Bill Nye and his new Climate Change role

For some reason, Bill Nye is on his way back into news lately. We all remember him for his role in his science show. He gained our trust as children and young adults with his show and fell off the map for a while.

With a brief role on Dancing With the Stars, he then again kinda burnt out.

Well more recently he appeared in a debate against a devout christian, Ken Ham. I am not going to bring up a church debate, but we can all agree that Bill Nye massacred him with direct facts and science to back him up.

Now Bill Nye has mounted his climate change horse, and is riding throughout different news networks talking of impending weather doom.

I agree that the world is being polluted. Between fracking, drilling for oil, smog in large cities, floating masses of plastic in our oceans, and deforestation, there is definitely an imbalance of nature.

But Al Gore has been falsifying his "facts" and trying to push us into fearing carbon dioxide, and taxing us by how big our carbon footprint is. This is literally an exhale tax.

So my discussion topic is, do you think Bill Nye was given the Ken Ham debate on purpose? This way he could look smart, dominate in a debate, and carry over our admiration and trust into the climate change debate?

With new revelations coming out on alternative news blogs and the like .Story's like the 97% consensus being one of the latest papers being put to the chopping block because of less then ethical standards and just down right bad science if you can even call it science . It's so easy for most of us to be fooled into our own demise . This is one of the latest vid that shows who and what they are willing to do and say for a buck . a reply to: oneupShadow

a reply to: oneupShadow

Bill Nye has found a way to become popular again and make some bucks. He has hitched his wagon to Climate Change. It made Al Gore mega-rich, why can't Bill get some of that cash too?

a reply to: oneupShadow

So my discussion topic is, do you think Bill Nye was given the Ken Ham debate on purpose? This way he could look smart, dominate in a debate, and carry over our admiration and trust into the climate change debate?

Thats why they build media personalities. To sell their agenda. Which they do with zeal. The trick for an "actor" is to get work. The trick for advertising (politics or product) is to find the trusted personage to sell it.

If you have seen TV commercials they use actors late in their career for one final push of some product. Look at henry Winkler selling Reverse Mortgage for instance. You buy it better because you trust "The Fonz".

Less today because it doesn't work as well as it did in the past. In my day the news personalities like Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters were constant companions in our living rooms and dinner tables. They know exactly what they are doing by presenting Famous "stars" to bark at us for money or votes. Reagan, Schwarzenegger and other "Hollywooders" show how we vote for them because we "know" them.

"And thats the way it is."

a reply to: the2ofusr1


thought i would just add a link to the paper your talking about, and a link where at least eight scientists say that their papers sited in the report are not supportive of global warming and that the authors of the report misrepresented their findings.

this is the paper i think your talking about.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

and here is the link where the eight rebut the claim

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
Craig D. Idso Ph.D.
Geography Chairman,
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change -


What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcing.
Nicola Scafetta
Ph.D. Physics
Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

A revealing video. Busted them buggers using their hollywood influence to sell America for money. Not very much money either. Muriel Hemingway meets "Muhammad". She mentions her half million twitter followers and even sells herself at the end with a shrug of her shoulders, "I could be the secret American wife."

I thought and have felt for quite some time now that there is an agenda against religion. I can't quite pinpoint why but a debate against a man who believes the earth is 6000 years old hardly represents the side of religion. Nye is just selling the science side that TPTB pat young minds on the head because they recite the "facts" they've been given about everything. Global Warming is just another scam. Why should I be taxed because large corporations are polluiting? Is man even having that much of an effect? And hasn't the Earth been both colder and warmer than our current state under natural circumstances?

I don't get it, these climate change deniers only hate it because of the carbon tax? that is pretty stupid base to build your argument on.

Just so you know, you can agree with climate and be against taxing.

To me it looks like the deniers are mainly political manipulated followers.

"im just gonna deny cause if not i will get tax'd"

If they introduce an oxygen tax, will you deny we need oxygen to live? lol

Thanks for those links ...I find it hard to read and understand all of the different threads in this whole Climate Science issue and to tell you the truth the one aspect that keeps coming up is the deception and the amount of money being wasted on a non issue .From Climate Gate and MM hockey stick to Steven Lewandowski and the moon hoax paper that had to be withdrawn and now the strange going's on by Cook and the University of Queensland threatening email to Brandon Shollenberger .Not that .these are the only strange happenings because there are a ton of other small instances or big depends how you look at them . That vid I posted is only a real sample of what you could expect to find if the truth be known . I guess it shouldn't surprise us as we see the head of the NSA blatantly lying to Congress and the Benghazi cover up being exposed for what it is .

With most of these Charlestons hiding behind the veil of science and only producing propaganda for money I suspect their time is limited before they like the politicians we replace with new ones will run out of options in trying to get us people to believe a word they say .the sooner the better as far as I am concerned . I hate to use a broad brush to paint them with because there are a few that are not like those psychopaths . a reply to: hounddoghowlie

originally posted by: luciddream
I don't get it, these climate change deniers only hate it because of the carbon tax? that is pretty stupid base to build your argument on.

Just so you know, you can agree with climate and be against taxing.

To me it looks like the deniers are mainly political manipulated followers.

"im just gonna deny cause if not i will get tax'd"

If they introduce an oxygen tax, will you deny we need oxygen to live? lol

Seems to me it's bad science used to create another income source for government. I we had a dollar for every claim of doom over another science fantasy I would easily be able to afford climate change taxes. It says something when the best you can do at this point is bring out Bill Nye the not so Science Guy to plead your argument.

If we believed everything science had to offer I would be out of gas, food, water, and acid rain would have killed every living thing on the planet, I would be over populated, cancer ridden from the sun and wouldn't be able to breath the air. And now global warming/climate change is the next impending doom I will suffer before I die. Oh and lets not forget the already failed predictions global warming and melting ice that should have flooded the coast that didn't happen. Sheesh I bought that boat for nothing....

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."

Thank you very much for the links.
I'll be sharing this for sure.

originally posted by: luciddream
I don't get it, these climate change deniers only hate it because of the carbon tax? that is pretty stupid base to build your argument on.

Just so you know, you can agree with climate and be against taxing.

To me it looks like the deniers are mainly political manipulated followers.

"im just gonna deny cause if not i will get tax'd"

If they introduce an oxygen tax, will you deny we need oxygen to live? lol

I think it is more that the people who are pushing the climate change agenda all seem to favor the carbon tax solution. It makes the deniers question the validity of the research conducted, especially when the answer is only just going to make some people (usually the same people pushing the climate change agenda) very rich and not actually DO anything to clean the environment. Seems like a rather large conflict of interest.

Then, on top of that we have the rhetoric that if you are against this agenda, you don't like the environment or as you just put it disbelieve in climate change altogether. Disbelief in climate change and disbelief in man made climate change needs to be decoupled. It is blurring the lines of the discussion and allowing the people pushing the climate change agenda to say things like "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real." Well that statement may well be true, now how many of those scientists agree that MAN-MADE climate change is real?

This is why I maintain that climate change is real, but my concern is if it is man made or not.

a reply to: oneupShadow

Personally. I think fracking is dangerous on so many levels and i would like to see it stopped. I wouldn't care where the money came from and its not like we would destroy america if we stopped fracking. Even if it means we have to buy a little more oil from outsiders for a while. I think the long term benefits would be worth it. I think if they had played it right they could have made a good film and made the saudi's look stupid. ( even though it was fake) Why would it matter where the money comes from? Is that what makes it propaganda? The anti-fracking message is a good one.

I do recognize that Tickell's stance on honesty and integrity is the target of this expose and he failed the test epically along with Ed Begley and Mauriel Hemmingway. The good news is that Mark Ruffalo and Nemeth are honest fellows. I always liked Ruffalo.

I`m all open to change our ways towards more ecological and sustainable solutions...
but carbon taxes are stupid.

It`s the companies that should be paying those taxes or changing their habits, not everyone else that`s making them live.

It would be like the police giving tickets to people passing on a never-ending red light. Forcing people to do something wrong and then making them pay for it is just not right!

Bill Nye is head of some interplanetary commission for our solar system, has been. His tv show was just like Mr. Rogers' show. They hated tv and kids being corrupted by it, so they did something to make it better. I think Bill Nye has more going on in their than we will ever know. Really cool guy! On the side, Mr. Rogers was a Marine with full sleeves of tattoos.

Go Bill Nye, You Rock!

originally posted by: SixX18
Bill Nye is head of some interplanetary commission for our solar system, has been. His tv show was just like Mr. Rogers' show. They hated tv and kids being corrupted by it, so they did something to make it better. I think Bill Nye has more going on in their than we will ever know. Really cool guy! On the side, Mr. Rogers was a Marine with full sleeves of tattoos.

Go Bill Nye, You Rock!

You should check into your urban legends before you start talking about them:

Claim: Children's television show host Fred Rogers hid a violent and criminal past

Not only did Fred Rogers never serve in the military, there are no gaps in his career when he could conceivably have done so. He went straight into college after high school, he moved directly into TV work after graduating college, and his breaks from television work were devoted to attending the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1963) and the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Child Development. Moreover, Fred Rogers was born in 1928 and was therefore far too old to have been a draftee during the period of America's military involvement in the Vietnam ground war (1965-72) and too established in his career at that point to have run off to enlist.

Fred Rogers never served in the military, and he bore no tattoos on his arms (or any other part of his body). He wore long-sleeved shirts and sweaters on his show as a stylistic choice, in order to maintain an air of formality with youngsters. Although he was friendly with the children in his viewing audience and talked to them on their own level, he was most definitely an authority figure on a par with parents and teachers (he was Mister Rogers to them, after all, not "Fred"), and his choice of dress was intended to establish and foster that relationship.

Let's start building a consensus of our own:

I agree that the world is being polluted. Between fracking, drilling for oil, smog in large cities, floating masses of plastic in our oceans, and deforestation, there is definitely an imbalance of nature.

Hard to argue that smog or any pollution is a good thing. Floating masses of plastic in the ocean? Nobody supports that.

But Al Gore has been falsifying his "facts" and trying to push us into fearing carbon dioxide, and taxing us by how big our carbon footprint is. This is literally an exhale tax.

Al Gore is not a climatologist, he's not a scientist at all. Ignore Al Gore but then ask yourself this question: Even if you only believed 50% of climatologists who said that global warming was happening, that it will have increasingly dire consequences and that the primary cause for it was the same sort of thing causing smog — isn't that enough for concern?

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are political solutions. There's a lack of evidence that those things would work. Not being a denier doesn't mean that you have to support those would-be solutions or believe that Al Gore isn't looking to make a buck. Hell, Al Gore and his father (Al Gore, Sr.) made a killing off of their involvement with Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum.

Solutions stemming from technological innovations should be apolitical, so why not support those? It's a win-win.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
With new revelations coming out on alternative news blogs and the like .Story's like the 97% consensus being one of the latest papers being put to the chopping block because of less then ethical standards and just down right bad science if you can even call it science . It's so easy for most of us to be fooled into our own demise . This is one of the latest vid that shows who and what they are willing to do and say for a buck .

a reply to: oneupShadow

omg you totally missed the point of that video release,

the secret camera holder (working for O'Keefe) was actually traping / tricking them into saying the things they said, the entire hidden camera video is badly chopped and edited (by O'Keefe) to take all their comments far out of context, this was proven because the people you see saying those things in that video were ALSO secretly recording the meeting, and have released their own UNEDITED version, proving they were being taken out of context.

whats more that video has nothing to do with carbon or climate change, that interaction was all to do with the debate between fracking /anti fracking and its claimed relation to american energy independence from foreign oil (which in reality bears no relation to fracking).

theres a thread on ats already discussing that video and how it was edited by O'Keefe to change the context of their statements www.abovetopsecret.com...

He must have been thinking of Captain Kangaroo, another popular kids show host who actually was a marine and fought in Iwo Jima during WW2.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree that there is a problem in today's culture, but taxing the common person based on their personal carbon emissions is definitely not the answer.

The Manhattan Project got together a huge amount of people to build one of the greatest scientific marvels of human history, the atomic bomb. With all the money and energy put into a project for annihilation and destruction, why can't that same effort be used for good?

The president could put together a panel of the United States top scientists and engineers, with unlimited access to the patent offices and they could come up with some incredible alternative energy products to cause a revolution in science and energy, BUT FOR A GOOD REASON.

The problem is, there is no morality in politics. It is profit over people and that is how it will always be.

a reply to: theantediluvian