posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:26 AM
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
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.