Irrefutable Proof that Res Ipsa is knows more than Scientific Researchers

[doubtingthomas]

Res Ipsa: "If observed by Kepler, the sun would appear to be a "rather normal star of the non-periodic sample." Only if you include the periodic stars in the sample does the sun look relatively quiet.... the sun was typical of the vast majority of stars in the combined sample."

Kipping said on the video, "There's is an emerging picture that the Sun - at least as we see it today - appears to be unusually quiet compared to stars of similar type...we really do seem to have a quiet home star". What an idiot for misrepresenting the papers.

Res Ipsa: Your snippet from Kipping's paper is, unsurprisingly, misleading. The paper is strictly about the development of both life and intelligent life on earth and expressly states that it should not be applied to exoplanets.

Kipping said on another video, "My bet is that life is common, but intelligent life may be rare". Kipping is a complete idiot for misrepresenting his own paper.

[doubtingthomas]

I am very impressed Res Ipsa.

[Res Ipsa]

LOL. Pro tip: if you're so angry that you lose your ability to write coherent English, maybe you should step back and get a grip.

[doubtingthomas]

LOL. Pro tip: if you're so angry that you lose your ability to write coherent English, maybe you should step back and get a grip.

Of course I am angry, you made me waste many hours of my life for nothing.

Have a nice day pretending to be an expert.

You should call or email Kipping and tell him he is full of crap.

edit -cp-

https://www.astro.columbia.edu/content/david-kipping

[doubtingthomas]

But of course, you won't do it, coward!

[Res Ipsa]

LOL. Pro tip: if you're so angry that you lose your ability to write coherent English, maybe you should step back and get a grip.

Of course I am angry, you made me waste many hours of my life for nothing.

Have a nice day pretending to be an expert.

You should call or email Kipping and tell him he is full of crap.

edit -cp-

https://www.astro.columbia.edu/content/david-kipping

LOL. Explain to me how I forced you to misrepresent scientific papers? Do I have mind control along with my superstar intelligence? Be honest for a second -- you know that I have never said word one about anything Kipping said in a video. Nor did I ever argue against any conclusion he reached in one of his papers. In fact, I haven't criticized him at all. All I've said about him is that you cited one of his papers as evidence of the expected frequency of life in the universe, when the paper itself says not to use it for that purpose. It's actually you that's pretended to understand Kipping's paper better than Kipping. Not me.

[doubtingthomas]

LOL. Explain to me how I forced you to misrepresent scientific papers?

I am simply saying the same thing that Kipping said on his videos. If I am misrepresenting the papers, so is Kipping.

If Kipping is misrepresenting scientific papers, you should tell him that. Call his boss or something, Kipping can't be spreading misinformation on Youtube. The guy gets millions of views.

Don't be a coward.

[Res Ipsa]

LOL. Explain to me how I forced you to misrepresent scientific papers?

I am simply saying the same thing that Kipping said on his videos. If Kipping is misrepresenting scientific papers, you should tell him that. Call his boss or something, Kipping can't be spreading misinformation on Youtube.

Don't be a coward.

You are equivocating between stuff you claim Professor Kipping said in a video and what his published papers that you cited say. The couple of snippets you've quoted from YouTube don't show any evidence that he is misrepresenting the contents of his papers. And I've never claimed that he is misrepresenting anything. That's something you just made up as basis for falsely claiming that I purport to understand Professor Kipping's papers better than he does.

The problem is that you are so wrapped up in emotional responses that you aren't making a genuine effort to understand what Professor Kipping is actually saying. You aren't allowing for any nuance at all. You are ignoring the contextual differences between a peer-reviewed scientific paper, a video prepared for non-scientists, and a tweet. And you're so wound up that you still haven't recognized that one of your you tube snippets is in agreement with what I've been saying all along. Can you figure that out on your own, or do I need to spoon feed it to you?

[doubtingthomas]

The couple of snippets you've quoted from YouTube don't show any evidence that he is misrepresenting the contents of his papers.

Again, I am saying the same thing.

Kiping, "There's is an emerging picture that the Sun - at least as we see it today - appears to be unusually quiet compared to stars of similar type...we really do seem to have a quiet home star" and quoted the exact same paper I quoted.

I said: "The Sun is very quiet compared to other type G2 stars on average, both young and old. " I should have added "appears".

You said, "You reached a conclusion opposite to that suggested by the paper"

Your problem is with Kipping, not me.

[doubtingthomas]

?

I'll tell you what. I'll carefully read and analyze the papers over the weekend, and I'll prove how full of crap you are.

We'll see if Morley is really right about you.