The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

LOL

The realization... dawning... oh shit, what have I done... I'm on fox news...

At first he was like: *wtf, and then he was really happy later to get asked a good qusetion :-)

Adding video to channels (Wtf) - requested by DerHasisttot.

Honorable mention should also go to the bimbo at the end. "maybe a little number movin around..."

That was absolutely classic... The look on his face... a mixture of disappointment, disbelief and disgust...

You could just tell he knew that no matter how simplistic the metaphor... no matter how much he dumbed it down... in all likely hood this guy wasn't going to get it...

Ugh. I hope FOX News paid him well for tbat crappy interview.

Faux News are idiots.

>> ^Grimm:

Honorable mention should also go to the bimbo at the end. "maybe a little number movin around..."


No no no no no. Get your quote right.

"...maybe a couple of number movin' around... (might be able to help this debt limit thing)."

You can tell after Fox guy asks the global warming question Bill Nye realizes the error in using his I'm-talking-to-worthwhile-adults voice and switches to his I'm-teaching-third-graders voice.

Yawn. Global warming is debunked. Every premise they have ever had is falling flat on its face.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/polar-bear-researcher-under-investigation-for-integrity-issues/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

How many of these climiate alarmists have to be brought up on charges, placed on administrative leave, have their findings utterly discredited, or otherwise be proven to be a bunch of liars before the Warmers give up and just admit that humans are NOT the drivers of whatever climate change may or may not be happening?

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Considering there is scientific consensus on global climate change, you'd have to discredit all of them. Alternately, you could try trusting people who do science for a living over the people who do politics for a living.

I love how Bill Nye had to break it down into cupcakes so this moron could understand! Then right after Bill says "if you wanna get into mathematics and algebra"...woah there Bill Nye....remember, youre on FOX!

He was way off on cupcakes. They don't cool off faster than cake because they are tastier than cake. Just sayin.

ok, uhuh...now...explain it to me like i'm a 5 year old.

Good god, the timbre in his voice make it seem like he is using hand puppets to explain this to toddlers.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

First off, I'm convinced the selection of your username was motivated primarily by a desire to discourage people from addressing you directly. On to the serious stuff...

Let's go right to the "Climategate" data release. Cornell has a free piece of software called Eureqa that analyzes raw data and finds trends or formulas that could generate such data. It has no bias in its analysis; it doesn't even "know" what the data it's being fed represents; it just takes numbers and finds patterns. This guy just happened to be playing with the software at the time of this data release and decided to try it out. See the results for yourself. I wouldn't want to introduce any bias by telling you what they look like.

[Charles Monnett] has been suspended, possibly over the accuracy of his observations. - From the polar bear researcher article.

The important part of that article is in that quoted sentence and it's "possibly over the accuracy of his observations". The reason that's important is because Monnett has not been charged with anything yet; that's just Fox speculating on what he might be in trouble for. If he is found to have been dishonest, I hope he gets nailed, but let's wait and see.

Citing the hockey stick controversy is interesting because you're basically just choosing the climatologist whose findings you like over those who you don't. Hubert Lamb, the guy who put out the 1965 data with the warm "hump" in the middle ages, about 13 years later, came to agree that there would be evident global warming around 2000.

Even if you insist on sticking to his graph of the medieval warm period, we exceeded those temperatures in 2006-2007 and are still on a steep incline. It's hotter now than it's been in over 1000 years, one way or another.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fox, moon, bill nye, global warming' to 'fox, moon, bill nye, global warming, climate change, cupcakes' - edited by xxovercastxx

I wonder if Bill Nye sometimes says to himself: "Wait a second. I'M the one with the silly bow tie. Why are YOU the one acting like a total idiot?"

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

I wish he had used hand puppets.

(Faux News dimwits probably still wouldn't have got it though)

>> ^longde:

Good god, the timbre in his voice make it seem like he is using hand puppets to explain this to toddlers.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Yawn. Global warming is debunked. Every premise they have ever had is falling flat on its face.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global
-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/0
7/29/polar-bear-researcher-under-investigation-for-integrity-issues/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
How many of these climiate alarmists have to be brought up on charges, placed on administrative leave, have their findings utterly discredited, or otherwise be proven to be a bunch of liars before the Warmers give up and just admit that humans are NOT the drivers of whatever climate change may or may not be happening?


http://mgilbert.net/ostrich.jpg

It's coincidental that the "evidence" for global warming coincides with worldwide tax hikes, draconian regulations and One-World 'benevolent' socialist tyranny. Completely.

Considering there is scientific consensus on global climate change, you'd have to discredit all of them. Alternately, you could try trusting people who do science for a living over the people who do politics for a living.

Why do you assume scientists are apolitical when their funding depends on taxpayer money and growing the size of government? There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.


See this is the easiest way to argue. Deny the fundamental facts and you cannot even have the argument. Jon Stewart pointed this out awhile ago, there are facts and then their are opinions. It is a FACT that a vast majority of the scientific community agrees Climate Change is caused by mankind. Yet if you deny this, the argument is over...it's very smart, good on you QM.

Actually, Yogi, it is your opinion that you think (or would like) a majority of the scientific community to agree about climate change being man driven. I have not seen you offer any proof to back up your claim. Therefore, it is your opinion.

Personally, I dont believe the climate change is man driven. From what I have read, it is driven more by solar activity and other natural causes. It's already proven that we have hot spells then ice ages and back to hot spells (called cycles). This is just one of those hot stages. Now I do believe that man can contribute to the environment is negative and positive ways but do not feel we are the majority factor.

A friend of my uncle used to work for the government as a scientist. One of the projects he was on was to figure out why there was acid rain around the New York area. I cant remember exactly what they found but it was something wierd like sap from the trees from further north was causing the rain to be acidic. Regardless, it was the normal course of nature. When they turned in their report to the government, the report was rejected because it did not align with the governments view that the acidic rain was cause by global warming.

The government needs and promotes global warming because it causes hysteria and takes away focus from issues that the public should really be concerned about.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.

See this is the easiest way to argue. Deny the fundamental facts and you cannot even have the argument. Jon Stewart pointed this out awhile ago, there are facts and then their are opinions. It is a FACT that a vast majority of the scientific community agrees Climate Change is caused by mankind. Yet if you deny this, the argument is over...it's very smart, good on you QM.

You know I met him once. He was a really nice guy. I told him he inspired me to do science. He does a good thing.

So what your saying is no matter how much scientific evidence is given to you, you won't change your mind. Why? Because it doesn't fit your ideology. I don't automatically distrust science because some science is corporate sponsored, and some is gov't sponsored. A good experiment is a good experiment regardless of who sponsored it. What are you gonna do? Trust no science at all because every experiment has designers and participants with potential secondary motives?!

Science rarely proves something 100% of the time because it's so hard to account for every variable. If you did an experiment about gravity, you may inadvertently introduce other variables that alter the results, such as wind, or magnetism. So some conflicting evidence is expected. But the majority of the evidence suggests a human element to global warming, and global warming is real.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's coincidental that the "evidence" for global warming coincides with worldwide tax hikes, draconian regulations and One-World 'benevolent' socialist tyranny. Completely.
Considering there is scientific consensus on global climate change, you'd have to discredit all of them. Alternately, you could try trusting people who do science for a living over the people who do politics for a living.
Why do you assume scientists are apolitical when their funding depends on taxpayer money and growing the size of government? There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.

I like cupcakes.

Wait... what?
>> ^Chaucer:

... it did not align with the governments view that the acidic rain was cause by global warming.

Climate change is generally accepted as fact by the scientific community.

There are many scientific, peer-reviewed articles based on observable data that point to a warming in climate - from biological data (the changing of species ranges to historically cooler regions, the recent increase in root storage of tropical plants, and the change in diapause of certain invertebrates due to temperature changes) to hydrological data (the acidification of ocean samples is a direct result of increased CO2 absorption, the increases in bleaching of coral, and the modification of currents) to atmospheric data (the classic Mauna Loa data that reveals an increase in CO2, which increases the greenhouse effect, thereby leading to a warming climate).

I could break out the actual articles too, but, let's be honest, it wouldn't make a difference to you - your mind is already set.

>> ^Chaucer:

Actually, Yogi, it is your opinion that you think (or would like) a majority of the scientific community to agree about climate change being man driven. I have not seen you offer any proof to back up your claim. Therefore, it is your opinion.
Personally, I dont believe the climate change is man driven. From what I have read, it is driven more by solar activity and other natural causes. It's already proven that we have hot spells then ice ages and back to hot spells (called cycles). This is just one of those hot stages. Now I do believe that man can contribute to the environment is negative and positive ways but do not feel we are the majority factor.
A friend of my uncle used to work for the government as a scientist. One of the projects he was on was to figure out why there was acid rain around the New York area. I cant remember exactly what they found but it was something wierd like sap from the trees from further north was causing the rain to be acidic. Regardless, it was the normal course of nature. When they turned in their report to the government, the report was rejected because it did not align with the governments view that the acidic rain was cause by global warming.
The government needs and promotes global warming because it causes hysteria and takes away focus from issues that the public should really be concerned about.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.

See this is the easiest way to argue. Deny the fundamental facts and you cannot even have the argument. Jon Stewart pointed this out awhile ago, there are facts and then their are opinions. It is a FACT that a vast majority of the scientific community agrees Climate Change is caused by mankind. Yet if you deny this, the argument is over...it's very smart, good on you QM.



I'm sorry...who the fuck are you?

I think John Cole at balloon-juice sums up the conservative "stance" on global warming awfully well:

You know the drill: global warming isn’t happening, if it is happening then it’s not caused by human behavior, if it is caused by human behavior then we can’t do anything about it, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it, then that something is too expensive, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it that is not too expensive, then that something is not what Democrats are proposing. And Al Gore is fat, he flies too much, look at his electricity bill, and sometimes when he goes somewhere it snows there, which is very ironic.

Or you could try living in reality.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Yawn. Global warming is debunked. Every premise they have ever had is falling flat on its face.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global
-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/0
7/29/polar-bear-researcher-under-investigation-for-integrity-issues/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
How many of these climiate alarmists have to be brought up on charges, placed on administrative leave, have their findings utterly discredited, or otherwise be proven to be a bunch of liars before the Warmers give up and just admit that humans are NOT the drivers of whatever climate change may or may not be happening?

At what point do you accept that Winston and QM are trolling you guys.

They don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. They're not arguing their case. They just drop their bomb and leave.

Bill Nye started out doing comedy as Bill Nye the Science Guy. He moved on to doing science programs for children's programming.

Both experiences serve him well when talking to Faux News.

The only reason a significant portion of the population believe that crap is because it's repeated so many times, people actually think there's legitimacy in their arguments. So, I take a few minutes out of my day to prove how obviously wrong their arguments are.

>> ^VoodooV:

At what point do you accept that Winston and QM are trolling you guys.
They don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. They're not arguing their case. They just drop their bomb and leave.

So what your saying is no matter how much scientific evidence is given to you, you won't change your mind. Why?

Bring forth some genuine scientific evidence to match the claims.

Tweaked data, theories and worst-case scenario computer models that suggest a direct correlation between man-made warming activity and a rise in global temperature are not scientific evidence.

A consensus is also not scientific evidence. A consensus is a bunch of people sharing a certain idea. At one time the consensus was the earth is flat.

I've never disputed global warming (which was the original alarmist battle cry, now downgraded to "climate change") OR global cooling, as both occur in cycles over millions of years.

Because it doesn't fit your ideology. I don't automatically distrust science because some science is corporate sponsored, and some is gov't sponsored.

The burden of proof is always on the instigator of tyranny. You do have the wherewithal to see where the man-made global warming "religion" is going, don't you? Finally the global tyrants have a way to unite the world. Now they can regulate and micromanage all industry the world over, from which crops will be planted to how many houses may be built to what vehicles will be allowed on the roads. If they had an actual thermostat to regulate earth's temperature precisely I'd hardly trust them with that either.

A good experiment is a good experiment regardless of who sponsored it. What are you gonna do? Trust no science at all because every experiment has designers and participants with potential secondary motives?!

I keep waiting for an 'experiment' from the alarmists that doesn't have its conclusions already in place and loud voices declaring all debate over before the opposing side is even allowed to speak.

Science rarely proves something 100% of the time because it's so hard to account for every variable. If you did an experiment about gravity, you may inadvertently introduce other variables that alter the results, such as wind, or magnetism. So some conflicting evidence is expected. But the majority of the evidence suggests a human element to global warming, and global warming is real.

One-World socialist government based on a "suggested" link between a human element which cannot be quantified (how much human activity changes the earth's temperature and by how many degrees?) does not appeal to me.

BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week? Furthermore, how does the left know that global warming--man-made or otherwise--is not beneficial?

Per netrunner's hokum, if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.


http://videosift.com/video/Saddam-s-WMD-were-moved-to-Syria

There is no way any good liberal would entertain the notion that Saddam moved WMDs into Syria under the cover of a humanitarian mission. Yet the possibility exists and might undermine the narrative of the 'anti-war' left. Invincible ignorance in your court.

...if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.



First off, thanks for proving my point. You have no interest in hearing about any problem that turns your political ideology on its head. This pretty much seals the deal of what your motives actually are.

Secondly, this is a shockingly ignorant statement considering how many times the market has failed in protecting resources that can't be owned, and what benefits the general good, not specific people. Free markets do a great job incentivizing acts of self-interest.

How would free markets possibly work to stop human made global warming?

Time and time again, free markets horrifically fail in protecting the common good, or property that is not owned by anyone. This has been a traditional, valid criticism of capitalism since its inception. No one owns specifically the climate. Without gov't regulation, why would anyone go to the trouble of disposing of hazardous materials properly as an example? It won't make a significant difference for that one person if they don't do that, but it will make a difference for everyone is everyone doesn't pour oil into their backyards.

Why should businesses not dump toxic sludge into the nearest river? After all, properly disposing of these materials costs more than dumping it into the nearest river, which cuts into profit.

This has happened and will continue to over and over and over again in free markets. This is why it is absolutely necessary to have societal institutions that expose this behavior, and punish it as a means to prevent it from occurring.

In the case of global warming, just for the sake of this discussion, assume that yes, burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming, and that global warming is in fact detrimental to humans. Now, why would consumers want to buy hybrids, electric cars, or other vehicles if they cost more than conventional cars, strictly speaking by market forces? The only mechanism markets provide is to drive prices of fuel to be really expensive either from deplinishing supply or increasing demand, but those prices won't get driven up simply because global warming is occurring. Translation: in that scenario, the free market is not self-correcting. In fact, we can look through history and find repeated examples of how free markets fail to self-correct.

As the economies of countries around the world become more closely integrated through free trade, we actually see quite a bit of push against environmental regulations domestically for fear that we won't be able to compete with countries that do not have the same regulations. That is after all one of the primary arguments against the Kyoto Agreements. That actually is an indictment against free markets, because it suggests that if we leave everyone to their own devices individually, companies/countries will choose to not reduce emissions for various reasons, one of which is a fear of not being competitive because producing in a manner that reduces emissions can be more costly, which would reduce profits if competitors don't have to do the same thing. This of course is in complete disregard to what conducting business in such a manner does to the common good globally. The chief issue of course is China won't bear vast majority of the burden for not following these standards; it will be the entire globe, which causes a fundamental breakdown in market ideology. It's the same reason why subprime loans took off once the responsibility for granting a bad loan became divorced from the people who granted them. I could give a million other examples of this in a market economy.

The most effective way to deal with such a problem for capitalists is simply deny the problem actually exists. Your problem is you desperately want there to not be a problem to fit your capitalist ideology, so you will not ever be convinced that global warming is real and human influenced. This is largely because if it is real, it likely cannot be dealt with using market forces solely, and your ideology will be irreparably destroyed.

Now, I'm sure that means you'll label me a socialist/communist, etc. That's of course not true. I'm not married to any of those ideologies exclusively. In fact, I believe market forces work a large majority of the time, but I'm not blinded by ideology to pretend it works so well we don't need some regulation. This is just one more example. Go ahead and say socialism doesn't always work; I agree. I don't particularly care to argue even which works a majority of the time. I just use what works best for each situation.

>> ^soulmonarch:

I wonder if Bill Nye sometimes says to himself: "Wait a second. I'M the one with the silly bow tie. Why are YOU the one acting like a total idiot?"

Hey hey HEY. Bow ties are cool.

Fine...let's use Bill Nye's approach...

Follow the logic...

Let's say these puppets on my fingers are humans..."Oooh yay combustion, let's drive cars, build powerplants, make concrete, raise millions of cattle, and pump all these gases into the atmosphere." *Puppets dance*

What happens then? The levels of CO2, CH4, and CO (among other gases) increase. For example, CO2 levels have been increasing AND these activities lead to an increase in CO2 levels. We know this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg)

Let's then say that this orange is the earth -> O (Hello puppet humans!)

The orange is surrounded by something called the ozone layer. Say it with me kids: O-ZONE LAY-ER. Good. Think of it like a sock around the earth (*stuffs the orange in a sock*).

Now, the ozone layer is made up of greenhouse gases - which are usually very good because they trap heat and make it nice and warm for the puppet humans (Yay! *puppets dance*). Greenhouse gases include CO (Carbon monoxide - given off by cars), CO2 (Carbon dioxide - power plants, factories, cars, respiration, etc), CH4 (Methane - cows, pigs, industry, etc), and several others. More pretty pictures --> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg)

So, what happens when the puppet humans increase greenhouse gases? The greenhouse effect gets stronger, and the sock turns into a sweater! *wraps the orange in a sweater* More gases = more trapping = more heat. *puppets melt*

As for global cooling, that dealt with pollution particulates, which have been declining in the atmosphere since government regulations went into effect in the USA (although pollutants from China and other developing countries are causing some slight cooling, which is, ironically, making climate change *less* prominent than it was actually thought to be at this point).

Look at the puppets. Look at them dance *dancing puppets* Okay, now take a nap.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's coincidental that the "evidence" for global warming coincides with worldwide tax hikes, draconian regulations and One-World 'benevolent' socialist tyranny. Completely.
Considering there is scientific consensus on global climate change, you'd have to discredit all of them. Alternately, you could try trusting people who do science for a living over the people who do politics for a living.
Why do you assume scientists are apolitical when their funding depends on taxpayer money and growing the size of government? There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.


Claiming that people should stop burning fossil fuels would HEAVILY dent the income of just about every country because of how much tax they can charge from it. Britain's economy is almost based on fossil fuel tax. How can you possibly argue that they are a politically influenced source over fossil fuel use when they criticise such a money earner?

I hesitate to even mention that "science" as a global community is above reproach in ways that hardly anything else can be due to the method of a scientist. If you are not performing science for truth and discovery, you are not a scientist, so you're not part of the community anymore. That's why it's above reproach. I'm sure you'll argue with me about that, but i know that you'd argue about the time of day if you were proven to be wrong.

>> ^quantumushroom:

BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week?

You really don't know anything about this subject, do you? There is a difference between predicting a trend and predicting a specific instance. I can say with a reasonable certainty that there will be more sunshine in the 3 months of summer than in the 3 months of winter, but it's much harder to predict whether a given day will be sunny or rainy.

The problem is that climate science is actually really complicated. It's governed by chaotic equations (equations where a small variance in input leads to a large variance in output), and it has to deal with the entire planet. Despite all that, I have yet to see one climate scientist actually come out on the oil companiesdeniers sceptics side. On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate

...if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.

First off, thanks for proving my point. You have no interest in hearing about any problem that turns your political ideology on its head. This pretty much seals the deal of what your motives actually are.

Which problem would that be? The correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof. This would be fine, except the alarmists wish to radically change the world to suit their "vision" in aforementioned ways. Not just tomorrow but 100 years from now. We've seen this collectivist BS repackaged and resold over and over again, and the result is always the same: central planning by elites = failure.

My "motive" is this: I wish to live free, it's my GOD-given right to live free. Or, if you prefer, it's a NATURAL right to live free, and this right cannot be "revoked" by any legit government. Pure anarchy doesn't work, so a free society surrenders some freedom to achieve the maximum amount of freedom possible.

Now along come the warming alarmists. They have declared, in hysterical fashion, that our dynamic ever-changing global climate now poses a threat because it isn't doing what they assumed it would do, without even knowing what is "normal". By some accounts, we're way past due for another ice age.

Private property rights and free markets have proven they're the best ways to manage both themselves and the "common good", which too often is code for non-competitive hangers-on and government incompetence. Capitalism creates ecologically-friendly goods when they're what consumers want. Capitalism creates new, more efficient technologies.

Does this mean capitalism is perfect? NOPE. Humans are selfish and regulation is necessary, but the latter is not a "solution" to all of life's problems any more than capitalism.

In the case of global warming, just for the sake of this discussion, assume that yes, burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming, and that global warming is in fact detrimental to humans.

Then there's still no easy answer. The burning of fossil fuels has made a high standard of living for nations which in turn grow food and build technology to sell to less advanced nations. Global warming (or cooling) simply cannot be detrimental to all humans at the same time. So assuming--for the sake of argument--that the alarmists' theories were somehow proven, there is still no solution, only trade-offs.

Free markets and private property rights are not utopian. HOWEVER, while they may not self-correct to the exacting standards of some, they're a hell of a lot more responsive and 'organic' than governments, whose motives are all over the map.

The most effective way to deal with such a problem for capitalists is simply deny the problem actually exists. Your problem is you desperately want there to not be a problem to fit your capitalist ideology, so you will not ever be convinced that global warming is real and human influenced. This is largely because if it is real, it likely cannot be dealt with using market forces solely, and your ideology will be irreparably destroyed.

This is just a silly ad hominem attack. One more time: the direct correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof.

No, heropsycho, I have no interest in personally labeling anyone, as if that would solve anything.

dannym3141:

Claiming that people should stop burning fossil fuels would HEAVILY dent the income of just about every country because of how much tax they can charge from it. Britain's economy is almost based on fossil fuel tax. How can you possibly argue that they are a politically influenced source over fossil fuel use when they criticise such a money earner?

Politics aside, fossil fuels remain the cheapest, most abundant source of energy, and new supplies of it are being discovered all the time. I never said people should stop burning them.

I hesitate to even mention that "science" as a global community is above reproach in ways that hardly anything else can be due to the method of a scientist. If you are not performing science for truth and discovery, you are not a scientist, so you're not part of the community anymore. That's why it's above reproach. I'm sure you'll argue with me about that, but i know that you'd argue about the time of day if you were proven to be wrong.

I'm not arguing, but I am astonished you would believe scientists are above politics (and reproach), not because the scientific method is flawed, but because scientists are fallible humans with their own beliefs and interests. As W. Pennypacker said in so many words, governments reward scientists which confirm a pre-determined outcome (like secondhand smoke killing 100 billion people a year). Junk science is real; it may not be everywhere, but it's out there. And not just "the oil companies" which have "scientitians" in their corner.

Another thing, gang. Over the last few years, global warming hysteria has been relentless. It's the alarmists who declared, "The debate is over." There was even one smug a-hole who compared "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers. Classy! There was the faked data scandal. These are not the actions of scientists confident in their conclusions. Yet the lazy media continues to back the alarmists without question.

100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem:

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe


Do you really expect free people to surrender to THIS?

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's coincidental that the "evidence" for global warming coincides with worldwide tax hikes, draconian regulations and One-World 'benevolent' socialist tyranny. Completely.
Considering there is scientific consensus on global climate change, you'd have to discredit all of them. Alternately, you could try trusting people who do science for a living over the people who do politics for a living.
Why do you assume scientists are apolitical when their funding depends on taxpayer money and growing the size of government? There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.


except in the US, taxes are the lowest they've been HISTORICALLY
and my taxes here in Canada haven't risen... I'd honestly like to see more substantiating on this point

and scientists, both PUBLIC and PRIVATELY funded have come to the same conclusion... no matter WHAT country they live in... so this conspiracy can't be based on funding, can't be based on politics, etc

what you are saying is that it would have to be some CLANDESTINE meeting of 10s of 1000s of scientists, who don't all speak the same language mind you, and who don't have the same political views (capitalism/socialism/etc), and are geographically seperated by vast distances...

and yes a consensus doesn't = fact... but if there are 10s of 1000s of people who devote their studies/life work to a topic, who submit their findings to peer review and follow the scientific method... who all agree on the subject VS a few pseudo science cracks, with no published/peer reviewed articles, who do science out of their garage and a couple 100 oil company pay roll scientists (again, with no peer reviewed/published articles) who try to debunk it...

well i'm going with the 10s of 1000s

crackpot or inbed with oil companies strikes me as a MUCH more plausible misinterpreting of the facts than the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

alot of the problem is, there are some people out there, who just won't believe that a WUGGABOO exists, unless you put it into their hand and go... "Look, that's a WUGGABOO"

the next problem is, that they usually then call it "THE DEVIL'S WORK" and try to burn you and the WUGGABOO as witches

that comment was in regards to the time frame of climate change (global warming confuses too many mouth breathers with the whole "This winter was the coldest on record" schtick)

and the free people surrender to this comment
made me laugh soo hard i shot pop out my nose

Dude, you label your opposition socialists, communists, call Obama childish names, etc. all the dang time! That's all you do! You haven't proven a single thing with any credible scientific data. Not one thing. There are some basic facts that illustrate global warming:

http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif

Now you show your cards. What precisely do you object to about the theory? Do you object to CO2 being deemed a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are in fact rising? That humans are the main culprit to CO2 levels rising? That temperatures globally are rising? What?!

And btw, it's a silly argument that we don't know for sure because it's a scientific theory. If the best evidence suggests global destruction caused by this phenomena, then it would be wise to move as quickly as possible to take action to stop it. It's like sitting on railroad tracks, hearing a train horn in the distance, feeling rumblings on the ground, but deciding you're not gonna move until it's too late. After all, the train could stop well short. It could be someone making train noises, with small earthquakes going at the same time.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The most effective way to deal with such a problem for capitalists is simply deny the problem actually exists. Your problem is you desperately want there to not be a problem to fit your capitalist ideology, so you will not ever be convinced that global warming is real and human influenced. This is largely because if it is real, it likely cannot be dealt with using market forces solely, and your ideology will be irreparably destroyed.
This is just a silly ad hominem attack. One more time: the direct correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof.
No, heropsycho, I have no interest in personally labeling anyone, as if that would solve anything.

and scientists, both PUBLIC and PRIVATELY funded have come to the same conclusion... no matter WHAT country they live in... so this conspiracy can't be based on funding, can't be based on politics, etc

>>> You mean, because one country may have a dictator and another a cabal of communists running it, they can't use the same falsities and propaganda to make people surrender their rights (if they had any to begin with)? And why would you include only the findings of "Private" scientitians who agree with you? Aren't THEY in the pocket of someone? Say, investors in Al Gore's companies?

what you are saying is that it would have to be some CLANDESTINE meeting of 10s of 1000s of scientists, who don't all speak the same language mind you, and who don't have the same political views (capitalism/socialism/etc), and are geographically seperated by vast distances...

>>> I think you and others are in error on the number of 'scientitians' who believe anthropogenic global warming is both provable and a slam dunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

and yes a consensus doesn't = fact... but if there are 10s of 1000s of people who devote their studies/life work to a topic, who submit their findings to peer review and follow the scientific method... who all agree on the subject VS a few pseudo science cracks, with no published/peer reviewed articles, who do science out of their garage and a couple 100 oil company pay roll scientists (again, with no peer reviewed/published articles) who try to debunk it...

well i'm going with the 10s of 1000s

>>> Right. And everyone who disagrees with the wonders of socialism (e.g. factual data proving socialist programs don't work as intended or promised) is obviously in the pocket of evil capitalists.

crackpot or inbed with oil companies strikes me as a MUCH more plausible misinterpreting of the facts than the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

It's amusing to no end that the same "rationalists" who never hesitate to jump on governments for using religion to control the public, find no danger at all when the same governments use distorted SCIENCE to hide their power grabs.

Unfortunately, public opinion has had it with these alarmists.

Dude, you label your opposition socialists, communists, call Obama childish names, etc. all the dang time! That's all you do! You haven't proven a single thing with any credible scientific data. Not one thing. There are some basic facts that illustrate global warming:

I call 'em as I see 'em but try to limit personal attacks (I hope). Those with opposing viewpoints to mine are usually variants of communists, socialists, anarcho-libertarians and even liberals, aka Socialist-Lite.

What precisely do you object to about the theory?

The worldwide power grab in the name of "safety". It's odd how we pick our battles, don't we? The same guy who hates the Patriot Act as limiting his freedom may simply hand it over when told it will extend the life of a dolphin. Or vice versa.

Do you object to CO2 being deemed a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are in fact rising? That humans are the main culprit to CO2 levels rising? That temperatures globally are rising? What?!

PROOF PROOF PROOF. For every theory there is another opposing it, and a third plausible theory that has nothing to do with the original argument.

Remember, credibility is the burden of those trying to change society to suit their vision.

And btw, it's a silly argument that we don't know for sure because it's a scientific theory. If the best evidence suggests global destruction caused by this phenomena, then it would be wise to move as quickly as possible to take action to stop it. It's like sitting on railroad tracks, hearing a train horn in the distance, feeling rumblings on the ground, but deciding you're not gonna move until it's too late. After all, the train could stop well short. It could be someone making It could be someone making train noises, with small earthquakes going at the same time.

The best evidence doesn't point to a looming crisis. TIME IS RUNNING OUT! Do you know where you hear that the most? Commercials. Artificial countdowns. HURRY! THIS SALE ENDS SATURDAY! It's a sales tactic to get people off their butts and ACT, without thinking.

You guys can just write me off as another one who refuses to see THE TRUTH(tm)

Provided I don't get hit by a natural-gas-powered bus, I'll be here, you'll be here and the earth will be here and doing fine 50 years from now.

Climate change alarmist alarmed they’re wrong

LOL, you don't try to limit personal attacks. You call Obama "Obummer", "His Earness", various derivatives from the falsehood that he was born in Kenya, etc. You also label people liberals, when in truth, they're moderates, or even moderate Republican, and you suggest having liberal beliefs is somehow innately bad instead of something you disagree with only. You're not fooling anybody.

So, I'm just gonna point out once again that your claim that the science behind human contributing climate change is fake, yet you did not identify which part of the theory is false. You immediately launched into a political discussion about giving up rights, etc.

So I'll ask again, which part is it you object to? That CO2 levels are rising? That CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, aka warming on average? That CO2 increases are not due to human activity? That global temperatures are actually rising? What exactly?!

BTW, you do realize that conflicting scientific theories don't make other theories incorrect, right? There was once competing theories of the structure of our galaxy - heliocentric and geocentric. There was of course the third belief that the earth was actually flat, supported by an elephant standing on a turtle. The existence of the geocentric and other models do not disprove the heliocentric model in the slightest.

You of course have a vested interest due to your desperate clinging belief that capitalist systems and policies are the only right ones to follow, and it's virtually impossible to deal with the problem of human induced climate change with that philosophy. Therefore, you flat refuse to look objectively at the data we have, which the majority of it suggests human induced climate change. It's like a priest who wouldn't dare try to reinterpret/retranslate passages in their holy texts in light of scientific data that proves the whole world is flat supported by an elephant on a turtle theory is BS.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Dude, you label your opposition socialists, communists, call Obama childish names, etc. all the dang time! That's all you do! You haven't proven a single thing with any credible scientific data. Not one thing. There are some basic facts that illustrate global warming:
I call 'em as I see 'em but try to limit personal attacks (I hope). Those with opposing viewpoints to mine are usually variants of communists, socialists, anarcho-libertarians and even liberals, aka Socialist-Lite.
What precisely do you object to about the theory?
The worldwide power grab in the name of "safety". It's odd how we pick our battles, don't we? The same guy who hates the Patriot Act as limiting his freedom may simply hand it over when told it will extend the life of a dolphin. Or vice versa.
Do you object to CO2 being deemed a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are in fact rising? That humans are the main culprit to CO2 levels rising? That temperatures globally are rising? What?!
PROOF PROOF PROOF. For every theory there is another opposing it, and a third plausible theory that has nothing to do with the original argument.
Remember, credibility is the burden of those trying to change society to suit their vision.

And btw, it's a silly argument that we don't know for sure because it's a scientific theory. If the best evidence suggests global destruction caused by this phenomena, then it would be wise to move as quickly as possible to take action to stop it. It's like sitting on railroad tracks, hearing a train horn in the distance, feeling rumblings on the ground, but deciding you're not gonna move until it's too late. After all, the train could stop well short. It could be someone making It could be someone making train noises, with small earthquakes going at the same time.
The best evidence doesn't point to a looming crisis. TIME IS RUNNING OUT! Do you know where you hear that the most? Commercials. Artificial countdowns. HURRY! THIS SALE ENDS SATURDAY! It's a sales tactic to get people off their butts and ACT, without thinking.
You guys can just write me off as another one who refuses to see THE TRUTH(tm)
Provided I don't get hit by a natural-gas-powered bus, I'll be here, you'll be here and the earth will be here and doing fine 50 years from now.
Climate change alarmist alarmed they’re wrong

LOL, you don't try to limit personal attacks. You call Obama "Obummer", "His Earness", various derivatives from the falsehood that he was born in Kenya, etc. You also label people liberals, when in truth, they're moderates, or even moderate Republican, and you suggest having liberal beliefs is somehow innately bad instead of something you disagree with only. You're not fooling anybody.

Only you can fool yourself. Since I don't know HIS EARNESS personally, it's not a personal attack on ODUMBO. Any real leader (or pretend leader) should expect criticism. I have my own standards for who is a liberal and who is Kenyan, and don't expect anyone else to give a crap.

So, I'm just gonna point out once again that your claim that the science behind human contributing climate change is fake, yet you did not identify which part of the theory is false. You immediately launched into a political discussion about giving up rights, etc.

Since you offered: "(You're saying) CO2 increases are not due to human activity?"

That's right. There's no solid objective evidence that man-made industrial activity has a direct, notable effect on climate. Weather is weather and there's nothing puny humans can do about it. For now.

BTW, you do realize that conflicting scientific theories don't make other theories incorrect, right?

Nor do they make the "consensus" opinion correct by brute majority.

You of course have a vested interest due to your desperate clinging belief that capitalist systems and policies are the only right ones to follow, and it's virtually impossible to deal with the problem of human induced climate change with that philosophy.

It's like you're finally figuring out what the alarmists are trying to do! It's all about control and has nothing to do with 'saving the earth'.

Therefore, you flat refuse to look objectively at the data we have, which the majority of it suggests human induced climate change.

This idea had its moment in the sun. It failed. Public opinion is against the alarmists. Capitalism works, socialism "kind of" works until if flops (Greece).

The climate heretic has spoken.

On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate


I guess it's helpful for you to ignore that Saint Algore only took Environmental Classes to avoid tougher ones, and even then only got a 'C'.





>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week?
You really don't know anything about this subject, do you? There is a difference between predicting a trend and predicting a specific instance. I can say with a reasonable certainty that there will be more sunshine in the 3 months of summer than in the 3 months of winter, but it's much harder to predict whether a given day will be sunny or rainy.
The problem is that climate science is actually really complicated. It's governed by chaotic equations (equations where a small variance in input leads to a large variance in output), and it has to deal with the entire planet. Despite all that, I have yet to see one climate scientist actually come out on the oil companiesdeniers sceptics side. On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate

It's attacking others like a cross between an elementary school bully or a overzealous used car salesman is what it is. And that crap isn't criticism; it's name calling.

OK, so you agree then that:

The earth is on average on a warming trend.
CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas.
CO2 levels are increasing.

You just don't believe humans are causing any of the above, correct?

FYI, I didn't say the consensus opinion is always right. If the consensus opinion is based on solid science and fact, then it tends to be correct. Good scientific theories are produced by solid experiments, data I just want to be clear I'm not saying that human induced climate change is a scientific law. I'm saying it's a theory, one based on mounting evidence that supports it. I'm perfectly willing to suggest that the theory is not 100% correct, or could end up proven to be false altogether. I do not have a vested interest to a preconceived outcome.

But the evidence is increasingly overwhelming that it is occurring, and it is caused by humans. I don't need this issue to underscore a core believe of mine that free markets left unchecked do societies severe damage. I've already got hundreds of examples of that. (Unsafe working conditions, child labor, unsafe to consume goods, massive banking fraud, environmental damage other than climate change, unlivable wages, just to name a few)


>> ^quantumushroom:

LOL, you don't try to limit personal attacks. You call Obama "Obummer", "His Earness", various derivatives from the falsehood that he was born in Kenya, etc. You also label people liberals, when in truth, they're moderates, or even moderate Republican, and you suggest having liberal beliefs is somehow innately bad instead of something you disagree with only. You're not fooling anybody.
Only you can fool yourself. Since I don't know HIS EARNESS personally, it's not a personal attack on ODUMBO. Any real leader (or pretend leader) should expect criticism. I have my own standards for who is a liberal and who is Kenyan, and don't expect anyone else to give a crap.

So, I'm just gonna point out once again that your claim that the science behind human contributing climate change is fake, yet you did not identify which part of the theory is false. You immediately launched into a political discussion about giving up rights, etc.
Since you offered: "(You're saying) CO2 increases are not due to human activity?"
That's right. There's no solid objective evidence that man-made industrial activity has a direct, notable effect on climate. Weather is weather and there's nothing puny humans can do about it. For now.
BTW, you do realize that conflicting scientific theories don't make other theories incorrect, right?
Nor do they make the "consensus" opinion correct by brute majority.
You of course have a vested interest due to your desperate clinging belief that capitalist systems and policies are the only right ones to follow, and it's virtually impossible to deal with the problem of human induced climate change with that philosophy.

It's like you're finally figuring out what the alarmists are trying to do! It's all about control and has nothing to do with 'saving the earth'.
Therefore, you flat refuse to look objectively at the data we have, which the majority of it suggests human induced climate change.
This idea had its moment in the sun. It failed. Public opinion is against the alarmists. Capitalism works, socialism "kind of" works until if flops (Greece).
The climate heretic has spoken.

>> ^quantumushroom:

On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate

I guess it's helpful for you to ignore that Saint Algore only took Environmental Classes to avoid tougher ones, and even then only got a 'C'.


>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week?
You really don't know anything about this subject, do you? There is a difference between predicting a trend and predicting a specific instance. I can say with a reasonable certainty that there will be more sunshine in the 3 months of summer than in the 3 months of winter, but it's much harder to predict whether a given day will be sunny or rainy.
The problem is that climate science is actually really complicated. It's governed by chaotic equations (equations where a small variance in input leads to a large variance in output), and it has to deal with the entire planet. Despite all that, I have yet to see one climate scientist actually come out on the oil companiesdeniers sceptics side. On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate



And if Al Gore was the leading intellectual mind behind climate science, you might have something approaching a point. Except he isn't. Better luck next time.

So, once again in case you missed it last time: of the people who have actually studied the subject, there is an over-whelming consensus that climate change is real and man-made. Can you show me one climate scientist who supports your position?

Or do you go to a doctor when your car breaks down?

*crickets*

Right Wing Media Needs a Science Class has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm on that post.

Top Five Times Fox News Is Debunked "On Air" by a Guest has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.