Neil deGrasse Tyson Disgraces Science

This one came out about two weeks ago, but should have a home here with the tribe.

Consensus should not be mistaken for the ultimate arbiter of truth. In fact, when we look back through history, many of the greatest scientific breakthroughs were once considered heretical ideas. As a result, relying on consensus has the potential to stifle innovation and impede scientific progress.

Enter Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Enjoy as Chris tears apart the entire idea of consensus within science and highlights how disgraceful Neil deGrasse Tyson really is in the name of science itself.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Galileo, Einstein Vs Scientific Consensus

If Einstein was alive today, his theories on relativity would have been banned for not adhering to the Newtonian “scientific consensus”. Nothing new or different ever adheres to the “scientific consensus”, until it does.
Galileo is the poster child of the “scientific consensus” getting it wrong.



Maybe Neal just forgot about that Cosmos series he helped create?

1 Like

Top Scientists Or Consensus

I am going to point here… Both do not matter!!
Del, you had your chance and you could have destroyed his arguments, but you blew it.
Start off by asking some basic questions:

  • What is a consensus?
  • How does a consensus ensure all of those agreeing are actually based on repeated logical conclusion, and not some other type of conclusion, such as a social in crowd consensus?
  • Has consensus every failed us in the past?
  • What if we completely ignore what others think, and simply retrace the logic and the data? Do we get to the same conclusion?
Sorry Del, this was not your best work. -Travis

Science is the voice of reason.
Consensus is the roar of the mob.


Was Really Rooting For Tyson, But He Disappoints On Climate Change And Covid

I love the Carl Sagan Cosmos series from the 1970s and bought the updated series on disc to show my kids. I had high hopes for the new series but it didn’t make the same impression. Tyson has really embraced both the man-made climate change and COVID narratives and can’t seem to hold an independent thought.
In contrast, Jordan Petersen recently did a series of interviews with leading climate change scientists that aren’t afraid to speak their mind. I put the links and my cliff note versions of the discussions below. I captured the credentials mostly for use in debate with blue-pilled people.
Dr. Richard Linden on climate science

  • Academic credentials prof at MIT, Harvard.
  • Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist. He has contributed to the development of theories for the Hadley Circulation, hydrodynamic instability theory, internal gravity waves, atmospheric tides, and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the stratosphere. His current research is focused on climate sensitivity, the role of cirrus clouds in climate, and the determination of the tropics-to-pole temperature difference. He has attained multiple degrees from Harvard University, and won multiple awards in his field of study such as the Jule Charney award for “highly significant research in the atmospheric sciences”. Between 1983 and 2013, he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT where he earned emeritus status in July of 2013.
  • Was a lead author on the IPCC science report.
  • Greenhouse effect limited to the tropics and not an existential threat
  • No tipping points/runaway feedback
  • Mean temperature is a flawed metric as reported. The measured and predicted changes in mean temperature are tiny compared to the natural temperature variations at any given point on the planet.
  • The models are unable to accurately account for the complexity of the system (e.g. fluid dynamics) and make a lot of assumptions. Many models runaway and have to introduce artificial damping to prevent this which is not based on physical reality.
  • Politicians base their policy on scientific summaries written by politicians. This creates alarm where none is warranted.
  • We might have a climate problem in 5000 years and not due to the actions of man, but rather to orbital variations of the earth. (1:05:20)
  • Impact of CO2 is 2 watts/sq. Meter
  • Impact of orbital variations (solar radiation) is 100 watts / sq. Meter
  • Politics is driving the science
  • Clinton increased funding by 15x which has attracted a lot of unqualified people to the field that are chasing the funding.
  • You only get funding if you support the political narrative
  • If you try to publish papers that contradict the narrative you are blocked.
  • The 97% of scientists agree claim is bogus.
  • Yes scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
  • No scientists do not agree on feedback loops, tipping points, sea level rise, that the warming is threat.
Dr. Steven Koonin on energy production, climate change
  • Academic/Corporate/Govt credentials at Caltech, MIT, NYU, LLNL, BP
  • Dr. Steven Koonin, a University Professor at NYU, has served as the Department of Energy’s Under Secretary for Science, as Chief Scientist for BP, and as professor and Provost at Caltech. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Governor of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a senior fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Trustee of the Institute for Defense Analyses. Koonin holds a BS in physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from MIT. He wrote the recent bestseller “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”
  • Energy / scale
  • 43:00 Climate
  • IPCC
  • 57:45 Climate models
  • How they work
  • Human influences are small 1% effect
  • Earths surface temp is 300K, we are looking at temperature changes of 2 degrees, again 1% effect.
  • Not trying to model climate but human influences on the climate which is order of magnitude more difficult.
  • Looking over 100-150 year timescale, have terrible data about the past, especially in the oceans.
  • 1:02 Nuclear Energy
  • 90 big plants in the US.
  • 10-20B upfront investment
Impacts of Climate Change: Perception and Reality, Dr Indur Goklany
  • Narrative vs. reality:
  • More hot days and fewer cold days — Yes
  • Cyclones/hurricanes more intense or frequent — No
  • Tornadoes increase and become more intense — No
  • Floods more frequent and more intense — No
  • Droughts more frequent and intense — No
  • Area burned by wildfire increasing — No (area peaked in mid-19th century)
  • Cereal yields decreasing — No (they have tripled since 1961)
  • Food supplies per capita decreasing — No (increased 31 per cent since 1961)
  • Land area and beaches shrinking, coral islands submerged — No. (Marginal expansion)
  • Credentials: He was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a U.S. delegate to the IPCC, and as an IPCC reviewer.

Dark Ages

When I look at that interview, I come to the conclusion that we arrived back in the dark ages already.


Beware The Bended Knee

The opposite of science is consensus. Science is no more and no less than using the scientific method to arrive at scientific truth. Data based, verifiable, reproducible and transparent, so that anyone in the world can repeat your experiment and have the same results. When he discusses consensus, deGrasse isn’t really talking about science, but rather a faith-based and hierarchal system. To me it looks like he’s completely lost his mind.
I know how science became corrupted. A few years ago I was helping a friend write a grant proposal to study how and where ebola hides in the environment. In doing so, we included CVs of people interested in working on the project, and every one had a tortured committment-to-diversity statement. WTF? I’d been away from grant writing for a several years so it was all new to me, and shocking. Because the only real and true diversity is of the mind and heart…it has nothing to do with race, sex, age, or any other physical characteristic because the quality of an individual’s mind has nothing to do with whatever groups they are part of biologically. But here were all these CVs from men and women of science blabbering on about their support for a very crude type of diversity, in which every group must include at least one or two vaginas, one or two people with high levels of melanin in their skin, and one or two people who prefer sex with members of their own sex. As if any of those characteristics had anything to do with the quality of a person’s mind or their work!
My friend explained that the diversity proclamation was now de riguer for all scientists seeking grants. Kind of like a “Heil, Hitler” salute was required of anyone in the reich. He didn’t have a diversity statement on his CV because he wasn’t going to express support for fake diversity. He knew the scientists whose CVs we were looking at, and they didn’t “really” support fake diversity either, they were just saying it because you had to, to get work.
Unfortunately, this is how the world ends. When people bend the knee to things they don’t really believe in, they degrade their own moral sense and their ability to navigate the world. And history shows that the next crazy ass cultural dictate they are pre-bended for…and so on and so on until all the atrocities and genocide, and the bloody and painful fight for a return to common sense and individual rights.

When he discusses consensus, deGrasse isn’t really talking about science, but rather a faith-based and hierarchal system.
That is true. The "Enlightenment" was supposed to replace an unaccountable priesthood with a empirical system that everyone could verify. But we ended up with a new unaccountable priesthood. Now, instead of priests interpreting a bible written in Latin, the new priesthood claims the right to rule the masses based on a claimed "special knowledge" unavailable to citizenry at large. This is the very same "elitist" arrangement that did not work in the Middle Ages. And this new arrangement is every bit as corrupted, political and dissembling as the old one. We have simply circled back to the point and place of beginning.

Ngt- Is An Example Of…

Why science progresses 1 funeral at a time…truer words never spoken!

A Huge Disappointment.

I was rooting for them to a little bit. But I’ve noticed he’s been a pompous ass, obnoxious really. I am unclear as to how intelligent he really is in his field in science in things. I don’t want to respect any degrees or PhD‘s he may have I’m not sure. But his performance on Del Bigtree Highwire left a lot to be desired! And when he started arguing the consensus thing I got the distinct impression he just pulled that out of his ass because he didn’t like the hot seat. Men sit on the hot seat and don’t mind or at least the deal . They are made much stronger, better wiser, and more trustworthy for it. Why is everyone over there in that stupid world of a bubble in science and finance with elite people running around making everything look sexy. These fuckers have removed the manly men as best they can, and the essence of it, it’s all gone. Take the heat and be freaking wrong. What’s the big deal!??

9:00mins In: Cases Versus Infections

All that differentiation between cases has further qualifiers that need to be called out…
I’m referring to what is likely half of all the numbers that I am surmising can simply be washed away. They don’t exist. And that’s all the people that appear to have the infection, but because the PCR and or the testing in general was picking up as little as fragments and/or it was a fully a false oisitive. Did they even have an anctuve “case”? NO, is the answer with half of all numbers. That’s the presumption I have as a baseline. I don’t know if that’s true, I would love other peoples thoughts on just that…
They, the life sucking scum-maggots, knew what they were doing. Getting the numbers up high to keep everyone afraid. That’s always their MO. So again the bottom line question is, how many of those “cases” were literally not cases, but rather fragments, and blurred possibilities of a case??
Bottom line, the number of people that died as a direct downline result of having actually contracted and been sick from Covid, that number is as low as 50,000. Maybe less. and the murder rate for the lack of early treatment and intervention is white? 80% murdered because the withholding of early intervention? Again I don’t know I’m working inside my own experience set, so please challenge what I’m saying, corrected finesse it, mention stuff, whatever…

Can You Help Finesse Something?

When you say nobody dies of Covid. Can you tease that out even if it’s totally subjective, to arrange of totally died because of rapid onset of downline conditions that killed the person. All the way down to had nothing to do with it, that they had Covid or the appearance of Covid from a bogus PCR test. If you could finesse it out a little bit more Chris, I think it would be really helpful. Get that stream of consciousness of yours going and and out will come good stuff. It always does!

There’s A Human Design Answer For What This Mind Virus Is Being Fueled By

The Human Design BodyGraph has nine active energy centers, they are very much the organs and processes in our body. Three of them come to mind as I hear Chris talking about “the mind virus“.
The Head center, Ajlana, and Heart center aka the Ego. Humanity is riddled with the majority of people that have these centers open. It makes them incredibly susceptible to not wanting to be seen as uncertain, thinking about things that don’t matter, and allowing that to confuse things to a point where they just want a consensus so that they can stop thinking about things that don’t matter. That’s the Head and Ajna . And then the open ego which desperately wants to prove it’s right to prove it can compete, and it feels like crap the whole time. It feels its self less worthy if somehow or other, it has to change its tune. Add it all up and you get confusion about too many things that doesn’t want to appear in certain so it sticks to a mind virus consensus that can’t bare to be proven wrong. That’s literally how that works out.

He Knows Who Writes His Paycheck

He’s also no Carl Sagan, but he is bright enough to know the party line.
He knows the width of the scientific Overton window and is sure to keep his face squarely in the middle.
He’s not a scientist, he’s a PR flack.


Pluto Is A Planet Again

I remember him being real smug about Pluto being declassified as a planet kind of like “Because I said so”. It just has been reinstated as a planet, that’s the scientific consensus, that’s what matters. He seems to be in love with his own voice.



The timing of this situation is fascinating:
On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church.

1 Like

Ah, just watched the rest of this video. Chris beat me to it!

Lessons From My 6th Grade Science Textbook.

A scientist creates a hypothesis and goes to a two story window of his house. He begins to throw objects out of his bedroom window and notices everything he throws out his window hit the ground. He askes all his friends to replicate this and they all agree. After throwing many things out the window and witnessing this truth they came to consensus; If you throw things out the window they fall and hit the ground. It’s “the science” at work. One friend decided to throw a birthday balloon out the window. The consensus decided to say well we can’t all be wrong. We followed “the science”. Lets ignore the balloon scenario.

I thought Del was brilliant……got him in the trap and took him down….
Del has the best newscast out there right now….the Jackson report is always fact filled and ahead of other reporting….
Remember that this was a live interview and Del couldn’t totally control the direction of the dialogue ….especially considering Tyson’s huge ego.