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

[PhillipBlunt]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

My question is: What qualifies one as a "scientist"? Are we to believe that a Bachelor of Science from Cornell isn't enough? Working for Boeing as a Mechanical Engineer isn't enough?

 

Who decides?

Supposedly Nye himself. I'll fish around for the quote, but when asked if he was a scientist, he stated that he wasn't, and instead stated that he was a science communicator.

 

Really, it's semantics, as the scientific community at large, loves him for his representation of science, and he to them for their work in the field. Possibly he didn't want to state that he was a scientist because he hasn't necessarily been active in areas of research, as the average scientist has, choosing instead to be a representative via the education entertainment route.

 

Again......semantics.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Supposedly Nye himself. I'll fish around for the quote, but when asked if he was a scientist, he stated that he wasn't, and instead stated that he was a science communicator.

 

Really, it's semantics, as the scientific community at large, loves him for his representation of science, and he to them for their work in the field. Possibly he didn't want to state that he was a scientist because he hasn't necessarily been active in areas of research, as the average scientist has, choosing instead to be a representative via the education entertainment route.

 

Again......semantics.

he's a mechanical engineer. He's got the basic science part down just fine. 

[Tortorella's Rant]

People go after Nye's educational background all of the time because they can't take him on logically, argumentatively, as if this somehow disqualifies him from the discussion. But if that's the case then it's like, why don't you shut the hell up because you are even less qualified on such matters than he is.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

People go after Nye's educational background all of the time because they can't take him on logically, argumentatively, as if this somehow disqualifies him from the discussion. But if that's the case then it's like, why don't you shut the hell up because you are even less qualified on such matters than he is.

I think that's part of the reason that Nye deflects the idea of being labeled as a scientist, so as not to give the chuckleheads any ammunition.

[MikeBossy]

1 minute ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

People go after Nye's educational background all of the time because they can't take him on logically, argumentatively, as if this somehow disqualifies him from the discussion. But if that's the case then it's like, why don't you shut the hell up because you are even less qualified on such matters than he is.

Come on Torts - everyone is a qualified expert nowadays thanks to the internet 

 

Myself - I like to leave the science to the scientists (why I think Nye is)

[JM_]

16 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I think that's part of the reason that Nye deflects the idea of being labeled as a scientist, so as not to give the chuckleheads any ammunition.

plus he's not a scientist, he's a "science guy". Its kind of like "stable genius". 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

he's a mechanical engineer. He's got the basic science part down just fine. 

Nye understands the science better than any of us, and all of the politicians for sure.  He is not actually hands on in any of the science though.  He's reporting what other scientists are revealing through their research, and making it easier for the common type to understand.  

He's a freaky looking dude though, so (maybe?) that effects how others view him.

[xereau]

Will Lie for Money Guy

[Kragar]

5 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I think that's part of the reason that Nye deflects the idea of being labeled as a scientist, so as not to give the chuckleheads any ammunition.

Thing is, there is plenty of ammunition as it is.  People like Nye and Gore have been crying wolf for so long that the message is lost in the hysteria.

 

Al Gore deliberately overstates the problem because he feels people need to be scared into activity.  Bill Nye and his blowtorch are no better.

 

30 yrs ago, we were told that by the year 2000, rampant famines due to warming and drought would lead to huge reductions in population. Yet today, people around the world are eating better than ever before, including Asia and Africa, and obviously no drop in population,  especially in those places.  Since emissions continued to rise, and the threat of climate change was omnipresent, how was this possible? 

 

We have been misled so often about the data regarding temperatures, natural disasters, and rising sea levels, is it hard to imagine a little skepticism?

 

There is so much focus on man-made causes and so little on man-made solutions.  Since historical data and theory suggests that we would be warming now anyways, doesn't it make sense to learn to deal with the inevitable rather than putting so much energy and resources into mitigating the likely recent causes of concern?  Forest for the trees time, people.

[timberz21]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

He's never claimed to be a scientist.

#fakesciencedude ... better?

 

 

#sarcasmimpaired

[flat land fish]

2 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?

It’s pretty easy when you have loads of money fame/power to ask common people who don’t have any of that to make sweeping changes to how we all live.  Not just Bill Nye but in general among the celebrity activists.  I was reading some interesting thoughts on when we materially run out of oil the theory we will back fill with bio fuels like ethanol and bio diesel from oilseeds like Canola.  Interesting how none of these climate change guys ever go to the most obvious answer in that earth just needs fewer human beings everything else is just delaying the inevitable.

[HerrDrFunk]

14 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

It’s pretty easy when you have loads of money fame/power to ask common people who don’t have any of that to make sweeping changes to how we all live.  Not just Bill Nye but in general among the celebrity activists.  I was reading some interesting thoughts on when we materially run out of oil the theory we will back fill with bio fuels like ethanol and bio diesel from oilseeds like Canola.  Interesting how none of these climate change guys ever go to the most obvious answer in that earth just needs fewer human beings everything else is just delaying the inevitable.

It's probably because mass murder is a pretty hard sell for most people. 

[PhillipBlunt]

13 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Thing is, there is plenty of ammunition as it is.  People like Nye and Gore have been crying wolf for so long that the message is lost in the hysteria.

 

Al Gore deliberately overstates the problem because he feels people need to be scared into activity.  Bill Nye and his blowtorch are no better.

 

30 yrs ago, we were told that by the year 2000, rampant famines due to warming and drought would lead to huge reductions in population. Yet today, people around the world are eating better than ever before, including Asia and Africa, and obviously no drop in population,  especially in those places.  Since emissions continued to rise, and the threat of climate change was omnipresent, how was this possible? 

 

We have been misled so often about the data regarding temperatures, natural disasters, and rising sea levels, is it hard to imagine a little skepticism?

 

There is so much focus on man-made causes and so little on man-made solutions.  Since historical data and theory suggests that we would be warming now anyways, doesn't it make sense to learn to deal with the inevitable rather than putting so much energy and resources into mitigating the likely recent causes of concern?  Forest for the trees time, people.

Certainly a little skepticism is never a bad thing. Questioning what is presented to us is always a great trait, mainly if it leads to the individual seeking out information and theories supporting both sides.

 

However when 97% of the scientific community are in agreeance that the Earth is being adversely affected by not only the use of fossil fuels (which seems to be the only narrative), but also vast amounts of deforestation, I tend to go with those who present empirical data over opinion. What do those scientists look to gain from stating the facts as they see them?

 

Believe me, if science hadn't come to their consensus and the narrative was mainly being driven by politicians, it would be a far harder pill to swallow or to believe.

 

As well, what is the problem with choosing to find alternate sources of fuel and energy that:

• cause zero emissions, which are proven to adversely affect human health through respiratory consumption 
• are provided by seemingly infinite sources like the sun and the wind
• result in less waste (plastics, oil residue) that again adversely affects life on Earth.

Having cleaner air that causes less health issues in people and animals, knowing that the energy source isn't finite, and knowing that the byproducts of the energy sourcing is far less damaging to life on Earth (minus some unfortunate birds, sadly) seems like a good idea, and can't really hurt humanity on a large scale, even if global warming were to be proven to be not as serious as originally thought, which based on the scientific communities findings, doesn't seem likely.

 

Could provide some information regarding the misleading that has occurred regarding global warming? I've read some recently, and am wondering what you might have looked at, as I'm interested to take a look.

 

That being said, here's a solid article, The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming:  https://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming/

 

I like that the author, a scientist, includes views from those taking a contrary stance on the issue, rather than pretending that such viewpoints don't exist (which happens far too often these days).

[RUPERTKBD]

26 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Thing is, there is plenty of ammunition as it is.  People like Nye and Gore have been crying wolf for so long that the message is lost in the hysteria.

 

Al Gore deliberately overstates the problem because he feels people need to be scared into activity.  Bill Nye and his blowtorch are no better.

 

30 yrs ago, we were told that by the year 2000, rampant famines due to warming and drought would lead to huge reductions in population. Yet today, people around the world are eating better than ever before, including Asia and Africa, and obviously no drop in population,  especially in those places.  Since emissions continued to rise, and the threat of climate change was omnipresent, how was this possible? 

 

We have been misled so often about the data regarding temperatures, natural disasters, and rising sea levels, is it hard to imagine a little skepticism?

 

There is so much focus on man-made causes and so little on man-made solutions.  Since historical data and theory suggests that we would be warming now anyways, doesn't it make sense to learn to deal with the inevitable rather than putting so much energy and resources into mitigating the likely recent causes of concern?  Forest for the trees time, people.

About the timeline and the immediate severity of the effects? Certainly.

 

Outright denial? (which we are also "misled" about all the time) Not so much. Not when the facts are so easily obtained:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

One thing Gore had right: It is an "Inconvenient Truth". People don't want it to be true, so they deny it, even though the facts overwhelmingly support the truth of Anthropogenic Climate Change. We already have one poster lamenting the cost....

 

What the "money" people seem to miss however, is the costs associated by not dealing with CC. The fires in Cali and hurricane/floods in the east are just a couple of examples.

[PhillipBlunt]

28 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

#fakesciencedude ... better?

Nah. It still doesn't work.

28 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

#sarcasmimpaired

Man, that is clever. How's that working out for you?

[xereau]

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.

This is about power. Not saving the world.

Predators preying on the general self deprecation tendencies of people.

 

There has been several cases won recently by Tim Ball in the BC Supreme Court over deliberately falsified climate data.

Data that was used to legislatively coerce law makers into taxing you.  Think about that for a moment.

 

The climate models have all been devastatingly wrong.  Al Gore didn't exaggerate.  He freaking  L I E D.  For money. And power.  Gore owns a carbon tax exchange ponzi scheme!

 

The global temperature has not gone up in over 20 years.  It did steadily rise after a major cooling period in the mid 19th century over a 130 or so year period.

Carbon Dioxide is a byproduct of life and follows warming trends.

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.

 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

29 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

It’s pretty easy when you have loads of money fame/power to ask common people who don’t have any of that to make sweeping changes to how we all live.  Not just Bill Nye but in general among the celebrity activists.  I was reading some interesting thoughts on when we materially run out of oil the theory we will back fill with bio fuels like ethanol and bio diesel from oilseeds like Canola.  Interesting how none of these climate change guys ever go to the most obvious answer in that earth just needs fewer human beings everything else is just delaying the inevitable.

Well, if ignored and pushed to the backburner, the issue regarding overpopulation (which I totally agree with you on) will be dealt with by nature.

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes 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.

This is about power. Not saving the world.

Predators preying on the general self deprecation tendencies of people.

 

There has been several cases won recently by Tim Ball in the BC Supreme Court over deliberately falsified climate data.

Data that was used to legislatively coerce law makers into taxing you.  Think about that for a moment.

 

The climate models have all been devastatingly wrong.  Al Gore didn't exaggerate.  He freaking  L I E D.  For money. And power.  Gore owns a carbon tax exchange ponzi scheme!

 

The global temperature has not gone up in over 20 years.  It did steadily rise after a major cooling period in the mid 19th century over a 130 or so year period.

Carbon Dioxide is a byproduct of life and follows warming trends.

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.

 

 

And do you have a source?

[Violator]

Same guy somewhat advocating annexing canada in order to provide food for the united states.

[PhillipBlunt]

8 minutes ago, Violator said:

Same guy somewhat advocating annexing canada in order to provide food for the united states.

That was a truly strange and confounding statement on his part. I agree. For someone who is quite intelligent from a science perspective, you'd think that he'd brush up on world affairs, and the fact that Canada has roads.....I'll be on the lookout for his bow tie at the border. Hahaha

Edited May 15, 2019 by PhillipBlunt