Oct
16
2012
Andrea Mitchell Tries Reporting Science
Felix Baumgartner’s 24-mile jump to Earth from the edge of space was all the more impressive now that we know he reached a speed of over 700 million miles an hour. At least, he did according to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell:
Her reporting on political matters is even less accurate.
Via Twitchy, on tips from Manuel R and Gary A.
Wow, so he traveled backwards in time?
This is not the first time some retarded liberals in the media got the while speed of light thing wrong:
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/cnn_shuttle.jpg
Give her a break. She used the same methodology that bammy’s people used to determine the unemployment rate.
But…but…aren’t moonbats the “scientifically sophisticated” ones who are supposed to “school” us “scientifically challenged” conservatives?
To a liberal, science can mean whatever they want it to mean. We can shut down hundreds of coal power plants without consequence because they want it so.
In poor Ms. Mitchell’s defense, she has probably never seen the inside of a high school physics classroom. I doubt Obama could state either the speed of sound or light off the top of his head.
Is it just me, or does she look like she’s part rodent?
When you know so little, it’s easy not to know how much you don’t know, and be impressed by those who know a little more, so you’ll take their word that “the other guys” just aren’t hip. Republicans are against science, don’t you know. They’re liable to shut down NASA, or be unquestioningly on board with those global warming guys, or think wind and solar could supply us energy. Bunch of tobacco spitting troglodytes, you know.
LOL!
Why does this not surprise me.
Science reporting is usually pretty bad across the board, but this one is particularly disgraceful.
When he landed he was three years old.
Liberals continue to confirm that Pres. Reagan was SO correct when he opined: “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so”.
If he was traveling faster than light the jump would have lasted less than 0.2 seconds and a stationary observer would see him on the ground before he left the capsule.
With all their science knowledge,at least they get that global warming thingy right.
andrea’s thinking operates at the speed of dark.
The Dems NEVER know what they are talking about and their sheeple are too dumb to notice…
Murphy Gets Submarined
We shouldn’t jump (pun Intended) to conclusions on the stupidity of little Andrea. She may have just been reading the White House talking points of the day.
Kilvinski’s Law:
Rule #10: So-called “scientific studies” will almost always come out agreeing with those who supply the grant money.
Rule #2: Don’t believe everything you read, only half of what you see, and none of what you hear.
if he arrived before he left, did he get any picturs of himself leaving? /snark
Maybe they can get Andrea to moderate the next debate.
It’s just a jump to the left
And a step to the riiiight!
Put your hands on your hips
And bring your knees in tiiight!
And the pelvic thrusts
That really drives them insaaaane!
LET’S DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN!
Guys, don’t get crazy. Politicos generally are bad re: science because science doesn’t tell politicos what they want to hear. And politicos are not interested in the truth, they’re interested in reinforcing their pre-existing ideology. As a scientist, I have to listen to all sorts of dopey nonsense in this “my ideology trumps years of research and replication” thought process.
Conservatives suddenly don’t like science re: evolution (as settled as science gets), the inborn nature of homosexuality, AGW , social science that speaks to unconscious motivations and behavior, the big bang, and some go as far as a 6000 year old Earth, i.e., the most preposterous nonsense of all time.
Liberals deny the efficacy of vaccines (mostly out of naturalistic fallacies) and pharmaceuticals (they hate big corps), deny genetics as an influence of behavior (tabula rasa makes them feel more egalitarian), deny gender differences (see JOhn Money) and generally believe in a lot of new age nonsense that sounds sciency, but is horseshit.
So don’t get too uppity, cons. You’re just as stupid and ideology driven when it comes to understanding science as the extreme lefties. Neither of you know WTF you’re talking about.
Maybe if you were a little more empirical and logical in an iterative fashion (i.e., scientific), you wouldn’t all be so full of shit and we could move our country forward to compete with China over the next 100 years.
Unlike you, Howard, who (like my sister-in-law) knows everything about EVERYTHING! I shore wish all us dumb cons was mo’ like y’all. (parden me, had t’ spit out mah tabaccy juice). Nuttin’ like a hole slew o’ conservativ no-nuthins to brang a country down. the USA wuz soooo bad of a nashun befo’ the smarty-pants liburuls showed us how it is s’pose t’be dun. Now we is luved and respektid all over the hole werld.
Well Momster…
a. Never said I know “everything about EVERYTHING! “. But I do know a lot about science, I worked hard to get my Ph.D., and I know where both political parties pervert science. If pointing this out to you makes you feel slighted, I suggest you educate yourself better. Don’t know what else to tell you, but I’m not going to pretend that I don’t put in 16 hour days trying to understand how the universe works so that you feel better about yourself. There’s a good chance I know a lot more than you do about science – tough shit.
b. If you’ll notice, I pointed out where liberals pervert science as well. Of course, you need to turn this into some sort of political victimization (this is what politicos of all stipes do), so you conveniently ignore that.
“Conservatives suddenly don’t like science re: evolution (as settled as science gets), the inborn nature of homosexuality, AGW , social science that speaks to unconscious motivations and behavior, the big bang, and some go as far as a 6000 year old Earth, i.e., the most preposterous nonsense of all time.”
Well, I’m an engineer more than a pure scientist, but I grok science qua science, yet I’m outside enough to see the forest for the trees. I hope the holes in evolution get filled in before it becomes a religion unto itself, as it seems to be doing.
There are so many questions about homosexuality, yet nobody can perform definitive research because they’re accosted from both sides with doctrinal demands. “Social science” still struggles to find relevancy as a true science. AGW is at best bravo sierra, at worst a political fraud.
As a non believer, for me the rest of it falls where it may. Don’t paint us with too broad a brush.
“I hope the holes in evolution get filled in before it becomes a religion unto itself, as it seems to be doing.”
There are no holes in the theory – the notion that there are holes is just a political talking point or religious assertion.
We don’t know each organism in the tree of life – but we’re positive that the mechanism that made the tree grow was evolution. This is as close to true as anything in science is true, end of story. The evidence is OVER, OVER whelming.
“here are so many questions about homosexuality, yet nobody can perform definitive research because they’re accosted from both sides with doctrinal demands.”
The evidence is pretty solid that being gay is inborn, though genetic is a tougher call. Explaining divergent physical characteristics and population prevalence over time and societies becomes almost impossible if it isn’t inborne.
““Social science” still struggles to find relevancy as a true science.”
This statement is sufficiently vague as to be meaningless. The work has rigor or it doesn’t . Epidemiology and social psychology, e.g., have contributed greatly to science. Some social science work is not as good.
“AGW is at best bravo sierra, at worst a political fraud.”
There’s really no doubt that the planet’s warming, and there’s really no doubt that carbon exacerbates this. The real debate is in the severity at this point and timecourse.
“As a non believer, for me the rest of it falls where it may. Don’t paint us with too broad a brush.”
The brush almost always works, so I used it. Exceptions prove the rule.
Just as liberals rewrite history books to fit their own little illogical ans selfish world view, they’ll probably rewrite the physics books to accommodate silly little Andrea’s gaff.
Yes, liberals ARE that stupid.
“Yes, liberals ARE that stupid.”
I agree. but so are conservatives. Anyone who’s over-identified by their politics is sort of an idiot, and you can’t be an idiot and do science. It just doesn’t work.
“Howard says:October 16, 2012 at 10:23 am”
“…(Liberals) know so much that ISN’T true.” Ronald REgan
“You are made of STUPID.” George Takai
“BITE ME!” Crow T Robot
Isn’t it peculiar how liberals seem to know everything BUT…. science, physics, mathematics, and lets not forget the one they clearly don’t comprehend…..Economics.
“Howard says:October 16, 2012 at 12:56 pm”
That “everybody does it” retort wrecks your argument.
See last post, you mincing little fungus.
Is she also one of their spokesfools for global warming? I wonder if this guy’s space descent created a hole in the ozone and killed polar bears.
Wow, Howard the Concern Troll has made sure we are all equally ingoramuses. How egalitarian of you Howard. You may now go fuck yourself.
If you travel faster than light through an atmosphere does it create a sonic compression wave? Consider that he arrived before he left, a compression wave of that magnitude should have turned him to jelly on impact. ha ha ha.
KHarn:
“That “everybody does it” retort wrecks your argument.”
Maybe if you have problems with English or logic. How can claiming that everyone does it (and not everyone – politicos) does it “wreck” my argument? (Answer: it cannot).
My argument – that politicos of all stripes only like science when it suits their ideology – is unassailable because it’s true. Why is it true? Because evolution is the paradigm of biology, vaccines don’t cause autism and are safe and effecive, etc, etc. These are truths, and politicos deny these truths. Which is itself undeniable. End of story, thanks for playing.
And hating all politicos equally is not mincing. Extreme left and right are meaningless distinctions – you’re all over-identified prick idealogues. You’ll notice, there’s no mincing when it comes to REAL things like rationality and truth.
“Isn’t it peculiar how liberals seem to know everything BUT…. science, physics, mathematics, and lets not forget the one they clearly don’t comprehend…..Economics.”
Again – see my post above. If you think one side or the other is better with science than…YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. Sorry.
Conservatives claim there is no evidence for he big bang, that evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics and that the Earth is 6000 years old, but only liberals are anti-science?
You need to get your facts straight my man.
Howard, I could argue several of your other points, but we will start with ‘global warming’
Of course it is warming, we are emerging from the mideaval ice age, when ocean levels dropped an average of ten feet below levels seen during the Roman period.
You seem to imply manmade causality -an unproven assertion, and further castigate as ‘heretics’ those who disagree with your prepared position.
I am a conservative, and yet do not believe that the earth is only 6000 years old; I have never heard the assertion that evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics -and to judge from the present population of the world, I would say that ‘entropy always increases’ is perfectly valid.
Sorry, but don’t try shoving us all into some hypothetical mold you imagined one day.
Do you know why Doctors make such lousy pilots? (Check the FAA crash stats if you disbelieve me.)
It is because they feel that because they’re ‘experts’ at one thing, it follows that they will be experts at everything.
One nice thing about being a Constitutional Conservative is that I am willing to tolerate people who need a mythological crutch to get through life; just as I tolerate smugly pious windbags who have extensive knowlege of One subject and think that makes them omniscent.
“Howard says:October 16, 2012 at 3:02 pm”
Why does it wreck your argument? For example:
“No, Johnny, You can’t go to the rave.”
“But mom, EVERYBODY’S going!”
You also attack my word usage. Very well, I was useing “everybody” in a GENERAL WAY.
Attack grammer is ALSO a stupid retort. If I say “Your shoes are untied, that makes your argument stupid!” do I “win”? Regressive neo-commies are famous for CHILDISH attacks. Regressives also seem to have contempt for the scientific method; a look at “global warming” supporters is an obvious example.
Try useing FACTS and REASON and I won’t mock you as I did in my first post.
By the way HOWARD,
You can stop useing that “Earth is 6000 years old” LIE. That was traced to an AIETHEIST in the early 19th century who was trying to discredit the Catholic church. Today, only regressive idiots like yourself believe that ANYONE believes that.
Now, do you want to discuss the “global waring” RACKET? Regressives like youself believe that like a RELIGION. You can either defend it useing THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD or you can DENOUNCE it here. Be warned that many people’s lives and carreers were ruined by polititions and “climate scientists” for daring to speak the truth.
@KHarn:
Oh, don’t do that old “Global Warming” argument.
Go a little more nostalgic….like “Turning Lead into GOLD!”
I like that one.
Howard:
You seem to think that everyone is alike. How socialist of you. I say socialist but probably should really lean to Communist of you.
Isn’t that what the Communist ethos supports? That, there are no individuals but the significance is put on the “GROUP” ;thereby, attacking the belief system of the individual.
@Chris
At the spped of light the jump would have lasted about .000,128 seconds and when he hit the Earth it probably would have ceased to exist since his mass would have been near infinite. Of course it would seem that the commentators are hired for their appearence because they obviously are not hired for their education or intelligence. And for the record I haven’t been in a physics class room since my college freshman year, at the end of the Johnson administration.
And I mean LBJ, NOT Andrew.
There are no holes in the theory – the notion that there are holes is just a political talking point or religious assertion.
We don’t know each organism in the tree of life – but we’re positive that the mechanism that made the tree grow was evolution. This is as close to true as anything in science is true, end of story. The evidence is OVER, OVER whelming.>
No holes? Where is the fossil record that shows even ONE species evolving from the ooze? Point to ONE experiment that has made life from unlife. You can’t. It isn’t settled science, it’s what you pretended to scorn in your first post: science that kowtows to those giving the grants.
“AGW is at best bravo sierra, at worst a political fraud.”
There’s really no doubt that the planet’s warming, and there’s really no doubt that carbon exacerbates this. The real debate is in the severity at this point and timecourse.
There is doubt that carbon exacerbates this. There are alternate theories; cloud cover, water, sun activity, etc. A new study was just announced that shows that global warming ended 16 years ago.
By definition, science is never settled, and for you to claim that it is just shows us what an intellectual fraud you are. I notice that you didn’t mention your field of study other than “science”. Nutrition? Sports kinesiology? Geology?
The evidence is pretty solid that being gay is inborn, though genetic is a tougher call. Explaining divergent physical characteristics and population prevalence over time and societies becomes almost impossible if it isn’t inborne.
The evidence is not “pretty solid” because the debate about nature vs nurture is still continuing. As for doctrinal demands, the APA changes diagnoses in its manual every few years based on doctrinal demands. It only pretends to be a scientific manual. Same goes for mental illness.
““Social science” still struggles to find relevancy as a true science.”
This statement is sufficiently vague as to be meaningless. The work has rigor or it doesn’t . Epidemiology and social psychology, e.g., have contributed greatly to science. Some social science work is not as good.
Social science is not determined by experiments where the results can be duplicated. Social science is filtered through the biases and doctrinal lens of the researcher. Social science journals are full of the most awful crap. See any feminist or black studies journal. Queer studies. The work has rigor or it doesn’t? Speaking of meaningless phrases. Define rigor and how it is measured in the field of social science. Assigning numbers to a survey and running the numbers through SPS? Bullshit.
The brush almost always works, so I used it. Exceptions prove the rule.
This is just so hypocritical and smug it defies comment. Let me therefore use your methodology and tell you that you are the poster boy for the kind of sneering know nothing academics that conservatives despise.
Howard: you can’t be an idiot and do science. It just doesn’t work.
I give you one example: Michael Mann.
“No holes? Where is the fossil record that shows even ONE species evolving from the ooze? Point to ONE experiment that has made life from unlife. You can’t. It isn’t settled science, it’s what you pretended to scorn in your first post: science that kowtows to those giving the grants.”
Trickle doesn’t know the difference between evolution of life and the origin of life. But he’s a big expert on evolution nonetheless.
Exactly how the first living organism came to be is indeed not known. Evolution governs forces that acted on organisms once life was extant, and it is what happened. THe debate is over in science. There is simply too much evidence, and the strongest evidence is the convergent nature of disparate strains of evidence. Fossils, genetics, experiments, modeling all point to the same conclusion. Genetics was certainly the final nail in the coffin of any possible competitors.
Basically, you have so little knowledge about this topic that you’re not even in the right FIELD. Doesn’t this make you think that MAYBE you could be wrong? OR at least that you should do a little homework before making up your mind – or, for God’s sake, pontificating?
The rest is equally wrong, but this is great:
“Social science is not determined by experiments where the results can be duplicated. ”
WTF???? Experimental psychology? HELLLOOOO? Plenty of replication. To beat the band. And experiments are required for something to be science? Ever hear of cosmology? epidemiology? Experiments are required for replication? Epidemiology , cosmology, astrophysics, et al. observational sciences replicate findings all the time w/o experiments. Solidly, solidly science.
Your responses qualifiy you as literally scientifically illiterate. Seriously.
But this isn’t what bothers me. What bother me is that you pontificate about science while knowing just about nothing about it. You’re talking from a paper ass hole with no compunction whatsoever. And at some level you have to know that you don’t know your elbow from your asshole when it comes to science. But who cares? That’s the new America: don’t put the work in to actually know what you’re talking about, but bluster on and on as though you did. EVeryone’s a big man – big expert.
I may be smug, but at least I’m not a loudmouth igmoramus who pretends to know everything but doesn’t know shit. Go do some WORK and learn something, then maybe when you open your mouth something other than stupid will come out.
and the horse you rode in on.
“You seem to think that everyone is alike. How socialist of you. I say socialist but probably should really lean to Communist of you.”
Isn’t that what the Communist ethos supports? That, there are no individuals but the significance is put on the “GROUP” ;thereby, attacking the belief system of the individual.”
Wow. So anyone who generalizes to a group is now a communist. That is incomprehensibly inane. And I bet you thought it was pretty clever when you thought of it, didn’t you?
I’m not even going to reply further. If that makes sense to someone, then that individual is completely beyond any help whatsoever, and may as well continue to think this.
KHarn says:
“October 16, 2012 at 5:39 pm
By the way HOWARD,
You can stop useing that “Earth is 6000 years old” LIE. That was traced to an AIETHEIST in the early 19th century who was trying to discredit the Catholic church. Today, only regressive idiots like yourself believe that ANYONE believes that.”
Oh, poor Kharn isn’t aware of the spectacle that is THE GOOOOOGLE!!!!!
http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/2012-gallup-poll-on-evolution/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/key-age-of-earth
http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism#cite_note-26
I stopped here because I got bored.
Seems there are many conservative Christians that believe the Earth is ~6000 years old. Just like I said. YOu could have unearthed (get it?) this in about 30 seconds.
Hey Kharn,
I just saw this – completely by accident:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/rep_paul_broun_says_the_earth_is_9_000_years_old_how_do_creationists_calculate.html
No one’s claiming this, though – not really.
Hey, Howard, you remind me of a previous troll that visited here regularly. You make the same kind of specious arguments, and call us all stupid.
As for your evolution crack, show me where you can follow one creature from ORIGIN OF LIFE to present form with all steps. You can’t. You can’t explain origin of life and you can’t prove evolution. And all your sneering doesn’t prove a damned thing.
I see you are still unwilling to tell your area of so called expertise. What’s your PhD in? Home ec? Hospitality?
WTF???? Experimental psychology? HELLLOOOO? Plenty of replication. To beat the band. And experiments are required for something to be science? Ever hear of cosmology? epidemiology? Experiments are required for replication? Epidemiology , cosmology, astrophysics, et al. observational sciences replicate findings all the time w/o experiments. Solidly, solidly science.
Since when are epidemiology, cosmology, and astrophysics considered to be social sciences? Asshole. Shut your piehole.
“Hey, Howard, you remind me of a previous troll that visited here regularly. You make the same kind of specious arguments, and call us all stupid.”
But I made a cogent argument backed up by the last 200 years of scientific progress and then called you stupid. Big difference.
‘As for your evolution crack, show me where you can follow one creature from ORIGIN OF LIFE to present form with all steps. You can’t. You can’t explain origin of life and you can’t prove evolution. And all your sneering doesn’t prove a damned thing.”
You have trouble reading? Origin and evolution ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Idiot. How many times do you need to be told something?
And i don’t need to follow one line in the way you say to show evolution is what happened. That’s like saying I have to ride a fucking star to show that the universe is expanding. Science is a little more clever than that, especially considering we don’t have a time machine.
And we don’t PROVE things in science – that’s the first lesson Mr. Scientist. We have the best accounting for the data. Evolution is so superior at this that it’s unopposed. There is no other major theory (ID= politics, not science, and is nonsense of the highest order) that is so surely accounts for it’s field of study.
Think about the inevitability of inhertiance + environmental pressures = changes that were shaped by those environmental pressures (notice selection isn’t random). Look at how genetics follows morphology and taxonomy – look at vestigal genetics, look at ontological development when some of that vestigal genetics shows itself (why do we show gills as emryos?). Look what we did to dogs by speeding up that process! We selected, and they’re entire morphology changed into ostensibly different species in a few thousand years. Lab experiments show evolution in action all of the time. Bacteria becoming resistant to a chemical, then only the parents who have resistance to the agent reproduce and those offspring are now resistant – BAM evolution. How would iteratively performing this process trillions of times not sum in changed organisms?
How would organisms NOT change over time to meet demands of the environment? Life couldn’t carry on. Why wouldn’t processes that we KNOW happen in the short term sum in the long term? Magic?
You should READ a fucking book on the subject (becasue it’s very, very clear that you have not) and it can flesh some of the finer points out. No wonder no one trusts us in the scientific community anymore – people sit on their fat asses all day and then know everything anyway. Good grief — the sloth an lack of shame for said sloth. There’s enough deadly sins for a 7 remake here.
“Since when are epidemiology, cosmology, and astrophysics considered to be social sciences? Asshole. Shut your piehole.”
They’re not idiot, and I never said that they were – they’re non experimental science. You don’t need experiments to be a science, that’s my point. Experimental psychology was the social science. But you probably didn’t know that either.
And epidemiology is part social science – most of it’s methods are:
” Assigning numbers to a survey and running the numbers through SPS [SIC]? Bullshit.”
Maybe you can take the 8 minutes lifetime exposure you’ve had to epidemiology and pronounce it BS too. I mean, what does a Ph.D. in epidemiology (or biology) find out in 20 or 30 years of hard work that you can’t figure out in 10 minutes on the internets? YOu’re a real fucking genius, trickle.
[...] Moonbattery [...]
Howard, I argue a certain point and you answer with something else and then call me stupid. Hmmmm, feeling inadequate I see. You wouldn’t be so angry if you truly believed the science was settled.
“Howard, I argue a certain point and you answer with something else and then call me stupid. Hmmmm, feeling inadequate I see. You wouldn’t be so angry if you truly believed the science was settled.”
Only in your mind. I gave you a small serving of evidence of why evo is such a lock, and you write back one line of vague nonsense about me not addressing something – no work to find facts re: the meat and potatoes of what we’re talking about here.
Typical. lazy. politico.
And enough with the BS: many Republicans don’t believe in evolution and believe in a young Earth, and the scientific facts are at COMPLETE ODDS with this. End of story unless you’re dumb (guess what?). That was my original point, and it’s irrefutable. Unless you’re stupid – oh, mystery solved.
Supid+Lazy=TrickleUpPolitics