The following was submitted to illustrate how the anti-science people censor anything they don't like. This, of course, is completely counter to having a debate. If they really wanted to debate the science, they would welcome pro-science people who cite the facts and the evidence. Draw your own conclusions.
You can find the original posting at:
You can find the original posting at:
******************************
The
following comments include several of mine which seem not to have been posted
on the PJ Media website, although for the life of me, I don't know why? The
site seems to favor the comments of deniers, so I thought showing those that
weren't shown or were delayed for some mysterious reason might make a good
guest post for DOGW. At present, I am not sure that I will ever find them back
where they vanished, after previously seeming to have been successfully posted
there, in part, because the site possibly has a biased moderator, and because
they may have been deleted due to some technicality. But over and over again
the ones that I consider the best, are being held back or deleted entirely. Go
figure?
Mekhlis Peter Johnson * a day ago
I
guess that a street sweeper can have an opinion on AGW, and it might be every
bit as correct (or false) as Mr. Nye's. But a street sweeper would not
advertise as the "Science Guy." My point was, and still is, that
there is no more reason to listen to Nye than there is to anyone picked at
random from the phone book. He is no scientist--certainly not a climate
scientist. He is a first-rate fraud, though."
Peter
Johnson Mekhlis * a day ago
Nye
can advertise himself as "the science guy," because he IS a
"science guy." He may not have the same education or be the best
qualified to explain climate science to others, but he has had a TV show on
which he taught and demonstrated scientific facts. And, as far as I know,
neither has he advertised himself as (Bill Nye the AGW expert guy).
Although
a mechanical engineer does not learn all that a scientist learns in his
education, he is none the less a scientist, and one that does understand many
of the principles underlying our present global warming. I can understand why
you may not give him much credit for being an exceptionally learned expert, but
I have no idea why you think he should be called a fraud? ---has he ever
claimed to know as much as climate scientists do? ---if not, how is he
committing fraud?
Mekhlis Peter Johnson * a day ago
An
engineer is no "scientist." He is an engineer. Since that distinction
should be apparent, I have no more to say on this subject. Goodbye.
Peter
Johnson Mekhlis * a day ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
"Mechanical
engineering"
"From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
"The
mechanical engineering field requires an understanding of core areas including
mechanics, kinematics, thermodynamics, materials science, structural analysis,
and electricity. In addition to these core principles, mechanical engineers use
tools such as computer-aided design (CAD), and product life cycle management to
design and analyze manufacturing plants, industrial equipment and machinery,
heating and cooling systems, transport systems, aircraft, watercraft, robotics,
medical devices, weapons, and others."
"Mechanical
engineering emerged as a field during the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the 18th century; however, its development can
be traced back several thousand years around the world. In the 19th century,
developments in physics led to the development of mechanical engineering
science. The field has continually evolved to incorporate advancements; today
mechanical engineers are pursuing developments in such areas as composites,
mechanics, and nanotechnology. It also overlaps with aerospace engineering,
metallurgical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering,
manufacturing engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, and
other engineering disciplines to varying amounts. Mechanical engineers may also
work in the field of biomedical engineering, specifically with biomechanics,
transport phenomena, biomechatronic, bionanotechnology, and modeling of
biological systems."
OOPS!
I'm technically wrong--a mechanical engineer just needs to know many different
things from many different branches of science---silly me!
You
really do have nothing more to say about it, because you deny the broader role
of science that permeates and incorporates knowledge taken from many different
scientific fields. Do you allow deniers to borrow your hair splitter too?
In
this next comment, Mekhlis resorts to the obnoxious tactic of insulting me and
demeaning my use of Wikipedia, apparently just because he believes it is
worthless. It is so ironic that many deniers think this kind of vitriolic and
pugnacious attitude, just reeking with condescension, is theirs to use
righteously and at will, while thinking it is they who are being insulted for
simply having their beliefs challenged?
Mekhlis Peter Johnson * a day ago
Congratulations.
So, you have learned to cut and paste, and from Wikipedia at that, the dunces'
go-to "source" that would earn an undergraduate an 'F' in any class.
At least copying improves your otherwise shockingly poor grammar. Of course, advanced
engineers master all sorts of fields; but Nye never earned an advanced degree,
even in engineering. He has merely a Bachelor's degree, and you have no
evidence at all that he has any expertise in any of the fields that you copied
above. More to the point, read the segment that you copied, if you can: it says
nothing whatsoever about climatology; he is certainly no environmental
scientist. Nye also has lately taken to pontificating about gender, although he
has no training in genetics, biology, biomedicine [not biotechnology], or even
psychology. I do not see any reference above to any of these disciplines. With
his bow-tie and plaid-jacket shtick he has managed to fool rubes into believing
that he is a scientist, but he is nothing of the sort. A person who pretends to
have expertise that he does not in fact possess is a fraud, plain and simple. I
don't expect to convince you. This exchange is both pointless and tiresome, and
it is a waste of my time. Goodbye for good.
My
words:
1.The
results of Googling the word "Biotechnology:"
"Biotechnology
is a technology that is based on biology, and uses living organisms to make
innovative products and techniques that will improve our lives. ... GE is a
process where scientists and researchers deliberately modify the genetic makeup
of an organism."
2.The
results of Googling the word, "Bionanotechnology:"
"Bionanotechnology
is a branch of nanotechnology which uses biological starting materials,
utilizes biological design or fabrication principles or is applied in medicine
or biotechnology."
3.The
results of Googling the word "Biomedical Engineering:"
"Biomedical
engineering (BME) is the application of engineering principles and design
concepts to medicine and biology for healthcare purposes (e.g. diagnostic or
therapeutic)."
These
are various fields which utilize Mechanical engineering skills as part of their
expertise. "Biomedical," refers to:
"Biomedical
sciences are a set of applied sciences applying portions of natural science or
formal science, or both, to develop knowledge, interventions, or technology
that are of use in healthcare or public health."
So,
all the three above scientific field are all included as areas of knowledge
that are utilized by Engineers, and they all overlap with Mechanical
Engineering in fields such as Aerospace Engineering,
Metallurgical
Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Manufacturing
Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and Industrial
Engineering.
Each
field deals with different specific applications of their knowledge, but all of
them drink from a common well of knowledge that depends on the same basic, and
fundamental scientific knowledge.
The
world of science is not in Kansas
anymore, it has numerous and similar applications across a broad spectrum of
similar usage.
My
words-In this final response I made to Mekhlis, I included the criticisms of
Sarah Palin, because she seems pretty typical of all the non-scientist
"experts" who seem to think they know more about global warming than
the actual scientists that study it. However, the information about Nye's
knowledge and career illustrates that engineers apply science when doing their
jobs. Thus, it is absurd for Mekhlis to deny that people like Nye have a great
deal of scientific knowledge that they use and apply in their work. So, if
these facts don't make them scientists, why do they know so much about it, and
apply it so expertly?
Peter
Johnson Mekhlis * a day ago
http://www.factcheck.org/20...
"So
how do Nye and Palin's scientific credentials compare?"
"Palin
has none. She has a bachelor's in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho. She has spent her career in
politics. In addition to serving as governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, she was
chairperson for the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission between 2003 and
2004 and Republican vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 election, among
other posts.
Nye
has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell. He also has six honorary
doctorate degrees, including Ph.D. s in science from Goucher College
and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute."
"He
held various positions as an engineer between 1977 to 2009, such as
contributing to the designs of 747 planes for Boeing and the designs of
equipment used to clean up oil spills."
"From
1999 to 2009, Nye worked with a team at the NASA and California Institute of
Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to design and create the MarsDial, a
sundial and camera calibrator attached to the Mars Exploration Rover."
"Nye
also holds three patents: a redesigned ballet toe shoe, a digital abacus (a
kind of calculator) and an educational lens."
"Nye
has written books on science, including "Undeniable" and
"Unstoppable," which cover evolution and climate change,
respectively. This is all in addition to decades of work in science advocacy
and education, including acting as CEO of The Planetary Society and teaching as
a professor at Cornell.
To
sum up, Nye has a degree and experience working in engineering, which is the
application of science. He has also spent much of his career working with and
for the scientific community. Thus, his credentials make him more of a
scientist than Palin."
"Editor's
Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation.
Categories:
SciCheck and The Wire"
My
words-Congratulations! You have graduated towards resorting to ad hominin
insults, when the facts do not support your beliefs.
Yes,
I cut and paste, and from many reputable sources--not just Wikipedia! Have you
somehow transcended the petty human belief that if you want to quote people and
articles that provide verifiable knowledge, then it is appropriate to provide
links that show where that knowledge was taken from?
If
your entire rebutting technique is going to consist of marginalizing my sources
or insulting the facts that I provide, then this conversation really is
pointless. So, go right ahead and drop out of it--be my guest, in fact.
My
words-Lately it seems that many of my best posts end up living in purgatory on
my disqus page. So, I am including this short back and forth between two other
commenters, one being cunudiun, who I thought made excellent points. In The
final post I added my two cents worth mainly because I think I wrote it well.
JinJa cunudiun * 3 months ago
Why
don't you admit that your a shill who wants the debate to be over? Do you say
the debate is over? Yes or no?
cunudiun JinJa * 3 months ago
What
debate precisely? Yes to some things. No to others.
JinJa cunudiun * 3 months ago
Climate
science, precisely. Is debate over? Simple enough.
cunudiun JinJa * 3 months ago
Ok.
I'll answer that one if you answer mine: Chemistry: is the debate over?
JinJa cunudiun * 3 months ago
Never.
Old and new concepts are explored all the time. Your turn.
cunudiun JinJa * 3 months ago
Ok.
Same. Now answer this one. Is water composed of hydrogen and oxygen? Settled or
not?
JinJa cunudiun * 3 months ago
Nah.
You still owe us your answer. Then I will reply.
cunudiun JinJa * 3 months ago
I
answered "Same," meaning same answer as yours. Should have made that
clearer. Does that mean nothing in chemistry is settled? Is my point.
JinJa cunudiun * 3 months ago
I
was taught that scientists since Aristotle usually agree that nothing in
science is settled, nor should be. Of course my evil corporate funded 10th
grade public school teachers might have been lying about it.
Peter
Johnson JinJa * 13 days ago
What
you are not seeing are two basic facts---that global warming exists, and that
man is the primary cause of it. Those are facts--that's what the consensus
confirms, those facts are firmly known. But of course there will continue to be
unknowns about many specific questions involving climate science or about any
branch of science, for that matter. That's why cunundiun asked you if it's a fact
that water is composed of both Hydrogen and Oxygen--the answer is yes! That is
completely known and completely verifiable--however that in no way implies that
every single question raised by chemists is always completely known and
completely verifiable. What your science class instructor was probably
saying--was that there will always be specific unknowns in any field of
scientific endeavor--in other words scientists will probably never know all
there is to know about AGW, or about any other branch of science--they are not
claiming to be know it alls! Yet they can continue adding knowledge regarding
many specific scientific phenomena.
Many
basic facts ARE virtually known--as cunudiun points out--that the chemical bond
between hydrogen and oxygen is what produces water, or the fact that human
beings are causing global warming to increase through our manufacture of Co2 as
the result of combining fossil fuels and oxygen when catalyzed by heat. That's
what the fire is, a chemical process whereby fossil fuels are combined with
oxygen, by applying heart (and unfortunately) releasing billions of tons of Co2
as a harmful by-product of rapid oxidation.
Do
I have that right cunudiun? (seriously)--you probably know much more about
chemistry than I do? My last chemistry class was about 47 years ago.
What
always impresses me is not just the total denial of science when their claims
are threatened, but also the fact that, while exuding an air of anger and
snobbery, deniers often resort to the claims that their opponents are insulting
them? This is an easy out which keeps the commenter from actually responding to
the points brought up by his or her opponents. But this ruse is accepted by too
many people who would rather suspect a vast scientific conspiracy than the very
logical conclusion that big oil and big coal companies are using their billons
in profits to protect every last iota of their profits, which might be
threatened if they were forced to reduce Co2 emissions. If more deniers really
knew what is at stake, my hope is that they would quickly change their tune and
take actions to preserve the only environment and the only planet we have.
No comments:
Post a Comment