Back in 2010, the highest Kardashian Index in astronomy probably went to Myleene Klass, a supermodel who decided to do an MSc in astronomy. 0 papers, but even more Google search results than Tyson.
“Has Tyson done any real science? He seems to be a media celebrity, but when I look in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS, I can find no record of scholarly work in science, except for popular books and social commentary. Is he in fact a practicing astrophysicist?”
Not since graduate school (he did not successfully progress towards a degree at UT/Austin, and convinced Columbia to give him a second try). Aside from the obligatory papers describing his dissertation, he’s got a paper on how to take dome flats, a bizarre paper speculating about an asteroid hitting Uranus, and courtesy mentions *very* late in the author lists of a few big projects in which it is unclear what, if anything, of substance he contributed. No first author papers of any real significance whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence that he has been awarded any telescope time on significant instruments as PI since grad school, despite the incredibly inflated claims in his published CVs. He cozied up to Bush and pushed Bush’s version of man to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and now gets appointed to just about every high level political advisory board. To an actual astronomer, this is almost beyond inconceivable. It’s just bizarre. To answer Delong’s question, no: he is not a practicing astrophysicist. – Don Barry, Ph.D. Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
Comment: Remember that Tyson miraculously got into Harvard’s Ph.D. after flunking out of UT-Austin (but still getting a master’s). The Princeton post-doc followed, then the headship of the Hayden.
His daughter got into Harvard because his father was Cyril de Grasse Tyson, a big mahoff in NYC civil rights in the early years (HARYOU, later 100 Black Men). Anybody else who had a son who flunked out of astrophysics at UT would have had to go drive a cab or something.
Sean Davis at The Federalist has written some good pieces on the fraudulence of Tyson fils.
Tyson was indeed a research astronomer for a while, early on in his career. He then diverted into a role promoting astronomy to the public (and ceased doing research himself). That’s not a criticism, such people are valuable.
On the list of items, IAU Circulars (items 9 and 14) are not talks, they are brief alerts. In these cases they announce that a supernova event is occurring, allowing others to observe it. Note that Bulletin of the AAS entries (items 2, 3, 4 etc), are not necessarily conference talks, they could also be conference posters (in astronomy, conference posters/talks tend to have little standing in themselves, which is why most of these entries have no citations). The item 13 is a conference proceedings. Last point, the convention of last place on an author list denoting a senior role isn’t really used in astronomy. Still, he was indeed doing good research early on, with several lead-author papers in leading journals with decent citations to them (items 7, 8, 12, 16).
Here is a link to a YouTube video from someone who tracked down, read and comments on Tyson's PhD Dissertation. Bottom line: real even if he isn't doing research.
Science requires skepticism, lots of it. And skepticism is in short supply today. The culture of "science" is now "go along to get along".
You want a grant? Stick to what is accepted. And that would be great if what was accepted was essentially true. But from the Covid Natural Origin story to the Big Bang, the "truth" is not actually true. In fact, the evidence debunking the established position is overwhelming. You just have to dig for it (not very hard in the case of the James Webb data disproving the predictions from the BB theory).
But our science Divas are nowhere to be found. That is their real crime, choosing their luxurious fame and continued access over their duty to science. Rather than deliver true rigor and skepticism in a manner that the public could appreciate and learn from, the goal of most if not all of these science emissaries is to heap praise and grandstand on the established fakeries and falsities of the day.
Gobekli Tepe and the field of archaeology? Alzheimer's plaque hypothesis research? SSRIs and depression? mRNA Vaccines risk/benefit for toddlers? Inexplicable rise in all cause mortality across all age groups? Hydroxychloroquine benefits in early Covid? The people who could be doing a real service to society and the demos are just too greedy to give a damn. This refusal to follow the actual science is affecting too many fields of study to be anything other than a collapse in the moral fabric of society. Power trumps truth in today's Academia.
You might find this amusing:
https://www.strudel.org.uk/blog/astro/000943.shtml
Back in 2010, the highest Kardashian Index in astronomy probably went to Myleene Klass, a supermodel who decided to do an MSc in astronomy. 0 papers, but even more Google search results than Tyson.
You might find this interesting:
https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=91127
“Has Tyson done any real science? He seems to be a media celebrity, but when I look in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS, I can find no record of scholarly work in science, except for popular books and social commentary. Is he in fact a practicing astrophysicist?”
Not since graduate school (he did not successfully progress towards a degree at UT/Austin, and convinced Columbia to give him a second try). Aside from the obligatory papers describing his dissertation, he’s got a paper on how to take dome flats, a bizarre paper speculating about an asteroid hitting Uranus, and courtesy mentions *very* late in the author lists of a few big projects in which it is unclear what, if anything, of substance he contributed. No first author papers of any real significance whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence that he has been awarded any telescope time on significant instruments as PI since grad school, despite the incredibly inflated claims in his published CVs. He cozied up to Bush and pushed Bush’s version of man to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and now gets appointed to just about every high level political advisory board. To an actual astronomer, this is almost beyond inconceivable. It’s just bizarre. To answer Delong’s question, no: he is not a practicing astrophysicist. – Don Barry, Ph.D. Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
Comment: Remember that Tyson miraculously got into Harvard’s Ph.D. after flunking out of UT-Austin (but still getting a master’s). The Princeton post-doc followed, then the headship of the Hayden.
His daughter got into Harvard because his father was Cyril de Grasse Tyson, a big mahoff in NYC civil rights in the early years (HARYOU, later 100 Black Men). Anybody else who had a son who flunked out of astrophysics at UT would have had to go drive a cab or something.
Sean Davis at The Federalist has written some good pieces on the fraudulence of Tyson fils.
http://thefederalist.com/tag/neil-degrasse-tyson/
Tyson, the “public face of science.”
http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/02/star-power/
http://www.fastcocreate.com/1683635/a-tale-of-two-icons-when-john-lewis-met-neil-degrasse-tyson-at-comic-con"
Tyson was indeed a research astronomer for a while, early on in his career. He then diverted into a role promoting astronomy to the public (and ceased doing research himself). That’s not a criticism, such people are valuable.
On the list of items, IAU Circulars (items 9 and 14) are not talks, they are brief alerts. In these cases they announce that a supernova event is occurring, allowing others to observe it. Note that Bulletin of the AAS entries (items 2, 3, 4 etc), are not necessarily conference talks, they could also be conference posters (in astronomy, conference posters/talks tend to have little standing in themselves, which is why most of these entries have no citations). The item 13 is a conference proceedings. Last point, the convention of last place on an author list denoting a senior role isn’t really used in astronomy. Still, he was indeed doing good research early on, with several lead-author papers in leading journals with decent citations to them (items 7, 8, 12, 16).
Here is a link to a YouTube video from someone who tracked down, read and comments on Tyson's PhD Dissertation. Bottom line: real even if he isn't doing research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7f4MSSkDp4
Science requires skepticism, lots of it. And skepticism is in short supply today. The culture of "science" is now "go along to get along".
You want a grant? Stick to what is accepted. And that would be great if what was accepted was essentially true. But from the Covid Natural Origin story to the Big Bang, the "truth" is not actually true. In fact, the evidence debunking the established position is overwhelming. You just have to dig for it (not very hard in the case of the James Webb data disproving the predictions from the BB theory).
But our science Divas are nowhere to be found. That is their real crime, choosing their luxurious fame and continued access over their duty to science. Rather than deliver true rigor and skepticism in a manner that the public could appreciate and learn from, the goal of most if not all of these science emissaries is to heap praise and grandstand on the established fakeries and falsities of the day.
Gobekli Tepe and the field of archaeology? Alzheimer's plaque hypothesis research? SSRIs and depression? mRNA Vaccines risk/benefit for toddlers? Inexplicable rise in all cause mortality across all age groups? Hydroxychloroquine benefits in early Covid? The people who could be doing a real service to society and the demos are just too greedy to give a damn. This refusal to follow the actual science is affecting too many fields of study to be anything other than a collapse in the moral fabric of society. Power trumps truth in today's Academia.
Lol this is great!
I found a peer-reviewed study that answers your query:
A Comprehensive Review of the "One-Drop Rule".
Forchitte L, Sebastian W, Lu T. Curr Med Sci. 2020 Dec;41(7):1057-1051.
I have a question for you off topic. Why is Argentina's PISA score so abysmal? It is unheard of for a country with white population.
He accepts "Greenhouse gas theory". A theory that says water vapor does 3/4s of the the heating.
Which if correct says water vapor alone is enough to do most of the 'job'. On feedback theory grounds alone the GHG Theory is absurd.
Wannabe Tyson