A quarter of Americans think the Sun goes around the Earth

[kallend 1,647]

rehmwa

Frankly, I doubt if 99.9% of the people alive fully understand orbital mechanics and how they are described depending on a chosen (a probably subjective) set of reference options.

C'mon Bill - it's not exactly rocket science.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

Quote

But I would respond, "what happened was neither big - it was incredibly small when it happened

I think things that go bang are generally rated according to how big the result is, not the starting point.

30kg of plutonium and uranium is pretty small, but under the right circumstances it can get very big very quickly. So, therefore, since I parse the question differently than you do, I can label you anti-science and uber-religious fanatic.

Finished your comment for you in the context of the rest of Jerry's quote in the way he was saying others do it - "That's parsing the question, obviously. But a simple "yes or no" question can leave plenty of room for answers in between. "

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

***Frankly, I doubt if 99.9% of the people alive fully understand orbital mechanics and how they are described depending on a chosen (a probably subjective) set of reference options.

C'mon Bill - it's not exactly rocket science.

- then I'll leave it up to Wendy, our resident rocket scientist (NASA credentials are cool)



can we arbitrarily define when one body is orbiting the other body? how about if the center of rotation of the system lies within the physical volume of one of the bodies....? I'm ok with that. (Simple case, empty universe except for the two bodies)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[muff528 3]

rehmwa

......


can we arbitrarily define when one body is orbiting the other body? how about if the center of rotation of the system lies within the physical volume of one of the bodies....? I'm ok with that. (Simple case, empty universe except for the two bodies)

If we use that definition, the earth has not orbited the sun in the last ~20 years. (but more than 2 bodies at play.)

Edit to add: Found a better chart here. Center of mass has been within the sun's volume for the last couple of years.

[lawrocket 3]

When there is a paradigm shift, it's usually the result of the believers in the previous paradigm dying off and not because they changed their minds on the basis of observed fact.

To suggests that scientists don't have egos is ridiculous. If a person has made a career and achieved fame out of advocating a certain theory, don't expect the person to be able to flip a switch and say, "I've been wrong the past thirty years." The vast majority of people don't work that way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[muff528 3]

lawrocket

When there is a paradigm shift, it's usually the result of the believers in the previous paradigm dying off and not because they changed their minds on the basis of observed fact.

To suggests that scientists don't have egos is ridiculous. If a person has made a career and achieved fame out of advocating a certain theory, don't expect the person to be able to flip a switch and say, "I've been wrong the past thirty years." The vast majority of people don't work that way.

...especially if they made a sh*tpot full of money promoting that theory.

[skydiver30960 0]

grue

People are starting to take pride in being ignorant.

In the past, the ignorant had little path to be heard. It was the highly educated that were published in newspapers or books, or heard on radio and TV. Opportunities to be heard by the masses were few and far between, and heavy preference was given to those who could express themselves intelligently.

Now, everyone has a FB account, Twitter feed, and a blog. EVERYONE is heard. It's not that we're getting dumber... the ignorant are just getting louder.


Elvisio "although, I guess that includes me too" Rodriguez

[DanG 1]

Quote

Now, everyone has a FB account, Twitter feed, and a blog.

Heck, some of the most ignorant get their own radio and TV shows.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

muff528

If we use that definition, the earth has not orbited the sun in the last ~20 years.

you sir are anti-science, hate the planet and small children, and must want your taxes reduced

GOOD DAY SIR

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Quote

Now, everyone has a FB account, Twitter feed, and a blog.

Heck, some of the most ignorant get their own radio and TV shows.

Yup, and after those fail miserably due to lack of talent and horrible on air personality, they then use fraud to get into the Senate

your point?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

Yup, and after those fail miserably due to lack of talent and horrible on air personality, they then use fraud to get into the Senate

your point?

No point. I was just imagining the quality of show we could put together with some of our more, shall we say, interesting posters from SC.

- Dan G

[winsor 187]

Andy9o8

Quote

A lot of smart people get scientific facts wrong, and it doesn't mean they are uneducated. In the 1987 documentary "A Private Universe," Harvard students, faculty and alumni were asked what causes the four seasons. Nearly everyone interviewed incorrectly explained that seasons change when the Earth gets closer or farther from the sun in orbit rather than because of the tilt of its axis.

The reason for the Four Seasons is Frankie Valli.

[jakee 1,257]

rehmwa

Finished your comment for you in the context of the rest of Jerry's quote in the way he was saying others do it

I was just making an offhand comment about what's involved in something going bang. What the hell are you talking about?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[tkhayes 140]

wow, the guy that disputes scientifically-backed reasons for climate change is concerned that Americans do not know enough about science?

That's rich.

[winsor 187]

tkhayes

wow, the guy that disputes scientifically-backed reasons for climate change is concerned that Americans do not know enough about science?

That's rich.

Climate Change (tm) is a well-funded religion. Since 'Scientology' is already taken, there have been various names used, but the result is the same.

For the record, human activity has an effect on climate, The Environment (tm) and all sorts of Very Important Things.

At issue is the tenet of faith that We are Responsible for E) All The Above. It is all our fault if things do not work the way we prefer, and, if they do work the way we would like them to, then that's the way they should work in the first place, now isn't it?

Since we are the Driving Force in Everything (only idiots think the sun revolves around the earth, but it is pretty obvious that the Universe revolves around our Very Important Species), only Heretics, Deniers and Very Bad People fail to accept the Truth (tm) that Climate Change (tm) is our responsibility.

The Science is Settled! Algore said so! He has a Nobel Prize, so every word he speaks is the Truth (tm)! There is NOTHING more important than what he says is important!

Actually, I am surprised that you lower yourself to respond to someone that has the gall to suggest that there are other factors at play than those we have decided are important. You need not address such cretins, since they are terminally ignorant and, let's face it, fundamentally sinful.


Carry on.

[tkhayes 140]

And the anti-climate change crowd is also a well funded eligion. Your point is?

Al Gore is not a scientist, he was a messenger. He has gone away but the science behind it has not. And just because some of the arguments are not 100% true to proven fact, then all of it is bunk? You sound like a creationist.

Given that logic, just because Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagoras, and Euclid did not get it right 100% on their first try, THEREFORE calculus does not exist and is false.

Darwin wrote a book, not 100% correct but laid the foundation for evolution science that we all rely on today, EVERY DAY, to help run our lives. But because he missed or could not explain a few things perfectly, THEREFORE every word that ever came out of his mouth is a lie.

We know how much carbon we are putting into the atmosphere, pretty damn close. We see the changes related to the atmosphere. We have a pretty good idea how much carbon can be naturally absorbed into the earth every year by organics, not 100% but a pretty good guess and the atmosphere at any given moment of time is a static volume/mass of gases.

Put 1 ugram of arsenic in a glass of water and drink it, probably not a problem. put 2 grams of arsenic in a glass of water, maybe a problem. put 2 oz of arsenic in a glass of water - definitely a problem. DO I have 100% science to back that claim up? Probably not, but just like gravity, we know it to be true.

knock it off already.

[JackC1 0]

lawrocket

To suggests that scientists don't have egos is ridiculous. If a person has made a career and achieved fame out of advocating a certain theory, don't expect the person to be able to flip a switch and say, "I've been wrong the past thirty years." The vast majority of people don't work that way.

“I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real… Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said – with passion – ‘My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.’” ~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

[winsor 187]

tkhayes

And the anti-climate change crowd is also a well funded religion. Your point is?

Just because they are full of shit does not mean that Algore and his disciples are discernibly less full of shit.

Quote

Al Gore is not a scientist, he was a messenger. He has gone away but the science behind it has not. And just because some of the arguments are not 100% true to proven fact, then all of it is bunk? You sound like a creationist.

Not hardly. I am not putting forth anybody's orthodoxy. Algore is so breathtakingly clueless that, like Lou Costello, all of it is Greek to him.

Quote

Given that logic, just because Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagoras, and Euclid did not get it right 100% on their first try, THEREFORE calculus does not exist and is false.

In my line of work, the approach is 'trust, but verify.' The moment one treats any bit of 'knowledge' with religious awe, any results obtained thereby are suspect (not necessarily false, mind you).

Quote

Darwin wrote a book, not 100% correct but laid the foundation for evolution science that we all rely on today, EVERY DAY, to help run our lives. But because he missed or could not explain a few things perfectly, THEREFORE every word that ever came out of his mouth is a lie.

You will note that Darwin did not at any point in his discussion of his theories state that his conclusions were the absolute truth, and that his results were sacrosanct. If he had, THAT would be the part of his work that I would question (pay attention).

Quote

We know how much carbon we are putting into the atmosphere, pretty damn close. We see the changes related to the atmosphere. We have a pretty good idea how much carbon can be naturally absorbed into the earth every year by organics, not 100% but a pretty good guess and the atmosphere at any given moment of time is a static volume/mass of gases.

I bet you $0.05 I am more conversant with the mechanics of this process than you would be if you devoted a year to study nothing else. Your point?

Quote

Put 1 ugram of arsenic in a glass of water and drink it, probably not a problem. put 2 grams of arsenic in a glass of water, maybe a problem. put 2 oz of arsenic in a glass of water - definitely a problem. DO I have 100% science to back that claim up? Probably not, but just like gravity, we know it to be true.

Okay, you have pointed out the classic principle of 'the dose makes the poison.' Nothing to see here.

Quote

knock it off already.

If people possessed of a limitless wellspring of ignorance latch on to one issue with the firm conviction that addressing it will make everything all better, I most assuredly will continue to call bullshit.

Are Greenhouse Gases a factor? Sure.

Are Greenhouse Gases the Greatest Threat Ever Faced By Mankind? Not a chance.

We have a number of much more pressing issues to face, and they are not ultimately self-correcting in the sense that Greenhouse Gases are. Well, actually they are, but their resolution may less conducive to the persistence of our species.

It will be a cold day in hell when I defer to Algore regarding technical risk assessment.


BSBD,

Winsor

[lawrocket 3]

tkhayes

wow, the guy that disputes scientifically-backed reasons for climate change is concerned that Americans do not know enough about science?

That's rich.

Two things:

(1) Take a look at post #41 in this very thread. The one where I wrote:
[Quote]How many people out there are clueless about climate science but are on the side of alarmists? Are there more or fewer than clueless people who are deniers? I don't know. But if I were to put out there

Code:
.25S(1-a) = eoT^4

(which think is as important in modern times as e=mc^2) who the hell would know what it even is? If I were to say, "it's the basic equation for global climate" people still wouldn't know what the letters mean (no, I don't know how to put in Greek characters so the english lettering will have to do). When say that I believe humans have a role in climate change, it's because I am pretty damned sure that humans can and do effect both e and a in that equation.

You, sir, are joyously and willfully ignorant. Yes, I do dispute anti-science put out there are science. I do not dispute science.

Second thing: explain to me what science I reject. Oh! Yes. I "dispute" science.

We have now come to the point where "science" is the Catholic Church. No, you peasants are not allowed to actually look at the sources yourself. Believe us - we're the Church. Then the bible became available for all to read. And then questions started being asked.

It's the funny thing about religion - it doesn't tolerate dispute too well. Meanwhile, science encourages asking questions. Yes. I dispute those things that don't appear to be backed by evidence. Yes, there are plenty of things being done in the climate science community where the "science" appears to be predicated on getting public attention. The focus is on extreme scenarios. And has been on scenarios that are unlikely.

The climate science community became a lobby. Question: when was the last time a climate scientist was wrong because it was worse than they thought? Answer: 2007 Arctic sea ice. Response? Oh wow. They really have to rework things. This was unbelievable. It wasn't supposed to be like this. It's way worse than we thought. Etc.

Because that's all they had. And the lay public may not be able work out the maths, but they are able to read. And they can see that the consensus was hurricane seasons were going to be worse after 2005. It didn't. We've had record low landfalls in the US and record low hurricane activity. Tornadoes worse? Last year was THE record low. And on and on.

I have reason to doubt the climate projectionns. Yes, based on science. But are actually hypotheses being tested as we speak.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Quote

Yup, and after those fail miserably due to lack of talent and horrible on air personality, they then use fraud to get into the Senate

your point?

No point. I was just imagining the quality of show we could put together with some of our more, shall we say, interesting posters from SC.

we'd need some sturdy shovels

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

What the hell are you talking about?

you are so badass

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,257]

rehmwa

***What the hell are you talking about?

you are so badass

Hell yeah I am.

But seriously, WTF?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

You, sir, are joyously and willfully ignorant. Yes, I do dispute anti-science put out there are science. I do not dispute science.

That sounds an awful lot like saying everything you disgree with is anti-science and everything you support is valid science. Are you saying you're right 100% of the time?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

jakee

Quote

You, sir, are joyously and willfully ignorant. Yes, I do dispute anti-science put out there are science. I do not dispute science.

That sounds an awful lot like saying everything you disgree with is anti-science and everything you support is valid science. Are you saying you're right 100% of the time?

Once I adjust the data to account for observational bias of others, yes. I am always right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,647]

lawrocket

***

Quote

You, sir, are joyously and willfully ignorant. Yes, I do dispute anti-science put out there are science. I do not dispute science.

That sounds an awful lot like saying everything you disgree with is anti-science and everything you support is valid science. Are you saying you're right 100% of the time?

Once I adjust the data to account for observational bias of others, yes. I am always right.

So basically you're claiming that some 98% of climatologists, oceanographers, geographers, glaciologists, physical chemists and atmospheric physicists are engaged in a grand conspiracy to spite the oil and coal industries.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.