I don’t know. Perhaps you studied the effects of Carbon in marine mammal bloodstreams. “Carbon Chemistry” is not a major at either of the Ivies I attended. People don’t say “I got a degree in Russian Constructivist Film,” rather “I got a degree in Film” or something similar. So, until you can tell me what “Carbon Chemistry” is, and until you stop claiming victory without substantive effort to quell your critics, I call Ivy BS.
@Kimmo explains my position much more, ahem, succinctly.
The elite are the ones supporting debased environmentalism. Your argument is backwards. The war being waged is against cheap energy, needlessly. Those same elite created our high emissions era by destroying the Atomic Age, the very core of the original BoingBoing vibe, as illustrated by artist Kenny Scharf and as embodied in nostalgia here for old Atomic Energy science kits:
The tone of a death threat is noted, but boring, since they follow skeptics around quite predictably. It’s the cry of the psychopath in you, the one who longs for Cory’s Singularity, you know the one that toy versions of old 1990s era 3D printing technology will bring any day now.
https://cdn.discourse.org/uploads/boingboing/avatars/2c6/fe5/ac77d29d13/120.gif
“Yeah, damn straight. Organic chem has sweet fuck-all to do with climate science.”
A trolley BTW, is someone posting mainly to upset the thread, which exactly defines your name calling and call for violence. I read BB every day, having been an original print zine subscriber and having had my own product design featured here too. Studying a true hard physical science is alone what prepares somebody to judge not just the content but the scientific behavior of those in a related field. There is no such thing as climate science as a separate discipline. Gavin Schmidt, who I posted a video of above, Jim Hansen’s closest collegue, was trained in no hard science at all, just mathematics! Michael Mann was a geologist/mathematics major, again not a hard physical scientist, well, close enough, if you count rocks.
Ahhh, cheap energy. Nuclear, the “you can never, ever, get rid of the incredibly toxic and lethal waste products” cheap energy. Cheap energy, sure. Byproducts that remain lethal for 20,000 years? Not so much.
So you expect us to accept a disingenuous claim that you have a degree relevant to the field and not consider you a trolley? If you were just a lay person stating an opinion, that would be fine. But to actually lie or be deceptive about your training, it really undermines all of your evidence, even if it is all true.
Homework: fourth generation reactors, Bill Gates, and thorium reactors that were only abandoned since they can’t make bombs.
Actually if you’ve been keeping up with thorium reactor tech you’d know that isn’t true, and you would also know that gen 4 reactors are theoretical and won’t be ready for construction to begin until at least 2035, besides which their waste will still be incredibly lethal and toxic for centuries. Can we store it your childrens back yard?
When the facts aren’t on your side…
Please call my old lab mate who was recently chairman of the Columbia department of chemistry, Colin Nuckolls, one of the best nanotechnologists in the world. Ask him why he thanked Nik in the intro to his own thesis:
http://nuckolls.chem.columbia.edu/members/colin-nuckolls
He didn’t win the top Ph.D. student Hammett Award though, like I did though, his year, after there was a future Nobelist (Chalfie) and future president of the American Chemical Society on my thesis defense committee (Breslow).
On mainstream skeptical blogs, you have about thirty thousand propeller heads from a vast array of fields, crowd sourcing a knowledge base. That’s powerful.
You indeed remind me I have my own homework to do still, and here my facts become indeed mere opinion, based on an old Bucky Fuller tutored Whole Earth Catalog view of the untrammeled march of technology, one that Stewart Brand himself still embodies in his pro-nuclear outlook.
Congratulations on your awards.
However, that doesn’t mean a Baseball Hall of Famer will be a good tennis player.
Both swing at balls, right? (That’s the gist of your argument.)
I still don’t see what relevance your degree has in a debate about climate change, but you seemed to think claiming it was a good idea, So, is it relevant, or are you a liar? What is “Carbon Chemistry”? O-Chem?
Please, just answer my simple question. Illuminate my inferior mind. Don’t throw up smokescreens like “get my friend to vouch that I’m a good scientist” or “I won an award.” Neither of those answer the fucking question I’m asking, and it’s really irritating to be treated in such a juvenile manner by a pedantic asshole. You’re clearly smart enough to understand my question, so why won’t you answer it? Until you do, those of us with a decent grasp of logical reasoning here will probably believe that doing so will entirely discredit you.
As far as I can tell, your degree has nothing to do with climate science, as the only shred of information I have at hand is your labmate’s web page, and it is clear that he is certainly not a climate scientist.
What if my degree was in ballet? Would that change the fact that Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann promoted to the media a 2013 “vindication” of his tarnished work that showed no hockey stick in the input data, something even the study authors indirectly admitted to in the paper even though the authors then described it as a “super hockey stick” to NY Times reporter Revkin? Why are you harping on my degree? I spent three years reading the primary literature in climate “science” so I have educated myself, like any scientist branching out into a related field. Your argument is just bizarre. If I, as a ballet celebrity married a skeptic like MIT’s Richard Lindzen and told you at a cocktail party that Mann’s work was fraudulent, would you raise your voice like you are here? You yourself evidently lack any science degree. Uh…you’re just being silly. Desperately so. Gore tutored activists infest news sites with such calls to authority in a era of the toppled Food Pyramid, even…ridiculously. All those cries of “deniers!” made it trivial for skeptics to capture the whole of conservative policy wonks. We were simply nice to them because we are normal everyday concerned human beings, not fanatics like your side really is composed of. It pains me to see one of my favorite blogs going down with the dummies. Oh well. They don’t call it a lost generation for nothing.
Because in your deleted post, you claimed to have a PhD in Carbon Chemistry from Columbia/Harvard. It appeared that this piece of information was to credential you as someone knowledgeable in matters of climate science. Yet, it was a deception.
By lying about your credentials, or by implying that they reach into fields that they actually don’t, not only do you seem like a buffoon when an ivy-trained cultural studies BA (ha! sorry you spent all those extra years studying) and former middle school science teacher (oof that must hurt) close-reads your post, but also it weakens the strength of your claims. It casts doubt on all of your evidence.
Bravo, one doesn’t usually see such a textbook example of a Gish Gallop. And not a bit of it actually addresses the question of relevance of the credentials you’ve claimed.
No, it wouldn’t, if that had been something that happened; you brought it up here and I think that rebuttal is enough on that point. But you also bring up your credentials a lot, what your degree is, who might vouch for you, and so on.
Why are you harping on your degree? You like to mention you have a PhD in carbon chemistry, but that’s not a degree people offer. I imagine it means you studied organic chemistry, which has nothing to do with the atmospheric physics of an inorganic gas, but is being phrased that it sounds like it might. You’ve made fun of other people’s degrees. And now that you’re finally asked about yours, you disavow its relevance?
It says a lot about your character, although nothing you can’t tell from your past conduct - like inventing stories how climate science supporters are being bought with mansions or harem-girls, threatening you won’t support the ACLU because BoingBoing disagrees with you on climate change, and so on.
Discourse really needs a ‘block user’ action that hides a user’s posts, and all replies to them. Would clean this thread up considerably.
Presumably it would work on off-topic posts as well?
You’re quite welcome to your opinion, but how is any of this relevant to the original post?
Shouldn’t nations have the right to set health and safety regulations themselves, rather than having to accept the lowest common denominator?
If human-triggered climate change turns out not to be a problem, do they automatically lose that right?
If a small but vocal sector of the dietician community claimed there were no advantages to a vegetarian diet, should every restaurant be forced to serve meat?
A little digging turned this up.
1). Nik has zero credentials in climate science. He is an organic chemist with significant graphene experience.
2). Nik can’t spell his Ivy League major correctly.
3). Nik is a real asshole who thinks that Ivy League hours are different than “state school hours.” I know plenty of people who skated through their Ivy experience and plenty of others who busted their ass at public schools. I happen to have done both, so I can (anecdotally) debunk the claim that all Ivy hours are superior to all “state school” hours.
Well that’s playing the man, not the ball.
Nik’s greatest sin is that, rather than apply his considerable intelligence to the subject at hand, he’s chosen to spend his day crapping up this post and others with canned talking points on a barely related topic.
I wouldn’t care that he were Scott Adams himself, if he only had something original to add to the discussion.
You’re a trolley precisely because you’re derailing this thread into a predictable climate change stoush and distracting everyone from the actual point, which is the dismantling of national sovereignty in favour of a corporatocracy.
Have anything to say about that?
