That addressed Rush's Monday show, which drew mockery in the liberal media by those who take bait that he knows he's offering, and of course he came back the next day, Tuesday, to mock the mockers for taking things out of context and getting him wrong. I tried yesterday to anticipate what these explanations would be, but going over the Monday transcript, I saw that he got lost within his own riffs and covered up when he couldn't pull his ideas together. He was trying to talk about how left-wing media and corrupted scientists would use the idea of flowing water on Mars to push the climate change agenda on earth. But how could that work, when the focus on earth is man-made climate change and there are no men on Mars?
I saw traces of "the monologue that could have been — the one that could have worked — which would not have been about climate change on Earth but about NASA's interest in getting us to support sending people to Mars."
So let's check the Tuesday transcript, "What I Really Think About Mars":
I doubt that anybody reporting on what I said actually knows what I said. I doubt that any of them actually went to my website to read the transcript of what I said and then report on it....Well, I sure did! I went through the whole transcript, sympathetically, and I explained what went wrong.
I raised a question. How do we know?... We know that there's always been water on Mars because they have ice caps on the poles... The big deal was that some scientist -- and it was important to call the guy a scientist -- some scientist said that a catastrophic event probably related to climate change on Mars, resulted in this. I'm sorry, folks, but that's not science, and that's not even a good wild guess. How can there be a catastrophic event on Mars when there is nobody there to experience the catastrophe?As discussed yesterday, Rush grasped to accuse a scientist of distorting the truth because he used the word "catastrophe," as if that word implies the presence of human beings. Which it doesn't. Look it up. I did. It just means a sudden, violent change, and it's often used to refer to geological upheaval in particular.
How can there be a catastrophe on Mars when we can't even prove it?That's just a gaffe. The inability to prove something doesn't mean it didn't happen. (Pics or it didn't happen!)
And the very fact that my objection to this is being noted is proof positive that there is an agenda attached to this, otherwise they would leave my comments alone. ... There is an agenda attached to it and they've got to try to discredit anyone -- in this case, me -- who is attempting to attach whatever they're doing with Mars and the news they're reporting to the Democrat leftist agenda, which of course is climate change.I think liberals are out to attack Rush Limbaugh with anything that might work, but there is a climate change agenda, and it's pretty active.
And I predicted yesterday that it would not be very long before we would see evidence that my reaction and take on all this is accurate. And, lo and behold, right here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is from Yahoo News, even, the Millennial news network. "Did NASA Time its Mars Announcement to Coincide with 'The Martian'?" a movie starring Matt Damon.All right. Here's the switcheroo. Suddenly, the subject is not climate change at all but traveling to Mars, what I called "the monologue that could have been — the one that could have worked." And he's acting as though that was his "take on all this." It should have been, but it was not.
"NASA's announcement confirming that it found evidence of water flowing on the surface Mars," not now, but many, many moons ago, or I should perhaps say many, many Marss ago, "was celebrated by scientists searching for life in the universe -- and by publicists at 20th Century Fox looking to promote 'The Martian,' the upcoming Ridley Scott film starring Matt Damon. In the film, Damon plays Mark Watney, an astronaut who must survive alone on Mars after being left for dead by his crew during a fierce storm on the red planet."There's a remnant of yesterday's theme — the storm — but he plunges forward into the space-travel agenda:
What do you bet in this movie that fierce storm is related to climate change?
I haven't seen the movie. But here's the thing. I don't think so much NASA was -- well, they might be timing the release of the news to support the movie. Actually, it's probably true. But more than that, NASA wants to go to Mars, and Obama's turned NASA over to Muslim outreach, in case you've forgotten. NASA wants the money to go to Mars. It makes total sense in the world that they would time, NASA, the release of, "Look what we found! We found flowing water on Mars, oh, my God, there could be life, oh, my God, we gotta go, we gotta go, we gotta go."Space travel.
And here comes the movie, they throw in climate change relationships just for a little dot the I, cross the T, and magic happens.Huh? Who's the "they" — the movie makers or NASA? Maybe he was going to say that the bad scientists are going to say that humanity needs to be able to branch out to living on Mars because we've damaged earth so much, what with all this climate change. But now, Rush takes an interruption from his assistant Snerdley and starts talking about how Obama wanted NASA to do "Muslim outreach" (remember that?) and then onto how "Putin is now running the world." He gets back to NASA:
They want to go back to Mars. Hell, that's fine. I'm not opposed to going to Mars. I'm big on exploring....He likes that agenda, so no point ranting about it. (By the way, "back to Mars" makes him vulnerable to the kind of mockery he's aimed at Sheila Jackson Lee for years: He sounds as though he thinks men have already landed on Mars.)
Rush meanders after this, talking about the possibility of life on Mars and "just because you discovered water on Mars does not mean there's life there":
[W]ater does not create life. Life begets life. An organism begets itself. Human beings create more human beings, but water... If that's all it took, we wouldn't need to have illegal immigration. We could just go get some Democrat voters out of the Pacific Ocean.That's a good joke (if you're up for anti-immigration humor).
He comes back to his problem of not knowing how scientists can claim to know what they say they know — "The idea that Mars once had an ocean is pure speculation, a total wild guess" — and he connects that to his climate change agenda: "My point is, they're presenting all this stuff to you as fact just like they're presenting everything involving global warming as scientific fact."
I just think it's all bogus, folks. And it's not hard to find out what I think. It's not hard.He's on the radio, and his transcript is up, free, on the web:
There's no excuse for not knowing what I say. There's no excuse for taking me out of context. There's no excuse for it. Other than journalistic malpractice or laziness.I read the transcript, the whole thing, carefully and sympathetically, and I'm doing it again today. It's long and rambling and it glosses over things that don't fit together that well. It's stream of consciousness, which is fine. That's done in a distinctive and interesting way, but when his ideas don't fit together, he doubles down, shifts topics, makes claims that everything that has gone before establishes his point.
Later, after a call about Mars's lack of an iron core, Rush restates what is his "only point" (an "inarguable" point):
Whenever you have a scientist talking about a "catastrophic event" on Mars brought about -- "likely brought about" -- by climate change, that's all I need to hear to tell me we have somebody who is either actively involved or has himself been co-opted and is unaware of it by a leftist agenda that is related to the effort to push this whole notion of man-made climate change on earth. And there's only one reason to push that agenda, and it isn't to save the earth. It's to coalesce power in as many or as few places as possible....ADDED: What was the "scientist talking about a 'catastrophic event' on Mars brought about -- 'likely brought about' -- by climate change"? It would help to give a precise quote here. Rush is himself taking someone out of context. Is there "no excuse" for that other than "malpractice or laziness"?
I was un-lazy enough to look for that transcript. Here, from PBS:
“If we go back 3 billion years and take a look at Mars, Mars was a very different planet. It had what we believe was a huge ocean, perhaps as large as two-thirds of the northern hemisphere,” said Jim Green, director of planetary science at NASA Headquarters in a press briefing. “But something happened. Mars suffered a major climate change and lost its surface water.”Hearing that, Rush says, is all he needs to know he's got someone "co-opted" by the "leftist agenda" and involved in pushing "this whole notion of man-made climate change on earth." Yes, Green said "climate change," but how could that be pushing an agenda about "man-made climate change on earth"? Everyone agrees that the climate changes. The political debate is about whether human beings are responsible and should do something about it, but there were no human beings on Mars (or anywhere 3 billion years ago), and the climate changed anyway. How can Green's statement help people who want to hold human beings responsible?
And yet it's all Rush Limbaugh needs to hear to know Green is part of the left-wing agenda. And Rush wants to insult the press for taking him out of context and not understanding his points. Some of his points are really defective! And studying the transcript — which I'm taking the trouble to do — makes it more obvious.
Posts
80 comments:
That penultimate point was the best which is that scientists saying something as fact is absurd because somehow facts are constantly changing. Science has been diminished with all the retracted studies for the last 3 decades
I doubt that anybody reporting on what I said actually knows what I said.
Defense.
"He sounds as though he thinks men have already landed on Mars."
He probably was referring to the Mars rovers.
The "scientist" who "discovered" flowing water is a grad student.
Rush is himself taking someone out of context. Is there "no excuse" for that other than "malpractice or laziness"?
He is just not as good as he used to be. I used to enjoy listening and now, when I try, I tune out after a couple of minutes. He has lost his fast ball. He is not as incisive, edgy (remember when he was edgy/) or funny. But he makes a lot of money, so why retire?
He is right about the use of the term "climate change." That's a code phrase and almost surely shows just what he is saying.
"But how could that work, when the focus on earth is man-made climate change and there are no men on Mars?"
Man is now creating on Earth the same conditions that ravaged Mars.
Something like that. No Martians needed.
I am Laslo.
“But something happened. Mars suffered a major climate change and lost its surface water.”
Whatever happened, it wasn't caused by "climate change" most likely, and we don't really know. And "climate change" was the least effect of it. By that standard you could say that climate change killed the dinosaurs because that asteroid filled the atmosphere with acid hot lava and dust.
So introducing the loaded term "climate change" can have only one purpose.
Usually you are not so obtuse.
@Michael K:The "scientist" who "discovered" flowing water is a grad student.
Most science is done by graduate students and graduate students are frequently scientists. You don't need a Ph. D. to be a scientists.
By the second or third year of graduate school, typically a graduate student has completed all of their coursework, and the remaining years of their Ph. D. studies are taken up by scientific research.
Anyone who is an actual scientist is completely aware of this, and would not use sneer quotes to refer to a graduate student's work. It's like sneering at a journeyman plumber or electrician.
Whatever happened, it wasn't caused by "climate change" most likely, and we don't really know
By definition Mars had a climate change if it was previously water-laden and is now dry. Rather like the region around the Aral Sea (a bonafide man-made climate change on Earth).
What phrase would be acceptable to you when climate does indeed change?
Putting the best spin possible on it, he seems to think that every time people hear the phrase "climate change" they connect it to what is in the news under the phrase "climate change"--which is "the earth is warming up and that's terrible and we have to do something about it." So when they hear about a "climate change" on Mars that caused an ocean covering much of the planet to disappear, part of their brain notices that and strengthens the idea that "climate change" of whatever kind is bad. And, to get back to Rush's pre-occupation, makes them more likely to support the "leftist agenda."
MadisonMan said...
Whatever happened, it wasn't caused by "climate change" most likely, and we don't really know
By definition Mars had a climate change if it was previously water-laden and is now dry. Rather like the region around the Aral Sea (a bonafide man-made climate change on Earth).
What phrase would be acceptable to you when climate does indeed change?
No need for any phrase. He could just opine on what he thought happened. Was wet, then dry. That's the tell. Using that phrase "tells" us something (probably).
Yes, Green said "climate change," but how could that be pushing an agenda about "man-made climate change on earth"?
It's manipulation through metaphor and storytelling: the only thing differentiating present day Earth from Mars is a catastrophic climate event. Rush may not have found the smoking gun or made his case to your satisfaction but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
This is a long con. It needs time to develop.
I think NASA farms out a lot of grunt-level data analysis to college students and this may/may not be related. It's good investigative work and quite a discovery, whoever was involved, that's for sure. I've spent time around Rover engineers at a landing party at Boeing in Seattle (open to the public) and I really didn't ever get the sense of lack of honesty when it comes to the mission. It's a pretty open environment, all things considered.
Is NASA a huge bureaucracy subject to many innovation killing incentives, managerial nonsense and ideological/political hacks getting hold of gov't, farming reefs of public sentiment? I'd say so. There's definitely a lot of finagling to get money, that's for sure, but I have dogs in the hunt: I really want to see a manned mission to Mars and the unmanned Europa mission get going ASAP, and with good data in my lifetime.
Here's to my slightly vain hopes.
It may have been catastrophic, it may not have, but there's already a narrative and a huge audience awaiting the next belief confirmation and reinforcement in public. Playing to such a narrative in just the right manner may get more grant money without compromising full integrity, unless of course there are some true believers floating around inside NASA administration, to whom belief in climate change on Earth makes it top priority in viewing an entirely different planet.
AA: "I read the transcript, the whole thing, carefully and sympathetically, and I'm doing it again today"
Yes, you did. And you got so lost bumping into each tree, that you failed to see the forest.
The primary point made by Rush is that high profile scientific claims, whether it's global warming/climate change or water on MARS are fueled by a 2 step process: (a) scaremongering about some cataclysmic event future or past and (b) quest for more Govt money to prevent cataclysmic event or recurrence of said cataclysmic event.
'We're dealing here with desperate leftists who will do anything to advance their agenda here on earth' — he really does deserve to have that line turned against him."
If you're trying to hold him to a literal meaning of this statement he only needs to look to today's news to defend it.
But mostly, I've not been around real NASA engineers and had reason to ever doubt mission integrity. Any mission could use more smart people among the citizenry gradually learning and paying attention to just what is being achieved. It's hard, risky work with an amazing payoff: knowing you've helped get humanity beyond our planet.
Politicos, ideologues and hacks will keep doing what they do, which seems to be understanding the world through politics, ideology and hackery and getting others to follow them. So it is.
'Never'
It is beyond me why Rush would make climate change the issue with regard to this Mars announcement. To me, it seems likely designed to gin up support for NASA's space projects, including the idea of a manned Mars mission.
To which I say, the announcement of liquid water ought to be a flag against the idea, not for it. If there is even the slightest chance of that water holding microbial life, the cost of a Mars mission goes up astronomically, so to speak. Or do any of you sci-fi buffs think humans can safely go to mars, pick up utterly unknown bugs and return to earth to spread them? Anyone ever see Andromeda Strain? Do you want to wipe us all out? Manned space travel is at this point in our history and absolutely ridiculous waste of money. Unless the speed of light can be transcended, even that speed would limit any reasonable exploration of space to a few nearby star systems - and still taking dozens or hundreds of years round trip each time. The dangers of encountering utterly alien life forms along the way would vastly outstrip all other cost considerations even if the speed constraints did not matter. Far better to rely on unmanned probes with advanced and ever advancing information gathering and display technologies. Imagine being able to take part in simulated walks on Mars, or trips through the atmosphere of Jupiter (something that will ALWAYS be impossible to do in real life. As a democracy, we all deserve the scientific and entertainment value of space exploration. Some Mars Man joker waddling about mucking up some red dirt on Mars does absolutely nothing for me, or anyone else.
Joe, why don't you make your own Martian red dirt farm simulator in your backyard with few stray Google Glasses?
Charge the neighborhood kids.
"Man is now creating on Earth the same conditions that ravaged Mars."
The old enviro story was the Earth would become Venus as the "greenhouse" effect took hold. That seems to have gone away lately
"Anyone who is an actual scientist is completely aware of this, and would not use sneer quotes to refer to a graduate student's work."
I seem to have touched a nerve there, Gabriel. Are you a grad student by chance ? The term "Scientist" is an appeal to authority and "grad student" would not be used by such people. I was a grad student and my daughter was far along in her PhD program when she quit to do something else.
Apparently, neither surgeons nor computer programmers are "scientists" to you.
Touchy, touchy. Things not going well?
@Michael K
"Man is now creating on Earth the same conditions that ravaged Mars."
Note that I do not agree with this statement; was just illustrating how easy to bypass the hole in Althouse's statement.
What I do believe: We will really have to worry when Man is now creating on Earth the same conditions that ravaged Uranus.
Because there always has to be a Uranus joke.
I think I have said that before.
I am Laslo.
He could just opine on what he thought happened. Was wet, then dry. That's the tell. Using that phrase "tells" us something (probably).
(sigh). The phrase climate has a very well-known definition for any scientist.
I think there's a little too much being read into this phrase as used on Mars.
@MM
OK, we'll disagree, I still love you.
It's be like telling a cardiologist not to use the word Heart.
Science is a leftist plot.
You should start listening to Michael Savage, Althouse. He's a scientist.
Me and Starchild locked hands and gazed off into the horizon. Together, we witnessed the sun's energy glancing back from our sister Planet. She, too, was part of the community even though her skin was red.
We felt at peace with the Earth mother then, our bodies tingling in the cool, dawn air, the stifled cries of the EPA storm trooper dragging his body from the smoking fuselage.
Rasta Dale wasn't coming back either. Ages hence, we would come to learn
his father had paid for some 'deprogrammers' to snatch him away from the south entrance.
The only thing left was to finish off the last batch of Kool-Aid.
From: 'Rigoberta Menchu's Ghost-The Community Garden Lies Fallow, Eco-Partner'
"Blogger garage mahal said...
Science is a leftist plot."
Except for crystal therapy, of course,
"It's be" Oy. I'll blame that on fat fingers. s and d are next to each other.
Several people I acquaint with have said this discovery of water (former water?) on Mars is revolutionary. But I'm not that excited about -- a cool discovery, sure, but not the ne plus ultra.
Besides, I'm distracted by Joaquin.
I think they might think that there might be liquid water on Europa.
I could be wrong about that.
If no one else has made a Ziggy Stardust reference yet I guess I won't, either.
Rush journeyed deep into the weeds and came back with very little on this one. The central premise either was or should have been that some of the NASA scientists will shamelessly use any opportunity to advance an environmental political agenda even if it's just wording announcements a certain way. But Rush found that a little difficult to translate into something humorous and entertaining with punch, and he ended up looking foolish I think.
@Michael K:I seem to have touched a nerve there, Gabriel.
People who know nothing about how science works, and opine on how it ought to work even so, annoy me.
Are you a grad student by chance ?
Not since 2009, when I earned my Ph. D.
The term "Scientist" is an appeal to authority and "grad student" would not be used by such people.
It's also used to describe the practitioners of science, and graduate students in the sciences are scientists to scientists. They are journeyman scientists. People who are not scientists may be misinformed, but that doesn't mean they're right to sneer at the accomplishments of people who are respected by the people who do the work.
Apparently, neither surgeons nor computer programmers are "scientists" to you.
No, they aren't, any more than they are plumbers or lawyers. There's no shame or implied criticism in not being a scientist. I've done my share of computer programming but I'm a scientist, not a programmer, and any programmer could immediately tell by looking at my code.
What Rush is right about is climate change association. They call it Mars climate change not because the climate changed but because it ties into a catastrophic loss of environmental friendliness. They want to reenforce that. Any climate change winds up like Mars.
What Rush is not good at is science or math or economics. His reasons are always wrong, if the answer is right.
He has zero mathematical intuition. He argued for years that the reason that unemployment is falling is that jobs are disappearing. People emailed him and shouted at him and explained it to him, but he couldn't get it. Finally he just stopped talking about it, deciding that there must be something to the shouting from friends even if he didn't see what it was.
The zero intuition for science and math and economics is his feminine side.
He has good intuition for media agitprop.
@Madison Man:I think there's a little too much being read into this phrase as used on Mars.
I have wanted to be a pro all my life. I must be pro-life or I wouldn't have used that combination of words....
Rush went out a limb, felt unsteady, and decided to just go ahead and saw it off. His reaction is analogous to accusing someone who says "picnic" or "niggardly" or racism.
Here's the thing--people don't generally have the same bees in their bonnets as other people.
Kit: The letter K appears in this script 1,456 times. That's perfectly divisible by 3.
Freddy: So what? So what you saying?
Kit: What am I saying? KKK appears in this script 486 times!
People who are not scientists may be misinformed, but that doesn't mean they're right to sneer at the accomplishments of people who are respected by the people who do the work.
Lab coats are the key.
@rhhardin:They call it Mars climate change not because the climate changed but because it ties into a catastrophic loss of environmental friendliness
No, they're saying that the climate WAS this and is NOW that, hence it is "changed".
And no planetary scientist is trying to tie it to fossil fuel consumption.
You know Rush has a really hard job. Once in a while he's going to have an off day. Most of the time he's really on. Be easier if we all just acknowledged that instead of straining at gnats and swallowing camels to show that there's some esoteric sense in which he's actually expressing some deep insight.
Especially when the attempt to do so assumes widespread bad faith in the practitioners of a profession which very few Althouse commenters have any firsthand familiarity with.
"I'm a scientist, not a programmer, and any programmer could immediately tell by looking at my code."
I'll bet.
Still touchy there, pal. You need to work on that.
I still believe Velikovsky was spot-on and the results of our most recent cataclysmic events were recorded in the old testament. His theories in fact did result in significant changes to historical records of Egyptian archeology ( science!) and a total redefinition of the nature of planet Venus (science!) corroborated by the many probes sent there.
No, they're saying that the climate WAS this and is NOW that, hence it is "changed".
And no planetary scientist is trying to tie it to fossil fuel consumption.
It's not the climate that changed. It just lost its atmosphere. That lowered the vapor pressure and pfft no oceans.
The problem isn't planetary scientists but the news release and the public. This is what climate change can do to you!
They don't say this is what losing your atmosphere can do to you.
The first has political force, the second doesn't.
@rhhardin:It's not the climate that changed. It just lost its atmosphere. That lowered the vapor pressure and pfft no oceans.
It is a drastic climate change, losing most of the atmosphere. The climate is a phenomenon of the atmosphere. Changing the atmosphere necessarily changes the climate. On Mars it changed temperatures and relative composition of the atmosphere, and while Mars only barely has "weather" I can guarantee you that the weather is different from what it was.
The problem isn't planetary scientists but the news release and the public.
There is no way to communicate that cannot be misinterpreted by the press, whether through ignorance or malice.
@Michael K:Still touchy there, pal. You need to work on that.
I was volunteering information about my lack of skill in computer programming, in the hopes of temporizing with you, which is kind of the opposite of "touchy"--a soft answer turneth away wrath and that.
So first you sneer at people who's work and prominence you don't understand, then when I defend them---without attacking you--you choose to impugn me personally. And then when I answer you without rancor, in a self-deprecating way, you double down.
Whether you're a jerk with reading comprehension issues or a troll, I don't care. You're boring me and making yourself look bad.
Chris N said...
"I think NASA farms out a lot of grunt-level data analysis to college students..."
No, this was a Ga Tech PhD student, the analysis was the student's project (under the direction of his advisor). NASA didn't farm out anything, but rather provided data.
Limbaugh should stick to what he knows and leave that of which he doesn't alone. He could have simply stated that climate change is a term now freighted to imply change caused by human agency by those with a political agenda and that would have sufficed and that would be spot on right.
Considering the government will always piss away our money no matter what I would prefer it pissed it away on space exploration than on welfare for deadbeats and losers and the rest of the make work civil service nonsense. Space exploration is harmless, not likely to be a vehicle for leftist regulators to deprive us of our rights and properties and does have useful spin offs.
It is a drastic climate change, losing most of the atmosphere. The climate is a phenomenon of the atmosphere. Changing the atmosphere necessarily changes the climate. On Mars it changed temperatures and relative composition of the atmosphere, and while Mars only barely has "weather" I can guarantee you that the weather is different from what it was.
The climate may have changed but what has that got to do with water disappearing.
The water disappeared because the atmosphere was lost and the vapor pressure dropped, not because the climate changed.
They're using the term to suggest earth is in similar danger of becoming like Mars in the climate change alarm biz, not to explain how Mars winds up with its water situation.
"So first you sneer at people who's work and prominence you don't understand,"
You are "touchy" because you seem unable to understand that the MSM uses the term "scientist" to support whatever political aim they have in mind, like global warming where "97%of scientists support..."
Those are appeals to authority.
The fact that the guy who concluded these streaks mean flowing water is a grad student with no previous record of important discovery. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to his record.
You are very touchy and I assume this means something about your life,
Long ago, I was an engineer and programmer and, like most of my fellow engineers at the time, decided to make a career change.
My lab partner in medical school was a physical chemist with a P-chem PhD who had developed the Minuteman solid fuel propellant for Aerojet General, or maybe it was Thiokol, in the late 50s. Every summer he would spend his summer vacation from med school back working on the rocket fuel program.
I guess he wasn't a scientist by your standards.
You know what this reminds me of ? The pre-meds got all the As in science courses and were hated by the chem and bio majors.
Maybe that's it. I don't know., Maybe you are a nice guy but you still seem very touchy.
"Some Mars Man joker waddling about mucking up some red dirt on Mars does absolutely nothing for me, or anyone else."
Speak for yourself.
I agree with Rush and not Ann on the use of the word catastrophe. I believe the common use and definition of catastrophe almost always includes the concept of damage or harm, of disaster (not just a really big change), meaning that something alive or sentient or beautiful has been hurt. In the normal use of the word, one would not call two suns colliding in Andromeda a catastrophe. Its possible that astronomers use the word in that peculiar way, but even if they do I don't think Ann's criticism of Rush is fair on this point.
"The term "Scientist" is an appeal to authority and "grad student" would not be used by such people."
Advanced grad students in a physical science are certainly scientists. Surgeons: some yes, some no. Computer programmers: No.
That's not to say, of course, that scientists can't program. Most/all can.
I just hope Hollywood doesn't fuck up "The Martian". It was a good book.
Reading between the lines, Rushomon-san's point is that there is a government-media complex (stealing from Dr Savage) that deploys environmentalist dog-whistles.
Gabriel: You greenhorn academics need to learn to shut the malarkey box. Grad students and post-docs are apprentice level scientists. Non-tenured professors are journeymen. Computer scientists and medical scientists are applied scientists, somewhat like engineers who use the scientific method to solve problems.
Original Mike, please don't misunderstand like Gabriel did. I was not denigrating the grad student, just commenting on the use of appeals to authority by the MSM.
Maybe that grad student has a good record of achievement. I don't know anything about him.
I don't claim to be a "scientist" but I do remember what happened to Judah Folkman, a pediatric surgeon who discovered the angiogenesis inhibitors.
Dr. Folkman, a professor at Harvard and director of the vascular biology program at Children’s Hospital Boston, is considered the father of the idea that tumors can be kept in check by choking off the supply of blood they need to grow.
The approach is now embodied in several successful cancer drugs, most notably Avastin, by Genentech.
“His vision and ideas literally changed the course of modern medicine,” said Dr. William Li, a former student of Dr. Folkman’s, who is president of the Angiogenesis Foundation, an organization that promotes the promise of Dr. Folkman’s approach. Angiogenesis refers to the formation of new blood vessels.
People had trouble replicating his work and he was called one of those "stupid surgeons." After the drugs turned out to be the most important development in cancer research in 50 years, he became "a scientist."
well Matt Daamon was part of interstellar, but they killed him off two thirds through, Scott hasn't done a good space film since Blade Runner, Prometheus doesn't count,
Science is a leftist plot.
Climate science is as much a science as phrenology.
That's not to say, of course, that scientists can't program. Most/all can.
Based on their work so far, my claim that climate "science" isn't science is proven. Since we know those clowns can't make a model that works for shit.
Madison Man, so do you think that the primary thing that happened to Mars was that the climate changed, then the oceans disappeared? So if, for example, Mars's magnetic field collapsed, and their atmosphere was scrubbed off by the solar winds, that would be classified first and foremost "climate change?"
I don't even think you guys are trying. I think you are so sure that you are right that you don't even have to bother to examine your assumptions.
Whatever happened to Mars, climate change was an effect, not a cause, almost certainly. He stuck that phrase in to bring in the lumpenproletariat same as parading the Pope around as if the persecutors of Galileo had some kind of authority.
Virgil: In geology, there was once a great debate between the catastrophists and the uniformitarians (not to be confused with Unitarians). Since the majority of Earth's history was abiotic, a catastrophe needs no humans nor Archaea involved.
Catastrophism
Howard, if the truth is to be known, I suspect that a large share of the earth's mass will turn out to be biologic.
Of course, I am not a scientist.
@Michael K: Noted. And, in turn, I am not denigrating physicians. My major appointment is in the Dept of Medicine, minor in Medical Physics. Many of my physician colleagues are excellent scientists.
Michael K: For that to be true, then your suspected biologues would need to withstand >1000-degC. (that's real global warming)
Crust-Mantle-Core
I don't argue Althouse's point. I would argue, however, that she would never take such meticulous care to dissect an erroneous argument made by Jon Stewart. That's the point........I read somewhere that every two or three hundred million years our solor system passes through an asteroid belt that causes catastrophic damage to the planets within it. Bummer.
Rush's analysis is plenty "truthy", it goes beyond that to true, I think.
Madison Man, so do you think that the primary thing that happened to Mars was that the climate changed,
Yes. If the evidence of former water holds up.
I do not know the cause of the climate change on Mars. Many will speculate on the cause. Not me.
"your suspected biologues would need to withstand >1000-degC. (that's real global "
Yes it would. I doubt the core is involved but there are biologics that do quite well at 100 degrees C.
Extremophiles are interesting. For example.
All thermophiles require a hot water environment, but some thrive in more than one extreme, such as those with high levels of sulfur or calcium carbonate, acidic water, or alkaline springs. What enables an organism to thrive in habitats where the temperature is sometimes as hot as 140 degrees C (284 degrees F)? Regardless of varying environmental conditions, the ability of thermophiles to thrive in extremely hot environments lies in extremozymes, enzymes geared to work in extremely high temperatures. The amino acids of these extremozymes have special tricks to retain their twisted and folded 3D structures in high heat, where other enzymes would unfold and no longer work.
Not molten core hot but pretty hot. and we have no samples from deeper.
People on redit are saying that human beings probably caused the Martian climate change and somehow escaped to earth to start over as Adam and Eve. Thus to continue our evil planet destroying ways, like a slow motion plague of locusts. Even Rush did not anticipate this particular claim. Maybe Michael Crichton would have.
So MadisonMan, did climate change kill the dinosaurs? I mean we know that when the asteroid hit, it changed the weather drastically. So that was "climate change" then, not an asteroid?
I have always said that the term had no meaning, but I thought that was a slight exaggeration.
I think the definition of Root Cause Analysis needs to change then.
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/root-cause-analysis/overview/overview.html
Now root cause analysis stops when it reaches "climate change" and may go no further. This is because, like the legislative redefinition of Pi so it would be easier to use, we have redefined "climate change" as always the "root cause."
If you ask a devout Muslim why an engine runs, he will respond, "Because Allah wills it." If you ask a greenie why a motor runs, he will say "Because climate change!"
Yeah, I listened to some of the Mars stuff and he was not very sharp at all. It's like that some days. I rarely listen for very long anymore because I read a lot of the same stuff he covers but usually before he gets to it and so it's nothing new to me. Or he just goes on and on over the same topic, when it's new to me, after I already understand the point. But he's still, by far, the best guy out there.
But his point is that government funded science has been co-opted, more than ever, by political agendas and he makes a good point that when you hear "climate change" then you know the fix is, at least to some degree, in.
The Climate Changed and the dinosaurs died.
We seem to be talking past each other.
I believe the leading theory as to how Mars lost its atmosphere (and thus it's ocean(s)) is that it lost it's magnetic field. The magnetic field would protect the atmosphere from the solar wind, just as it does on Earth. Once it was gone, the solar wind eroded the atmosphere away. We know Mars had a magnetic field because it was frozen into Martian rocks when they solidified. I believe it's thought that Mars lost its magnetic field when it's molten iron core cooled and solidified. That will happen to Earth someday too, but it happened to Mars first because it's so much smaller.
"Its possible that astronomers use the word in that peculiar way, but even if they do I don't think Ann's criticism of Rush is fair on this point."
Since Rush is impugning an individual named scientist, leaning toward being "fair" to Rush makes little sense. Rush is grasping at a basis for criticizing someone and using an unnecessarily restricted definition of a term. He's being unfair.
I'm with you. I can't imagine anyone using Science! in any sort of political way. I got nuthin.
I don't think so much NASA was -- well, they might be timing the release of the news to support the movie. Actually, it's probably true.
Not likely. The press conference was done as the scientific paper about their discovery was being published. Having published papers, you have no control of when they come out. The paper is written, sent in, sent out for peer review, and then scheduled for publication. The scientists have no control of how long that process will take. It can take 6 months, it can take a year or more.
Just out of curiousity, Ann, why would you spend so much time on this? I can't even get through it without nodding off.
William said...
I don't argue Althouse's point. I would argue, however, that she would never take such meticulous care to dissect an erroneous argument made by Jon Stewart. That's the point........I read somewhere that every two or three hundred million years our solor system passes through an asteroid belt that causes catastrophic damage to the planets within it. Bummer.
I think you miss the point that Althouse LIKES Rush and, I think, is disappointed at the level of his game. Me too. Even though I think Rush is more right than wrong here. He could have talked about this clearly in one paragraph. The point being, as I tried to argue with MM, that that phrase is loaded.
Since Rush is impugning an individual named scientist, leaning toward being "fair" to Rush makes little sense. Rush is grasping at a basis for criticizing someone and using an unnecessarily restricted definition of a term. He's being unfair.
I think Rush's "quacks like a duck" argument is correct.
But one thing I will say against Rush, is that his lack of a college does show up when he gets into global warming. There are many valid criticisms of the scientific foundation of AGW alarmism, but they depend on logical concepts not usually taught at the high school level.
The Climate Changed and the dinosaurs died.
We seem to be talking past each other. MadionMan
You could answer my question which I will put in the form of Yes or No
Given that the impact that killed the dinosaurs created climate change, would you say that climate change kill the dinosaurs?
"If we go back 3 billion years and take a look at Mars, Mars was a very different planet." Duh. Only 3 billion years? It is suspicious that such a stunningly basic statement would make it into a thing called "the news."
Post a Comment