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….

 

 

5 2 votes
Article Rating
317 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latitude
January 14, 2018 10:30 am

LOL…..made my day

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Latitude
January 14, 2018 10:37 am

Rebecca “Bright”. Double-LOL.

JRF in Pensacola
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 14, 2018 10:38 pm

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.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 15, 2018 8:00 am

Yeah, more like “Rebecca Dim Bulb” – LOL.

RWturner
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 15, 2018 8:50 am

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.

bitchilly
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 15, 2018 6:01 pm

her name would appear to be an oxymoron . with the emphasis on moron.

Reply to  Latitude
January 14, 2018 11:14 am

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.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  higley7
January 15, 2018 8:02 am

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

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
January 14, 2018 11:26 am

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

Reply to  Latitude
January 16, 2018 6:23 am

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.

ricksanchez769
Reply to  Latitude
January 14, 2018 12:40 pm

Gee whiz, that sonofabitch can write very eloquently (unlike myself)

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  ricksanchez769
January 14, 2018 2:09 pm

And exhibit class personified in the process.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  ricksanchez769
January 14, 2018 3:18 pm

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.

Javert Chip
Reply to  ricksanchez769
January 14, 2018 4:50 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  ricksanchez769
January 14, 2018 5:55 pm

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.

FTOP_T
Reply to  ricksanchez769
January 15, 2018 5:20 am

@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.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  ricksanchez769
January 15, 2018 8:06 am

@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!

Andrew Bennett
Reply to  ricksanchez769
January 29, 2018 5:55 am

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

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Latitude
January 14, 2018 1:48 pm

“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.

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
January 14, 2018 2:16 pm

#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!!

Reply to  Latitude
January 14, 2018 9:18 pm

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?

🙂

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 15, 2018 4:36 am

TOTALLY DENSE, …… like a Black Hole, …….. ya know.

Biff
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 15, 2018 4:52 am

Show us the evidence, not extrapolations or wild ass guesses. Not the pushed math.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 15, 2018 4:58 am

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.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 15, 2018 6:26 am

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

RWturner
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 15, 2018 8:55 am

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

Geoman
Reply to  Latitude
January 15, 2018 10:12 am

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.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Geoman
January 15, 2018 11:14 am

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

Nylo
Reply to  Geoman
January 15, 2018 9:13 pm

Not only his followers, but also anyone that reads the exchange without previuosly knowing any of them.

James the Elder
Reply to  Latitude
January 16, 2018 7:18 pm

Just turned on the show; it’s not Mike.

cerescokid
January 14, 2018 10:37 am

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.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  cerescokid
January 14, 2018 1:37 pm

DiCaprio?

NME666
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 14, 2018 3:50 pm

DiCraprio!!

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 15, 2018 1:27 am

Marion Cotilard.
An firm believer in CAGW … and conspiracy theory about 9/11. I don’t know if she believe moon landing was faked.

Javert Chip
Reply to  cerescokid
January 14, 2018 4:53 pm

Harry Weinstein? Dustin Hoffman? Charlie Rose? Matt Lauer?

beng135
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 16, 2018 2:20 pm

Bill Cosby.

January 14, 2018 10:40 am

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

A great comment, on multiple levels 🙂

TRM
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
January 14, 2018 3:57 pm

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

Klem
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
January 14, 2018 5:22 pm

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.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
January 15, 2018 5:07 am

“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.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
January 15, 2018 8:20 am

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.

Matheus Carvalho
January 14, 2018 10:40 am

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.

Max Dupilka
Reply to  Matheus Carvalho
January 14, 2018 11:00 am

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.

Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 14, 2018 11:36 am

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.

Randy in Ridgecrest
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 14, 2018 11:47 am

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.

Randy in Ridgecrest
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 14, 2018 11:56 am

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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 14, 2018 11:57 am

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.

John
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 14, 2018 12:35 pm

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.

Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 14, 2018 1:02 pm

Not to worry, John! That upcoming dearth of skilled craftsmen will be filled by advanced robot. Problem solved!

Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 14, 2018 1:44 pm

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/

Latitude
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 14, 2018 2:42 pm

” 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

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 15, 2018 8:58 am

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

Oldseadog
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 15, 2018 9:53 am

+ 1, Max and Matheus

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 15, 2018 3:01 pm

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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 15, 2018 3:08 pm

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.

Max Dupilka
Reply to  Matheus Carvalho
January 14, 2018 12:01 pm

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.

George Tetley
Reply to  Max Dupilka
January 15, 2018 3:06 am

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 )

John B
Reply to  Matheus Carvalho
January 14, 2018 7:52 pm

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

Bryan A
January 14, 2018 10:41 am

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.

Mark from the Midwest
January 14, 2018 10:43 am

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

Moa
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
January 14, 2018 10:55 am

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.

Guy
Reply to  Moa
January 14, 2018 6:14 pm

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

martinbrumby
January 14, 2018 10:44 am

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

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  martinbrumby
January 14, 2018 3:11 pm

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)”.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Terry Gednalske
January 14, 2018 5:08 pm

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)?

MarkW
Reply to  Terry Gednalske
January 14, 2018 5:59 pm

To the twitter generation, over 1000 words is unbearably long.

David Dibbell
January 14, 2018 10:46 am

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!

Don Perry
January 14, 2018 10:46 am

One of the most intelligent, well-expressed retorts I’ve read in many a year.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Don Perry
January 14, 2018 12:14 pm

As I understand it, Mike Rowe trained as an operatic singer; not an easy discipline.

PiperPaul
Reply to  John M. Ware
January 14, 2018 12:38 pm

I thought he owned MikeRowesoft.

Reply to  John M. Ware
January 14, 2018 1:14 pm

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

Paul Penrose
Reply to  John M. Ware
January 14, 2018 3:51 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  John M. Ware
January 14, 2018 4:34 pm

The higher the IQ the dryer the humor. That’s what my dad said.

Doug
January 14, 2018 10:47 am

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

Hugs
Reply to  Doug
January 14, 2018 1:09 pm

Clarity of thought in writing. I wish I had one. I wish I had clarity of thought without writing.

TA
Reply to  Hugs
January 14, 2018 2:19 pm

Don’t sell yourself short, Hugs. 🙂

HotScot
Reply to  Hugs
January 14, 2018 3:00 pm

TA

I’ll second that expression on Hugs.

beng135
Reply to  Hugs
January 16, 2018 2:24 pm

Wish I had the clarity of writing without thought…..

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Doug
January 14, 2018 4:23 pm

I have to say it was not snarky at all, just ‘matter-of-fact’.

Reply to  Doug
January 15, 2018 7:32 am

Nice job Mr. Rowe. I like Dirty Jobs. Hope you can survive the propaganda and keep yours.

Doug, the future is far in the past when most kids graduating high school could articulate a clear thought in a sentence or a clear idea in a paragraph.

MarkW
January 14, 2018 10:49 am

Now that is a good slap down.

M E
January 14, 2018 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? 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.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  M E
January 14, 2018 12:31 pm

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.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2018 2:12 pm

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?

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2018 3:16 pm

So you don’t like the “dirty job” of cracking walnuts?

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2018 4:40 pm

@ John…that is because He was thinking of the squirrels.

M E
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2018 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 .
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.

Ray Blinn
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2018 10:16 pm

You need to buy a Nut Wizzard. It will cut the time of your ordeal in half.
http://www.nutwizard.com/prod01.htm
P.S. I own one but have no financial stake in that business.

ATheoK
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 16, 2018 1:26 pm

“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.

ATheoK
Reply to  M E
January 14, 2018 12:41 pm

Mike Rowe made no such claim(s) in his response. Gross assumption on your part.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 15, 2018 7:51 am

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).

Jim Masterson
Reply to  ATheoK
January 15, 2018 3:49 pm

>>
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

Sara
Reply to  M E
January 14, 2018 2:01 pm

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.

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  Sara
January 14, 2018 3:20 pm

+ 1.9 trillion

M E
Reply to  Sara
January 14, 2018 5:08 pm

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… ?

Michael 2
Reply to  M E
January 14, 2018 3:43 pm

“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.

Javert Chip
Reply to  M E
January 14, 2018 5:57 pm

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.

M E
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 14, 2018 6:35 pm

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

schitzree
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 15, 2018 7:20 pm

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.

~¿~

Michael 2
Reply to  M E
January 16, 2018 4:42 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
January 14, 2018 10:52 am

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.

Jeroen B.
January 14, 2018 10:55 am

This should be on billboards and in classrooms worldwide.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Jeroen B.
January 14, 2018 4:12 pm

science without doubt isn’t science at all

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

Geo Rubik
January 14, 2018 10:56 am

Mike Rowe is wonderful.

January 14, 2018 10:57 am

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.

rbabcock
January 14, 2018 10:58 am

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.

Reply to  rbabcock
January 14, 2018 3:33 pm

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

Roger Pielke
January 14, 2018 10:59 am

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.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 14, 2018 1:13 pm

That we know of. Maybe more.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 14, 2018 2:58 pm

EC, yup.

HotScot
Reply to  Roger Pielke
January 14, 2018 3:14 pm

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.

Bruce Heinzman
January 14, 2018 11:01 am

If you have to take science with unskeptical faith that’s not science it’s religan.

thomasjk
Reply to  Bruce Heinzman
January 14, 2018 11:29 am

Dogmatic Science? Perhaps an oxymoron, perhaps something even stronger for which I cannot even guess the word that should be used.

Roger Knights
Reply to  thomasjk
January 14, 2018 5:27 pm

See Henry Bauer’s Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How dominant theories monopolize research and hinder the search for truth. The Kindle edition is $10 at:
https://www.amazon.com/Dogmatism-Science-Medicine-Dominant-Monopolize/dp/0786463015/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1515979484&sr=8-7&keywords=henry+bauer

Alan D McIntire
Reply to  Bruce Heinzman
January 14, 2018 11:46 am

As Richard Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

Rick C PE
Reply to  Alan D McIntire
January 14, 2018 1:46 pm

Yes, Feynman explained science simply and clearly in his lecture frequently posted here. I would say that science simply cannot advance without the critical roll that skeptics play. In fact, to not doubt what some authority tells you means you have no need to think for yourself. Descartes’ famous quote is rarely presented in whole.

I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I am.
Rene Descartes

joe
January 14, 2018 11:01 am

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.

Hugs
Reply to  joe
January 14, 2018 1:20 pm

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.

Reply to  Hugs
January 14, 2018 8:31 pm

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

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Hugs
January 15, 2018 6:48 pm

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. 🙂

Javert Chip
Reply to  joe
January 14, 2018 6:05 pm

A pedantic way of counting

gnomish
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 14, 2018 8:05 pm

poor rebecca is still using base 1 – and maybe suffering from envy cuz she can’t count to 11.

Quilter
January 14, 2018 11:01 am

Mike Rowe – 1, Rebecca Not so Bright – nil.

RayG
Reply to  Quilter
January 14, 2018 11:21 am

No, not – 1 for Mike Rowe, rather, game, set and match. All at love.

thomasjk
Reply to  Quilter
January 14, 2018 11:30 am

….But wasn’t that where she started? As a “nillity.”

John V. Wright
January 14, 2018 11:03 am

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.

Reply to  John V. Wright
January 14, 2018 11:41 am

You mean like the name Lorena “Bobbit?”

Tom in Florida
Reply to  F. Leghorn
January 14, 2018 3:29 pm

BTW Lorena married a Russian. She is now Lorena Kutchacokoff.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 14, 2018 3:36 pm

Shameful! (And yet hilarious)

Woz
Reply to  F. Leghorn
January 14, 2018 10:23 pm

I am sitting in a cafe drinking my coffee. When I got to that remark I sprayed coffee all over my phone!

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  F. Leghorn
January 15, 2018 8:39 am

Tom in FL

The Russian spelling of female names wouldn’t permit that: “Kutchacokoff”. It would have to be more like “Tossatcokova”.

Gavin
January 14, 2018 11:03 am

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?

HotScot
Reply to  Gavin
January 14, 2018 3:18 pm

Gavin

Now there’s a thought. Unleash Rab on the alarmist’s, they wouldny stand a chance. 🙂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
January 14, 2018 3:56 pm

They would have trouble understanding what Rab is saying anyway.

HotScot
Reply to  HotScot
January 14, 2018 4:01 pm

Patrick MJD

The alarmist’s have trouble understanding what anyone says, Rab would make a refreshing change.

J Mac
January 14, 2018 11:07 am

A beautiful public paddling of a self-inflating ‘social justice warrior’!

Bravo, Sir!

Dave
January 14, 2018 11:11 am

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.

greymouser70
Reply to  Dave
January 14, 2018 11:24 am

and the more cynical ones of us would add… “and to know where to hide the bodies.”

TonyG
Reply to  Dave
January 14, 2018 1:24 pm

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.”

Sara
Reply to  TonyG
January 14, 2018 2:03 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  TonyG
January 14, 2018 3:25 pm

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.

Reply to  TonyG
January 14, 2018 3:58 pm

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.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  TonyG
January 14, 2018 5:36 pm

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.

Luc
January 14, 2018 11:14 am

Well stated. Agree with this 100% ” … since science without doubt isn’t science at all. “

NorwegianSceptic
January 14, 2018 11:14 am

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

January 14, 2018 11:17 am

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.

Reply to  ristvan
January 14, 2018 11:37 am

The first two weeks of 2018 are very promising. Happy 2018, everybody.

HotScot
Reply to  ristvan
January 14, 2018 3:29 pm

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.

Reply to  HotScot
January 14, 2018 4:02 pm

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

Reply to  ristvan
January 14, 2018 11:16 pm

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.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Johannes Herbst
January 15, 2018 8:42 am

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

Editor
January 14, 2018 11:21 am

What a marvelous, thoughtful, mature reply!

mikewaite
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2018 11:42 am

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.

Sara
Reply to  mikewaite
January 14, 2018 2:08 pm

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.

Zigmaster
January 14, 2018 11:35 am

Getting actors to replace scientists says everything you need to know about the AGW movement.

Mark - Helsinki
January 14, 2018 11:36 am

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.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
January 14, 2018 11:46 am

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

HotScot
Reply to  tom0mason
January 14, 2018 3:36 pm

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.

Reply to  HotScot
January 14, 2018 4:56 pm

Indeed many times have people mistaken selfishness, ego, and hubris, for religious piety.

Reply to  tom0mason
January 14, 2018 4:08 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  tom0mason
January 14, 2018 6:09 pm

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.

Raven
Reply to  tom0mason
January 15, 2018 6:23 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  tom0mason
January 15, 2018 7:37 am

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

HotScot
Reply to  tom0mason
January 15, 2018 9:13 am

MarkW

You can of course demonstrate I know nothing of religion.

catweazle666
Reply to  tom0mason
January 15, 2018 1:03 pm

“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
Reply to  tom0mason
January 15, 2018 3:18 pm

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!

South River Independent
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
January 14, 2018 12:11 pm

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

OweninGA
Reply to  South River Independent
January 14, 2018 2:23 pm

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.

Javert Chip
Reply to  South River Independent
January 14, 2018 6:23 pm

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.

South River Independent
Reply to  South River Independent
January 16, 2018 7:54 am

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.

TA
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
January 14, 2018 2:41 pm

“No doubt to the chagrin of many WUWT members”

Cygnus X-1

http://www.constellation-guide.com/cygnus-x-1/

“Cygnus X-1 has a mass 14.8 times that of the Sun and its compact size indicates that it can’t be a regular star or any object other than a black hole.”

end excerpt

Discuss.

Reply to  TA
January 14, 2018 3:33 pm

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.

Ricdre
Reply to  TA
January 14, 2018 3:39 pm

“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.

HotScot
Reply to  TA
January 14, 2018 3:47 pm

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.

Reply to  TA
January 14, 2018 4:08 pm

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.

Ricdre
Reply to  TA
January 14, 2018 4:16 pm

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?

Ricdre
Reply to  TA
January 14, 2018 4:21 pm

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…

Ricdre
Reply to  TA
January 14, 2018 4:28 pm

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?

Chris D.
Reply to  TA
January 15, 2018 4:21 am

I think it’s existence has been broadly accepted.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/cygnusx1.html

Ricdre
Reply to  TA
January 15, 2018 7:54 am

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

icisil
January 14, 2018 11:38 am

That’d be quite funny if the woman he responded to is black.

Hugs
Reply to  icisil
January 14, 2018 1:30 pm

No it’s not. I say this from experience.

January 14, 2018 11:41 am

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.

Mark - Helsinki
January 14, 2018 11:42 am

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

lol

Mark - Helsinki
January 14, 2018 11:43 am

We have a few Rebeccas here 😀

Jim Heath
January 14, 2018 11:45 am

Once you cease to doubt you cease to be scientist.

Reply to  Jim Heath
January 14, 2018 11:48 am

Can I doubt that?

Hokey Schtick
Reply to  tom0mason
January 14, 2018 11:54 am

I doubt it.

Reply to  tom0mason
January 14, 2018 12:35 pm

🙂

Hokey Schtick
January 14, 2018 11:53 am

Would it not be prudent to criminalise black hole denial, just to be on the safe side?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
January 14, 2018 12:41 pm

Let’s fund Rebecca on a trip to a black hole, if we can find one.

Hugs
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2018 1:33 pm

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.)

Ricdre
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2018 3:46 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2018 3:59 pm

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.

Dan Davis
January 14, 2018 12:04 pm
Javert Chip
Reply to  Dan Davis
January 14, 2018 6:40 pm

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…

M E
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 14, 2018 9:32 pm

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.

Raven
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 15, 2018 3:45 pm

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.

South River Independent
January 14, 2018 12:06 pm

“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.

Reply to  South River Independent
January 14, 2018 12:38 pm

And me.

Hugs
Reply to  South River Independent
January 14, 2018 1:52 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  South River Independent
January 14, 2018 8:17 pm

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

South River Independent
Reply to  South River Independent
January 15, 2018 12:41 pm

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.

South River Independent
Reply to  South River Independent
January 16, 2018 7:42 am

“Feser” is the correct spelling of the author’s name.

gnomish
Reply to  South River Independent
January 16, 2018 8:37 am

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!

South River Independent
Reply to  gnomish
January 16, 2018 7:40 pm

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.”

gnomish
Reply to  gnomish
January 17, 2018 8:53 am

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.

South River Independent
Reply to  gnomish
January 18, 2018 10:02 pm

Please cite the proof that metaphysics is not teleology.

South River Independent
Reply to  gnomish
January 18, 2018 10:31 pm

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.

Foxgoose
January 14, 2018 12:08 pm

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”.

David Chappell
Reply to  Foxgoose
January 14, 2018 7:15 pm

Or, probably, anyone with science training.

Steve Lohr
January 14, 2018 12:09 pm

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.

Kramer
January 14, 2018 12:22 pm

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

Ockham's Phaser
January 14, 2018 12:29 pm

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.

JasG
January 14, 2018 12:39 pm

So uber-alarmist Stephen Hawking is an expert on something that may not even exist?

Javert Chip
Reply to  JasG
January 14, 2018 6:42 pm

Bear

Well, he has admitted he was wrong about loss of information in a black hole…

Javert Chip
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 14, 2018 6:43 pm

Obviously should have been response to JasG

gnomish
Reply to  JasG
January 14, 2018 8:18 pm

he’s the King of Nothing.

Bear
January 14, 2018 12:41 pm

She probably thinks Bill Nye is a scientist.

JohnWho
Reply to  Bear
January 14, 2018 12:48 pm

“She probably thinks Bill Nye is a scientist.”

He, he.

Mydrrin
January 14, 2018 12:41 pm

Impressive.

Sara
January 14, 2018 12:43 pm

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.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
January 14, 2018 12:45 pm

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.

prjindigo
Reply to  Sara
January 14, 2018 1:11 pm

He’s very very good at that.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Sara
January 15, 2018 9:44 am

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

PiperPaul
January 14, 2018 12:47 pm

I like this show where all kinds of black hole speculation is backed up by computer (graphics) models, what-ifs, maybes, and an attractive presenter:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/black-hole-apocalypse.html

Non Nomen
January 14, 2018 12:55 pm

Either she learns her lesson well or she’s going to end like Rumpelstiltskin. Well done, Mr. Rowe.

Gethin Bermingham
January 14, 2018 12:57 pm

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.

TonyG
Reply to  Gethin Bermingham
January 14, 2018 1:30 pm

Read her reply. It tells a different story.

prjindigo
January 14, 2018 1:10 pm

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.

Bill Illis
January 14, 2018 1:27 pm

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”.

Earthling2
January 14, 2018 1:32 pm

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?

Timo Soren
January 14, 2018 1:36 pm

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.

Reply to  Timo Soren
January 14, 2018 3:22 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Timo Soren
January 14, 2018 6:18 pm

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
January 14, 2018 1:42 pm

And BOOM goes the Dynamite!

For those who are not familiar with that phrase:

https://youtu.be/W45DRy7M1no

Javert Chip
Reply to  Dog
January 14, 2018 6:56 pm

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).

Dog
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 14, 2018 7:44 pm

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

John A. Gundersen
January 14, 2018 1:42 pm

An excellent reply by Mike Rowe!

ScienceABC123
January 14, 2018 1:44 pm

Mike Rowe is a classy guy. The world “needs” many, many more Mike Rowes.

Macha
January 14, 2018 1:50 pm

Mike Rowe for president… Better than Oprah nominee…ha.

Rick C PE
Reply to  Macha
January 14, 2018 2:24 pm

Yes, he has a lot of experience in doing “dirty jobs”.

stephana
January 14, 2018 2:04 pm

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.

Joshua
January 14, 2018 2:08 pm

Wonderful

David Ramsay Steele
January 14, 2018 2:11 pm

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”.)

Javert Chip
Reply to  David Ramsay Steele
January 14, 2018 6:59 pm

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.

Grant
January 14, 2018 2:25 pm

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.

JasG
January 14, 2018 2:25 pm

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

F. Ross
January 14, 2018 2:46 pm

Excellent post Mr. Rowe! Hear, hear!

Ian L. McQueen
January 14, 2018 3:06 pm

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.)

Ricdre
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
January 14, 2018 4:02 pm

“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.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
January 14, 2018 7:02 pm

Ian L. McQueen

Sorry to bust your hypothesis, but a theory can never be “proven”.

gnomish
Reply to  Javert Chip
January 14, 2018 8:24 pm

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.

Gunga Din
January 14, 2018 3:19 pm

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.

TA
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 15, 2018 10:41 am

I did a little bit of waste treatment while I was in the army. We used diesel fuel. 🙂

fxk
January 14, 2018 3:37 pm

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.

TA
Reply to  fxk
January 15, 2018 10:45 am

“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.

fxk
Reply to  TA
January 15, 2018 3:39 pm

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.

Resourceguy
January 14, 2018 3:51 pm

Welcome to climate potshots. It’s a dirty job.

Editor
January 14, 2018 3:52 pm

Has Rebecca responded?

Javert Chip
Reply to  DC Cowboy
January 14, 2018 7:04 pm

Yup. It’s priceless – go to Mike’s FaceBook home page…bring popcorn.

Resourceguy
January 14, 2018 3:52 pm

Maybe Rebecca is a paid troll for the green brown shirts out there.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Resourceguy
January 14, 2018 7:08 pm

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.

Patrick MJD
January 14, 2018 3:59 pm

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.

CD in Wisconsin
January 14, 2018 3:59 pm

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!

Louis
January 14, 2018 4:06 pm

“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?)

Warren Blair
January 14, 2018 4:24 pm

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

Annie
January 14, 2018 4:54 pm

That was a wonderful piece. Thank you for posting it Anthony.

Tom Gelsthorpe
January 14, 2018 5:02 pm

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.

January 14, 2018 5:12 pm

… such a well crafted piece of writing. … taking the high road and still bashing his critic in the process.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 14, 2018 5:16 pm

Mike Rowe is a very funny guy with a zillion stories to tell from his career. One episode from his days on the QVC shopping network was a disaster:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/24/mike-rowe-qvc-awkward-greatest-story-ever/

I hope this link works for you. If not google “mike rowe singing nun doll” and see what you come up with. This event was also described in an NPR interview he did in 2011 if I recall correctly.

January 14, 2018 5:19 pm

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.

DonM
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 15, 2018 2:55 pm

“… 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).

Aubry Leighton
January 14, 2018 6:29 pm

Score! Nail on the head, Mike.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 14, 2018 6:30 pm

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

Logoswrench
January 14, 2018 7:04 pm

Awesome.

January 14, 2018 7:22 pm

“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.”