Bill Nye is an idiot

I've suspected for a while that bill Nye was/is a CIA shill for science/technology/education. His overlords are probably just upset that Canada is producing oil. most definitely not a scientist more like a science operative.

a reply to: D8Tee

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: amazing
He's a pretty smart guy really. He's spent his whole life trying to get children into Science and spreading scientific knowledge out to the rest of us in a very easily understood fun way.

Just because you don't like his position on Global Warming doesn't mean he's an idiot, right?

I mean, Scientists and scientific organizations from all over the world have been telling us that Global warming is happening and a large part of it is man made. How could you call someone an idiot if they actually listened to actual scientists? LOL

So it's ok for him to tell the world that 1/4 of Alberta has been denuded of forest to make way for the oilsands?
Shall i change the title to Bill Nye is a liar?
What kind of intelligent person who says they have visited the oil sands and seen them first hand decides to decry that 1/4 of the province they are in is denuded of forest due to them?
He's either an idiot or a liar, take your choice.
Alberta is a big place, it's not much smaller than Texas.

Well that's just one statement and let's take it...what is the fact? How much of Alberta has been denuded? Any? 1%, 25%? I really did about 7 different google searches and wasn't able to find a good reliable source or even a non reliable source with any kind of number. I don't think Google Earth is what we're looking for either. We generally don't know how often those photographs are updated? Am I wrong there?

It's 760 square kilometers of surface disturbance, works out to 0.1% of Alberta.
If we wish to take it in the context of only the boreal forest lands, it comes out to 0.2%.
Disturbed oil sands surface minable area equaled to about 895 km2 in 2013 accounting for less than 1 per cent of total oil sands area and about 0.2 per cent of Alberta boreal forest which covers over 381,000 km2

Thanks! That's the info we need!

a reply to: amazing
I think I just figured out why I don't like Bill Nye. It is not that he is ignorant. Lots of people are ignorant, and ignorance is a curable condition. It is his arrogant certainty. That trait is not just unscientific, it is anti-scientific.

originally posted by: D8Tee
Bill Nye is an idiot

At least according to your rant.
An intelligent post would have specifically posted what it is that he said that bothers you, and your evidence and data that refutes him.
Calling him a 'stupid head' without all the rest is just plain juvenile, worthless to any thinking person...

And Bernie Sanders is a scientist??

a reply to: namelesss

He posted exactly why already. Maybe you should read the thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: D8Tee

No one who supported the Liar in Chief has any right to call out Bill Nye for a relatively small inaccuracy, when the President they voted for has no concept of the importance of honesty.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Small? It would be like saying someone a quarter of your yearly income when all they took was a penny.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not really. Besides which, he may be wrong that basically a quarter of the referred to area is being or has been actively stripped and mined, but he is not wrong that a quarter of it has been earmarked.

And for what its worth, although I know I am talking to some particularly reality resistant brick walls here, the technology to mine the rest of the tar sands will no doubt be made available at some point, in the event that fossil fuels become too financially or politically expensive to access.

So its actually a very concerning situation. At a time when energy production should be moving away from forest destroying and nature damaging methodologies, toward combustionless methods like solar and wind power, this tar sands issue ought to have been left on the shelf, never acted upon. Steps backward are not going to help anything.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not really. Besides which, he may be wrong that basically a quarter of the referred to area is being or has been actively stripped and mined, but he is not wrong that a quarter of it has been earmarked.

He said a quarter is denuded already.
And yes he is wrong, a quarter is not earmarked to be denuded. Please show me the plans for leaving 25% denuded.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is it possible that he is including the sections of forest given over to other concerns as well, like logging and the like?

I mean, he should have mentioned those as well to be fair, because one way or another Alberta, and more broadly, Canada is clearing ancient forests faster than America, and faster than many other countries where it is a concern.

a reply to: D8Tee

He has an undergrad degree in mechanical engineering. From forever ago. I'm not sure that actually makes him an engineer. He's definitely not a scientist. His scientific achievements include a patent for a magnifying glass that's nothing more than a plastic bag full of water, and a sun dial that was included on a rover trip to mars. Seems he's about as much a scientist as your average 3rd grader. Do people actually take him seriously?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is it possible that he is including the sections of forest given over to other concerns as well, like logging and the like?

I mean, he should have mentioned those as well to be fair, because one way or another Alberta, and more broadly, Canada is clearing ancient forests faster than America, and faster than many other countries where it is a concern.

It's possible he was referring to Aliens abducting trees. He said what he said. He was wrong, spectacularly wrong. Not even in the same ballpark wrong.

a reply to: TrueBrit

And for what its worth, although I know I am talking to some particularly reality resistant brick walls here, the technology to mine the rest of the tar sands will no doubt be made available at some point, in the event that fossil fuels become too financially or politically expensive to access.

Can you clarify what you are trying to say here?
If you are insinuating that tar sands are not fossil fuels, you need to go back to school and quit posting in threads you know nothing about.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: namelesss

He posted exactly why already. Maybe you should read the thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Really?
No, he posted his rant, and is using oil company stats to validate his rant ( that makes it nothing but a rant);

"Learn more about land usage and how oil sands mining operators are reclaiming the landscape.
www.oilsandsmagazine.com..."

Learn how the oil grab is 'good for the environment'!
Hahahahha
If you believe that big oil is unbiased about oil, I have a Trump administration to sell you!

a reply to: D8Tee

Ok, let me spell it out slowly.

Currently, some of the tar sands are considered too difficult to extract product from, the cost benefit analysis does not work out in the favour of the companies involved.

No doubt, if some future shortage comes about, it will turn out that actually, they had the technology to mine the stuff all along, at a decent price, relative to the prices which would be paid for oil extracted by other methods or from other locations.

The point was not at all difficult to understand, and has some significant legitimacy. If you are going to make insinuations about my knowledge base where these matters are concerned, you might want to learn to read first.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: namelesss

He posted exactly why already. Maybe you should read the thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Really?
No, he posted his rant, and is using oil company stats to validate his rant ( that makes it nothing but a rant);

"Learn more about land usage and how oil sands mining operators are reclaiming the landscape.
www.oilsandsmagazine.com..."

Learn how the oil grab is 'good for the environment'!
Hahahahha
If you believe that big oil is unbiased about oil, I have a Trump administration to sell you!

The data is valid. There's even been pictures posted on here from google earth showing that there is no way that 25 percent of Alberta is denuded of timber. Believe what you want, facts make no difference to people like you.
www.energy.alberta.ca...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: D8Tee

Ok, let me spell it out slowly.

Currently, some of the tar sands are considered too difficult to extract product from, the cost benefit analysis does not work out in the favour of the companies involved.

No doubt, if some future shortage comes about, it will turn out that actually, they had the technology to mine the stuff all along, at a decent price, relative to the prices which would be paid for oil extracted by other methods or from other locations.

The point was not at all difficult to understand, and has some significant legitimacy. If you are going to make insinuations about my knowledge base where these matters are concerned, you might want to learn to read first.

And for what its worth, although I know I am talking to some particularly reality resistant brick walls here, the technology to mine the rest of the tar sands will no doubt be made available at some point, in the event that fossil fuels become too financially or politically expensive to access.

Your original comment did make it seem like you thought tar sands were not fossil fuels but I understand what you are saying now.
You are stating the obvious.
Not all tar sands oil is produced by mining as it is right now, did you know that?
I'm well aware of the different technologies used to produce oil, which one would you like to discuss?