Bill Nye Loses HIs Sh*t to get Global Warming Message Across

[canuckistani]

Just now, flat land fish said:

So you think we can accomodate an infinite number of human beings on this planet?

Nope. But then again, the planet cannot accomodate infinite number of ants either. Doesn't change the fact that we can easily accomodate billions more people if we didn't live the consumer-driven western lifestyle. 

Western world is by far the biggest per capita consumer of resources on this planet and the western world is also by far the lowest in the world in terms of birth rates. Ergo, reduction of population is irrelevant to the global resource crisis. Western lifestyle is to blame, not # of people. 

 

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, nux4lyfe said:

What a bunch of lunatics in this thread..Bill Nye used to showcase crap I learned in gr 9 science class and Now he is a genius!..Just another puppet being told what to say.

I'll bite.  By whom?

[thedestroyerofworlds]

4 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I'll bite.  By whom?

They.  The elites.  The Illuminati.  That is about as specific as you will get.

 

In the deniers world, it's all a scam so a bunch of "scientists" can keep their cushy jobs.  

 

Except companies like Exxon, who have studied climate change for decades, would have evidence that human caused climate change is b.s.

 

Publishing this info (that human caused climate change is b.s.) would be a master stroke for the executives at Exxon.  Ole Rex would have seen massive gains in Exxon stock value, as this information would eliminate liability for Exxon.  Anyone who thinks human caused climate change doesn't represent a massive liability for companies like Exxon isn't informed.  Even the US Department of Defense sees climate change as a real threat to national security.

[Wilbur]

8 hours ago, xereau said:

This is the proverbial lie so big you can't believe it is possibly not real.

It is religious dogma being pushed by priests of power in lab coats.

Go back to the start of the drama, and you see the same people freaking that we were about to enter an ice age in the 70's unless we gave them all our money to save the world.

 

Human CO2 production has steadily increased, but at rates far below the levels seen in the rise in atmospheric CO2.  In other words, there is a CO2 production gap anomale in the data that can NOT be explained solely by human activity.  This is the big part of the scam that you are never meant to hear, never meant to consume through the coloquial hysteria vomited out by the lying media and collaborator alarmist consensus mongers.  Skepticism is the very heart of science, yet postmodern identity politics is at play here for anyone that "denies" (is a skeptic) is a labelled a social pariah and a heathen.  These are the zealous words and actions of a religion, and not science.

 

 

The "Ice Age" theory came from two things:  1)  changes in the Earth's orbit  2) the cooling effect from smog aerosols.  If it wasn't for our extra CO2 we could've seen some cooling but we keep on blasting it up there so...yeah.

 

As for less atmospheric C02 than expected, that's because the oceans have been absorbing most of it (as well as a lot of the heat).  The oceans won't be able to absorb forever though.

 

As for the "production gap", before humans were on the planet the Earth's climate changed due to fluctuations in energy from the sun (mainly from orbital variations) as well as volcanic eruptions.  Focusing on the fluctuations from the sun, yes, temperature would rise a bit first, warming the oceans.  As the oceans warmed they would release more of their carbon dioxide starting a feed back loop to even more warming.  CO2 in the atmosphere does cause warming, otherwise we'd be as cold as the moon.

[Gurn]

7 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

 

5 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

How most kids in the Pacific Northwest were introduced to Soundgarden.

 

5 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

lol and Soul Asylum(i think). 

'Lame'

'So lame'

'Dude that was bodaciously lame' 

 

Most nights that show was better than SNL

 

5 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

You're right, probably just someone who looked like the lead singer

 

And here's the part about Bill Nye

Also forgot about:

 

Absolutely loved this show, and yes it was funnier than SNL.

 

[canuckistani]

17 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

The "Ice Age" theory came from two things:  1)  changes in the Earth's orbit  2) the cooling effect from smog aerosols.  If it wasn't for our extra CO2 we could've seen some cooling but we keep on blasting it up there so...yeah. 

That is speculative, since rise in CO2 in geological history is not causal to temperature rise. Rather, temperature rise causes rise in CO2 levels due to expansion of water in hotter temperature, causing oceans to release more CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans contain something like 1 million times the more CO2 in them than the atmosphere.

17 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

 

As for the "production gap", before humans were on the planet the Earth's climate changed due to fluctuations in energy from the sun (mainly from orbital variations) as well as volcanic eruptions.  Focusing on the fluctuations from the sun, yes, temperature would rise a bit first, warming the oceans.  As the oceans warmed they would release more of their carbon dioxide starting a feed back loop to even more warming.  CO2 in the atmosphere does cause warming, otherwise we'd be as cold as the moon.

Yep. The evidence is that as the earth warms up, oceans release CO2. Not as more CO2 exists in the atmosphere the earth warms up. While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there simply hasnt been enough CO2 produced to cause the warming effects we see. I suggest you investigate the Milankovich cycles, which are far more correlative to the rise and fall of temperatures in earth over its geological history.

[Nuxfanabroad]

As the SHTF, folks'll start to believe. Ones who are well off, are always the voices trying to silence/quell CC issues. They don't wanna upset their(privileged, entitled?) apple carts.

 

Mother Nature don't do bailouts..so it's not like we can print more toilet paper currency, & shop our way outa' this predicament!

 

For about 6 or 7 decades western civ could stickhandle around big dilemmas. Print more coin.. bully some lesser nations..start a war..whatever? So folks have a normalcy bias telling them that we can play things by rules we simply adapt, to always come out on top.

 

Not this time. Jig's almost up.

[Lancaster]

This video has a pretty good break down of the "97% of all scientists" mantra used all the time.  

 

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

That is speculative, since rise in CO2 in geological history is not causal to temperature rise. Rather, temperature rise causes rise in CO2 levels due to expansion of water in hotter temperature, causing oceans to release more CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans contain something like 1 million times the more CO2 in them than the atmosphere.

Yep. The evidence is that as the earth warms up, oceans release CO2. Not as more CO2 exists in the atmosphere the earth warms up. While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there simply hasnt been enough CO2 produced to cause the warming effects we see. I suggest you investigate the Milankovich cycles, which are far more correlative to the rise and fall of temperatures in earth over its geological history.

I'm aware of the Milankovich cycles, that is what I was referring to when speaking of orbital variations.  When those variations take us farther away from the sun, we tend to enter a ice age.  When those variations take us closer to the sun, the oceans warm causing them to release more CO2, which then acts as a positive feedback and causes more warming until a new equilibrium is reached.  Humans are constantly messing with this equilibrium for the last 250 or so years by steadily pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

[canuckistani]

4 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I'm aware of the Milankovich cycles, that is what I was referring to when speaking of orbital variations.  When those variations take us farther away from the sun, we tend to enter a ice age.  When those variations take us closer to the sun, the oceans warm causing them to release more CO2, which then acts as a positive feedback and causes more warming until a new equilibrium is reached.  Humans are constantly messing with this equilibrium for the last 250 or so years by steadily pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Err, the CO2 is released from the oceans due to the warming of the oceans in the perigee phase ( closest to the sun) of the cycle. The warming comes first, which is what is indicated in the geological data. We may be pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, but a large chunk of that is being eaten up by the greening of the planet ( biota boom on the planet). 

[Wilbur]

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Err, the CO2 is released from the oceans due to the warming of the oceans in the perigee phase ( closest to the sun) of the cycle. The warming comes first, which is what is indicated in the geological data. We may be pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, but a large chunk of that is being eaten up by the greening of the planet ( biota boom on the planet). 

Just because historically the warming came first doesn't mean CO2 doesn't trap heat cause warming.  They both play their part.  The heat trapped from rising CO2 levels is what helps the Earth get out of the past ice ages.  I quickly searched where we were currently in the Milankovitch cycle and it appears we should be cooling geologically slowly (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles).  Clearly that's not what we are seeing, because greenhouse gasses are driving this time.  And yes, the CO2 has gone into the oceans, it has gone into plant life, but it is also going into the atmosphere at (as far as we know) an unprecedented rate.

[canuckistani]

14 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Just because historically the warming came first doesn't mean CO2 doesn't trap heat cause warming.  They both play their part.

They may both play their part, but the governing dynamics and the dominant principle, according to data, is heating comes first, releasing CO2. Not CO2 trapping heat to raise temperature first. 

14 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

  The heat trapped from rising CO2 levels is what helps the Earth get out of the past ice ages.

No. The heating caused due to the perigee of the earth is what gets earth out of the ice ages, which raises ocean temperature and releases CO2. This is what the data shows us. 

14 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

  I quickly searched where we were currently in the Milankovitch cycle and it appears we should be cooling geologically slowly (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles).  Clearly that's not what we are seeing, because greenhouse gasses are driving this time.  And yes, the CO2 has gone into the oceans, it has gone into plant life, but it is also going into the atmosphere at (as far as we know) an unprecedented rate.

Not an unprecedented rate at all. Previous apogees of Milankovic cycles have seen far bigger pulses of CO2 into the atmosphere. I checked the site you posted - their long term graph is absolute nonsense. You cannot have the x-axis margin in KYBP  intervals of 100, meaning 100,000 years before present ( Kilo Year Before Present) and then shoe-horn the last 100 years ( 1/1000th the timeframe) into the same axis. This would get a decisive 0/10 in grade 10 math where i come from and a stern lecture for misrepresenting the data. 

[mpt]

14 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Bill Nye is a very well accredited Science professor, who has loads and loads of money and fame......

 

What do you have Jack?

LOL Bill Nye has a Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering, yet he’s a Science professor with an expertise in global warming?  Just because you have loads of money and fame doesn’t mean you aren’t a goof.   Just because he has a Bachelor degree in Science and hosted a kids TV show, means you can appeal to his authority to say he’s opinion is more valid?  Good argument, very persuasive.

[mpt]

14 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Solid contribution.

I think the conclusion speaks for itself.  A mechanical engineer whom hosted a kids TV show turned celebrity figure whom now is an expert on global warming losing his $&!# and says if you dont agree with everything I say, then you are a climate change denier.  Yea, Bill Nye is a goof.  Why waste time, when the conclusion is solid.

[Guest]

Just now, mpt said:

LOL Bill Nye has a Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering, yet he’s a Science professor with an expertise in global warming?  Just because you have loads of money and fame doesn’t mean you aren’t a goof.   Just because he has a Bachelor degree in Science and hosted a kids TV show, means you can appeal to his authority to say he’s opinion is more valid?  Good argument, very persuasive.

Are you trying to suggest that what Nye states isn’t representative of the scientific community? 

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mpt said:

I think the conclusion speaks for itself.  A mechanical engineer whom hosted a kids TV show turned celebrity figure whom now is an expert on global warming losing his $&!# and says if you dont agree with everything I say, then you are a climate change denier.  Yea, Bill Nye is a goof.  Why waste time, when the conclusion is solid.

You are literally attacking his character without reference to what he presents and yet you’re trying to form an argument on the basis of a logical fallacy? Are you real?

 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

4 minutes ago, Jack_T said:

Are you trying to suggest that what Nye states isn’t representative of the scientific community? 

 

 

I think he is suggesting it. 

[mpt]

6 minutes ago, Jack_T said:

Are you trying to suggest that what Nye states isn’t representative of the scientific community? 

 

 

Yes, I’m not a climate change denier, but there is no consensus that the world will increase 6 degrees in 100 years and Bill Nye’s plan to fix the problem costs a crap tonne of money and changes the problem by less than 0.5 degrees.  Come up with a better plan Bill.

 

These “Scientists” like Bill are just pushing for more government funding so they can get more work, higher salaries and job security for the rest of their careers.  If you don’t change China and India nothing we do in the West will be able to address the problem.  

Edited May 16, 2019 by mpt

[mpt]

1 minute ago, Jack_T said:

You are literally attacking his character without reference to what he presents and yet you’re trying to form an argument on the basis of a logical fallacy? Are you real?

 

 

Actually there are a lot of references to what he presents.  A simple google search will reveal what he has continuously said about climate change.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mpt said:

Yes, I’m not a climate change denier, there is no consensus that the world will increase 6 degrees in 100 years and Bill Nye’s plan to fix the problem costs a crap tonne of money and changes the problem by less than 0.5 degrees.  Come up with a better plan Bill.

 

These “Scientists” like Bill are just pushing for more government funding so they can get more work, higher salaries and job security for the rest of their careers.  If you don’t change China and India nothing we do in the West will be able to address the problem.  

Do you actually believe that there is such a shortage of ecological problems in the world that academia has to resort to fabricating crises for funding?

 

Give your head a shake.