Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate

When did this happen? I don't seem to remember the US and Mexico being spontaneously deforested.

NASA put some shit out in 2012.

http://climate.nasa.gov/state_of_flux?CFID=6477851&CFTOKEN=44319376#Deforestation_Niger.jpg

People are still screaming hoax but it doesn't amount to anything more than blog posts.

repost

That links to a blurb about the deforestation in Niger from 2007.

It's a photo gallery, click the button that says All Images

Didn't find it in the gallery. Found it here though:
http://factsfromfiction.blogspot.com/2012/04/nasa-deforestation-image.html

The 2012 marble image came out at the same time as the 250 other before/after photographs. Someone falsified a 1978 caption to illustrate a point. The evidence of environmental decay is within the gallery.

In case anyone wants to watch Bill get pwned by a bunch of ex-military guys who say they saw UFO's.


Around 7:20 for the comment that makes Bill die a little inside.

They proved nothing and fell back on personal attacks. I wouldn't call that a pwning.

Yeah, he does a great job explaining who had the technology to knock a warhead out of the air in the 60's.

Oh wait, no he doesn't.

That feel when Mack is a better debater.

Science is not nearly as flexible as most people like to believe, there's a lot of bureaucracy, bias, denial, academic bullying, etc. Whether is religious people or people of science, ego always comes first, none wants their perception challenged nor shattered.

Only the cleansing flame will free our species.

This image actually fools people, doesn't it? Why would the North American continent nearly double in size in 24 years?

Those first two are the only qualifications he has that matter. The rest of it came because of his TV show IIRC. It means about as much as Steven Colbert's Doctorate.

See, we're talking about two different things. You're referring to science as a way of asking and attempting to answer questions. That's like saying "Philosophy can't be wrong. It's just an analytical tool of examining ideas." Where things get hazy is the New Atheist community and the creation of what I've kept referring to ITT as "Science™."

Whereas science used to just be a process participated in by people analyzing data, it's now become a full-fledged religion of sorts wherein people invest in ideology rather than admiring a tool. It's like espousing a hardline Marxist or even Metaphysical position and accusing all who contradict you of being "anti-philosophy."

The new Science™ seems to have taken a number of ideological standpoints without any real justification, many of them moral/philosophical positions such as an extreme sense of antagonism towards Christianity (with the excuse of anti-science morons like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc. whomever the 2 minutes hate and pro-science pogroms are directed at for the moment), people who espouse heteronormative relations, race realists and various other anti-Science™ (begin to read "anti-Marxist," after all, we are talking about the intellectual class here) positions.

It also seems to have an order of high priests like Nye, DeGrasse Tyson, Kaku, etc., who cannot be contradicted (at least to members of the Science Community™ and the various followers of science exemplified by the I Love Science™ page) even by direct opposition due to the fact that they are assumed to have a more direct access to knowledge (through experience and intelligence, supposedly, rather than ordination and faith) than we.

Essentially, we're dealing with the pre-reformation Roman church. Heretics and thought-criminals are banished due to the uneducated layman's scientific illiteracy. I'd love to go into more detail when I get back from work.

You can always trust science. You can't always trust Scientists™.