Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Awesome Possum]

I'm not sure how scientists find time to do actual research since they seem to be devoted to covering up evidence. Like all the proof that climate change was invented to put the oil industry out of business, proof that God created the universe 6,000 years ago, proof that aliens have a base on the moon and proof those same aliens also built every structure and were behind every human achievement in history.

 

[Mister Fandango]

Come on, the latter is just common sense. If a handful of untrained guys can't build the Pyramids of Giza after one afternoon of half-assed effort using a couple pieces of slightly modern pieces of technology, what hope did our ancestors have? I mean, really.

 

[JarodRussell]

Oh the pyramids. I would love to see them get taken apart brick by brick to uncover all the secrets, and then put them back together.

 

[Non Sync]

Oh the pyramids. I would love to see them get taken apart brick by brick to uncover all the secrets, and then put them back together.

Of course the pyramids were made from concrete.

 

[Trekker4747]

Watched an episode of this on my DVR this afternoon. The one about the age of the earth/leaded gasoline.

After watching the show I really enjoyed it somehow DIDN'T come out of it wanting to speak-out against the show, start a blog against it, or try and to have it removed from TV.

Why is this show so controversial, now?

 

[Awesome Possum]

Why is this show so controversial, now?

Because some people don't like science to tell them that their belief is a delusion based on wishful thinking.

 

[Amaris]

Watched an episode of this on my DVR this afternoon. The one about the age of the earth/leaded gasoline.

After watching the show I really enjoyed it somehow DIDN'T come out of it wanting to speak-out against the show, start a blog against it, or try and to have it removed from TV.

Why is this show so controversial, now?

Because some people want to be coddled. They want to be told that their uninformed and ignorant opinions are just as valid as scientific fact, and that's not happening here. Neil's not going on about Bigfoot, UFOs, or Psychics, he's talking about scientific discovery. Real scientific discovery.

 

[gturner]

Um, no, Neil is spoon feeding the masses things they want to hear, while avoiding obvious scientific truths. Take gasoline. By EPA standards leaded gasoline is less than one percent as toxic as unleaded, it's modern replacement that is exposing you to high levels of carcinogenic substances. But he didn't mention that, because it wouldn't fit the narrative.

He didn't mention that the Earth's temperature is lower than when the new crop of drivers on the highway was born, despite dramatically increased CO2 levels, flatly contradicting 97% of climate models with real-world data, something the Earth scientists are still wrestling with. He didn't mention that high CO2 levels were the norm for much of the Earth's history, including the periods of very high biological productivity, when levels were usually over 1,000 ppm and often over 4,000 ppm, because that would ruin the narrative. He didn't explain that CO2 has a decreasing effect with concentration (like insulation that's almost all installed), becasue that would also ruin the narrative. He didn't mention that on Venus, with an atmosphere made up almost entirely of CO2, receiving twice the solar input as the Earth (not 2 W/m^ more, but over a thousand Watts/m^2 more), the temperature at the same depth that we live at is about the same as Miami Florida. We could live on Venus at the same pressure and temperature that we live at now, without even bothering to modify it's "runaway" greenhouse effect. He didn't mention that the average American basement receives about as much sunlight as the surface of Venus.

He didn't mention a lot of things known to both the climate and planetary science communities, as if the scripts were written by a woman who used to believe in Velikovsky and ancient aliens, collaborating with Seth McFarlane and Branon Braga.

 

[Amaris]

Um, no, Neil is spoon feeding the masses things they want to hear, while avoiding obvious scientific truths. Take gasoline. By EPA standards leaded gasoline is less than one percent as toxic as unleaded, it's modern replacement that is exposing you to high levels of carcinogenic substances. But he didn't mention that, because it wouldn't fit the narrative.

He didn't mention that the Earth's temperature is lower than when the new crop of drivers on the highway was born, despite dramatically increased CO2 levels, flatly contradicting 97% of climate models with real-world data, something the Earth scientists are still wrestling with. He didn't mention that high CO2 levels were the norm for much of the Earth's history, including the periods of very high biological productivity, when levels were usually over 1,000 ppm and often over 4,000 ppm, because that would ruin the narrative. He didn't explain that CO2 has a decreasing effect with concentration (like insulation that's almost all installed), becasue that would also ruin the narrative. He didn't mention that on Venus, with an atmosphere made up almost entirely of CO2, receiving twice the solar input as the Earth (not 2 W/m^ more, but over a thousand Watts/m^2 more), the temperature at the same depth that we live at is about the same as Miami Florida. We could live on Venus at the same pressure and temperature that we live at now, without even bothering to modify it's "runaway" greenhouse effect. He didn't mention that the average American basement receives about as much sunlight as the surface of Venus.

He didn't mention a lot of things known to both the climate and planetary science communities, as if the scripts were written by a woman who used to believe in Velikovsky and ancient aliens, collaborating with Seth McFarlane and Branon Braga.

Evidence supported sources, please. Otherwise, your post is nothing more than one more misdirection.

 

[gturner]

Um, the evidence is the accepted data by the IPCC, except for the leaded versus unleaded gasoline data, which is from the EPA. The Venus data is from NASA, and is not disputed, and in fact makes up much of the case for certain Venus colonization proposals.

The problem with Cosmos is that people who watch it think they support science, but end up vigorously opposed to its widely acknowledged truths.

 

[Amaris]

Um, the evidence is the accepted data by the IPCC, except for the leaded versus unleaded gasoline data, which is from the EPA. The Venus data is from NASA, and is not disputed, and in fact makes up much of the case for certain Venus colonization proposals.

The problem with Cosmos is that people who watch it think they support science, but end up vigorously opposed to its widely acknowledged truths.

Show the supported evidence with your sources, please.

 

[Awesome Possum]

It's funny how people who believe in bullshit think that they are freethinkers. It's almost like how people in a cult think that everyone else are idiots.

 

[Amaris]

It's funny how people who believe in bullshit think that they are freethinkers. It's almost like how people in a cult think that everyone else are idiots.

You say that now, but when the Eliomorphs come, you'll be the one crying out your wzutl.

 

[gturner]

It's funny how people who believe in bullshit think that they are freethinkers. It's almost like how people in a cult think that everyone else are idiots.

How wildly ironic, considering that I believe that the climate goes through countless natural and often catastrophic changes, based on the piles of geologic evidence, whereas you believe the climate is entirely driven by mankind's sin and greed, and that anyone who points to the actual data is a denier, a heretic, and probably and evil dirty Jew.

According to the IPCC AR5 report, the Earth's temperature hasn't warmed in about 17.5 years, despite the increase in CO2. Climatologists refer to this as "the pause", hoping they don't have to rename it 'the peak", because that would result in a massive funding cut unless environmental groups can incite their legions of mindless cultists to suppress all evidence for it. Pointing to a thermometer is a giveaway of an evil denialist, as is gathering any actual data outside of a computer model in a government funded lab, since any non-government computer model is obviously suspect and incapable of running a simulation that can be almost exactly mimicked by an Excel spreadsheet with linear regression (whcih has been done).

This is why several Nobel Prize winning physicists resigned from phyisics organizations, writing pointed letters about how global warming was a religious cult completely divorced from science, and why climatologists who didn't join the cult are risking their careers to finally call it into question. It's mindless dogma.

 

[Amaris]

It's funny how people who believe in bullshit think that they are freethinkers. It's almost like how people in a cult think that everyone else are idiots.

How wildly ironic, considering that I believe that the climate goes through countless natural and often catastrophic changes, based on the piles of geologic evidence, whereas you believe the climate is entirely driven by mankind's sin and greed, and that anyone who points to the actual data is a denier, a heretic, and probably and evil dirty Jew.

According to the IPCC AR5 report, the Earth's temperature hasn't warmed in about 17.5 years, despite the increase in CO2. Climatologists refer to this as "the pause", hoping they don't have to rename it 'the peak", because that would result in a massive funding cut unless environmental groups can incite their legions of mindless cultists to suppress all evidence for it. Pointing to a thermometer is a giveaway of an evil denialist, as is gathering any actual data outside of a computer model in a government funded lab, since any non-government computer model is obviously suspect and incapable of running a simulation that can be almost exactly mimicked by an Excel spreadsheet with linear regression (whcih has been done).

This is why several Nobel Prize winning physicists resigned from phyisics organizations, writing pointed letters about how global warming was a religious cult completely divorced from science, and why climatologists who didn't join the cult are risking their careers to finally call it into question. It's mindless dogma.

Firstly, please show me where I said the planet's climate change is entirely human caused.

Secondly, you're still not showing me your evidence supported sources.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

According to the IPCC AR5 report, the Earth's temperature hasn't warmed in about 17.5 years, despite the increase in CO2. Climatologists refer to this as "the pause"

you're still not showing me your evidence supported sources.

gturner may be reluctant to post supporting evidence because, if he were to do so, that evidence would demonstrate that his sweeping, poorly sourced statements, such as the one above, are utter falsehoods:

“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis” presents clear and robust conclusions in a global assessment of climate change science—not the least of which is that the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century. The report confirms that warming in the climate system is unequivocal, with many of the observed changes unprecedented over decades to millennia: warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, diminishing snow and ice, rising sea levels and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

These and other findings confirm and enhance our scientific understanding of the climate system and the role of greenhouse gas emissions; as such, the report demands the urgent attention of both policy makers and the general public.

That quote, by the way, is from the Foreward to the IPCC AR5 report, titled: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

 

[AgentCoop]

How wildly ironic, considering that I believe that the climate goes through countless natural and often catastrophic changes, based on the piles of geologic evidence, whereas you believe the climate is entirely driven by mankind's sin and greed, and that anyone who points to the actual data is a denier, a heretic, and probably and evil dirty Jew.

That's the ticket. If you can't back up your argument, accuse the other side of Anti-Semitism. Speaking as a person of Jewish descent, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from this sort of obvious flamebait. Thanks in advance.

Stay classy, gturner.

 

[Trekker4747]

Watched an episode of this on my DVR this afternoon. The one about the age of the earth/leaded gasoline.

After watching the show I really enjoyed it somehow DIDN'T come out of it wanting to speak-out against the show, start a blog against it, or try and to have it removed from TV.

Why is this show so controversial, now?

Because some people want to be coddled. They want to be told that their uninformed and ignorant opinions are just as valid as scientific fact, and that's not happening here. Neil's not going on about Bigfoot, UFOs, or Psychics, he's talking about scientific discovery. Real scientific discovery.

I say we start some protest/feed back and have those religious shows that come on before the news on Sunday mornings start talking about science.

Because that's basically what's happening here, right? People are upset because this science show isn't showing their side of things?

By EPA standards leaded gasoline is less than one percent as toxic as unleaded..

Lead is a toxic element. I don't think we need millions or billions of vehicles on the planet running around dumping untold tons of it in the atmosphere. I really don't see getting rid of leaded gasoline as being a bad thing. And I've tried Googling it and I can find no evidence of your claims, the EPA seems to stand pretty much entirely behind their decision to ban lead from gasoline and the net result has been less lead in the atmosphere and surrounding environment and decreased health issues related to lead poisoning.

 

[Yanks]

gturner may be reluctant to post supporting evidence because, if he were to do so, that evidence would demonstrate that his sweeping, poorly sourced statements, such as the one above, are utter falsehoods:

“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis” presents clear and robust conclusions in a global assessment of climate change science—not the least of which is that the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century. The report confirms that warming in the climate system is unequivocal, with many of the observed changes unprecedented over decades to millennia: warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, diminishing snow and ice, rising sea levels and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

These and other findings confirm and enhance our scientific understanding of the climate system and the role of greenhouse gas emissions; as such, the report demands the urgent attention of both policy makers and the general public.

That quote, by the way, is from the Foreward to the IPCC AR5 report, titled: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

...and the source of that report doesn't give you pause?

gturner, don't bother. They all watched Al Gore's movie and cried.

They all think the ACA has made things better and is designed to improve health care.

They all believe that the Benghazi coverup is just a fabrication.

They can't get it that 7 billion+ humans have NO CHOICE but to effect things, whether they are driving Suburbans or not.

What brought this up was that I questioned our wonderful narrator. He likened our current climate to that of one period that caused 9 out of 10 of EVERY LIVING THING to go exctinct.

There is a reason this show was preempted by Obama.

But you can't call the "facts" into question, no.... can't do that.

You can't see through the bull.... can't do that.

The FACT is, this show is in many cases NOT FACTUAL.

Can't say that about the origional. Only his predictions needed to be revised over time.

This show is a propoganda show for our administration. Probably didn't start that way, but they have a way of creeping into stuff that can be used to further their agenda.

It's sad, as it should be about science fact, not political agendas.

Think I'm crazy? No, all of a sudden, right after the COSMOS episode that implied we all are going to die because of climate change, CLIMATE CHANGE IS HERE!!!! Need to take action now!!! (you know, the same episode about the history of the earth that completely skipped the dinasours...)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/politics/white-house-climate-energy/

Which means CAP & TRADE. A political agenda.

Anyway, I'll try not to fall asleep during the next episode.

 

[gturner]

gturner may be reluctant to post supporting evidence because, if he were to do so, that evidence would demonstrate that his sweeping, poorly sourced statements, such as the one above, are utter falsehoods:

“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis” presents clear and robust conclusions in a global assessment of climate change science—not the least of which is that the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century. The report confirms that warming in the climate system is unequivocal, with many of the observed changes unprecedented over decades to millennia:

And that finding caused a lot of climatologists to scratch their heads and try to figure out how the science can become more and more certain the less and less the evidence actually supports it. After many weeks of trying to get to the root of the mathematical impossibilities it implies, several top climatologists finally figured out what was going on in that section of AR5.

The mistake the IPCC made was in their model of attribution, and the lay assumption that man could only cause zero to one-hundred percent of the observed warming. The method the IPCC used was to take as a given than man caused K degrees of warming based on their models, and that if we got less than K degrees of warming then natural variations must've masked part of K, yielding an observed warming of L. So the percent of warming caused by man is K/L, which doesn't stop at one hundred percent, and can indeed hit infinity if there is no observed warming at all. This means that the less evidence there is of human caused warming, the more certain the IPCC is that mankind is responsible for all of it, explaining the apparent illogic that their certainty seems to be an inverse function of evidence.

And the pause is discussed in The Economist, desperately at The UK Independent, at LiveScience, and by Judith Curry, who addressed it in a recent meeting of the American Physical Society, saying:

For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a ‘hiatus’ in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Potential causes for the model-observation discrepancies are discussed. A particular focus of the talk is the role of multi-decadal natural internal variability on the climate variability of the 20th and early 21st centuries. The “stadium wave” climate signal is described, which propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo. The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last. Implications of the hiatus are discussed in context of climate model sensitivity to CO2 forcing and attribution of the warming that was observed in the last quarter of the 20th century.

Climatologist Kevin Trenberth has been looking for the missing heat in the Earth's deep ocean, where it can't actually be found, but his "missing heat" has become quite famous. (It's actually in the bottom of my sock drawer).