[Just saw where Prof. Gary R. Boucher is or was an advisor to LSU Petroleum Engineering Program. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgary-boucher.com%2F&h=dAQFWiAnR ... but I'm not saying it's a conspiracy ... because it might just be a coincidence that he's an anti-climate change/global warming theory advocate --Richard Reynolds, 5/12/2014]
Check out my showdown with two Ph.D.'s from LSU-S. Weird, funny, sad ... Ph.D.'s at LSU-S are apparently science-denying flakes. Gary Bouchar and Liz Zippi, two non-climate-science specialists with Ph.D.'s who teach at LSU, don't want anyone talking about global warming if they're not climatologists -- and Gary Bouchard and Liz Zippi aren't climatologists ... they're just hypocritical snobs. I don't understand why they would do something so stupid like engage me in a debate on facebook ... maybe they had been drinking when they had their lunch together.
Here is our almost 30 comments, beginning with Liz Zippi, LSU-S professor/Ph.D.'s cheap swipe at Bill Nye the Science Guy:
Liz Zippi Do not challenge him? Why? Because he has a 4-year undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering? In what area does he hold a Ph.D.? (Not an honorary bullcrap degree, but a real doctorate. Doesn't have one, does he?)
Richard Reynolds He graduated from Cornell with a Bachelor of Science in 1977. He studied mechanical engineering and one of his professors was Carl Sagan. He worked for Boeing, later as a consultant for aeronautics, and occasionally returns to Cornell to lecture on introductory astronomy and ecology. He has a pretty solid academic reputation and probably consumes scientific literature with the voraciousness of a velociraptor. Many scientists and inventors throughout history were autodidacts, including Leonardo da Vinci and Giordano Bruno. Einstein was practically self-taught and one of his math teachers thought he was retarded. Bill Nye has a formal education and his record would be nothing for anyone to be ashamed of.
Liz Zippi Billions and billions of students can claim that they've had Carl Sagan for a professor. Melvin Calvin was one of my research advisors. That doesn't make me an expert in biology.
Richard Reynolds No, billions and billions of students can claim it, but many, many of those billions and billions are lying. I understand you're exaggerating, and no one's saying that a scientist can't be challenged ... just that for that challenge to be valid, it should be peer-reviewed ... and global warming and climate change theory have been more than sufficiently peer-reviewed and quite well confirmed. If you have a Ph.D. in climatology and you doubt the veracity of the science, you should publish your findings to dispute the science. The rest of the world's scientists will review your dispute and either validate it or deem it implausible or fallacious, depending on your scientific evidence. If you have a Ph.D. in climatology or any one of the scientific disciplines, you already know this.
Like · 1 · Yesterday at 2:11pm · Edited
Liz Zippi I don't have a Ph.D. in Climatology; I have one in Organic Chemistry from the University of Tennessee, and I've completed 2 post-doctoral fellowships at the University of California's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. I don't profess to be an expert in an area I haven't exhaustively studied, and quite frankly, it ticks me off when others do.
Richard Reynolds I know how you feel. Quite frankly, it ticks me off when people dismiss scientifically validated evidence for global warming and climate change when one or more of its many advocates don't hold what they perceive to be the necessary credentials. It's the same thing as if I were to dismiss your opinion on Bill Nye's advocacy of the proven validity of global warming and climate change theory simply because you weren't a climatologist with a Ph.D. I don't dismiss your dismissal of the evidence because you don't have a Ph.D. in climatology. I dismiss it because you present no evidence to dispute the validity of the science behind it, then have the audacity to say others without Ph.D.'s in climatology don't have any reason to support the overwhelming scientific consensus behind it. If you say the Earth is flat or the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun, you wouldn't expect a logical-thinking person to believe you without presenting facts to back it up. Global warming deniers present no scientific facts in peer-reviewed journals that are commonly accepted by scientists because their arguments against it are fallacious or misinformed.
Like · 1 · Yesterday at 3:50pm · Edited
Richard Reynolds Here is a link of some of the many highly reputable scientific associations (with many, many Ph.D.'s in every one of them) and their opinion about global warming and climate change, which completely backs up Bill Nye's supposedly pitiful credentials: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Including this statement:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
Including this statement:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
Liz Zippi I don't recall that I ever stated my opinion on the subject of global warming/climate change.
Richard Reynolds Then you just have an ax to grind about people without Ph.D's expressing their opinions. I can't believe that you're a Ph.D. at LSU -- I looked you up and you're listed right there -- and you would question the credentials of someone who has been a great advocate for scientific education in the United States for decades, one who holds perfectly respectable academic and innovative careers in the aeronautics industry without knowing anything about him other than you knew he didn't have a Ph.D. He has an undergraduate degree in science, and he's advocating for the scientific position, as anyone would who has any understanding of the scientific method. If you're not questioning the validity of his position, you seem to be just jealous that someone with a long-time esteemed career as a science education advocate is on television promoting science above superstition and conspiracy theories. I don't know what to tell you to do. Maybe ask them to give you his job and he could be an instructor in organic chemistry at LSU.
Like · 1 · Yesterday at 5:14pm · Edited
Liz Zippi That sounds good, except the role of a full professor is much more vast and their educational background generally goes far beyond that of an instructor. But, since Nye's mechanical engineering degree qualifies him as a climatologist, sure, I'd love to sit in and observe his organic chemistry lectures. Jealous of a TV personality? How funny.
Richard Reynolds This is like arguing with a teenager. That DOES sound good, except for the fact that many, many people go on to work in science without taking the time to get your somehow magical Ph.D. Because they continue their education through on-the-job training, they read and constantly update their knowledge on a wide range of scientific subjects in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who ARE qualified in their field, and many people -- even amateurs in their field or out of their field -- have widely influenced scientific knowledge. Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto and many asteroids, many others have become famous without formal, official degrees. But it cracks me up that you criticize him for talking about something in which you don't consider him an expert, a field where you readily admit you are no expert -- climatology -- and you supposedly have no position on global warming and climate change because you're not an expert in it (you don't have a Ph.D. in climatology.) Jealous of a TV personality? Absolutely, you are. But I don't have to keep defending Bill Nye to an academic snob with no willingness to concede the possibility exists that she has no idea what someone's knowledge is in an area that isn't covered by his/her dissertation. I will though if you do.
Ian Bertsch-Huber /follow. Richard, you're just roasting her. I have nothing to add to you're side. I just wanted to follow this.
Liz Zippi And many listen to a documentary and read a couple magazines articles and become self-professed gurus. Look, I gave my last exam today, just entered all my grades, and I am taking off the entire summer. You want the last word, or in your case, dissertation, go ahead. My break starts now. Anyway, it's been fun goading you into your litanies.
Richard Reynolds Apparently, only Ph.D.'s are qualified and anyone with an undergrad degree -- no matter what they're accomplishments -- are not fit to form opinions. Everyone without a Ph.D., according to Liz Zippi, Ph.D. in organic chemistry (who has no opinion or won't state her opinion on global warming or climate change theory because her lack of a Ph.D. in climatology disqualifies her from speaking on issues not directly concerning her Ph.D.) thinks no one should speak except in regards to their academic-approved areas of study and that silence is now required without a Ph.D. Hysterically funny ... but not funny in a way that would make you laugh with amusement. Just hysterically funny because it is entirely dismissive, by extrapolation of the basic logic of her quite illogical criticism, of all scientific accomplishments made by scientists throughout history who have not had Ph.D.'s.
Ian Bertsch-Huber Bravo. I entirely agree.
Liz, I am a student right now, I have zero certificates aside my highschool diploma, and am enrolled in only Biology and Mathematics (College Algebra). Because I am learning from an Ecology Ph.D., everything I've learned in my Biology course is false, because he only has an Undergrad in that subject. Also, by your philosophy, because I do not have a Ph.D., anything I may discover while obtaining my Masters ,or even Ph.D., in Biochemistry won't count, or will be dismissed.
Liz, I am a student right now, I have zero certificates aside my highschool diploma, and am enrolled in only Biology and Mathematics (College Algebra). Because I am learning from an Ecology Ph.D., everything I've learned in my Biology course is false, because he only has an Undergrad in that subject. Also, by your philosophy, because I do not have a Ph.D., anything I may discover while obtaining my Masters ,or even Ph.D., in Biochemistry won't count, or will be dismissed.
Richard Reynolds Oh, snap ... she's going to act like SHE was trolling ME by "goading me into my litanies." ROTFLMAO. What a pretentious Ph.D. She's finished grading her papers and has entered all her grades. Another generation of potential Ph.D.'s goes forth to be completely silent on subjects which they have not fully investigated by obtaining a Ph.D. in them. What an overbearing snob.
Richard Reynolds I think Ph.D.'s should have to get a Ph.D. in facebook trolling before they think THEY were the one doing the trolling. Liz Zippi, Ph.D., but pitiful little b.s. in internet trolling. Not qualified, Liz ... not qualified at all. ********
Richard Reynolds She'll be back. They always come back.
[Note: She hasn't come back yet, but her Ph.D. lunchmate does]
[Note: She hasn't come back yet, but her Ph.D. lunchmate does]
Gary R. Boucher I can't help but mention a few facts regarding these earlier posts. To start with I ate lunch with Liz Zippi today and she told me of this exchange, so I checked it out. Liz is a full professor of organic chemistry at LSU Shreveport. I have a doctorate in engineering and am also a full professor at the same university. I have noticed that a lot of people who are not specialists in climate science are taking a very verbal stand declaring that the issue of global warming is finished science. It is not. Many people have a limited education on this subject, yet make huge assumptions and predictions off the top of their head and bill themselves as experts. They are not--Al Gore is a perfect example. I would not want a mechanical engineer to prescribe a drug for me because they had read a medical book. Neither would I want to take advice from anyone who is not a professional in the field of climate science. With this said, I will say that I am not a denier or a believer, and I don't think from what I know Liz is either. I will say that for this to be settled science the models must work better. They seem to hardly work at all. Any weather extreme is now "evidence" for the "warmers." I am highly suspicious about anything that is so politically polarizing. If one does not understand bias even with scientists, they are naïve. There is plenty of bias to go around it seems.
Richard Reynolds No, but they believe the experts when all the experts generally agree. Okay ... now what I'm reading is that you're not an expert, we're not an expert, but because you say "any weather extreme is now evidence for the warmers" -- I don't have anything to do with outlandish claims some might make about global warming or climate change ... and I am so glad to know this about LSU-Shreveport's professors. I will advise everyone I know that if you want a science degree, LSU-S professors seem to be the ones you don't want to get it from. Oh, my frickin' jumping Jesus, DO YOU PEOPLE KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS? You're saying people aren't qualified to comment on global warming or climate change science unless they are as highly suspicious as a couple of flake professors at LSU-S who think global warming-denying or climate change-denying is some kind of academically admirable trait. You're flat-earthers. The science is overwhelmingly supportive of global climate change and global warming theory being caused by human activity, and you are saying that there is something "suspicious" about the rest of the world's climatologists -- the VAST majority of them -- agreeing on a scientific theory, implying that the majority of climatologists of the world our involved in some kind of conspiracy. That's totally nonsensical and I'm so glad to know this about what kind of university LSU-S is. Holy bat droppings! Science is, indeed, VERY suspicious! ROTFLMFAO!
Richard Reynolds Man, if I were two Ph.D.'s representing LSU-S engaging in this ridiculous argument with me and advocating against well-established science, I would just delete my comments. It's starting to become sad to me now. Just delete your comments. It's not about silencing skepticism ... science is about supporting skepticism that is supported by facts. You're skeptical of facts, disprove them. If you think there's a worldwide conspiracy by climatologists to promote climate change, prove it. If you think the world is flat, doesn't revolve around the Sun, the Holocaust was a conspiracy to give Nazis a bad name -- whatever ... PROVE it. (For the sake of whatever reputations you might possibly have, just stop. It's really just sad now.)
Gary R. Boucher Richard, it has become apparent to me, and probably Liz also, that what we are dealing with here is a real professional. Using statements such as "ROTFLMAO" and "Holy Bat Droppings" has convinced me that you are a professional in climate science. Was it a certain book, a pamphlet handed to you, or just watching TV that settled the science for you? Richard, you need a little help here. I have indeed not vetted you, as you apparently have us, and I have not taken the time to see if you even have an education--apparently not a factor here. But, regardless of your background, you missed what Liz and I are saying. What alarmists are presenting is a majority vote, as though science becomes settled by the group that has the largest number of ballots cast (no hanging chads of course). When you factor in the overwhelming political correctness factor associated with global warming, the non-scientific bias runs high. There is definitely a "Get on the bandwagon, or you are an ignorant fool" factor propagated by your group. When I look at people like Al Gore, I wonder how in the world anyone could be a bigger idiot. But then, I had never met you at that time. Here's where I have problems; I have little or no doubt that the earth has gotten warmer, but the warming has not closely correlated with the rate of increase in CO2. Increases in CO2 causing the bulk of the heating is still an assumption, and not a proven fact. Richard, it is not Liz, and it is not me that possess a closed mind. It is those who will simply not consider that with the past history of predictions, and failures in correlation still dogmatically push this as a closed issue in science. I invite you to come here to LSUS and further your education, after you obtain the necessary prerequisites.
Richard Reynolds See, this isn't a peer-reviewed publication, I wasn't offering you my credentials, and if it hasn't become obvious to you two global-warming conspiracy theorists, I couldn't give less than a tinker's damn about your misinformed opinions. For educated people you sure do know very little about science. OF COURSE science is based on consensus and peer-review. Are you delusional? You don't have to say the world is round even today, but you can't expect to be taken seriously. By scientist or layman/woman. You are, to put it at the most fundamental level -- despite your previous attempts to be wishy-washy about whether you two were taking a position on global warming and climate change and the widely scientifically accepted science behind it -- simply promoting global-warming and climate-change-denying conspiracy theories without providing any evidence of them. Calling Al Gore an idiot (and I haven't been a fan of Al Gore's ever, especially when he and Tipper got involved in the PMRC witch-trials) is not enough. I wouldn't suggest anyone -- EVER -- go to LSU-S if this is the kind of scientific dialogue two Ph.D. professors there promote. Thanks for the invitation, though. (And I really did catch your condescending insult about my lack of education -- anyone who doesn't have a Ph.D. and posts global warming subterfuge on facebook is obviously unqualified to engage in civilized discourse about a subject only qualified Ph.D.'s who call a former vice-president of the United States "a fool" because he believes in the repeatedly proven concept of global warming and climate change theory being caused by human activity ... along with most of the climatologists, astronomists, meteorologists, NASA, highly esteemed professional scientific organizations, such as the US National Academy of Sciences, and many international scientific organizations. Just because you're in the minority doesn't mean you're right. Go debate with your fellow Ph.D.'s at LSU-S about this. If your intellectual skills and Liz Zippi's are any indication of their capabilities, I'm sure you'll have an easier time.)
Like · 13 hours ago · Edited
Richard Reynolds Jumping Jehohsaphat on a leaping lizard, is there ANYONE AT LSU-S in the science department who can explain to these two intellectually superior Ph.D.'s what the scientific method is? WTF? (Yeah, this isn't a peer-reviewed journal, Ph.D.'s, so I get to use annoying facebook abbreviations. Like LMFAO).
Richard Reynolds Ph.D.'s at LSU-S ... there must be something in the water. He thinks I'm in a global-warming "group." I'm a part of the conspiracy. Boooooo!
When you click the above link, go to the comment section, click your "find" on your browser, enter "Liz Zippi" in the searchbox, and you'll come to the lengthy dialogue.
[Author's note: 5/12/2014 Monday, it looks like Prof. Gary R. Boucher of LSU in Shreveport just couldn't help himself and responded yet again. I made a scientific prediction and my results were on par with the spectacularly accurate predictions of quantum theory. What can I say -- I don't have a Ph.D., so I'm bound to be more accurate than Gary R. Boucher or Liz Zippi of LSU-S]:
Gary R. Boucher Richard, cute little hook you use, but you overuse it. "They'll come back... they always do" You used that before--probably many times. The reason I did not "come back" over the weekend was simple; I was busy and didn't consider you significant, nor do I consider your childish rhetoric and insults damaging or worthy of a lot of my time. It someone wants to get me worked up, it will take insults from a better thinker, coupled with a better education. How do I know you are relatively uneducated? You default to using crude child-like language when you don't have the actual skills to damage a person's credibility through your rhetoric. I am not a psychologist, but my best guess is that you get on here due to a fundamental insecurity. Do you need to prove yourself to yourself,and try to obtain some self worth by attacking others? Your problems are not really mine to be pondering Richie. You will have to work that out on your own. I was just watching a debate on CNN between your friend Mr. Nye where he stated that both hurricanes and tornado activity was caused by Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption or whatever it is you call it now. His proof was pretty well shot down by a panelist's statement that the IPCC stated that they see no overall increased activity in these areas. In other words Mr. Nye, the self proclaimed expert, just quoted "Facts" that were not at all facts. This is so typical. This reminds me of the WMD everyone just knew were in Iraq. It was a given. All the experts agreed. Even the President knew they were there. But time told the story, in that one fact after another was built on a house of cards. You invent terms such as "Denier" and "Skeptic" to marginalize anyone who questions the supreme wisdom of the herd. Well Dick Reynolds, I think for myself, and I have a right and an obligation to myself to question, even when the vote is in, and it looks like your side has the most votes cast. But, that is not really the way science is done though is it? I am now going to disprove another of your theories. I am not going to come back as this is a total waste of my time talking to Richie.
Richard Reynolds Garykins, you two sub-moronic Ph.D.'s started this anti-science troll and I merely responded to it. Liz started it by insulting Bill Nye's education ... I responded, she responded. We're all adults. You called me an "idiot" -- a bigger idiot, you commented, "than Al Gore." It's going to be interesting continuing this discussion with you for the rest of our lives on facebook. (And I was right ... THEY ALWAYS COME BACK). I didn't marginalize you two, your illogical rhetoric does that. You'll be back, Gareth, I know you will. I'll have you using facebook emoticon codes before you can start questioning the conspiracies of the theories of evolution and quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics. I have faith in you, Garren.
Richard Reynolds P.S. (Although, I am almost certain to a 99.998999% plus or minus 0.1% degree, that the P.S. is totally unnecessary) I never said that any one particular claim or piece of data or even an entire theory cannot be disputed scientifically ... you guys just have not done that. You're just trying to sow seeds of doubt about climate change/global warming theory with no plausible data to back up your specious claims. Write a paper, get it published in a reputable scientific journal, preferably one that only allows academics with Ph.D.'s in climatology to publish, that disputes the theory behind climate change and global warming being caused primarily by human activity through the use of fossil fuels, and after you convince the vast majority of qualified scientists that they have been misled or involved in some kind of conspiracy, then I'll give credence to your currently nonsensical arguments and excoriations against well-established science. And I apologize if my discourse hasn't been as elevated as yours has been ... but, as you've probably guessed because you have a Ph.D. and are a professor at LSU-S, my apology is absolutely insincere, Garyhairyquitecontrary.
Richard Reynolds Gary? Liz? I'm starting to worry about you guys. You weren't abducted by Bigfoot, were you?
Richard Reynolds Gary ... I was just wondering about your book, "The Goliath Paradigm" -- could you send me a copy of your manuscript? Are you still an advisor to the Petroleum Engineering Program at LSU? http://gary-boucher.com/
[Blogger's note, yet again: I know it may seem like I should not be so troll-like when engaging in a debate with two Ph.D.'s who obviously have lofty opinions of themselves and their curriculum vitae, but when you post comments on Free Speech TV's facebook page, expect no deferential treatment when espousing your Ph.D.-approved derogatory opinions, like Bill Nye's honorary degrees are "bullcrap" and former Vice President Al Gore is an "idiot" and the person you're debating is a bigger "idiot" than Al Gore. Expect the comments to devolve into the worst of all possible facebook worlds. And don't say you don't have an opinion on global warming theory one way or the other and then spend all your time expressing your disdain for the theory. I was absolutely shocked at the insipidity of their argument, the utter lack of evidence these two Ph.D.'s showed, their contempt for a fellow academic who, for them, didn't quite live up to their academic standards, to say the least. They absolutely have the right to voice their opinion about global warming/climate change theory and question aspects of its validity or to even repute the validity of the entire theory. But to deny it because, as Gary R. Boucher puts it, the models "just don't add up" is absolutely a preposterous argument. Global warming/climate change theory is, for those who don't know, widely accepted by most of the world's foremost scientists, many of whom were skeptical of it for many years before the overwhelming evidence convinced them. These two hacks, Liz Zippi and Gary R. Boucher, are probably very intelligent people who are simply politically motivated, or financially motivated, to deny global climate change and warming theory. I don't know which for sure, but I do know that if you're going to do this sort of thing, you bring dishonor and contempt upon the institution you represent, upon the academic world, because it is entirely disingenuous and contemptible. After Gary and Liz had their lunch together the day they started their Free Speech TV facebook anti-science trolling, they should have just gone home and read some scientific literature and data about the vast evidence supporting global warming. Like Al Gore or dislike him (and I don't really like him), he was right: the debate is over. The skeptics are now, indeed, simply the equivalent of the Catholic Church's Inquisition confronting thousands of Galileos, not vice versa. --Richard Reynolds
I love being called an idiot by global warming/climate change theory-deniers who try to unsuccessfully pretend they're not global warming/climate change theory-deniers. That Napalm smell ... that gasoline smell. Smells like ... victory.
ReplyDelete