Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on ""Bill Maher DESTROYED Him" - Neil deGrasse Tyson TORCHED During Elon Musk To Mars Debate" video.

  1.  @MrFurmos  LOL! The FACT that Scientific American would publish such drivel says all you need to know about the publication. Very low quality control. Also, I used to read Scientific American in the '70s and '80s. It went off the rails on climate change and has never restored itself in my good graces since. If they were right on any of that stuff, then why is New York City not under water? ALL of those models predict a planet on fire. NONE of those models, when applied to real-world data, succeed in predicting global temperatures. Start the model in 1900. By 1950, the ice caps are gone. Start the model in 1950. By 1980, the ice caps are gone. Every single model exaggerates the amount of warming by a little or (usually) a lot. The more doomsday the article, the more praise it receives. But point out that ocean levels are rising at the same rate as they have for centuries and you will be canceled. Point out how HOT it was in the 1930s and get canceled. Point out how most of the 20th Century was global cooling, from the 1930s to the late 1970s and get canceled. 1978 was the low point of global temps in the 20th Century, after trending downward for decades. I remember reading articles about the impending Ice Age in the 1970s. They didn't switch to global warming until temps started rebounding in 1978/1979. This is the so-called "Hockey Stick," to which all must bow and offer sacrifice.
    17
  2.  @MrFurmos  What we're upset about - and why Scientific American is now considered a political propaganda magazine rather than an authoritative science magazine - is that it printed garbage science, and, in my humble opinion, it has been printing junk/politically-driven "science" for decades. That was the point Maher made, to his credit. The fact that the garbage got printed says that the editorial board of Scientific American sucks. There's no getting away from that. Now, maybe that junk was rammed through by the lady who got fired. But that says that Scientific American entrusted a nut case with far too much power, and with no brakes on her antics, until it finally became obvious enough to the general public that they had to do something. That woman should never have made it that high in the staff of Scientific American, and it wouldn't, if Scientific American had meaningful standards and upheld its standards. If you believe Scientific American is a reputable journal, then why isn't New York City under water, yet?
    1
  3. I knew he was a fraud when I watched the highly-anticipated Joe Rogan interview. He got basic facts and terminology all mixed up. You wouldn't know it if you were a layman, like Joe Rogan, but I studied Earth science and mathematics in school. He was trying to "wow" Rogan and I think he succeeded. But to me, he came across as a bright freshman, who slept through half of the lecture.
    1