Bill Nye Slams Donald Trump, Republicans On Climate Change (cnn.com) 257
An anonymous reader writes: On the eve of Earth Day, environmental activist Bill Nye told CNN that while everybody is more aware of climate change "than ever before," we still have a long way to go (annoying auto-play videos). The science educator and engineer, who became an icon on his 1990s hit show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," criticized the Republican presidential candidates and the fossil fuel industry for not acknowledging the deleterious effects of climate change. "There's still a very strong contingent of people who are in denial about climate change," Nye said. "And if you don't believe me, look at the three people currently running for president of the world's most influential country who are ... climate change deniers," Nye said, referring to the three Republican presidential candidates: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich.
Thought he retired... (Score:2, Insightful)
Does Nye still have *any* cache in the "pop science" universe? Or is he now just one of Al Gore's friends and late night talk show fodder?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, we used to have Bill Nye reachable by calling his name on Slashdot. His TV show has aged off the air, but he's still a good commentator on science topics.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, he also doesn't know what he is talking about either. John Kasich has publicly said that humans contribute to climate change but he doesn't agree with the approaches to it with the EPA. Hardly a denialist.
I think Bill Nye is desperate to grasp some sort of spot lite and knows global warming is a hot button issue that can get his the attention he desperately wants. It's sad really. Sort of like child actors who become irrelevant and fall into drug induced troubles with the law. I wonder how long until
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he also doesn't know what he is talking about either. John Kasich has publicly said that humans contribute to climate change but he doesn't agree with the approaches to it with the EPA.
Kasich frequently asserts that "we don't know how much humans actually contribute" to climate change." And since scientific assessments can determine that there is greater than 90% probability that human activity is responsible for more most of the observed warming of the last half-century, Kasich is either dishonest or ignorant about the science.
Re: (Score:2)
Which still doesn't make Bill Nye correct by any measure. Being confused or ignorant does not make someone a denier. Neither does not agreeing 100% with the so called solutions or thinking there are other ways of dealing with it including dealing with the so called catastrophes when they happen.
Warming good, cooling bad (Score:2, Troll)
Is there 97% consensus on that 90% or is that just a few studies? Was there 97% consensus on the Arctic being ice free? What year is that going to be, I've heard so many predictions from the 97% that I'm not sure anymore. How about New York, Holland, Florida being underwater? You'd think someone could post some satellite images of these events.
If this year is hotter than last year, and therefore the hottest evah, it won't be by much and will probably be accomplished by cooling some of those previou
Re: (Score:2)
No. I don't think there was any survey done asking that question.
If the models are right it will probably be somewhere between 2040 to 2080. If the models are wrong it could be earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the actual yearly readings the Arctic sea will be ice free long before 2040.
Arctic News: March 2014 Arctic Sea Ice Volume 2nd lowest on Record [blogspot.ru]
The sea ice now mass shrinks to as little as a quarter of it's 1979 volume, at that rate, the Artic sea could be ice free within a decade, 2020 even looks possible as the earliest potential ice-free during September date.
Re: (Score:3)
Neither are the vast majority of scientists that denialists like to cite. The difference is that Nye isn't claiming to have knowledge that the vast majority of scholars in the field don't have; he's agreeing with the people who do have the credentials to have an opinion worth citing.
Re:Thought he retired... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill Nye he isn't a science guy. He has a Bsc in engineering
He doesn't ever claim to be a climate scientist. All he is doing is repeating what the climate scientists say. That is why he doesn't have to be qualified because he is not trying to claim that all the experts are wrong. He is not trying to say that he knows better than all the people who can be considered to be experts in the field.
The reason why the deniers are so obsessed with Nye's lack of academic qualifications is that they can't actually prove that what he says is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. I wish I could mod you up right now.
Re: (Score:3)
What are the qualifications for being a 'climate scientist'? How long has the discipline been around?
Science in the service of politics [globalresearch.ca]
Now go ahead, take a dump on Lindzen and/or GlobalResearch.ca. You know you want to.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bill Nye is as much a climate scientist as Al Gore. He has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and used to work for Boeing. Yes, he is billed as a "science educator," but he gets his information on "climate change" the same way the rest of us do, from the MSM. Getting your information from Oprah Winfrey or Judge Judy is just as valid.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"...billed as a "science educator,"" Lets correct that - a science entertainer.
Nye's politics trump his science:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl... [wattsupwiththat.com] ... For the record - I don't know how much of the warming trend is due to CO2 vs natural variation - don't think it is knowable at this time. Most people can't stand not knowing and have taken one side or the other...
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a list of people recognized with that title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Bill Nye is as much a climate scientist as Al Gore. He has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and used to work for Boeing. Yes, he is billed as a "science educator," but he gets his information on "climate change" the same way the rest of us do, from the MSM. Getting your information from Oprah Winfrey or Judge Judy is just as valid.
No, unlike you he does actually research the material. And really, at a basic level the physics, chemistry, math, etc. is simple enough that even a high school AP student could get through it.
You don't need a Ph.d to understand the basic mechanisms involved.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a simple general rule: When someone merely points to the expert consensus (with respect to any mainstream science), without any innovation, they do not need to be challenged on their personal expertise. People who do refute an expert consensus are those who need to be challenged on their expertise and are asked to submit their evidence to peer review.
I don't need to be a biologist to say that evolution is real. If I say it isn't, THEN my credentials come into question.
Well he does demonstrate advocacy well (Score:2, Troll)
He is always doubling down his position
http://twitchy.com/2016/04/20/... [twitchy.com]
and I doubt he will answer a real challenge
https://stevengoddard.wordpres... [wordpress.com]
He isn't particularly informative but it is fun to watch him squirm.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He is the CEO of the Planetary Society [planetary.org], a non-profit group that advocates for planetary science. The organization was formed in 1980 by Carl Sagan and others.
He and the organization actively advocate to Congress, the President, and NASA to help raise funding for science. That gives him a lot of cache in my book.
Competitive candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats aren't fielding any competitive candidates, which makes a President Trump win even more inevitable.
Just to be clear, the Republicans aren't fielding competitive candidates either.
Re:Competitive candidates (Score:5, Informative)
Donald Trump, as of a March 29th poll, has a 62 percent UN-favorability rating. That means, by definition, that the "average people of America" do not absolutely love him. In fact, the average people of American see him about the way they see the stuff that collects under their refrigerator.
The best favorability poll for Donald Trump ever taken, by the most pro-Trump polling company, only has him at about 32% favorability.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to put that number in perspective: post-Watergate Nixon polled 2% higher than Donald Trump is right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mention "popular vote". I'm talking about the OP's assertion that "the average American" loves Donald Trump. I'm talking about the fact that twice as many people view Donald Trump unfavorably than anyone who has ever won the presidency.
Think about this: Donald Trump actually has higher unfavorability ratings than Hillary Clinton. It's hard to believe, but it's not even close. He's just a little more popular than venereal disease.
Re: (Score:2)
While true, members of the electorate rarely vote against their constituents. So yes, while individuals could recast their vote in a way that doesn't reflect the votes of the people, it almost never happens because it's political suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
98% of the 28% who end up voting, yes.
But it's still a popularity contest. And one is more popular than the other. In this case, toenail fungus is more popular than venereal disease.
Re:Competitive candidates (Score:5, Funny)
Europe here. We would really LOVE Trump as your prez. He should be even more entertaining than that last monkey you put at the helm.
Seriously, what is it with the US and electing duds for the office of president? It's kinda amusing to be honest, it really seems you're trying to find the most useless person and put him in the most powerful seat as if that whole thing was some sort of entertainment show rather than politics of a country that pretty much commands hegemony of the planet.
I mean, don't get me wrong, we are absolutely FOR that. To be honest, a competent president that can actually act sensibly in foreign politics and stops you from being seen as the schoolyard bully of the world, coupled with the economy you have, that would probably put a serious dent in our chance on the world's market. Right now what allows us to pretty much take over economically internationally is that nobody wants to deal with you if they don't really, really have to. If that wasn't the case and anyone on that planet actually liked you, we'd be in a far, far worse situation.
Fortunately that's not going to be a problem. It would be a little tougher if Clinton made it, but even she's slippery enough to be unlikable. And Sanders is fortunately history. That guy really got us worried for a moment.
So, in closing, allow me to declare my absolute support for your new president Trump. And if you really love us, could you reelect him in 4 years? That would really be awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wait, wait ... Europeans are talking about Electing duds? Has anyone looked at the UK lately? Perhaps we should ask Italy about their time with Burlusconi?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we remember Berlusconi. And we're really looking forward to watching you dealing with someone like that.
It's like stepping into dog shit. It's not so funny if it happens to you, but watching someone deal with it is a laugh and a half.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not American, I just think you're being an idiot by trying to point and laugh while you clearly have your own problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not American, so I won't be voting on the subject - I just wanted to point out that people that live in their own glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Re: (Score:2)
We have our share of whacky parties and cooks for party figureheads too. From religious nutjobs to those that seriously demand for protection from alien abduction and military spending for research of anti-alien weapons. Yes, they exist. And there are a few that vote for them, either 'cause they're funny, because they think it would be awesome if those loonies get to speak in the parliament so those debates would at least be a bit entertaining or some maybe even because they actually believe that shit to be
Re: (Score:2)
This is nonsense. You obviously have no idea how the primaries work, or how polling works. In the general electorate, Trump has the lowest favorability rating among any candidate in the last 9 Presidential elections, in either party.
The reality is not "the complete opposite" of what the polls predicted. The polls have had him at between 30-40%, and that is exactly where he has stayed. What the analysts did get wrong is predicting that his supporters would peel off to more mainstream candidates. However, he
Re: (Score:3)
The three-way race in the Republican side, plus the dead-heat tie in the Democratic side means that both nominations are going to be up for debate at the conventions.
The Democrats allow non-directly-elected "super delegates" to vote, meaning it must be wide margin in the primaries in order for the nomination to be locked up in advance. The super delegates are not bound to either candidate, and will be enough to overturn the popular vote.
The 40-30-30ish split in the Republican primaries means that one of the
Re: (Score:2)
There is no middle. We've spent 16 years destroying it.
I've got nothing against Bill Nye (Score:2)
Other than the fact he seems to take himself way too seriously nowadays. I liked him better when he was doing science-y stuff for the Almost Live New Year's episodes (the Amazing Vortex of Science!).
But, in any case - I have my doubts that either Trump or the Republicans in general have been waiting with bated breath, hoping against hope for Nye's approval. I think The Donald and his mindless throng thrive on rejection from what they perceive as the Establishment.
Re:I've got nothing against Bill Nye (Score:5, Interesting)
Other than the fact he seems to take himself way too seriously nowadays. I liked him better when he was doing science-y stuff for the Almost Live New Year's episodes (the Amazing Vortex of Science!).
Here's the way I look at it: Bill Nye has been teaching science for a long time. He sees how people who may become president misrepresent what he loves and has taught. So he speaks out. If you were a PE teacher and some candidate misrepresents the importance of exercise, would you say something? You may not due to your own preference but Bill Nye's preference is to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Presenting and popularizing science to youngsters and laymen, yes.
By that definition, I never had any teachers either. My PE teacher never taught me a thing then.
Re: (Score:2)
He's able to simplify concepts so third-graders can understand. That's why he's effective countering the Fox News spin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate denialism is a scam and a fraud. Nothing the leading denialists say comes from observations, and nothing they claim is later verified experimentally.
If anything, this shows that despite his proclamations to the contrary, Donald Trump is just like the others: bought and paid for by the fossil fuel lobby. Either that, or his climate policy is the result of a mouth speaking unattached to a brain and a refusal to listen to the advice of experts in the field.
Comically bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Money's not an issue with him. He needs to have credibility as a Republican, and since he doesn't have a record, he has to over-compensate with words. He'll say anything if it makes him look good as a Republican, so that he can get Republican votes. I think if he is nominated, he'll pivot center, and if he makes it to a second term electoral cycle, he'll "transition" on the topic, similar to how Obama did with gay marriage.
That's just my guess. He's super rich, but he still has to compromise himself to g
Re: (Score:3)
The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] from weather modificaiton conspiricists makes it clear that Global Warming is real, anthropogenic, and that climate denialists are coveirng up the truth about AGW AND Weather modification programs*.
(*OK but is this argument about "weather modification programs" any more crazy than what the average denialists says?(.
Re: (Score:3)
Ad hominem. None of the predictions from your side have ever come true.
My 'side'? You mean science right?
Also, you clearly have no freakin' idea what an ad hominem is.
If they had, we would have all been dead 25-30 years ago.
You mean, without science, you would have died 25-30 years ago - which is probably true.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the predictions from your side have ever come true.
Well, there's now less than one year to go until you can determine the truth of a couple of predictions [slashdot.org] that I made 4 years ago.
An interesting question might be, if* the above predictions prove to be true how will that influence your opinions regarding AGW? What changes will you make to your life(style) in response?
*I'm rarely 100% sure on anything, but, given the current situation (4 years on), those predictions look like a fairly safe bet right now!
Billy Nye slams Republicans... (Score:5, Informative)
... and Republican doesn't give a flying fuck. The End.
Not just at a Presidential level (Score:2)
Dealing with climate change is not just a Presidential issue. Even if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were elected and they put all their political capital into play just for global warming, the level of change wouldn't be that high with a Republican controlled House and Senate Congressional races matter also. Emily Cain for example is running in one of the most competitive districts in the country against an opponent who is bad not just on global warming but on other environmental issues also. You can g
On the eve of Earth Day (Score:2)
I see the petro-boys are out in force... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing how very shortly after this feed gets put up, the first postings all follow the MO of the petro-chemical industry and the GOP...
So, let us address a few things here.
1)
"Bill Nye isn't a 'Science Guy', he just holds a BS degree!"
Assuming for a moment that we overlook the obviously implied "appeal to authority" fallacy this involves, he could be a bumbling idiot with cabbage in his beard that talks to empty chairs-- The data he directs people to is correct, and will continue being correct no matter what degrees or qualifications he has. So, discounting this obvious fallacy, there's buried ad-hominem goodness there too. Shooting the messenger like this does not make climate change less real, nor the message inaccurate.
2)
"The climate change crazies want to force their religion on us!!"
Science is not a religion. It is a process, and a damned cuthroat one too. It might surprise you to know that the scientifically literate population have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1909, and have raised the red flag on industrial release of this gas through fossil fuel combustion since the 20's, predicting mass climate change. Here it is, a century later, and we have bulletproof data showing exactly this. What exactly consistutes religion to you? The belief in something without proof (which is what denialism is, given the massive amounts of experimental and climatological data collected so far showing that fossil fuel use is cumulatively deleterious to the climactic environment) or observing repeatable phenomena, creating testable hypotheses, and then strongly advising the world based on those findings? (science, and in this case-- the message of 99% of the world's climate scientists.)
3)
"Release XXX from prison so they can (euphamism for harm) Bill Nye!"
Seriously? You advocate physical violence and harm to silence a message you find disfavorable? For real? No wonder the world is so fucked up, if you actually think killing the messenger makes the reality of the message go away. That is some premium magical thinking you have going there!
4)
"Bill Nye is a known shill/hippocrite! Everything he says is a lie!"
From whom exactly does he accept money in exchange for his activism (since he is "known" to be a shill, this should be easy.) and in what respects is he a hippocrite? Because he uses electricity? (There are carbon neutral means of generating it, and he has expressed a preferrence for this. How then is his message hippocritical here?) Because he drives a car? (There are some very nice looking electric vehicles these days. I dont know for sure if he drives one, but I would expect that he would prefer to use one over a destructive internal combustion vehicle, given his rhetoric. Unless you have proof he drives a gas guzzler, this isnt hippocricy either.) Seriously, where does this come from? Hopefully it isnt imagination land.
5)
"He and Al Gore........"
Guilt by association and bandwagon fallacies. Try to be intellectually honest here folks.
I grow tired of hearing all these absurd rationalisms for denying the realities happening all around us, just so we can pretend that everything is OK, when all the data shows it most certainly is not.
Re:I see the petro-boys are out in force... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is funny how laying out a rational argument with valid counterpoints to several talking points is somehow being a "troll". It used to be that the fastest way to get yourself modded troll here was to be pro-Apple, or pro-Microsoft. Now I guess it's being pro-science.
I wonder why climate change in particular gets people so worked up around here. You don't get insta-modded troll by calling out creationists or anti-vaxxers, and the willful lack of science literacy required to maintain a particular worldview is quite similar among all three.
Not posting anonymously as I am proud of being pro-science and I have karma to burn if the anti-science brigade is still out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm probably not voting for any Republican candidate in this election, the choices are so horrible (but admittedly, I do usually vote Republican on national tickets). I was a GOP delegate to a state convention as an 18 year old but was so disgusted by the machinations of 'insider' politics I've never been party of the party since.
I hold no petro stocks that I know of (I have a 401k, so I don't really know all of its holdings).
I have never been paid anything by any petro, energy, or comparable company.
(I w
Re: (Score:2)
I think you spoke too soon there friend.
Downmodded twice now. Troll and Redudnant, respectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were you would see your comment moderated down and their's up. The evidence indicates otherwise.
Oh! The irony.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. The 'raw' surface data sets have been manipulated time and time again ...
So what's your remedy to address the known flaws in the raw data? Flaws such as changes in instruments, station moves, changes in the time of observation, changes in the environment around the stations. You can't pretend the raw data is some pure source without fault.
Good, but should go after dem too. (Score:2)
they've really lost their minds (Score:3)
Saw an editorial in WaPo today by George Will, about how progressives are so authoritarian because they want climate deniers to shut up. And he quoted an NSF (IIRC) paper about all the uncertainties in the science. A paper from 2001! Sheesh! 15 years ago, I was cautiously skeptical myself, but since then ALL the science keeps coming up the same, no matter how the questions are asked. Skeptics have long since been convinced, only ignorant fools are still arguing--fools like him who have to go back 15 years in order to find any reputable organization questioning it.
Which is more worrying? (Score:2)
Actual deniers or supporters, or... the blatantly obvious fact that most of either camp do not know the first thing about what they're denying/supporting?
Cruz is worse (Score:2)
I realize that Donald is the front runner, but switching to Ted only makes things worse.
Richard Lindzen: MIT atmospheric physicist claims (Score:3)
that climate change is pure bunk. And he further claims that everybody who claims otherwise is only do so to make money.
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
> Richard Lindzen, the famously discredited global warming skeptic . . .
> Lindzen received $2,500 a day to consult with coal and oil interests here and abroad in the 1990s, a fact Lindzen does not refute.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/richard-lindzen-global-wa_b_19010.html
Some believe Richard Lindzen to be an industry shill
> He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.
> When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should go to mechanic school. I've seen people take in a good car to the mechanic, and $2000 later, the car is worse than when it came in. Fixing it, regardless of whether it's broken is a normal thing.
Those are ASE parts re-placers not mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the world, when it offers you a choice, only ever offers you two choices, which conveniently will be completely diametrically opposed to each other. That's a boon because all you have to choose is between Good and Evil, never been good and better or bad and worse.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's like I've said before. If all you need to be a "scientist" or "engineer" is the degree, then all patent lawyers are engineers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Science Guy" (Score:4, Informative)
Nye started as an actor on Almost Live, a Seattle-based series that wound up on Comedy Central. His "Science Guy" character demonstrated basic science-is-fun ideas. This turned into the PBS/Disney series "Bill Nye the Science Guy", and he was surrounded by ideas from teachers all over the place. His latest book is about creationism vs. evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
His Bill Nye the Science Guy TV Show is still available on Amazon... he may not have much of a research credential but he's still a TV teacher.
Re:"Science Guy" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like saying an artist or musician without an art or music degree is not an artist or musician. To be a scientist, you must do science. It isn't about the formalities.
Re: "Science Guy" (Score:2)
Exactly. Funny how /.ers only think someone needs a degree if they don't agree with them.
Fine, then ... (Score:2)
what is his body of work? Where are his original contributions? His publications? His bona fides seem to be more along the lines of when and where he lends his brand, not the science he's produced. Which is fine. But a scientists? More like a Science Personality.
Re: (Score:2)
That is simply not true. Even the most prestigious orchestras, like the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, hold open auditions and do not require a degree. It's all about whether you can play.
And Bill Nye is a perfect media person on science topics, because he makes tea party jackoffs and neo-reactionaries crap their pants in fury.
Bill Nye is to climate change deniers what the Amazing Randi was to faith healers.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a list of members of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. If you do a little googling (as I just have) you will find that there are quite a few players (including principal players) who do not have PhDs in music.
I don't know where you got the idea that you need a PhD to play in a symphony orchestra, but it's just wrong. I have first-hand knowledge of this (friends who play in Chicago's Civic Opera orchest
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Nye is no science guy, just a guy with a B.S. Degree.
Sure he is. He's not a scientist because he's not an active researcher, but he's certainly a "science guy".
Re: (Score:2)
He's just a guy with a degree in B.S. FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
For whom does he get paid to shill?
"Known" shill? I don't know. Please inform me.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't have an contrary-interest sponsors on TV... his show mainly ran on PBS and had a short run in syndication to commercial stations.
Re:Boring (Score:5, Funny)
For whom does he get paid to shill?
The lizard-men of course and their allies in the illuminati. But mostly the lizard-men.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh fuck it, we're not behind everything bad that happens, sometimes shit just hits the fan without us doing anything!
Not a shill but a poser (Score:2, Flamebait)
Nye is more like Michio Kaku---except for all of that PhD. science degree baggage.
At least Kaku published papers in peer-review journals. Nye is just a poser.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, Michio Kaku and Bill Nye are in agreement regarding climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if they are in agreement. Only one of their opinion matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you published peer-reviewed papers on whose opinion matters? No? Then by your argument, your opinion does not matter.
In the realm of public discourse, your expertise matters less than your ability to make a cogent argument. Neither Bill Nye nor Michio Kaku are climate scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then, neither does yours.
Re: (Score:2)
So... it looks like we've had plenty of warning of warming but our meagre response has left us vulnerable... change is happening.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an interesting comparison between Trump and Nye... they both work by presenting ideas that are developed by other people.
Trump didn't create The Apprentice, he was just hired to be the on-air face. He hardly worked on the show, he just showed up then asked the people surrounding him about the most recent contest, and had the task of announcing who was out of the game.
Nye isn't a researcher, he's a promoter of 8th-grade level science concepts. He asked teachers all of the nation to submit lessons, an
Re: (Score:3)
Which over-qualifies him to debate climate change deniers and flim flam artists like Sarah Palin.
Re: (Score:2)
Another great post modded down. Thanks for giving me a good chuckle! Wish I could bump it up so it could be enjoyed by more. :)
Re:Immediate issues (Score:5, Insightful)
You misunderstand.
The problem isn't that these people are ignoring the problem. The bad thing is that they're ignoring the evidence in front of their eyes for ideological reasons and pretending the problem simply doesn't exist.
The trouble with people like that is that they might pretend any or all of the problems that you think are important don't exist because of the contradiction with their ideology. Those bigger fish you're talking about: they are quite capable of closing their eyes and flat-out claiming those fish simply do not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
To their credit, if its done long enough the problem and the people ringing the alarm about it will go away. At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
That time has already come. We have 100s of years before existing climate forcing reach equilibrium. The real question is how bad it is going to get. With business as usual, our descents will look back us with utter scorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, right now we're ignoring both problems, so does it really matter? People are seemingly quite happy with their country going down the tubes, why should I bother stopping them?
Re: (Score:2)
And the religion is based in science. That your religion is against science doesn't mean everyone else's is as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there is more evidence that points at global warming than there has ever been for Jesus, yet US Americans seem to prefer believing the fairy tale.
Don't ask me why, I never understood humans. Maybe because it's a feelgood story with a happy end rather than a horrible one. Even though... well, essentially the stories are the same, do what you should do and not what you feel like doing or you'll be living in a place that is burning hot and you'll be suffering eternally.
Re: (Score:2)
The woo is strong in that one...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! I've been called a lot, and usually I'm a good sport and laugh about it, but you WILL NOT call me Nye!
There's a limit to everything!
Re: (Score:2)
The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen.
LLT atmospheric hotspots observed [iop.org].
Better call your mates at climateaudit and get them to publish a retraction.
Re: (Score:2)
I live a life of pleasure and luxury courtesy of the Koch brothers, of course! I'm just waiting for their first check to arrive! Why do you ask?
The question you should be asking, however, is why you are confusing a guy who plays a scientist on TV with a real scientist?
Re: (Score:2)
I voted for her last time. I don't keep up on these things, so didn't know if she is the candidate again this year.
When I told folks on another forum board who I voted for, the hard-core lefties couldn't believe that I voted for the same person they did. They thought our views were totally opposed. :^)
Re: (Score:2)
"The polar bears will be fine".
Anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax.
You're right, climate change doesn't have human characteristics. However anthropogenic climate change is not a hoax. Human activities definitely have a role in climate change.