http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/18/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-really-starting-to-scare-conservatives/



The wingnut panic over the show Cosmos is incredibly amusing to me. It’s understandable, because Neil deGrasse Tyson is really good at being clear and concise about science and he eviscerates right wing attempts to muddy the waters with precision. I particularly liked this quote from an interview on Inquiring Minds: "��I claim that all those who think they can cherry-pick science simply don'��t understand how science works,"�� because science, unlike theology or musical taste, isn'��t a matter of just taking what you like and leaving the rest behind. What is interesting ��and threatening ��about Cosmos is it asserts interconnectedness of science. Evolution and the "��big bang"�� theory are inseparable, and knowing how old and vast the universe is makes it much, much easier to understand how evolution works.

This runs strongly counter to the conservative approach to science. Conservatives don'��t want to be perceived as anti-science, so they claim a general support for it and then just suddenly and coincidentally have "��reservations" about science that runs against their political interests. So you have people who wouldn't dare dream of saying that physics as a field is wrong, but somehow still manage to convince themselves the that laws of physics are suddenly suspended when they point to the conclusion of man-made climate change. Or they have to accept that sexual reproduction, by its nature, creates descent with modification, but they somehow decide that this can'��t be true over vast expanses of time. Cosmos makes that kind of cherry-picking hard to pull off. Tyson knows that if you understand, for instance, how dog breeds came to be, you understand evolution and can'��t reasonably deny that, over much longer periods of time, you could get way, way more genetic diversity through natural selection.

In my post last week about these issues, I asked why Christian fundies are much less interested in building the case against the old-and-vast universe, even though they clearly don'��t believe in it any more than evolution, than they are trying to sow doubt about evolution. This, even though the age and the size of the universe tend to argue against their god more than even evolution does. I neglected to mention that I suspect the main reason is tradition. The fight between evolutionary biologists and fundies predates many of the theories about the universe and certainly predates the popularization of those theories. It'��s an arbitrary accident of history. You know, like a lot of evolved features are.

I cannot emphasize enough the arbitrary nature of the attacks on evolutionary theory. Fundamentalists are not interested in crafting legitimate criticisms of science. They just want to cough up a bunch of random '��reasons'�� to disbelieve the science so that their followers can latch onto that as an excuse for why they reject science, and that'��s it. That'��s why they put astrophysics mostly on '��ignore'�� and focus on evolution, because all their followers need to know is that '��criticisms'�� exist and they can feel good about believing a bunch of ********.

PZ Myers has a fun post up about one of the fellows at the Discovery Institute taking cheap potshots at Cosmos and it’s fascinating, because it shows how much his job is to create the illusion that there are ��questions about evolution and that'��s it. The point is not to create counter-theories and it'��s certainly not about grappling with the overwhelming amount of evidence from various fields of science that point to an old universe that we evolved very recently, relatively speaking, in. It'��s about tossing up a few distracting lies, like “biologists can'��t explain the eyeball, and allowing believers to comfort themselves with the lies. But it really comes across as lame if you take a wide view.

The fellow in question, Jay Richards, was all agitated about the evolution episode of Cosmos.

Nice article and I really loved this point, explains a very interesting concept of the entitlement crowd.

I have followed Neil through much of his career. He is OK as a communicator but most of his experience is with children and adults with the knowledge of children. I think he tends to get boring at times.

Cosmos is not as good as I hoped. The shots and visuals are fantastic but the commentary runs a little slow. I think Mikeo Kaku would have been a much better choice as he is a better communicator.

Neil is right about some of the politics. The Right Wing has been brain washed to think global warming is an "opinion" when the science is very clear.

However, I think he is wrong about cherry picking the science. We should spend more money on science that keeps us ahead of the Chinese and less on the study of mating habits of the Arctic Toad.

For example:

"Scientific studies conducted in the public interest appear to have veered off course, according to a new report that documents government-sponsored research gems such as having shrimp walk on tiny treadmills to measure the impact of sickness on crustaceans.

While the exercises may be adorable to watch, Sen. Tom Coburn says he's not so sure it advances the cause of science.

The Oklahoma Republican issued a new report Thursday that concludes the National Science Foundation has misspent $3 billion on "waste, fraud, duplication and mismanagement." It offers a list of research projects that could have been left as questions for the universe.

Among them, $2 million to analyze 38 million photos on Flickr and cross-reference them against the site's social networking service. Turns out, researchers concluded, that friends generally post photos on the Internet depicting the same place at the same time.

Some other beauties: A $315,000 NSF-funded study on whether playing Facebook's FarmVille can help adults develop relationships; $80,000 to examine why the same teams always end up leading March Madness; and a $1.5 million grant for scientists to design a robot that can fold laundry -- at a rate of one towel every 25 minutes. ..."

Governmental scientific inquiry" is a contradiction in terms. ... Atlas Shrugged

lol, especially nowadays...

Totally disagree with that synopsis, what global warming. Man has done severe damage to this earth but that is not one of them. Seems to only be seen as a means to justify a carbon tax and make Al Gore a billionaire.

Actually government scientific inquiry works just like in the book, the government writes a conclusion and the government (or UN) paid scientist makes it come true on paper.

me and metal have discussed this before, and i agree with you... global warming is just about out the door, and all the paid scientist shrills that "warned" us about it are all backtracking now... fact is, the earths average temp hasn't moved in over 20 years, and they expect it to be a cooling trend over the next 50...

The earth naturally goes through temperature cycles covering millennia. Warms up, cools down. But CO2, nah, the plants absolutely need it to survive, take in CO2, keep the carbon and release the oxygen. If CO2 gets too high, quit killing the trees.

Groan .... The reason I believe in Global Warning is because I understand the science. Al Gore is an idiot and an opportunist and is the main reason conservatives turned the other way.

Saying the real scientists have turned against is just BS.

Here is a website that is credible.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Here are the facts of who understands it, along with me.

"AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9



SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11



U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12



INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

no offense, but not one time did that say "global warming"... climate change is real, but global warming is a fantasy...

see what you think of this, MW...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

Physics and the laws of gravity went out the window on 9/11.... miracles do happen....according to some in govt

Oh you can't be serious. This would be paramount to saying Odumbocare is all about health.

And to make matters worse, the AMA is on the list of credible sources for climate change. The AMA has never been credible about anything. They still propagate that chemotherapy is the ingredient missing so the body can fight cancer. And fail that, just use radiation as the cure when in reality radiation promotes cancer by doing the same as chemo, kill the immune system.

There is no global warming period, but go ahead and support this fraudulent scam and then don't be surprised when you get the bill for breathing, after all you do omit CO2. And yes, it will get to that.

And here is an excellent expose on the whole thing...

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

as an engineer you know that using predictive analytics in a controlled environment where you have a reasonable grasp of the potential variables and a full data history doesn't always produce accurate results.

you could have 10 engineers do a FMEA/ HAZOP/ HACCP with access to the same data and come up with 10 different failure points and time estimates for something as simple as a DC Motor.

I very well may be wrong about global warming, but I will never concede that science is settled..

i will say this... i don't really know if global warming is occurring, but anything the government controls i won't trust, including NASA... my honest opinion, it's all a natural occurrence... but countries like china are not helping anything at all, they've had to shut down parts of the cities because of smog problems...

Oh no question that man is doing damage and is on a daily basis destroying his very means of survival.

But if you look from another angle, there is so much delusional crap about global warming to try and extract carbon taxes for some but also to justify addition means to extract a cleaner alternative, natural gas.

And for natural gas, there is fracking, a very dangerous and environmentally dangerous exercise. While CO2 emissions have a natural solution and can be endured to a large degree by animal life, a lack of water is a disaster animal life cannot endure.

Global warming is the indisputable warming of the planet. Climate change is the effect it has on the various climates of the world.
For example, climate change due to global warming predicts a movement of the wheat belts of the US North leaving desert and drought behind. West Texas and the midwest have suffered horrible droughts the past several years.

Also predicted is unstable and extreme weather. The US has experienced some of the most unstable and extreme weather in history in the last several years. Unstable means higher highs, colder colds, higher winds, stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, and corresponding periods of mild weather. All of these events are occurring.

If you calculate the slope of the increase of world temperatures for the last 2000 years it is indeed going up. If you calculate the slope for the past 114 years it is going up dramatically in exact alignment with the world's production of greenhouse gasses. This fact is why ALL of the world's scientific societies (that matter anyway) are aware of the problem. Cherry picking one scientific group that says otherwise casts doubt on them because the science is so basic and clear.

The carbon tax is a farce and is a thinly disguised world version of income redistribution but, according to liberals and democrats, is the "only solution". There are positive things we could do like building nuclear power plants that are safe but the weak BS about them abounds too. The bottom line is that the whole matter has become awash with politics and misinformation. Build nuclear power plants. Use them to power plug-in hybrids that otherwise run on compressed natural gas. Provide reliable mass transit for the cities that need it, and most of the problem goes away without any "carbon credit".

Stop burning down the world's rain forests would help too. It gives the carbon some place to go. And no matter what we do, China and India can negate it by pumping out dirty air to make cheap products.

As you know, I am not a liberal.

i don't disagree, my thoughts on it are that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and we've had about 200 years of tracking weather patterns... anything they say is related to global warming may or may not be true, due to the fact we just don't know... and the liberals paying scientists to sway there opinion to make the laws and "green" energies that never seem to work... weather science has turned to money...

Hogwash, there is no global warming. This earth has gone through cycles of hot and cold since it's inception billions of years ago. This planet has gone through drastic changes due to meteoric or volcanic activity but likewise it have gone through smaller changes like now due to natural phenomena.



Now this I can agree with. Yes man has done extensive damage to the environment especially the scorched earth. The earth at fault for this as man has stripped away all that was natural and has wounded it. But the good news, mother nature always has a way of recovering even if that recovery is the elimination of the problem, mankind. In fact the earth is now in the process of healing and that process will not bode well for a large part of mankind. Thank you Monsanto.



And this depends on just whom you choose to believe, the government (especially the UN) paid scientist or the non-government pure academic scientist. I trust nothing the government has to offer, in fact I have a tendency to believe just the opposite. But the real truth of the matter is to follow the money, it never lies. There is no warming because of greenhouse gases. All the government scientist have been sponsored by the government, especially the UN and have an ulterior motive, carbon tax. Another attempt to remove rights and freedom. So you choose slavery, I choose freedom.



And now you are really stepping off the edge. The carbon tax is not a farce, it is the sole purpose of the theory of global warming. It is another UN mandate like the removal of means of defense.

But to imply a further expansion of nuclear is just pure suicide. Have you not been paying attention. There are serious problems with nuclear now and that is but the beginning. Nuclear power is aging in place and there are more surprises to be had. Just where do we keep storing the ever increasing accumulations of nuclear waste, some with half lives of up to 10,000 years. And there are no such things as "safe" nuclear power. It is not within the auspices of man not to have accidents. It also is not within our auspices to keep greed out of the equation, especially where the waste is concerned.



Now you are on to something. Also examine the prospect of organic food production such as the Shenandoah Valley farm that uses all natural, nothing added but nature and lots of food. But that is not the major advantage, his organic production has caused the earth to become alive again.



Liberal, conservative, no real difference, when all that is dropped and man becomes man and becomes the part of nature he was meant to be, that is all that matters.

The thing is your synopsis is flawed. You are looking for man made solutions to man made causes. All that does is to continue the destruction. But if you look to the natural balance that this earth possesses, all will be answered.