Bill Nye Explains That the Flooding In Louisiana Is the Result of Climate Change (qz.com) 448
Reader mspohr writes: Our favorite science guy has an interview (and video) in Quartz where he explains how Louisiana flooding is due to climate change:
"As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands," Nye explained. "Molecules spread apart, and then as the sea surface is warmer, more water evaporates, and so it's very reasonable that these storms are connected to these big effects."
The article also notes that a National Academy of Sciences issued a report with the same findings: "Scientists from around the world have concurred with Nye that this is exactly what the effects of climate change look like, and that disasters like the Louisiana floods are going to happen more and more. According to a National Academy of Sciences report published earlier this year, extreme flooding can be traced directly to human-induced global warming. As the atmosphere warms, it retains more moisture, leading to bouts of sustained, heavy precipitation that can cause floods."
"As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands," Nye explained. "Molecules spread apart, and then as the sea surface is warmer, more water evaporates, and so it's very reasonable that these storms are connected to these big effects."
The article also notes that a National Academy of Sciences issued a report with the same findings: "Scientists from around the world have concurred with Nye that this is exactly what the effects of climate change look like, and that disasters like the Louisiana floods are going to happen more and more. According to a National Academy of Sciences report published earlier this year, extreme flooding can be traced directly to human-induced global warming. As the atmosphere warms, it retains more moisture, leading to bouts of sustained, heavy precipitation that can cause floods."
Or is it? (Score:2, Funny)
IsIs?
Re:Or is it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Or is it? (Score:4, Informative)
I think it probably doesn't help that Louisiana sits below sea level.
Re: Or is it? (Score:4, Informative)
Baton Rouge (where the flooding occurred) is not below sea level. It sits 56' above sea level.
Re: Or is it? (Score:5, Funny)
Baton Rouge (where the flooding occurred) is not below sea level. It sits 56' above sea level.
Not any more, lol. ;)
Holy shit (Score:2)
I actually did LOL! Thanks, I really needed that.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly my thought. If I was building in Louisiana after 2005, my house would be a houseboat, on dry land, with pylons, and the back of the garage would have a boat in it.
Discrimination (Score:5, Funny)
Your altitudism is not welcome here.
Re:Discrimination (Score:4, Interesting)
You want to buy underwater front, well, you just have to expect it to go underwater :/.
It can be turned around, it is just a choice. Forget trillions of dollars in sea walls (the biggest being the one to keep sea levels down in the Mediterranean, serious dollars). Just use nuclear power stations to desalinate sea water and then irrigate the worlds deserts to produce food and this is the important part, turn the worlds current farm lands into dense, rich bio-diverse forest, problem solved and at far less cost that all those sea walls (you get mass water retention in those forests and new farmlands, improved reflectivity and heat absorption, mass carbon sinks and cities would be surrounded by air cleaning forests). Depending upon where the irrigated desert farmlands are, altered precipitation patterns as a result of transpiration should also flood below sea level, especially the newer higher one, current deserts (think places like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]).
So just a choice, now what one do you think they will make, the care and share one, or trillions of dollars in sea wall profits or losses, depending upon who spends the money and who gets the money and losses, which regions get no protection and of course how many die when those walls fail and they will, one after another with tens of thousands drowning.
In the interim, absolutely do not invest in underwater front property, seriously bad choice. Now the worse prediction still does not allow for a mass methane release from once perma frost regions where decades become mere years.
Re: (Score:3)
No, this is Bill Nye the Climate Change Guy, where what you had for breakfast is due to CLIMATE CHANGE
But of course (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing at all to do with over-development in what used to be (and by all rights and common sense, still ought to be) swampland and coastal forest.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do they have to be mutually exclusive?
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth pointing out (again) that no single flooding event can be in itself attributed to global warming. Warming may make such events somewhat more frequent, but flooding events happen with or without global warming.
Re: But of course (Score:2)
and global warming makes flooding more frequent
No, it does not. However, it makes it a lot worse when it does happen.
Re: (Score:2)
and global warming makes flooding more frequent
No, it does not. However, it makes it a lot worse when it does happen.
Flooding in low-to-mid lying areas could be more frequent if it is "worse". Meaning that worse could cause areas that might have otherwise just missed being flooded to be flooded - i.e.: more frequently.
Welcome to slashdot. [Re:But of course] (Score:3)
That's a lot of text to essentially say nothing.
I see you're new here. Welcome to slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth reading TFA to see what Nye ACTUALLY said.
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe watch the video that contains his full comments? Naw, let's ignore it and look only at the one or two sentences the author decided to quote and assume they form his complete stance on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
And here we see the difference between cherry picking sentences and actually reading/listening to the whole message.
You cherry picked the "THIS IS" bit but ignored where he clarified who believes "THIS IS" and that it is a reasonable belief.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you listen to EVERYTHING he said or just read the sound bite and call it good?
Re: (Score:2)
So, the flooding is becoming more frequent due to climate change?
Re: Check the details (Score:3)
You can point to the floods in 1927, 2005 and 2011 but there are houses flooded by this flood that were not flooded by those previous floods.
Re:But of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But of course (Score:4, Interesting)
You nailed the reason for the sinking Mississippi delta we're hearing so much about today. Because deltas are made of silt, all of them slump and sink over time. In nature, they are kept alive by annual flood depositions of fresh silt from upstream. Because of Corps of Engineers reclamation, the Mississippi is flowing clean and the delta, even the part that is not built on, is no longer getting fresh silt.
If we want to save New Orleans, why not drill a grid of injection wells citywide and pump fresh mud at an even rate into each one to keep the city afloat?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not so much the case in the Baton Rouge area because of the protected Atchafalaya Basin and the big lock between it and the Mississippi. In other parts of the
Re: But of course (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The type of land is secondary, and is only significant once the water arrives. It may (or may not) make the flooding worse, but flooding would occur regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
Swampland is code for "permanently flooded".
It isn't different dirt necessarily, but if land is flooded for thousands or millions of years, you'd best be wary about draining it and building there.
Re:But of course (Score:5, Insightful)
I suffered a few minutes of NPR over the weekend while they happened to be covering the flood news. Apparently the only officials from Louisiana or the feds that NPR has any interest in hosting are climatologists. No FEMA, no state first responders; just climatologists.
While discussing the floods with the climatologists, both the federal and state climate guys made the mistake of mentioning the fact that the high costs and displacement are as much to do with recent property development as the amount of water. You could clearly detect the host's frustration as he attempted to get these hapless officials back on the rails speculating about climate and saying disparaging things about fossil fuels.
Whatever. You people want to eat all the crap they're feeding you and furnish your rulers with the ammo to manage you're decline, go ahead. Enjoy. I don't care anymore. Bill Nye lives in a nice $1,000,000+ home in Studio City and I'm all set with my nice property and neither one of us are giving it up for the benefit of your virtues, so fuck off.
Rights [Re:But of course] (Score:2)
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20(all)%20rights [merriam-webster.com]
He's right. (Score:5, Funny)
He's right. It was a bright, beautiful day. Then the climate in Louisiana changed and it rained a lot.
Of course. . . (Score:3, Informative)
. . . the in-process Maunder-type Solar Minimum gets ignored.
Me, I'm planning for Blizzards, not Hurricanes. . .
We're not in a mimimum yet. [Re:Of course. . .] (Score:3)
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56530521e4b0c307d59bbe97/t/56af97fda3360cecbfe34b0e/1454348294881/?format=750w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is some possibility that the sun may, at some time in the future, enter another sunspot minimum similar to the Maunder minimum of 1645 to about 1715. But we're not in one now.
Actually, there was a recent development in modelling the sun, which (if I recall correctly) resulted in a model of the sunspot cycle that has a high-90s percentage match to the historical data. (The key was to model it as TWO dynamos rather than one.)
Also (again, if I recall correctly) the new model predicted that we were going
Re: (Score:3)
There is some possibility that the sun may, at some time in the future, enter another sunspot minimum similar to the Maunder minimum of 1645 to about 1715. But we're not in one now.
Actually, there was a recent development in modelling the sun, which (if I recall correctly) resulted in a model of the sunspot cycle that has a high-90s percentage match to the historical data. (The key was to model it as TWO dynamos rather than one.)
Also (again, if I recall correctly) the new model predicted that we were going into something that looked like a new Maunder Minimum, with this cycle being weak and the next one nearly nonexistent.
(Sorry I can't dig up the reference right now. Only got a couple minutes left to post.)
You're referring to this one, I think: http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and... [ras.org.uk]
I might note that the work only modeled three solar cycles, and has not (as far as I've seen) yet gone through peer review (the paper that the new article is about is a conference presentation.)
Re: (Score:2)
& torrential rains soon to hit the Left Coast again soon: see Wikipedia for "Pineapple Express."
The climated do-gooders are going to have a field day with the next mega-rain on the West Coast, but they happen about every 160 years.
Re: (Score:2)
& torrential rains soon to hit the Left Coast again soon: see Wikipedia for "Pineapple Express."
The climated do-gooders are going to have a field day with the next mega-rain on the West Coast, but they happen about every 160 years.
Well, on the west coast we are still waiting for the repeat of the 1862 atmospheric river (aka pineapple express) they promised us last year to get us out of the drought. Of course as will all things, there can always be too much of a good thing.
http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]
Or the other reason.... (Score:4, Informative)
The fact the whole state is a river flood plain and only stupid people build homes in a river flood plain?
Global warming may have cause the weather pattern changes, but it does not change the fact that if you build in the low lands, you have to expect flooding because it will absolutely happen with a 100% guarantee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or the other reason.... (Score:4, Informative)
Average discharge of the Mississippi river: 16,792 m^3/s
Average discharge of the Rhine: 2,900 m^3/s
Average discharge of the Maas: 350 m^3/s
No wonder the Dutch have an easier time of it. They have a fifth the water flow to worry about.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the Netherlands don't have a 3M km^2 watershed dumping water into them, either. And the Netherlands is smaller than Louisiana alone (by a factor of about 2.5), much less the Mississippi watershed (by a factor of about 80)....
Re: (Score:2)
did you know Baton Rouge has had many flooding events over the last 300 years?
There he goes again (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill Nye the politics guy.
Heat Elevators (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a "denier" but.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck does that nonsense have to do with anything that I said?
My point is that floods like this have been happening for as long as there has been weather. I think one would be hard pressed to blame any one of them on climate change specifcally. Even if AGW were the cause, the scale of any individual flood that didn't span at least an entire sizeable country is simply far too small to generally attribute to it. Frankly, it looks to me like Mr. Nye is just using a catchy phrase ("climate chang
finally (Score:2)
Climate emergency (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
floods in Louisiana (Score:2)
Louisiana floods early and often, rather foolish to make a statement about climate based on a single weather event there. Maybe some other events in the USA would be better for the cause I'd think....
Is he a real "scientist"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He is a science popularizer, not a scientist. He listens to the experts and echos what they say, but in a folksy way. I guess that's what a 'science guy' is. This doesn't mean he's wrong; he has a fairly good understanding of the climate issue. He is sometimes a little fuzzy on the details, though.
The scientific evidence (Score:3)
suggests that what we are doing is changing the atmosphere and sea in ways that, amongst other things, increase the energy that drives weather systems. This increases the likelihood: that storms will be violent; that winds pick up more moisture from the sea - that has to fall later as rain; etc ... The predictions are silent about individual weather events, these will be more affected by local geography and placing, etc, of weather patterns on the day. In some cases: the energy changes will lead to local cooling or drying (or droughts).
So: we cannot point to an individual climatic event (ie storm or something) and say that it was caused, or made more extreme, by global warming. We can observe that overall things are getting worse - in ways that match the models that we have used to predict these effects.
The trouble is that many do not want to know: the effects are over many years "I'll be dead by then"; or are seen as costing more (eg moving from petrol [gas] to electric powered cars); global in nature "why should I do something when XX is not"; and are often far away:
First the flooding happened in Louisiana, but I did nothing because I do not live in Louisiana.
First the flooding happened in Eastern Australia, but I did nothing because I do not live in Eastern Australia.
Then the flooding happened in Cumbria, England, but I did nothing because I do not live in Cumbria.
Now the flooding is inundating my house, but there is no one to keep me dry.
With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller.
Climate Non-Science (Score:4, Insightful)
They can explain everything, but are able to predict nothing. Internet is full of compilations of failed predictions [google.com], but the only "successful" ones are the useless statements like "it may get hotter, or colder". Yeah, right...
Tar-and-feathers beckon...
pathetic (Score:3)
Increasing frequency and severity of storms may well be a result of climate change, although when it comes to flooding, there are many factors involved.
But, let's look at Bill Nye's explanation:
The only thing that explanation shows is that Bill Nye is not a scientist, but a clown. International scientists didn't "concur" with Bill Nye, most international scientists aren't even aware of the existence of Bill Nye. The fact that this guy is the president of the Planetary Society is a disgrace to the society and the the memory of Carl Sagan.
It couldnt have anything to do with (Score:3)
the Army Corp of Engineers not maintaining the dykes????
And... Then there's actual science (Score:3)
I actually don't thin Bill is saying it's the result of climate change. He is saying it is consistent with what we would expect from climate change. And then I can't tell if Bill or the journoclown is getting it wrong by making the leap that THEREFORE it was the result of climate change. Of course that does not follow logically.
The power of statistics is such that we would need many decades of data before we could theoretically detect that climate change is indeed changing the frequency or intensity of these events. Truth is that things like floods APPEAR to be dropping when measured in meaningful ways.
When people make these statements, they are worse than people who deny science. They are pretending to be scientific when being quite the opposite.
There are sane people out there. They are rare. But they exist. Here is one: https://youtu.be/meoETyMA4K0 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Our favorite science guy?"
WTF is this, reddit? Goddamn slashdot's gone to shit. I mean, it's gone to shit several, several times since I started posting here, but every time I keep thinking we've hit bottom, no the editors find a way to dig deeper.
That's not the editor's writing, it's the submitter's writing, which you should know by now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, we should never blame editors for the content they edit and choose to disseminate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi!
I wrote "our favorite science guy" since many people (including myself) think he's their favorite science guy.
Clearly, there are a number of science deniers who don't like him. They probably have some other non-science guy they like.
I agree that Slashdot is a lot like reddit. Lots of flaming bozos with an agenda.
Re:Followed by: (Score:5, Informative)
Or more accurately Bill Nye says "it is reasonable that these storms are connected to [climate change]", and the media cannot understand the difference between drawing a probable conclusion and drawing a definitive conclusion. Bill Nye never said this was absolutely because of climate change, just that climate change most likely had a significant impact on the magnitude of the rain. But that is too reasonable and we need a more inflammatory headline.
Re:Followed by: (Score:5, Insightful)
As with any branch of science that uses statistics, no one can say that any specific event has a specific cause where multiple causes are possible. For instance, you can't tell whether a specific decay event in a lump of plutonium was caused by radioactive decay, or maybe a stray high energy cosmic ray. But what you can do is measure a large number of decay events and come up with the most probable explanation. This is true of all statistics, and it's why we have tools like statistics.
So if anyone points to a specific storm and says "That's AGW", they're not going to get much support even in the climatological community. But if someone states "The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.
Re:Followed by: (Score:4, Insightful)
> The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.
Except it's not. Floods are steady and the damage as a % of GDP has fallen 75% since 1950.
Truth is you need a much longer time scale before you have enough power to see an effect of climate change in the statistics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You have a citation for these figures? I'd wager Katrina's costs alone, once they're fully factored, probably significantly outweigh similar events, so I'm calling bullshit on your claim.
Re:Followed by: (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you just missed Martian's point entirely. Global warming is causing the sea temperature to increase which is causing the sea volume and level to increase. These are easily demonstrated with simple physics experiments. But that will only increase the size and frequency of storms probabilistically.
We may still get periods of smaller and less frequent storms even with extreme global warming just as we do today. The probability of those periods occurring, however, will decrease. The system is far too complex to point to individual events and say, "This was directly caused by X," because that event could have occurred without X, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The system is far too complex for you to be making almost every claim in your comment. You can do a small physics experiment to prove that CO2 increases are causing all of the ocean temp increases? No, you cannot. There could be a feedback system that 100% counteracts that effect or even 175% counteracts that effect and some completely different interaction is responsible for the net increase of ocean temps. And then higher ocean temps will cause more storms? Maybe, maybe not.
If everyone who patted themselv
Re:Followed by: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Followed by: (Score:4, Insightful)
You can do a small physics experiment to prove that CO2 increases are causing all of the ocean temp increases? No, you cannot.
"Climate change" is not a synonym for "atmospheric CO2." There is absolutely no question that ocean temperatures have risen dramatically in the last 100 years. That is climate change. That is the energy source Nye is claiming can "reasonably" be connected to more energetic and wetter storms. He is not wrong.
There's a lot of evidence and theory supporting the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions have contributed to the rise in surface and ocean temperatures, but that's a separate issue. Regardless of whether you're a pro- or anti-AGW person, it is an empirical fact that 379 consecutive months of above average temperature demonstrates that the global temperature is rising. You can't deny that data, or the consequences of that temperature trend, just because you don't like some people's explanation of the cause.
Re: (Score:3)
This is getting silly. No one is denying that climate changes. The debate is over whether human causes increase change in detrimental ways, and whether the costs of preventing those human causes is worth the degree of impact it would have
Re: (Score:3)
We may still get periods of smaller and less frequent storms even with extreme global warming just as we do today.
Absolutely true. And if I may add a bit along the same lines: As the atmosphere gets warmer, it gets more turbulent - this happens in any fluid medium (ie. water and air); we have probably all seen this experiement in science class in school, where you have a large glass bowl of water, put in a few crystals of something strongly coloured and heat it at the bottom, ad the colours start swirling around. If you were to measure the temperature in different places, you would find that the water rising up is warm
Re:Followed by: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also worth pointing out that the water level has been rising at a noticeable rate for the last 10 years or so. I live near the ocean, and I've watched boat launches and piers go underwater during high tide, where that never use to happen. I wonder how much of this water rising had to do with, and will have to do with in the future, Louisiana flooding. They're basically already underwater in the lower parts of the state, so much so, that they cannot bury their dead in the ground, due to ground water being so near the surface. My hunch is that the ground water rising is the main contributor to flooding at times like this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Nye, science denier (Score:5, Insightful)
Nye hasn't published any papers on this topic. Let's look at what real scientists have found.
Even as Al Gore was trying to scare everyone into believing that the frequency and intensity of cyclones was in the process of skyrocketing, Dr. R.N. Maue analyzed actual data and found just the opposite:
Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity
Abstract
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
- R.N. Maue, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University
And there are plenty of studies that show increasing global temperature causes reduced storm activity. One such study published in Quaternary Science Reviews is summarized here [wattsupwiththat.com].
Re: Bill Nye, science denier (Score:4, Insightful)
Your reference to a paper on tropical cyclones is a non sequitur since the storm that caused this flooding was not a tropical cyclone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Followed by: (Score:4, Informative)
The article quotes Bill Nye as saying:
“This is the result of climate change,” he said. “It’s only going to get worse.”
That is just bad journalism. He did say those words at some point in the discussion, but it is taken out of context. He says this statement briefly near the beginning but is interrupted, and then later clarifies with a more detailed explanation. He gives the explanation in the same discussion, so it isn't as if he made a gaffe and was trying to cover it up. He made it very clear exactly what he meant.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. He should have said "This is consistent with what we expect of climate change."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Followed by: (Score:4, Informative)
Liberal hardleft sheepdot.
For every comment like this there is another one complaining about how it is full of libertarian neckbeards. This is something I used to consider an anecdotal observation until I realized that it is easily quantifiable in up/down mods. Just about every time I make a left/right polarizing comment, it gets an equal number of up/down mods and basically lands in a neutral state. This would seem to indicate that you should stop complaining and work on improving the quality of your comments. This one is not a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Followed by: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Followed by: (Score:4, Insightful)
Because scientific theories are just totally about what part of the political spectrum you're from.
You do understand the universe doesn't give a flying fuck whether you're a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, an anarchist or a socialist, right? It really doesn't. CO2 absorbs and re-emits solar radiation on the liberal and the libertarian equally.
Re:Followed by: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to be honest with you, I don't have much time for either side. I think the Liberals, but more particularly the Left have done a lot of damage to AGW acceptance simply by trying to integrate into their own economic mumbo jumbo, and trying to beat conservative elements over the head with it. They've made one of the supreme challenges of humanity at this point of time and politicizing it for their own ends). The conservatives, on the other hand, are often just people easily manipulated by large commercial interests who want to delay significant responses to AGW long enough to maximize profits. That's why the fossil fuel companies fund crap "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute, because they serve to give conservative and libertarian types a pack of memes to trot out every time the topic of global warming comes up. A pox on both their houses, I say. Both groups are populated by idiots and demagogues.
To my mind, the time has come to simply look at the best way of dealing with the problem. For me, the simplest way and the way that it is the most market oriented is carbon pricing. Start upping the price of fossil fuels, thus allowing market forces to concentrate investment on alternatives. I don't even care if governments pocket the cash. The whole point isn't reinvestment of carbon taxes, but rather to create an artificial scarcity. This solution should be eminently favorable conservatives and libertarians, because it favors their economic approach, but of course, it will cost the likes of the Koch Brothers money, so the game goes on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're partly right: ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats on water.
However, liquid water does change its density as a function of temperature. In 1 atm, water is densest at 4 degrees Celsius. Its density goes down in either direction from that temperature. And of course, it gets far less dense when it turns into water vapor.
Worthless statement (Score:4, Informative)
"As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands..." is just an example of Bill Nye trying to impress his audience with his knowledge of the physical properties of water, and therefore he should be trusted as part of the Priestly Order of the Science Illuminati.
Of course the flooding in Louisiana has noting to do with the fact that the southern arch of the Jet Stream has been cycling over Nevada instead of Missouri for the past few weeks. In no way could this have been caused by cyclic El Niño warming in the Pacific causing an early breakdown of the Polar Vortex, enhanced by seasonal Atlantic low-pressure zones, which cause North America to experience increased hydraulic activity overall.
Nope, it's due to oceanic surface water expansion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechan (Score:3)
It's true that he has little credibility on this subject but what a sixty year old guy did in undergrad is practically meaningless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The interview was on CNN, which staffs a meteorologist that is a climate change denier.
He was not a denier, he was a skeptic. And he has changed his opinion. [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Same for the Earthquake in Italy.
Flooding, possibly - earthquakes, not a chance.
Every well-informed person knows that earthquakes are caused by the Great Satan, the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're thermoerotic...global warming gives them a boner.
Re:Bill Nye... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is the Donald Trump of scientists.
Yeah, except for the ridiculous lying, misogyny, racist remarks, authoritarian tendencies, complete disdain for expert opinion, and hair that is the obvious result of a poorly executed medical procedure.
It's just like a bowl of icecream is the pile of compost of desserts. As in they're complete opposites.
Re: (Score:3)
And don't get me started on fresh and salt water fish...