Bill Nye talks climate change with Tucker Carlson

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: FlyingMonkeyInSpace
"You're using the language of politics, you're not a scientist" - Tucker Carlson
Hey Tucker, maybe get a scientist next time...

Nye was actually using the language of an EDUCATOR. Which is exactly what he is: a Science Educator.

Bill nye....not even astropshics black guy(tyson who put the swag back in science) can help him. As a scientist one thing you do not say it something is settled forever.

Racist much, comrade?

Why the deflective description to pretend to be clever, but then immediately name him? What does his color have to with this discussion? What does Tyson (note: in English we capitalize the first letter of a proper name - your disrespect is dripping off the keyboard) have to do with this discussion?

OK, Tyson is another educator that has credentials in a field other than education. But what does that have to do with Bill Nye and his encounter with "bully boy" Carlson?

Did I say the N word? No I did not did I. Also Check out EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY. That was what I was referencing. Also We do not love Grammar Nazis here. SO before you go saying I am being racist why don't you take a step back.

a reply to: yuppa

Calls you racist while he addresses us as comrade hahaa, now there's some hypocrisy.

a reply to: D8Tee

Whats Hannity got to do with

Yeah typo... I fixed the other silly mistakes, but missed that one.

Billy Nye making the 100% fabrication?

Nye isn't making a 100% fabrication. He is making a statement of fact: humans are 100% responsible for the extraordinary speed of climate change - like 10 to 20 THOUSAND years worth at least in a few hundred years.

Nobody; that is NOBODY in the Scientific Community, including Bill Nye has ever said that Climate Change is 100% caused by human activity. It is the RATE OF CHANGE that is what the issue is.

That is why Carlson's question made no sense and had no specific answer.

And that is why I called you 'comrade'. Because you are posting with the uncomprehending obtuseness of a Russian misinformation chatbot troll.

a reply to: rnaa

Nye isn't making a 100% fabrication. He is making a statement of fact: humans are 100% responsible for the extraordinary speed of climate change - like 10 to 20 THOUSAND years worth at least in a few hundred years.

I don't agree that is a fact.

And that is why I called you 'comrade'. Because you are posting with the uncomprehending obtuseness of a Russian misinformation chatbot troll.

Resorting to name calling why?

What I found interesting in that exchange is that he completely avoided talking about the Medieval Warm Period of about 1000 years ago when paleo studies suggest it was probably about as warm as it is today, and the Little Ice Age that ended a couple of hundred years ago when it was considerably cooler than during the MWP. He did not acknowledge those naturally occurring events which happened over a faster time period than he seems to think is possible naturally.

a reply to: D8Tee

I don't agree that is a fact.

That's OK. It is indeed a fact, but it is OK that you are wrong about it.

Resorting to name calling why?

Not really name calling, sort of a mild rebuke. (The other poster though, I meant it, and he/she/it earned it). Because I am bemused by your disingenuous obtuseness. As evidenced by your remark quoted below:

What I found interesting in that exchange is that he completely avoided talking about the Medieval Warm Period of about 1000 years ago when paleo studies suggest it was probably about as warm as it is today,

And why do you find that interesting? He wasn't asked about it and he wasn't given a chance to talk about anything else either. How is trying to answer the question you are being asked, and being shouted down before you can say three words, 'avoiding' talking about something you weren't asked?

a reply to: rnaa

Nye isn't making a 100% fabrication. He is making a statement of fact: humans are 100% responsible for the extraordinary speed of climate change - like 10 to 20 THOUSAND years worth at least in a few hundred years.

That's OK.
It is indeed a fact, but it is OK that you are wrong about it.

Going from what Nye said, without the human contribution we would have a climate similar to what we had in 1750. Now show me the proof that we have had climate change - like 10 to 20 THOUSAND years worth at least in a few hundred years.

I think i see where this guy is coming from man. HE is thinking that HUMANS are able to manipulate weather patters on a global scale like a thermometer. That is totally arrogant to think humans matter that much planet wise.

Also they stopped saying Man made global warming because it was not working. So ding ding ding..Let us call it "climate change" Because the climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING! A way to fool the sheeple that we can actually claim is true(to a degree..get it?)

originally posted by: yuppa
I think i see where this guy is coming from man. HE is thinking that HUMANS are able to manipulate weather patters on a global scale like a thermometer. That is totally arrogant to think humans matter that much planet wise.

Ah yes, the "arrogant" attack. Completely content-free emotional shaming.

Never mind the extensive, specific, physical evidence pointing to the mechanism and the exact magnitude of human induced changes.

Yes, humans do matter that much planetwide, because there are 7 billion of them, and we have lots of capability.

Humans have caused extinctions and huge changes in fish population decades ago. The oceans are really big, and yet we can fish them enough to change major ecologies. North America used to have hordes of buffalo. Humans certainly contributed to extending the ozone hole, and its recovery.

a reply to: mbkennel

Humans have caused extinctions and huge changes in fish population decades ago. North America used to have hordes of buffalo.

And now North America has hordes of cattle.
I do agree with you in a sense, overfishing of the oceans is a ongoing and devastating. Many human activities are destructive to the ecosystem. Most all of them have nothing to do with climate change.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: mbkennel

Humans have caused extinctions and huge changes in fish population decades ago. North America used to have hordes of buffalo.

And now North America has hordes of cattle.
I do agree with you in a sense, overfishing of the oceans is a ongoing and devastating. Many human activities are destructive to the ecosystem. Most all of them have nothing to do with climate change.

DING DING DING. Overfishing didnt have anything to do with global warming. And the hole was actually causing a cooling in reality. ANimals are easy to effect.

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: D8Tee

Wholly smokes, that was super uncomfortable to watch if your on the side of human caused climate change.

All Nye could say was its because of us and it's happening really fast because of us. No data to share just more guilt and fear.

Nye sounds more like a religious man trying to explain faith.

science used properly is a tool, science taken the wrong way is it's own religion/cult.

originally posted by: yuppa
I think i see where this guy is coming from man. HE is thinking that HUMANS are able to manipulate weather patters on a global scale like a thermometer. That is totally arrogant to think humans matter that much planet wise.

Not sure I understand your point here. If you mean 'HE' is Carlson, then yeah, OK, because that is exactly the thinking that was exposed by Carlson's main question: 'exactly how much of climate change is due to humans'. It is a question that doesn't make sense for exactly the reason you state: man doesn't control the climate (I'm sure you didn't mean to say weather) like turning a dial (I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that a thermometer controls weather some how - I probably just read that incorrectly). And Carlson would be wrong on that by the way.

If you meant that Nye thinks that, then you are hopelessly lost and haven't understood anything that has ever been said on the subject.

Also they stopped saying Man made global warming because it was not working. So ding ding ding..Let us call it "climate change" Because the climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING! A way to fool the sheeple that we can actually claim is true(to a degree..get it?)

No 'they' didn't stop saying 'man made global warming'. The globe is, on average, warming due to human interference in the balance of gasses in the atmosphere. THAT IS AN ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT. Pure and simple. And 'they' can tell that it is Human interference because the gasses in question, mainly CO2 of course, contain different isotope ratios depending on whether it is the result of 'natural' causes, like volcanos, or sea vents, or whatever, or the result of human combustion, like coal fired generators, or car emissions, or whatever. The isotope ratio is different, 'natural' to human.

Now to back to your point. 'They' still say "Man made global warming" (more often Anthropogenic (which means 'man made') Global Warming or AGW) because it is what is happening. The total energy held in the atmosphere is increasing, which means the global average temperature WILL increase. Period. That is Eighth Grade physical science - temperature is a measure of energy. Put water in a pot on a stove and add energy - its temperature will increase.

The question then is what is the consequence of this energy increase? If it just means we get hotter and have to use the aircon more, its no big deal right? (certainly not to the electricity companies anyway). Well the consequence of the energy increase is CLIMATE CHANGE - Arctic, Antarctic, and Glaciers melting (which we have already measured) which changes the circulation of currents in the oceans (which we are just beginning to notice), which along with atmospheric temperature changes, cause the jet streams to move oddly (which we are already seeing) which causes weather patterns to change drastically (which we are already seeing to devastating effect). More energy in the atmosphere means it can hold more water, which when it comes out causes floods, blizzards, tornadoes, cyclones and hurricanes to have much more impact. There are lots of climate effects brought about by AGW. And no, it isn't like a keyboard where you type in 'X' and get effect 'Y'. You can't say specifically hurricane Y was caused by AGW and would not have occurred if there was no AGW - but you can say it was made more likely, more powerful, more dangerous - with a great deal of certainty (but NOT precision).

In summary, talking about Climate Change is not a substitute for talking about AGW. 'They' did not stop talking about AGW, 'they' still talk about AGW all the time. 'They' did not switch to talking about Climate Change 'in lieu of' AGW, 'they' still talk about both. The two terms are not mutually exclusive, rather one is the consequence of the other, and depending upon the particular conversation going on, the focus will be on one or the other.

Maybe a simile can help you understand the concept: 'sex' ; 'babies'. We could have a conversation about sex, could we not?. We could have a conversation about babies, could we not?. A mother complaining that her baby keeps her awake all night isn't denying or hiding the fact that the baby is the result of a sexual encounter is she?

a reply to: rnaa

The globe is, on average, warming due to human interference in the balance of gasses in the atmosphere. THAT IS AN ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT.

How much of the warming is due to mans influence and how much is natural cycles?
Not everything about increasing C02 levels is bad.
Nye seems to think that without us, the earth would be headed into an ice age.

a reply to: D8Tee

How much of the warming is due to mans influence and how much is natural cycles?

That is a meaningless question. It is unquantifiable because there is no way of measuring the effects of all the feedback loops. Scientists can tell you how much of the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity. They can feed those numbers into models that imitate as much as of the atmospheric interactions as possible and come up with a range of possible futures.

Not everything about increasing C02 levels is bad.

Pretty much everything about it is bad, yeah. Sure you get more biomass, but you get less nutritional crops. Also the extra biomass means more fuel for wildfires - and that is already being observed.

Nye seems to think that without us, the earth would be headed into an ice age.

Well it is, but rest assured it will not be in your lifetime, with or without AGW. We are in an interglacial period, hypotheses differ about whether it will last for 12,000 years or maybe 28,000 years. Glacial periods certainly seem to be associated with low concentrations of atmospheric CO2, and the interglacial periods with increasing CO2. But the correlation is not perfect and the feed back loops are difficult to sort out. But whatever, it won't come 'overnight' (as in a century or two) but in thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands.

On the other hand, we might well be in the continued grip of a 'Maunder Minimum', colloquially known as a 'mini-Ice Age'. It is the fact that in 1750 you could not grow wine grapes in England but today you can. That was Nye's point, not that we were going into an new glacial period. The last Maunder Minimum began as the so-called 'medieval warm period' (MWP) petered out and ended around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps without AGW it would have lasted longer. By the way Global Average temperatures have already exceeded the warmest period of the MWP and are still going up. The MWP was a LOCAL phenomenon, NOT global. AGW is a GLOBAL phenomenon. The two are not comparable as to cause, duration, or global affect.

a reply to: rnaa

To rebutt. Blah blah blah woomp woomp wommp. Mans not a god..blah blah blah. scientist are wrong.

a reply to: yuppa

That's not a very effective rebuttal, in my opinion.

Bill Nye and Bernie Sanders in the same room?
Does anyone else hear a suction noise?
Like all the intelligence in the room was just sucked out...

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: yuppa

That's not a very effective rebuttal, in my opinion.

Not if you want a response no it is not,but its effective to show lack of reverence no?

originally posted by: JAY1980
Bill Nye and Bernie Sanders in the same room?
Does anyone else hear a suction noise?
Like all the intelligence in the room was just sucked out...

No thats just monica in the corner with bill.

I am unconvinced that you have evidence that global warming(or climate change, if you prefer) is being sped along by mankind's activity as much as you believe it is. I think you believe that, but I don't think you can prove it. Let's review your last post together, shall we?

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: D8Tee
It is unquantifiable because there is no way of measuring the effects of all the feedback loops.

Then there's

We are in an interglacial period, hypotheses differ about whether it will last for 12,000 years or maybe 28,000 years.

and

But the correlation is not perfect and the feed back loops are difficult to sort out. But whatever, it won't come 'overnight' (as in a century or two) but in thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands.

Ice ages have begun very quickly in our past, but that is beside my point here.

I'm just going to include this whole last paragraph here:

On the other hand, we might well be in the continued grip of a 'Maunder Minimum', colloquially known as a 'mini-Ice Age'. It is the fact that in 1750 you could not grow wine grapes in England but today you can. That was Nye's point, not that we were going into an new glacial period. The last Maunder Minimum began as the so-called 'medieval warm period' (MWP) petered out and ended around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps without AGW it would have lasted longer. By the way Global Average temperatures have already exceeded the warmest period of the MWP and are still going up. The MWP was a LOCAL phenomenon, NOT global. AGW is a GLOBAL phenomenon. The two are not comparable as to cause, duration, or global affect.

If the science is indeed settled, you are doing a poor job of representing that 'settled' science with your statements. You have cited unquantifiable measurements, differing hypotheses, imperfect correlations(which wouldn't show causation even if they were perfect), and finished it with an either or scenario. If the science is settled, it's one or the other, not 'whichever answer most proves my point'.

Please present smoking gun evidence of AGW if you have it. I am open minded, I just don't think the evidence is there to support AGW. The earth does seem to be warming, but we're in a warming cycle so that's to be expected.

Let me just also state up front that I will readily concede that mankind has had harmful effects on our ecology. I completely agree with you on this point if you'd like to raise it. Pollution, overfishing, destruction of biospheres, mass extinctions due to our destruction of those biospheres, totally agree.

Probably most of the posters who have been arguing with you in this thread would agree with you on these points as well. I am a passionate environmentalist, but I think this AGW argument is a distraction from the real environmental hazards that are destroying our planetary biosphere. While we continue to have this argument, the other hazards go largely unaddressed and unabated.

Here is my OTEC thread, a thread about a technology that can help repair the planet:
www.abovetopsecret.com...