guess who said "Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am"

[Spartanmack]

I still disagree with your opinion. You act like I'm the one that gets hung up on technicalities , but what do you call this?

the same thing I've been calling it all along - evidence that Nye isn't a scientist and doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Spartanmack]

it's clearly an attack on his opinion. there's nothing personal about it. (unless you're speaking a language other than English here.)

I see the clown car has pulled up - this ought to be fun.

Really, it's clearly an attack on his opinion? Did you watch the piece? Because Nye himself admits he doesn't know what Lindzen is wrong about, just that he is wrong, because for every one of him there are 100,000 other scientists that disagree with him. But of course, as Lindzen points out, that's not even remotely true.

And again, I'm not the one who characterized it as a personal attack. Bill Nye did that when he said he didn't want to get into personal attacks as if that somehow legitimized what he said as something other than a personal attack.

 

[Gulo Blue]

the same thing I've been calling it all along - evidence that Nye isn't a scientist and doesn't know what he's talking about.

Way too strict. Scientists don't express every detail perfectly all the time. He was mostly right/representative of the science and I think you're misinterpreting the criticism against him.

 

[Spartanmack]

Way too strict. Scientists don't express every detail perfectly all the time. He was mostly right/representative of the science and I think you're misinterpreting the criticism against him.

I disagree - he was clearly mostly wrong and he was espousing absurd predictions of major catastrophes that based on a misunderstanding of the science and he had no substantive argument to counter Lindzen. But to the ACCC people it doesn't matter - you don't have to be right, you just have to agree with them and they'll defend you and shout down the opposition until their last breath.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I see the clown car has pulled up - this ought to be fun.

Really, it's clearly an attack on his opinion? Did you watch the piece? Because Nye himself admits he doesn't know what Lindzen is wrong about, just that he is wrong, because for every one of him there are 100,000 other scientists that disagree with him. But of course, as Lindzen points out, that's not even remotely true.

And again, I'm not the one who characterized it as a personal attack. Bill Nye did that when he said he didn't want to get into personal attacks as if that somehow legitimized what he said as something other than a personal attack.

That's not what he said.

Nye never said that Lindzen said anything wrong.

And this is some BS where you say that you're not the one calling it a personal attack, when you clearly are calling it a personal attack.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's not what he said.

Nye never said that Lindzen said anything wrong.

And this is some BS where you say that you're not the one calling it a personal attack, when you clearly are calling it a personal attack.

Larry King: "Bill Nye where is Richard Lindzen wrong?"
Nye: "well, I'm not sure...but I find my colleagues...much more compelling than his, his view is a minority on a scale that's impressive - probably 100k:1 or so - 'scientists' vs. him"

So, if you're concluding that Nye didn't say Lindzen is wrong, that's just a technicality. Clearly, the thinks Lindzen is wrong.

And if you think it's not a personal attack when Nye says "scientists" vs. "him" - not acknowledging Lindzen as a scientist is is clearly an attempt to discredit him. Seems pretty obviously personal. Nye characterized it as a personal attack - I happen to agree that it is but again, that's not important which is probably why you are so fixated on it. If you want to say it's not a personal attack, fine but that doesn't change the fact that Nye had nothing substantive to refute Lindzen when Lindzen demolished his argument and made it obvious Nye doesn't know what he's talking about. It was the perfect opportunity for Nye to prove he did know what he was talking about and he couldn't do it. So it wasn't a personal attack in your opinion (Bill Nye and I disagree but I don't care), but it also wasn't anything remotely substantive or scientific.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Larry King: "Bill Nye where is Richard Lindzen wrong?"
Nye: "well, I'm not sure...but I find my colleagues...much more compelling than his, his view is a minority on a scale that's impressive - probably 100k:1 or so - 'scientists' vs. him"

So, if you're concluding that Nye didn't say Lindzen is wrong, that's a pretty significant technicality. And if you think it's not a personal attack when Nye says "scientists" vs. "him" - not acknowledging Lindzen as a scientist is is clearly an attempt to discredit him. Seems pretty obviously personal.

Nye characterized it as a personal attack - I happen to agree that it is but again, that's not important which is probably why you are so fixated on it. If you want to say it's not a personal attack, fine but that doesn't change the fact that Nye had nothing substantive to refute Lindzen when Lindzen demolished his argument and made it obvious Nye doesn't know what he's talking about. It was the perfect opportunity for Nye to prove he did know what he was talking about and he couldn't do it. So it wasn't a personal attack in your opinion (Bill Nye and I disagree but I don't care), but it also wasn't anything remotely substantive or scientific.

When you cherry pick the past 8 years from 2007 to talk about trends, you're not wrong, just cherry picking.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And if you think it's not a personal attack when Nye says "scientists" vs. "him" - not acknowledging Lindzen as a scientist is is clearly an attempt to discredit him. Seems pretty obviously personal.

That could be a personal attack. I missed it before. I didn't get that that's what you were getting at.

Still not convinced Nye shouldn't be called a scientist or by your interpretation of how wrong he was and what about.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Question for Spartanmack: what do you think on the subject of manmade climate change?

 

[Spartanmack]

When you cherry pick the past 8 years from 2007 to talk about trends, you're not wrong, just cherry picking.

really? you think he's cherry picking and only talking about the last 8 years? That was an ancillary point.

 

[Gulo Blue]

really? you think he's cherry picking and only talking about the last 8 years? That was an ancillary point.

I think the things he said were either cherry picking, true and not disagreed with by Nye, or the results of his own models and research, which Nye isn't going to be able to weigh in on.

 

[Spartanmack]

Question for Spartanmack: what do you think on the subject of manmade climate change?

We've talked about this and I've made it clear where I stand. I think the argument is far from settled and I lean toward skeptic. I think alarmists are doing a disservice to the environment by focusing on ACCC and scaremongering about doomsday scenarios rather than focusing on real, provable problems with the environment that we can actually do something about today. Just like how idiots like Champ and Co boil the argument down to scientists vs. people of faith - it's counterproductive but that's how idiots argue. I also disagree with the path alarmists want to put the world on even if they are right about ACCC. And I really find the trend of silencing debate and now talking about prosecuting skeptics disturbing. I also think that ideas like that are compelling evidence to further doubt their claims about ACCC.

 

[Gulo Blue]

We've talked about this and I've made it clear where I stand. I think the argument is far from settled and I lean toward skeptic. I think alarmists are doing a disservice to the environment by focusing on ACCC and scaremongering about doomsday scenarios rather than focusing on real, provable problems with the environment that we can actually do something about today. Just like how idiots like Champ and Co boil the argument down to scientists vs. people of faith - it's counterproductive but that's how idiots argue. I also disagree with the path alarmists want to put the world on even if they are right about ACCC. And I really find the trend of silencing debate and now talking about prosecuting skeptics disturbing. I also think that ideas like that are compelling evidence to further doubt their claims about ACCC.

Rings a bell.

What would evidence have to look like to convince you? Maybe not that the worse alarmists are right, but that it's bad enough that we need to do something significant.

 

[tigermud]

High temp tommorow 45,,cold rainy damn near may, these endless damn al gore polar vortexes are getting old already..warming my ass

Bill nye is in favor of capital punishment for those who aren't convinced, wow

I'm not convinced,...bill would be in favor of sending me away, Is Bill nye a totalitarian?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

 

[Spartanmack]

Rings a bell.

What would evidence have to look like to convince you? Maybe not that the worse alarmists are right, but that it's bad enough that we need to do something significant.

some actual warming perhaps - supported by data that hasn't been manipulated. maybe a single prediction coming even close to being true or an observation that can't be explained by anything other than global warming. It's hard to say really, since the alarmists have done so much to damage their credibility like blaming civil wars, rape, islamic terrorism and just about everything else on ACCC like the 8 hurricanes that hit the US one year and then the 0 that hit the next year - both were due to ACCC. Maybe if they weren't caught admitting in their own emails to each other that they manipulated data to get the results they want. And stifling debate on the subject to the point where they're now trying to figure out how they can prosecute and jail dissenters - that's not science. Real science welcomes dissent and provides transparency. It gives them the opportunity to strengthen their position. People who shout down and lock up dissenters clearly have something to hide.

Edit: and I've already said we need to do something about pollution, but not because we're warming the planet. We have real problems with what we're doing to the air we breath, the water we drink and the food we eat. We can switch to primarily nuclear energy in less than 10 years - it's safe, environmentally friendly and cheap. It doesn't emit CO2, it doesn't fry or chop up birds in mid-flight, it doesn't require a lot of real estate, etc, etc. Ideas like the small modular reactors Taylory Wilson wants to design and develop check off all those boxes and they can run on nuclear waste or retired weapons fuel that we have stored all over the place.

https://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wi...nuclear_fission_reactors?language=en#t-130277

 

[Gulo Blue]

High temp tommorow 45,,cold rainy damn near may, these endless damn al gore polar vortexes are getting old already..warming my ass

Bill nye is in favor of capital punishment for those who aren't convinced, wow

I'm not convinced,...bill would be in favor of sending me away, Is Bill nye a totalitarian?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

In the video Nye blames "extra humans". Kinda dark if you ask me.

 

[Gulo Blue]

some actual warming perhaps - supported by data that hasn't been manipulated.

That's a real tough thing to achieve. No argument there. Even something as simple as a global average temperature involves so much data and so much decision making that a person can't just read about it for a day or two and validate the measurement. This could all be BS and it would be tough for the public to know. And of course models are even less transparent than that.

But that's why I think the "consensus" arguments matter. I know the there are a lot more followers than leaders, but I believe there are enough honest scientists to keep progress on the right track. I know there are times when scientific consensus has been wrong, but I suspect that if you took all the cases where that's happened, you'd find that the amount of time for each correction to happen gets shorter and shorter as the pace of research has grown through the years.

"Consensus" was a controversial word to insert into the argument. As long as big money can "buy" scientists, you'll always have some disagreement when science uncovers something big money doesn't want to hear.

Personally, I surprised more people aren't shocked by the fact that we're made a measurable change to the composition of the atmosphere. If we have consensus about any part of this, it's probably the fact that we've released so much CO2, you can measure a change.

 

[Michchamp]

In the video Nye blames "extra humans". Kinda dark if you ask me.

my understanding is that it's not the number of humans on the planet (though having close to 7 billion people now doesnt help), but their consumption of resources. Basically if everyone had less, ate less, produced less CO2, the world would be fine. if everyone consumed resources on the level of a typical American, we'd be even more completely FUCKED than we're already going ton be.

conversely, if everyone had the carbon footprint of a kalahari bushman, the world would be fine with 7 billion or even more people living on it

 

[Gulo Blue]

We can switch to primarily nuclear energy in less than 10 years - it's safe, environmentally friendly and cheap

Agreed. Solar has a role to play too I think. But in the nearer term, nuclear.

 

[Gulo Blue]

my understanding is that it's not the number of humans on the planet (though having close to 7 billion people now doesnt help), but their consumption of resources. Basically if everyone had less, ate less, produced less CO2, the world would be fine. if everyone consumed resources on the level of a typical American, we'd be even more completely FUCKED than we're already going ton be.

conversely, if everyone had the carbon footprint of a kalahari bushman, the world would be fine with 7 billion or even more people living on it

Yeah. We eat a lot meat. We might start eating a lot of "lab grown" at some point.

Something about that "extra humans" phrase really bugs me. Not the first thing Nye has said that I don't like.