NDT did say "but they didn't have separation of church and state back then", implying that we do have it today (ha).
I got a small sense of belligerence from the show, but I'm not mad.
I preferred our long running Brit version (typically low-rent) Teh Sky At Night, wherein 2 geriatric peetos sit in a studio and discuss the latest cosmological development against the backdrop of a 40 y.o, pic of the Crab Nebula.
I'll have to check that out. Y'alls 'Wonders of The Universe' was pretty fucking awesome, in my opinion.
Yeah I liked that series too, but Brian Cox sort of bothers me. Sorry brits. It might be his accent!
I preferred our long running Brit version (typically low-rent) Teh Sky At Night, wherein 2 geriatric peetos sit in a studio and discuss the latest cosmological development against the backdrop of a 40 y.o, pic of the Crab Nebula.
I'll have to check that out. Y'alls 'Wonders of The Universe' was pretty fucking awesome, in my opinion.
Yeah I liked that series too, but Brian Cox sort of bothers me. Sorry brits. It might be his accent!
I preferred our long running Brit version (typically low-rent) Teh Sky At Night, wherein 2 geriatric peetos sit in a studio and discuss the latest cosmological development against the backdrop of a 40 y.o, pic of the Crab Nebula.
I'll have to check that out. Y'alls 'Wonders of The Universe' was pretty fucking awesome, in my opinion.
Yeah I liked that series too, but Brian Cox sort of bothers me. Sorry brits. It might be his accent!
try 15 hours of mark cousins. :dead:
)
This dude's voice goes up at the end of every sentence like it's a question. Kinda makes me a-crazy?
Yeah I liked that series too, but Brian Cox sort of bothers me. Sorry brits. It might be his accent!
try 15 hours of mark cousins. :dead:
)
This dude's voice goes up at the end of every sentence like it's a question. Kinda makes me a-crazy?
honestly, i was trying to work my way through the whole series, because it actually is one man's remarkable love letter to film and covers the staggering breadth of cinema, but the intonation of his speech was enough to drive me absolutely mental. i thought it was only me until half way through episode two wifey came over from the next room and exhaustedly asked, arms akimbo, "can you not?.... with this fucking guy?".
honestly, i was trying to work my way through the whole series, because it actually is one man's remarkable love letter to film and covers the staggering breadth of cinema, but the intonation of his speech was enough to drive me absolutely mental. i thought it was only me until half way through episode two wifey came over from the next room and exhaustedly asked, arms akimbo, "can you not?.... with this fucking guy?".
the bangor burr through a wah pedal.
I've actually made it through most of the series. But sweet Jesus, if ever there was a guy who'd get a punch in the face after a few drink at a bar, it's that guy.
How effectively do yall think the second episode covered the E word? I enjoyed the quick and dirty history of the eye.
The eye history was a direct and effective slam at creationist idiots who insist eyes are impossible unless the Baby Jeezus was involved in their R & D.
How effectively do yall think the second episode covered the E word? I enjoyed the quick and dirty history of the eye.
The eye history was a direct and effective slam at creationist idiots who insist eyes are impossible unless the Baby Jeezus was involved in their R & D.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I found it interesting how they did this, though. He pretty much explained and showed evidence for evolution way before saying the word.
Telling the story of the eye was great because it's an argument you regularly get from the 'watchmaker argument' crowd.
Again, I'm surprised that they didn't talk about the Heike crabs like they did in the OG book. Seems like they made the choice to use dogs to demonstrate artificial selection...which makes sense...'merica loves its dawgs. But, the Heike crab story is an interesting one.
How effectively do yall think the second episode covered the E word? I enjoyed the quick and dirty history of the eye.
The eye history was a direct and effective slam at creationist idiots who insist eyes are impossible unless the Baby Jeezus was involved in their R & D.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I found it interesting how they did this, though. He pretty much explained and showed evidence for evolution way before saying the word.
Telling the story of the eye was great because it's an argument you regularly get from the 'watchmaker argument' crowd.
Again, I'm surprised that they didn't talk about the Heike crabs like they did in the OG book. Seems like they made the choice to use dogs to demonstrate artificial selection...which makes sense...'merica loves its dawgs. But, the Heike crab story is an interesting one.
The Heike theory has fallen a long way out of favour since then. Either they taste like shit or are too small but apparently Heike crabs will always get thrown back by fishermen, whatever the shell looks like.
How effectively do yall think the second episode covered the E word? I enjoyed the quick and dirty history of the eye.
The eye history was a direct and effective slam at creationist idiots who insist eyes are impossible unless the Baby Jeezus was involved in their R & D.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I found it interesting how they did this, though. He pretty much explained and showed evidence for evolution way before saying the word.
Telling the story of the eye was great because it's an argument you regularly get from the 'watchmaker argument' crowd.
Again, I'm surprised that they didn't talk about the Heike crabs like they did in the OG book. Seems like they made the choice to use dogs to demonstrate artificial selection...which makes sense...'merica loves its dawgs. But, the Heike crab story is an interesting one.
The Heike theory has fallen a long way out of favour since then. Either they taste like shit or are too small but apparently Heike crabs will always get thrown back by fishermen, whatever the shell looks like.
"Fresh of of its Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate, Answers in Genesis (the organization that brought you the Creation Museum) is demanding some airtime on Cosmos, the Neil deGrasse Tyson reboot of the classic Carl Sagan science series currently airing on Fox. Their argument? Basically, it's that the science program is not balanced without the inclusion of their religious beliefs. Although this will never happen ÔÇö Tyson has personally ruled out debating Creationists on the issue of evolution ÔÇö it's just the latest example of how the show is worrying a particular set of evangelical Christians in the US. "
"Fresh of of its Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate, Answers in Genesis (the organization that brought you the Creation Museum) is demanding some airtime on Cosmos, the Neil deGrasse Tyson reboot of the classic Carl Sagan science series currently airing on Fox. Their argument? Basically, it's that the science program is not balanced without the inclusion of their religious beliefs. "
Fucking twats. Only if Richard Dawkins can attend their church to follow every sermon with a balancing lecture on how it's all a load of bullshit for the feeble minded.
"Fresh of of its Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate, Answers in Genesis (the organization that brought you the Creation Museum) is demanding some airtime on Cosmos, the Neil deGrasse Tyson reboot of the classic Carl Sagan science series currently airing on Fox. Their argument? Basically, it's that the science program is not balanced without the inclusion of their religious beliefs. "
Fucking twats. Only if Richard Dawkins can attend their church to follow every sermon with a balancing lecture on how it's all a load of bullshit for the feeble minded.
:lol:
Tyson's response seemed pretty spot-on in my opinion:
"I think the media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but doesn't really apply in science. The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view, and then you can be viewed as balanced," Tyson said, adding, "you don't talk about the spherical earth with NASA and then say let's give equal time to the flat-earthers."
The Heike Crab thing was a good story but it lacked the necessary empirical data/evidence, just like many religious texts. If anything, it highlights the human tendency to want to believe things that support what we already (want to) believe to be true about the world/nature of reality. Except an honest scientist/person would hopefully appreciate being shown the errors in their thinking, methods, and conclusions. I say: don't take anyone at their word in any serious matter; instead, confirm that their reasoning is sound at every step, then ask to see their data. If they hesitate or bristle, be even more skeptical.
Tyson's response seemed pretty spot-on in my opinion:
"I think the media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but doesn't really apply in science. The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view, and then you can be viewed as balanced," Tyson said, adding, "you don't talk about the spherical earth with NASA and then say let's give equal time to the flat-earthers."
Yeah, there was an interesting article recently about Climate Change coverage from the BBC. The news (at least over here in teh UK) also feels that every time there's some piece about the climate that along with a scientist they need to get somebody with an opposing view to debate them on the science.
Of course the problem is there are very, very few creditable scientists that would debate that Climate Change is happening, or is primarily influenced by human activities (pollution).
So the news programs have a habit of getting economists and politicians in to argue about something they have no understanding of.
And viewers are finally starting to get angry with this and complain. The BBC's response has been evasive and vague, but basically they want a lively debate, not a guy in a white coat with an arm-load of peer-reviewed papers explaining that unless we change our lifestyle we will have to get used to extreme weather.
Of course the problem is there are very, very few creditable scientists that would debate that Climate Change is happening, or is primarily influenced by human activities (pollution).
So the news programs have a habit of getting economists and politicians in to argue about something they have no understanding of.
Yep. Btw, if anyone can find acticles/essays from legitimate scientists and researchers that call 'bullshit' on climate change please please please share them. I'm sure there are a few and I'd really like to read them.
I don't know how to find his published scientific papers.
Science does not advance without skeptics.
I am reading about the cosmological constant.
Something Einstein made up so his calculations would work. 15 years later he abandoned the idea. It has recently been revived and the latest evidence for an expanding universe seems to prove there is a cosmological constant. It used to be called anti-gravity, now it is called dark energy. Dark meaning we don't know what it is.
Of course the problem is there are very, very few creditable scientists that would debate that Climate Change is happening, or is primarily influenced by human activities (pollution).
So the news programs have a habit of getting economists and politicians in to argue about something they have no understanding of.
Yep. Btw, if anyone can find acticles/essays from legitimate scientists and researchers that call 'bullshit' on climate change please please please share them. I'm sure there are a few and I'd really like to read them.
I know and scientists embrace that...via peer review. I am IT support for a bunch of researchers at a medical university and you should see how these people shit on each others work...with logic and science. They embrace that...they want that...they use that type of logical criticism to ultimately come to valid conclusions.
Btw...thanks for the links to papers. I'll check them out tonight.
I know and scientists embrace that...via peer review. I am IT support for a bunch of researchers at a medical university and you should see how these people shit on each others work...with logic and science. They embrace that...they want that...they use that type of logical criticism to ultimately come to valid conclusions.
Btw...thanks for the links to papers. I'll check them out tonight.
Take the Avakyan with a million grains of salt:
A clue to the author's motivation comes on the first page of the article, where he writes,"The switch of world powers first to decreasing the use of fossil fuel and then to carbon-free energy within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol may lead to economic collapse for Russia as a consequence of the reduction and, probably, even loss of the possibility to sell oil and natural gas on the world market."
Contrary to what conservatives might suggest, there really isnÔÇÖt a debate in the scientific community over whether climate change is real. The commonly cited statistic is that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is happening, and that itÔÇÖs caused by human activity. Another way of looking at that consensus comes courtesy of James Lawrence Powell, who examined a yearÔÇÖs worth of climate-related scientific studies and found that virtually all accept man-made global warming.
PowellÔÇÖs analysis covers 2,258 articles published in peer-reviewed journals between November 2012 and December 2013, written by a total of 9,136 authors. He found but one holdout: S. V. Avakyan who, writing for the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, concluded that ÔÇ£contribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon-containing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant.ÔÇØ
Comments
I got a small sense of belligerence from the show, but I'm not mad.
Yeah I liked that series too, but Brian Cox sort of bothers me. Sorry brits. It might be his accent!
try 15 hours of mark cousins. :dead:
)
This dude's voice goes up at the end of every sentence like it's a question. Kinda makes me a-crazy?
honestly, i was trying to work my way through the whole series, because it actually is one man's remarkable love letter to film and covers the staggering breadth of cinema, but the intonation of his speech was enough to drive me absolutely mental. i thought it was only me until half way through episode two wifey came over from the next room and exhaustedly asked, arms akimbo, "can you not?.... with this fucking guy?".
the bangor burr through a wah pedal.
I've actually made it through most of the series. But sweet Jesus, if ever there was a guy who'd get a punch in the face after a few drink at a bar, it's that guy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to dance from imjustanape on Vimeo.
thriller < otw
The eye history was a direct and effective slam at creationist idiots who insist eyes are impossible unless the Baby Jeezus was involved in their R & D.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I found it interesting how they did this, though. He pretty much explained and showed evidence for evolution way before saying the word.
Telling the story of the eye was great because it's an argument you regularly get from the 'watchmaker argument' crowd.
Again, I'm surprised that they didn't talk about the Heike crabs like they did in the OG book. Seems like they made the choice to use dogs to demonstrate artificial selection...which makes sense...'merica loves its dawgs. But, the Heike crab story is an interesting one.
The Heike theory has fallen a long way out of favour since then. Either they taste like shit or are too small but apparently Heike crabs will always get thrown back by fishermen, whatever the shell looks like.
Oh wow...thanks for sharing that. Looks like this is the article that fairly efficiently and reputably debunks the shit out of the Heike Crab artificial selection theory. http://crustacea.nhm.org/people/martin/publications/pdf/103.pdf
Man...I loved that example. It's a shame that truth and peer review had to get in the way.
"Fresh of of its Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate, Answers in Genesis (the organization that brought you the Creation Museum) is demanding some airtime on Cosmos, the Neil deGrasse Tyson reboot of the classic Carl Sagan science series currently airing on Fox. Their argument? Basically, it's that the science program is not balanced without the inclusion of their religious beliefs. Although this will never happen ÔÇö Tyson has personally ruled out debating Creationists on the issue of evolution ÔÇö it's just the latest example of how the show is worrying a particular set of evangelical Christians in the US. "
Fucking twats. Only if Richard Dawkins can attend their church to follow every sermon with a balancing lecture on how it's all a load of bullshit for the feeble minded.
:lol:
Tyson's response seemed pretty spot-on in my opinion:
Yeah, there was an interesting article recently about Climate Change coverage from the BBC. The news (at least over here in teh UK) also feels that every time there's some piece about the climate that along with a scientist they need to get somebody with an opposing view to debate them on the science.
Of course the problem is there are very, very few creditable scientists that would debate that Climate Change is happening, or is primarily influenced by human activities (pollution).
So the news programs have a habit of getting economists and politicians in to argue about something they have no understanding of.
And viewers are finally starting to get angry with this and complain. The BBC's response has been evasive and vague, but basically they want a lively debate, not a guy in a white coat with an arm-load of peer-reviewed papers explaining that unless we change our lifestyle we will have to get used to extreme weather.
Yep. Btw, if anyone can find acticles/essays from legitimate scientists and researchers that call 'bullshit' on climate change please please please share them. I'm sure there are a few and I'd really like to read them.
http://www.appliedclimate.net/georgetaylor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Taylor
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment-jan-june07-northwest_06-21/
I don't know how to find his published scientific papers.
Science does not advance without skeptics.
I am reading about the cosmological constant.
Something Einstein made up so his calculations would work. 15 years later he abandoned the idea. It has recently been revived and the latest evidence for an expanding universe seems to prove there is a cosmological constant. It used to be called anti-gravity, now it is called dark energy. Dark meaning we don't know what it is.
He wasn't a PhD and he wasn't a climatologist.
He had a Masters in meteorology. He had as much business calling himself a climatologist as a fire hydrant would.
Stop bringing water pistols to a gunfight.
Nobody said it's been totally worked-out. It's being fine-tuned every year, every month, every day. That's what science does.
I found this one for you:
http://www.jamespowell.org/Avakyan/Avakyan.html
Only contrary article in recent years.
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I know and scientists embrace that...via peer review. I am IT support for a bunch of researchers at a medical university and you should see how these people shit on each others work...with logic and science. They embrace that...they want that...they use that type of logical criticism to ultimately come to valid conclusions.
Btw...thanks for the links to papers. I'll check them out tonight.
Take the Avakyan with a million grains of salt:
Ha ha. Some scientist.
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/09/9135_out_of_9136_scientists_believe_climate_change_is_happening/
Btw, this dude is awesome:
Did people like it?
I watched first episode, but too many commercials to sit through another.
Worth renting?
Yep it's over. Was well worth it. DVRed that shite and FF through the commercials.
I will say I got out the
And now a drunk version of NDT:
Yes and yes.....but, I dunno if it accomplished what it set out to do.