It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Nye and Liberalized Science

page: 2
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Nye is so full of sh!t. Just a hired mouth piece by the left to push false narratives in the name of science.

Tucker Carlson guts him here:


edit on 2-7-2017 by Outlier13 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

Tucker did gut him in that video, thanks for posting.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

oh soooooooooooooooo funny no its not tyvm goodbye



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Dolph Lundgren is actually a fantastic, Swiss Army knife of a science brain, and a very smart man generally. His characters are meatheads, and his low voice and the fact that he spends too much time in the gym give people the wrong impression of him. He has a very high IQ to go along with that level of qualification you refer to in your image there.

However, he never graduated Washington State University, having spent but a year there and leaving before completing the course he was attending.

Furthermore, and more importantly to boot, Mr Lundgren has spoken of his concerns about the environment and what is being done to it, from such a well informed position, that he was asked at one stage by the Green Party of Sweden, from where he hails, to run for office there, to advocate from within the system, for a more ecologically responsible outlook on a governmental basis. However, because he disagrees with certain aspects of how the Swedish system operates, and wants no part of its governance, he declined.

So to clarify, the difference between Dolph Lundgren and Mr Nye, is that Dolphs concerns about the environment and the climate are informed by even more science knowledge than Mr Nye has. However, both are concerned about the environment and the climate.
edit on 3-7-2017 by TrueBrit because: added clarifications.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Boy that is a drop the mic post if I've ever seen one lol...


"Your right Dolf Lungren is a far smarter scientist than Nye..and Dolf agrees with Nye.."


Propaganda Rejected.

I have come to the conclusion the real problem is a lack of stopping to consider the logistics required to pull off these conspiracies. So that's the route I'm taking in these online debates..

What are the logistical requirements for pulling of "X"...and usually that is flipping ridiculous..



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




Their logic is becoming so convoluted it's now working against them... and it's glorious.


Indeed...when one starts thinking...connecting one reasoning to another...very soon you come to a conclusion that it's a ridiculous house of cards.

What I'm mostly puzzled by...is how these people that consider themselves intellectuals...dont see the ridiculousness of this...



it's making SJW heads explode because if they attack her for culture appropriation they're saying her self appointed identity is invalid and it contradicts all their identity politics.


That culture appropriation thing...coupled with freedom of being whoever you want to identify with...was always going to be a real head banger for them.

It's amazing to me how they didnt see it coming.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:29 AM
link   
infact...I'm gonna make a little prediction. Pretty soon...this lunatic policy is gonna start eating its own young.

I guess nature will take care of it...all on its own.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think the difficulty with trying to argue the point with SOME people, is that it is not that they lack the imagination to stop and consider the logistics, but the capacity to do so. You and I know full well that for as many people to be involved in a conspiracy against the human race, as would need to be to successfully pull it off, would be a next door to impossible feat, and astronomically expensive, to the point where there would be no ability to hide the expenditures what so ever.

And that is before you even get to the science itself, which backs the concerns that people have been having for decades and decades about pollution, the climate, and so on. What is far more likely is that all the "true believer" nutbars who have been hassling scientists about this stuff, are either being paid to, or are too mentally ill to prevent themselves from shilling for the big oil companies, and the lie of clean coal.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Ah, yes, Bill Nye the science guy... he pops up regularly with this kind of BS.

What most people apparently don't realize is that it takes more than a degree... even more than a job... to be a good scientist or engineer. It doesn't take much more than a funding source to get a degree. True, you have to pass the courses, but the difficulty of those courses depends greatly on the school attended or even the instructor teaching the course. The marks of a good scientist or good engineer are adherence to the ethics of the industry and ability to expand knowledge.

When someone says "the science is settled," as so many do, but then cannot quantify the results of that 'settled science,' they just outed themselves as poor liars. They have shown a contempt for the scientific method and a political bias that is antithetical to everything science is.

When it comes to climate change, we have many, many more questions than answers. We cannot yet identify all of the factors that influence global climate, know precious little about the contribution of those factors we can identify, and are clueless about other identified factors' contributions. That's why we do research. We create computer models (mathematical systems of inter-related equations) to test hypotheses about how factors contribute. We run these models to see if they are accurate, i.e., if they can predict recent observations based on data from the more distant past. If the models match, we then look at the near future events predicted and see if those are accurate. If so, we can begin to look at even more distant future predictions and begin to run 'what if' scenarios to see the effects. If the errors are too large, the models are adjusted and the whole process begins again.

That's how it's supposed to work.

But under Global Warming, it works somewhat differently. Scientists still use computer models, but instead of analyzing the results for accuracy, pop scientists (like Bill Nye) accept the results blindly. Sure, the last twenty computer models predicted we will all freeze in the fiery flood to come, but how accurate are those models? Who cares? They give the (politically) right results! They must be right!

That is extraordinarily dangerous. Bill himself stated that we had, according to his 'science,' averted an ice age already. Maybe we did; maybe we didn't. If we did, we just saved millions of lives... extreme cold kills. If we didn't, well, I have yet to hear of millions dying suddenly from heat. Europe has more land that will grow grapes... I'm not a big wine drinker, but it makes sense that would also apply to hops. Redneck good with that. It certainly beats shorter growing seasons and loss of tropical species.

But more so, it illustrates what a miscalculation or misunderstanding of environmental factors could cause. The boogeyman of Global Warming is fossil fuels, but deforestation, heat islands, and atmospheric contamination from chemicals other than carbon dioxide are happening as well. What effect would they have in the absence of carbon dioxide increases? We simply have no idea. What we do know is that even the most horrendous predictions describe small increases in overall temperature... the dire warnings are the effects of those temperature increases... and are far from complete.

"The ocean will expand due to heat expansion and glacial melt," but that ignores increased atmospheric water vapor content (and often ignores the temperature of the glaciers themselves being so far below the melting temperature). "But more water vapor means more storms!" No, storm intensity is a function of the rate of temperature change, not the absolute static temperature. And do on and so forth. The dire consequences are not based in a complete understanding of the principles involved.

Bill Nye might be mechanical engineer by trade, but that's certainly not his job today. Today his job is to push an agenda and confuse fact. Science Guy? Hardly. More of a Propaganda Guy.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join