Bill Nye now thinks himself a climatologist?

I will say that I am not a big fan of Bill O'Rilley, but I say this and thought it was a good scientific explanation of why the temperature and the weather are like they are. the big question is who sounds more like they know what they are talking about?
video on Fox. Sorry about the add.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by network dude]

Two ignorant people who think they are experts on any given topic at any given time does not equate that one of them must know what they are talking about. This is just two people that are not experts on the subject saying what they think. That does not make either one of them right as opposed to the other, just both loud and opinionated is all.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


did you see it on the site? I hadn't fixed the link yet. I thought the climatologist actually had real data and knew what he was talking about. Bil Nye is just an idiot who desperately wants more than his 15 minutes back.(IMHO)

reply to post by network dude

I'd just like to throw it out there that the Farmer's Almanac predicted the huge snowfall over this winter, which I thought was pretty amazing.
As for what the gentlemen on the TV have to say, I feel very sad that that Bill Nye can talk to another person in a calm, measured voice, and the 'REAL' scientist feels he has to raise his voice to make his point. I personally think that Bill Nye makes a very good point, though his points may or may not add to the theory of global warming, just in the wide sense that the issues that contribute to global warming are still kind of up in the air.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

did you see it on the site? I hadn't fixed the link yet. I thought the climatologist actually had real data and knew what he was talking about. Bil Nye is just an idiot who desperately wants more than his 15 minutes back.(IMHO)

No, I did not bother because I have watched Bill Nye talk about this before. I am not doubting that any climatologist has good points. It just seemed like you were offering the choice between Bill and Bill and saying that since Nye is such an idiot that Oreally looks like he knows what he is talking about. Sorry if I misunderstood your OP but I was just responding to what I thought you said. I have watched both these men talk on the subject before and they simply struck me as two people that should be talking about something else. I totally agree with you about Nye, I just feel Oreally is not much different aside from still enjoying his 15.

reply to post by EvilLink


I have been a bit biased on Bill Nye for a while since he had his stint on the Larry King show about UFO's. he was completely closed minded and obstinate about the whole phenomenon. Now since he can make a baking soda and vinegar volcano, he is qualified to debate a climatologist? I would have liked to see the chart he kept holding up showing the temperature rise. Then show him one that goes back to the 1400's. Both sides have a habit of showing the data that makes their side look more believable.

The real reason this item tweaked my interest is that a member of my family is a hopeless follower of all things liberal and blindly believes that whatever is presented on CNN is gospel. The current cold we are expiriencing in the US is because of global warming. Oh, the irony.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


we agree on that. I can't watch one of his interviews without feeling the urge to smack him. He has to be the loudest, and it seems he feels louder is proportional to being right.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

we agree on that. I can't watch one of his interviews without feeling the urge to smack him. He has to be the loudest, and it seems he feels louder is proportional to being right.

Unfortunately I feel that way about both men it is just usually I have to deal with them separately so I can take small doses. I really think the only difference is one has a regular show but Nye is a pretty regular guest across the board so even that is not that much. I would really like to see this discussion happen just between climatologists and no more guys like this.

I used to at least enjoy watching both men in small doses way back in the day. They each had smaller heads back then though and stuck closer to material they had some real knowledge of - usually.

Originally posted by EvilLink
reply to post by network dude

 

I'd just like to throw it out there that the Farmer's Almanac predicted the huge snowfall over this winter, which I thought was pretty amazing.
As for what the gentlemen on the TV have to say, I feel very sad that that Bill Nye can talk to another person in a calm, measured voice, and the 'REAL' scientist feels he has to raise his voice to make his point. I personally think that Bill Nye makes a very good point, though his points may or may not add to the theory of global warming, just in the wide sense that the issues that contribute to global warming are still kind of up in the air.

No they are not - there is not a single study, peice of research, scientific paper on the planet today which casts doubt on global warming -the only thing which casts doubt is the OPINION of non scientists - and scientists - people who KNOW WHAT THEY ARE talking about have had enough of people thinking that global warming is an arena for opinion - it is not - it is science and the science is absolute, concrete and undeniable - there is nothing, not a single scrap which can be put forward to undermine the reality of global warming - AND THAT IS A FACT !!!!

reply to post by audas


I want proof of your statement...

I have not seen any proof to date that says GW is real..

Just so you know..

Heavyweights Call for Global-warming Probes

As scandals surrounding the flawed global-warming report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change continue to grow, new calls for investigations are turning up the heat.

A Senate report from the Environment and Public Works Committee presented Tuesday concluded that scientists at the center of the scandal now known as Climategate committed unethical and potentially criminal acts to further global-warming alarmism.

Top scientists call for overhaul of UN climate panel

The IPCC's 2007 report, which has been heavily criticised for including a false claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, was produced by three separate groups of experts.

Working group one relied on peer-reviewed physical science to reach the conclusion that global warming is unequivocal and very likely due to human activity.

Climate scientists have been dismayed these findings have been tarnished by the Himalayan mistake, included by working group two, which assessed the impacts of climate change and drew on so-called grey literature, such as reports from campaign groups or student research not published in science journals.

And this is just from google news.. I am sure i can find some good info to state that it is not real IF i really wanted to.




[edit on 2/26/2010 by ThichHeaded]

Funny how Nye brings up Venus as equating to CO2 and Earth's warming, but he doesn't bring up Mars' global warming, but then that'd blow out his hypothesis, wouldn't it?

I think the Accuweather guy definitely had the data, and Nye was clueless.

reply to post by network dude
"Bill Nye, the Science Guy" is a media-driven source of pop-science.

Maybe we should "Ask Mr. Science?" He has a Master's Degree.
In Science.

Are we witnessing efforts to reduce AGW and AGW skepticism to fun-house jokes? To minimize the dangers or the hype?

What would be the motivation from anyone involved in the AGW controversy to even invoke such "authorities," other than for entertainment?

Will there now be AGW sitcoms? Aside from Obama's new chief climate change office and advisor.

jw

reply to post by audas

people who KNOW WHAT THEY ARE talking about have had enough of people thinking that global warming is an arena for opinion - it is not - it is science and the science is absolute, concrete and undeniable

That is exactly what science is NOT. True science is never static; it is always subject to refinement and evolution, and sometimes, revolution.

What you say in the quote above is DOCTRINE, as in FAITH. One never questions faith.

"Scientists" continually question the "conventional wisdom." Many times, science has taken great strides forward as the result of challenges to the "scientific consensus."

jw

reply to post by audas

Such certitude is often proven hopelessly unfounded:

"Radio has no future."
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
Francis Lord Kelvin (Physicist), 1899

"The (atomic) bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."
Admiral William Leary, 1945

"This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will carry scientists...the proposition appears to be basically impossible."
A. W. Bickerton, 1926

"Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i. this is worthless nonsense;
ii. this is interesting, but perverse;
iii. this is true, but quite unimportant;
iv. I always said so."
J.B.S. Haldane, 1965

"You can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back."
Beverly Rubik

"If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it."
Albert Einstein

"If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day."
John Wheeler

"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible."
M. C. Escher

Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws:
I. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
II. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
III. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by EvilLink
reply to post by network dude

 

I'd just like to throw it out there that the Farmer's Almanac predicted the huge snowfall over this winter, which I thought was pretty amazing.
As for what the gentlemen on the TV have to say, I feel very sad that that Bill Nye can talk to another person in a calm, measured voice, and the 'REAL' scientist feels he has to raise his voice to make his point. I personally think that Bill Nye makes a very good point, though his points may or may not add to the theory of global warming, just in the wide sense that the issues that contribute to global warming are still kind of up in the air.

No they are not - there is not a single study, peice of research, scientific paper on the planet today which casts doubt on global warming -the only thing which casts doubt is the OPINION of non scientists - and scientists - people who KNOW WHAT THEY ARE talking about have had enough of people thinking that global warming is an arena for opinion - it is not - it is science and the science is absolute, concrete and undeniable - there is nothing, not a single scrap which can be put forward to undermine the reality of global warming - AND THAT IS A FACT !!!!

in the early 70's the same could have been said for the impending Ice age.
I stand by my research that it's a cycle and will change again as it always has, and always will. Sun spots, who would have thought.