Obama Says That Science Does Not Permit Theories

“It doesn’t create jobs when you go after scientists, and you try to offer your own alternative theories of how things work and engage in litigation around stuff that isn’t political,”

“It has to do with what’s true. It has to do with facts. You don’t argue with facts.

Obama Hits Cuccinelli on Climate Change Skepticism | InsideClimate News

Actually, science consists entirely of theories. In 1953, my father studied quantum mechanics at Cornell under Freeman Dyson. Dyson taught that quantum mechanics is settled science and well understood.

Then in 1986, my father attended a discussion about quantum mechanics at the University of Adelaide, when Freeman Dyson said “nobody really understands quantum mechanics.

My father responded with “that isn’t what you taught us at Cornell

Freeman Dyson responded with “I am older and wiser now.”

If people didn’t argue over scientific theories, we would still be living in dark caves – like where Obama’s intellect resides.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Obama Says That Science Does Not Permit Theories

  1. Ivan says:

    Imagine that – a hurricane hits the Philippines.
    Oct 22, 1882
    “Observatory says lowest barometer at 11.40 a. m., 727.60 ; highest velocity wind registered, 144.4 miles an hour. Unable to measure greatest velocity of typhoon as anemometer damaged.”

    Oct 21, 1897

    Dec 16, 1900
    “A terrific cyclone was encountered on December 16, when the vessel was to the eastward of the Philippines. The tempest raged for three days, and the vessel was absolutely uncontrollable.”

    Sep 27, 1905

    Sep 20, 1906
    Destructive Typhoon in the Philippines.Vessels wrecked.1000 lives lost in Hongkong.

    10 Jan 1907

    23 Sep 1908

    19 Oct 1912
    GREAT TYPHOON.Heavy Loss of Life.Damage of £5,000,000.

    30 Nov 1912

    12 May 1913
    The typhoon was the most severe experienced for eight years.

    27 Oct 1915

    3 Sep 1920

    12 June 1923
    Disastrous Typhoon.

    27 June 1925

    28 Nov 1928
    The Philippines have been swept by a typhoon described as the worst known for years.

    10 Dec 1938

  2. R. de Haan says:

    Obama should read this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/08/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-320/#more-97075

    Talking about flat earther’s, he’s one.

  3. kuhnkat says:

    “If people didn’t argue over scientific theories, we would still be living in dark caves – like where Obama’s intellect resides.”

    Strange, I thought Valerie had a rather nice home.

  4. X says:

    Good, well thought and well formulated theories fall when a bunch of observed facts contradicts them.
    It happened, for example, with the classical view of Mechanics and Electromagnetism, when the “tiny little” observations of the black body radiation and the atomic spectral lines contradicted old paradigm about energy transfer.
    The entire building of the classical physics had to be rebuilt, and *that* was a great thing because now we have Q. Physics and Relativity, which give us a much better and far reaching understanding about Nature than the classical theories ever could.
    Now imagine if we tried to explain the atomic spectra and atomic stability using some sort of “hidden radiation at the bottom of the atomic nucleus” (to borrow a concept from modern climate “science”) … it could perhaps be made to work, but it would also be the distortion of the facts to make them fit into the narrow perception of the failed classical model.
    True science is never arrogant or politicized.

    • Ivan says:

      Oh… I don’t know … how long did the “earth at the centre of the universe” theory hold up?

      • X says:

        What makes true science advance? A more “active perception” of reality by society?
        The theory of epicycles is perhaps the best example of a limited model of reality that could be repeatedly “improved” to offer explanations for a very large number of observations, but would never explain them as well and simply as the heliocentric theory. I believe the hallmark of good science is its ability to predict new observations instead of simply explain the old ones.
        That’s, I believe, how the heliocentric view is superior to the epicycles and QM and Relativity superior to the classical models.
        Politics can force old models to last for a long time, but not forever.

      • Ivan says:

        A more “active perception” of reality by society?
        LOL – good luck with that one.
        “Chinese astronomers watching the sky on July 4, 1054, noted the appearance of a new or “guest” star just above the southern horn of Taurus. But knowledge of star-fields was not necessary to spot this surprising visitor — according to records, the bright source was visible during the daytime for 23 days, shining six times as brightly as Venus. Those well-versed with the night sky would have been able to see it for 653 days — almost two years — with the naked eye. Other observations of the explosion were recorded by Japanese, Arabic, and Native American stargazers.”
        But there is absolutely zero evidence of the Crab nebula supernova being observed and recorded anywhere in any comtemporaneous European records. It just didn’t fit with the prevailing religious dogma of the time.

        Today, we are in exactly the same position wrt “Global Warming” – if what our senses tell us doesn’t fit the religious narrative – strike it out.

        • X says:

          Thanks, as I understand, you’re saying that science evolves when the human mind is prepared to see farther and deeper, but we can blind ourselves if we want and deny the perception new of realities for an indefinite time.
          This is fascinating, I think we’re about to learn important lessons not only with the “climate” but also with a review of the way we do science.
          I believe science will be rewritten in the next 2 decades or so, because of the Sun, the climate, etc., and the independent minds, the truth-seekers, not necessarily connected with any government or institution, will have an important role to play in this “revolution”.

        • Ivan says:

          No – that’s not what I’m saying. Science stopped “evolving” some years ago. We are in a post-modern age where “science” is nothing but an encumberance and a distraction, and independent thought is something to be treated with suspicion. It is more important now to “feel” than to “think”. Einstein knew what he was talking about when he said: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
          There will be no “revolution” so don’t stay up nights waiting for it – western society is actually regressing, and we are now just over the top of a bell curve of a terminal decline. It is highly doubtful that in a couple of decades there will be many who are still literate or numerate or interested enough to rewrite anything – always supposing that they could tear themselves away from “American Idle” long enough to do so.
          You are correct in that we are about to “learn important lessons” – but none of them will be welcome ones. Future archaeologists will shake their heads in amazement when they dig up the ruins of a civilization that had it all and threw it all away in an orgy of delusional self-loathing.

        • X says:

          @Ivan I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t understand why you’re not optimistic… to put it simply, humanity has always had terrible enemies, usually from within its own components, but we’ve always fought our foes and won, otherwise we’d not be here.
          Why would it be different now?

        • Andy Oz says:

          FWIW Ivan,

          I think Science (hikacked as it is) will experience the equivalent of the collapse of the iron curtain, the Arab Spring (sort of), the vietnam war and other paradigm shifts.. Eventually the younger cohort realise they’ve been had, this time by a group of warmist elites, and reject them en masse and take ownership once more of science and the technology advances it delivers.

          I see skeptics role as calling out the moron alarmists every chance on MSM news sites and other blogs around the world and showing them up as the fascists and sociopaths they are. Bit like the French Resistance v the Nazis. It takes time.

        • That is why the LA Times has banned comments from skeptics.

        • Ivan says:

          It’s a bit hard to see this in the world where I’m living at the moment. Most of the younger people that I have anything to do with tend to divide into 2 groups:
          – Those who think that the baby-boomer generation have screwed everything up and are now leaving it to their generations to clean up the mess
          – Those who think that anything that “reduces pollution” is an overall “good”.

          I would also make the point that the French Resistance achieved three-fifths of five-eighths of precisely fuck all against the Nazis. It took an overwhelming force to come in from the outside and do all the heavy lifting for them.

        • gator69 says:

          “I would also make the point that the French Resistance achieved three-fifths of five-eighths of precisely fuck all against the Nazis. It took an overwhelming force to come in from the outside and do all the heavy lifting for them.”

          The Resistance is comparable to us skeptics, we keep hope and our message alive. Mother Nature will be the overwhelming force.

          I was born in France and heard the untold stories of the Resistance, who definitely left a mark, weakening the Nazi resolve, if not their forces.

  5. X says:

    “… Mother Nature will be the overwhelming force…”
    See, for example, this comment of Njsnowfan :
    and my answer there, suggesting that what is happening is very similar to what happened in the previous solar grand minimum.
    We’d not be talking about the recovery of the Arctic ice, the records of the Antarctic ice and so convinced of our skepticism about AGW if the Sun was not helping us, *dramatically* I’d say.
    An important component of the “sensibility” of the Arctic ice to solar radiations is the lowering of Earth’s magnetic field, which is another example of Nature’s powerful hand in the events that are shaping humanity’s future right now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s