the MSM. Correcting this needs to be basis (or one of the bases) for its demise.

    Kudos aplenty to Mike Rowe!

  42. “And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.”

    Good point. What is a bully but someone who tries to hurt others physically or financially just because they look or act differently. Rebecca Bright wants to take away Mike’s lunch money (job) just because she doesn’t like the way he thinks. She feels justified because he is different from her. Don’t all bullies feel the same way? (Don’t climate bullies want to punish anyone who refuses to march in lock step with their views on climate change?)

  43. There’s every chance Mike Rowe’s contract will not be renewed.
    The LEFT will be furious.
    Their pursuit of heretics is relentless.

  44. Mike was temperate but firm — just right for the challenge. “Science without doubt is not science at all.” You betcha.

    Rebecca is a junior varsity Torquemada who is incapable of fighting for what’s right; just fighting.

  45. Rebecca Bright is one of those Leftist maroons who implicitely esposes that it’s “Free speech me, but not for thee.” And then tries to bully employers to fire people she disagrees with, or thinks she might disagree with based on their appearance.

    In Mike Rowe’s case, Rebecca is likely “triggered” by his blue-collar masculinity. She and her ilk have a term they now invoke, “toxic maculinity.”

    “Toxic maculinity” to them really is just that all maculinity is toxic to them. They throw it around mostly based on appearance. They are thus now the bigots. Judging based on appearance, and deciding to bully those they don’t like.

    • “… and tire your prideful self out.”

      She really really doesn’t like his confidence. She confuses confidence and competence with pride because she is looking down on him (and us, and others not like her).

  46. Here is a link to an interview with Mike Rowe on ReasonTV (Nick Gillespie) to talk about our current mania with college education and the devaluing of blue collar (“dirty”) jobs. Interesting and timely considering President Trump’s efforts to bring some of these lost jobs back to the US.

    https://youtu.be/qzKzu86Agg0

  47. “Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he’ll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he’ll have to touch it to be sure.”

  48. As looking to acquire, if at all possible, a simple layman’s understanding of the cosmological architecture that would admit of Black Holes, I have been trying, hitherto fruitlessly, to understand and interpret all popular writings and explanations of same, that present themselves to my admittedly dilettante’s approach to my challenge.

    All that said, there appears to me to be a rather cogent and well articulated interpretation being revealed of what we (we humans) are observing astronomically [NB: – not by any means least}, in ever greater detail as capability advances.
    And that due being fully scale-able in essence, is increasingly possible to seek evidence thereof in the laboratory.
    And to my so-far understanding, the scientific explorations of this hypothesis/theory have been building for a century and are now rapidly accelerating towards finding some degree of confirmation in multiple aspects, in the last decade.

    Not wishing to touch any ‘third rails’ here, (at risk of Electrical injury, you see ;))
    {While I cannot follow but a tenth of what Crothers addresses, I find his dry humour refreshing}

  49. Mike if you ever get fired don’t worry have a cabin in Alaska on a hundred acres was a old gold mine might find some gold if you get bored no internet neighbors maybe a few noisy wolves bears the northern lights so like hotel 6 I’ll keep the lights on .in summer22 hours of daylight sincerely a fan Ronald raverinni

  50. Well thought out, well written, Mike Rowe! Keep doing all that you do.
    You represent “billions & billions” no! WaIT! Wrong show!
    Anyway, you do represent many of us on costs of education, and a concern about learned trades shrinking while jobs which match the need for those capable trades go un-filled.
    If I could be paid a living wage for sharing the quality of my voice, I too, might narrate for a dollar or two. It’s an honest buck!
    The art of story telling also seems to be dimming. I am a big fan of your pod cast “The way I Heard It.” Please keep doing what you do.
    Give that scrappy dog a hug for me.
    Happy New Year.
    Susan (SuZz, in San Diego.)

  51. Great response Mike. It is refreshing to see someone who makes a point with proof and merit an not a “because I said so” type of response. Those unfortunately are too common now today and also accepted.

  52. I’m impressed. I’ve met more than a few scientists who cannot write or make a point as well as Mike Rowe.

  53. It is indeed a very good response, one that secretly I would imagine we would wish we were capable of writing. What I am missing here, is what aspect of science belief does the accuser believe makes the narrator a science doubter?

  54. > if you’ve got your head up a black hole.

    While the whole essay was excellently written, what got me to laugh was the phrase above …

  55. If he is a true sceptic of the current AGW ‘science’, then he should be on the circulation list of everything that is said or challenged by the sceptic camp. Every press release or report that is put out by AGW scientist that is challenged or disproved by sceptic scientists should be sent to him, as he appears to be a man that applies simple logic to the subjects on which he broadcasts.He is obviously an excellent presenter and critical of fake science. His following of millions of listeners could be so valuable to the sceptic cause.

  56. I’d venture to say that Mike Rowe is tee-total.

    Anyone else read that?
    Quick wit, a sense of huoumr, good memory, coherent and… he cares.

    If he wanted to put that girl down he’d have told her to, in A Particular Order:
    1. Switch off the TV
    2. Take it to the garbage
    3. Get a life

    He ‘knows’, from her letter, she is not only quite lonely but that she fancies the pants off him.
    The games that adult people play.
    (We now do realise what m/f climate marching girl was up to? And Sarah from Seattle.)

    Its The Mating Game. Her approach was novel & interesting and deserved a reply.
    Gentlemen do things like that. eg Mr D Trump might do similar?

    Her approach was dangerous now though, especially in the US – he could so easily have cited ‘equality’ and slapped a (sexual) harassment charge on her.
    (There is backlash, read the WHOLE article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42687157)

    But, he has responded to say that he is listening to her – patently no-one else is.
    Her Facebook photo tells us all about her (over) use of Comfort Food. = food to cover up stress.
    And one of the largest health epidemics going on right now is the very stressful business of being lonely.
    As admitted by executives of Facebook itself.

    He may have just saved a life (a from diabetic nightmare) there… wanna bet your paycehck on that?

    Empathy is NOT something that comes from clicking mice – quite the opposite.

  57. If every reasonable person who us attacked by vacuum brained people like this girl or even Lewandowsky or Mann stood up to the like this, it might actually make a difference.
    Look how cowardly and shallow she made herself look when someone actually stood up to her.

  58. The earth being flat was never a widely held belief. It was not postulated by bright minds, but nutters, just like today.

    • I suspect that the vast majority never even thought about it.
      It made no difference in their day to day lives one way or the other.

  59. Thank you for this great reply & post. I will keep a copy because this adresses so many issues in many debates in a perfect and friendly way. Too many people confuse the scientific process with a process of sharing (and enforcing) widely held believes. And fail to realize how important the skeptical scientific approach is to free thinking, free speech and free lives. Best wishes from a German living in South Africa – two countries where some of these points were ignored in the past – with well known consequences.

  60. Bahaaaaaa, way to funny ! I agree with Mr Rowe, where’s the proof ? We humans barely know what’s in our own small part of the Milky Way and we’re still trying to figure it out. Afterall, we’ve just gone passed poor little Pluto..

  61. Yes Rebecca is a bully. A poster child for the Progressive Supremacist who’s impressed with her own superiority. Mike’s words bounced off her rigid mind like a super ball off concrete.
    She’s proud of her membership in the mob of thugs.
    She knows best and is willing to be a champion fascist to help purge demons like Mike from any positions of expression.

  62. From the article, Mike Rowe: ” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.”

    Mike did an episode called “Are Black Holes Real”, and after viewing this episode about Venus this morning on the Science Channel, “Earth: Venus Evil Twin”, I think Mike Rowe should do an episode titled “Is CAGW Real”.

    https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/how-the-universe-works/full-episodes/earth-venuss-evil-twin

    The clueless scientists in this episode attribute the high heat on Venus to excess CO2, and claim Earth is headed in the same direction. I assume that’s Mike Rowe narrating this program. Of course, it’s the scientists making all the CAGW claims, not Rowe, but I wonder how he feels doing a program that is spreading unconfirmed CAGW propaganda. Would love to hear him comment on that.

    • Mike Rowe is not the narrator of this show. Try Erik Dellums. Just need to hit the info button on your remote.

  63. I’ve been quite sceptical on black holes for a long time, where the Hawking radiation?
    However does the recent Gravity Wave discovery (I run BOINC Einstein@Home) point more towards their existence?

    • Classical physics explains most of everyday phenomena nicely. It breaks down at very high speeds and/or energies. The General Relativity explains three subtle observed phenomena nicely – the gravitational lensing of light, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and the gravitational redshift (yes, it has been confirmed in a tabletop experiment). Many orders of magnitude from everyday phenomena it also predicts gravitational waves and singularities known as black holes. A very expensive, highly sensitive experimental apparatus called LIGO was built and observed phenomena consistent with gravitational waves originating from a merger of black holes. It is an indirect observation for sure, but it is at least a partial confirmation of the extremes of the theory.

      Hawking radiation has not yet been observed, it is an extremely weak effect.

  64. Excellent articulate response! If only narrow minded leftists could understand the rationale, and logic of plain speaking people like Mike. Leftist can only call names with NO PROOF!

  65. ‘You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them.’

    So, Rebecca ‘Not-so’ Bright proves Rowe’s point – after giving her the courtesy of a response, she demonstrates how she protects her knee-jerk, insulated ignorance.
    Note that she didn’t contest one point.

  66. Just found a quote of Cicero’s view of the Earth.
    “—hands on a doctrine which may have helped for, centuries, to discourage geographical exploration.”
    The earth is of course spherical
    It is divided into five zones
    Between the two habitable and temperate zones a ‘torrid zone’
    The torrid zone is uninhabitable because of the heat.
    The people of the Antipodes ( opposite foot) can never meet the people of the northern temperate zone.
    (This appears to have been believed until the 16th Century. see George Best 1578.A True Discourse)

    Therefore Cicero handed it on,. and so we deduce that the spherical shape of the earth had been assumed before his time and that after his time was believed by scholars.

    The flat earth may have been believed by tribes without scholarship but not by western scholars. Did the Chinese also believe in a spherical earth or were speculations deemed unprofitable?

    Flat earth societies still exist I suppose in North America .

  67. I’ve heard old ladies who were feminists in the 60’s say that they are now considered to be “far right”, so I wouldn’t read into this too much If I were Mr. Rowe.

    He’s a standup guy who gives some spotlight time to people who typically have under appreciated jobs. For that reason he can do almost no wrong in my books.

  68. A few points from a long list discussed at Facebook de facto CHEM:
    3) Unfortunately, those most capable of understanding and working with the random are perceived as dangerous because they tend to ask questions which open the way for new and unwanted possibilities.
    4) Demonizing the random is a fiction of the dominant political order.
    5) Those suggesting alternative ways of thinking about the situation are demonized as elitists, socialists, and anti-Americans.
    6) “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly”. Reference: Einstein letter to Morris Raphael Cohen. 1940.
    JBVigo, PhD

  69. TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

Comments are closed.