Video: Science vs Bull$#!% With Neil DeGrasse Tyson

From Media Matters:

11 Responses to Video: Science vs Bull$#!% With Neil DeGrasse Tyson

  1. wili says:

    Another startling contrast between dangerous idiocy and breathtakingly obvious reality.

    But I wonder about the messaging here. Hasn’t it been found that when you present wrong information, people tend to remember it, often as right information, even if you immediately follow it up with the correct message?

  2. fj says:

    Just play the video again and again and if they still don’t get it suggest that they keep repeating the video while repeating what Neil DeGrasse Tyson is saying.

  3. Joan Savage says:


    It could be worse.

    One of the creepiest articles I ever heard about in social psychology was a finding that most of us forget our sources of information after six months and thereafter think of the ideas as “ours.”

    That seems reason enough to keep telling the accurate information over and over, even if just reciting it to oneself!

    We have to shape retorts to falsehoods that are really tight and quick, and quotable. Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s presentation had some arm-waving, so it prompts me to distill a purely verbal reply to Limbaugh followers as:

    Carbon dioxide gas traps heat, not light.

  4. Dennis Tomlinson says:

    At the end of the video, immediately after Neil DeGrasse Tyson finishes his explanation, the tinkling of the bell should be accompanied by the words “REAL SCIENTIST” plastered across the screen.

  5. Daniel Coffey says:

    Traps energy, including heat. One of the big items in the energy accumulation tally is the energy stored in ice as part of the heat of fusion. At 80 cal/gram for phase transition from 32 F ice to 32 F water.

  6. Joan Savage says:


    I’m having a chuckle as I’ve brought up heat of fusion several times at CP and Grist.

    The punch of the video is how to communicate the facts simply, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a pro. Let’s note that Tyson did not include heat of fusion in an initial explanation.

    That could come later, such as in a Socratic dialogue when the questioner asks, so where is that heat?

  7. The idea is good. The messaging works. Fatso wins. He has more listeners in a day that Tyson has in a year.

  8. Daniel Coffey says:

    The heat of fusion is a huge blind spot for those who do not know about it or think about it or understand the implications of what is occurring when ice melts as a result of a stream of energy which will not stop. The fact that there is no “off switch” for global warming is a little appreciated consequence of its basic physics, one which makes it particularly nasty.

  9. Daniel Coffey says:

    I am concerned that the comments thus far have not focused on a central weakness in using the term “carbon” instead of the correct term carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas. Carbon particles, the element, may well cool the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a greenhouse gas and causes the net accumulation of energy into the ocean, ice and atmosphere. Loose language allows Limbaugh to say something true but mislead the audience. Watch out environmentalists, like “climate change,” carbon is a word which is used too vaguely to be meaningful. Care should be taken not to fall into this language trap.

  10. dick smith says:

    Joan, you’re comments are always valuable. Keep it up.

  11. Joan Savage says: