Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye: Climate Change Denial Is 'Running Out of Steam,' Thanks To Millennials (mic.com)
An anonymous reader shares with us an article on Mic: Famed science educator Bill Nye has long been an outspoken critic of people who continue to doubt climate change, the main driver of freaky weather patterns, rising global temperatures and sea level rise around the globe. In an interview with Mic, Nye said that despite lingering skepticisms, there is nearly 100% scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is here to stay -- and people are becoming increasingly anxious about its effects on the planet, particularly younger generations. "Almost every person in denial about climate change is older," Nye said. "It's very hard to find a millennial-aged person that is not concerned about climate change. I think the climate denial movement is running out of steam, I guess that's a pun."
I know just being picky, but no one doubts that climate change is behind changes in climate. I don't think anyone doubts climate change. Now perhaps some doubt anthropogenic climate change, technically this summary doesn't mention that.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
That's not actually a ringing endorsement.
ran out of steam 20 years ago.
Do you have ESP?
Now we just have to wait 30 more years for millennials to get into positions where they can do something about it.
Except that it's quickly being followed by a "environmental concern is White Privilege" narrative.
otherwise we fall back into dogmatic belief
Despite being very easy to disprove, Aristotle's theories on gravity persisted for centuries, until Galileo of course. So call me a little skeptical of 100% proven anything
Is this because Millennials are better at Science, or simply because they believe, what public school teachers told them?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The NEA and public schools in general are now indoctrination centers, not learning centers. Both of my kids, and I'm not exaggerating, have about 75% of their science and social studies assignments centered around global warming/climate change. I'm fine with covering it, but they aren't learning any real stuff. They certainly aren't learning to explore and question for themselves. For instance, covering the causes and effects of warming is fine. But my kids are routinely sent home with narratives about how Reagan is to blame, corporations are evil, Obama is the messiah and other nonsense. It's all part and parcel with being "very conscious" about global warming and the environment. I have to battle weekly with the nonsense my kids are sent home with. Before someone mentions it, yes I've discussed this with the school administration, but we live in a Democratic/Union machine state,especially with regards to teachers. A teacher had sex with an underage student and couldn't be fired. They were place on administrative leave. Paid leave. Yeah. This is the engine that is going to teach my kids to think critically about global warming and other issues. Yeah.....
... explained this as "Science advances one funeral at a time." The longer version is more like, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
himself to Oklahoma, U.S.A. and talk to some _UNIVERSITY_ students. He may be in for a surprise.
Concerned in that they will attend rallies and post on Facebook about it. But not concerned enough to stop driving automobiles or using Facebook. Everyone is so "concerned" about climate change, but the EU keeps emitting more and more CO2 every year. Why is that? They all claim to be "concerned" about it.
ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I’m saying is that if we don’t take action domestically we will never get started and we’ll never”
EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact
The game has been about money, which is where people hate and label people deniers. Everyone is supposed to pay a carbon tax to some unknown entity to sustain their current standard of living. In fact, the demand has not just been for paying off some unknown entity, but wealthier countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc.. all need to pay for previous generation of carbon.
We have massive amounts of pollution. We know it, but nobody will do anything. It's cheaper to dump and pay off people to look the other way than fix the problem. People making big piles of cash are not held accountable, and the politicians with greasy palms are not either.
Until we have a better solution than "give money to the people in shadows" people will argue and nothing will get done. Except that people like Bill Nye will still get paid very well to keep us arguing.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The mass bulk of humanity, regardless of age, gives fuck all about 'climate change.'
It's what you concern yourself with when you have nothing real to be concerned about, and it's what you advocate sacrificing for when your aren't doing any actual sacrificing.
Be nice.
How would you feel if you were an engineer that couldn't get a job as an engineer so you have to pretend to be something else.
This is nothing more than your typical psychological/manipulative statement (employed by many high profile individuals these days) to depress the "deniers" and encourage the "believers" in an attempt to make his statement a reality by capitalizing on common human behavior. IE: "Oh no! If you deny climate change, then you're all alone! You don't want to be alone do you? Better get on the bus now!" This is a prime example of why "deniers" deny.
Deniers don't give a shit whether climate change is happening and don't care whether the science is correct. What 'deniers' are angry about, and what they are objecting to, is the obscene waste of public funds, the use of climate change as a justification for social engineering projects, and the utterly incompetent handling of the situation by governments. The term 'denier' is essentially used as a condescending replacement for 'objector'.
Climate change could have been addressed decades ago had we invested heavily in nuclear power, but the people who are frothing at the mouth ranting about climate change are the same people who have prevented the expansion of nuclear power. The very people who have created the climate change issue are chastising us telling us we need to destroy our economy and society by spending countless billions on inefficient, inconsistent and obscenely expensive renewable. 'Deniers' are sick of the idiocy, the hypocrisy and the waste, and rather than denying climate change, we're just not listening and we don't care.
The situation we have is basically this:
Environmentalist: Climate change is going to destroy the world! We must reduce our carbon output!!!
'Denier': How about we build some carbon neutral nuclear power plants? They're cheap, consistent and will solve the problem.
Environmentalist: No! We won't tolerate those filthy things! We'd rather burn coal and gas than have the satanic nuclear power!
'Denier': Fuck off then. If you're not going to be reasonable about this I just don't care any more.
For politicians and environmental groups aren't interested in solving the problem but instead just want to push forward their ideology. They want renewable energy, not because it will be effective at reducing climate change or because it's cheap, but for idealogical reasons. Politicians, particularly in the EU, want to use it as an excuse to bring tens of millions of people from Africa and the Middle East to Europe because they say that land will be unusable. Politicians want to use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes, because they believe in high taxation.
'Deniers' are sick of the whole situation. We're sick of effective solutions being rejected. We're sick of the abuse in the name of climate change. We're sick of your endless ranting about climate change but total inaction. We've reach a point where we're simply not listening. You've abused this situation to such an extent that we don't want to hear anything you have to say and we certainty won't do anything to help with your stupidity.
If you want to build nuclear power stations to resolve the problem, I'm all for it. With them in place we could take our time to develop efficient, cost effective renewable sources of energy. However, if you want to generate energy by hugging trees, if you want to tax the life out of us, if you want to destroy our lifestyle, if you want to destroy our nations by bringing "victims of climate change" into the country by the boat load, then fuck you! We will actively oppose anything you say or do!
ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH!
Sick of making the same tired old post.
WE GET IT.
WE BELIEVE YOU.
Now what the FUCK would you like us to do about it that we're a) not already doing, b) will provably (or probably) make a measurable difference within a reason time, c) doesn't cost the (non-literal) Earth, d) that will get approval from those parties that need to do it?
Ignore all the name-calling and shit, let's assume we ALL agree it's happening. I'm of scientific mind, I can do that for any subject that I agree with or not.
But... Now what?
Sick of this.
Bill Nye lost any respect from me as a Scientist, he is nothing more than just another Pope of a Different Church called Pseudo Science. I am sick and tired of People Called out as the deniers in this way. Sure I don't have a problem with the Science that the Earth might be warming. The problem is the claim that we can actually do something about it and this is mankind's fault! We hardly have enough information to truly know any better combined with all of the foul science and politics written all over it we will likely NEVER know until it really is too late. One thing that is for sure is that our lands are being poisoned with chemicals and even that more proven science has taken a back seat to the Church of Global Warming because it lacks "Socialism" on the order that is needed to mind control the unthinking plebs.
I think Freeman Dyson said it best...
Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.
All of this sounds like like the Fat is bad for you shit from the 50's that we are only just now recovering from in the Medical Community.
Lack of Wisdom and Life experience or hardship, make the millennials ignorant and willing to have more faith in science than most Christians have in Christianity.
The actual science is far from settled and it is amazing that people are so willing to hand themselves over to a corrupt politician to do something about it. Such great fools, and there are far too many for the few intelligent people to combat! Those seeking to destroy entire economies over the fear of global warming are sick in the head. According to forecasts by your "religious leaders" like Gore we should already have been in near apocalyptic global warming distress since 2015 with millions dead already from Ice Cap melts.
There is always some religious cult claiming worldly destruction, this one just seems to be taking on a lot more steam because people foolishly think that science is some how corruptible through money or politics.
There is a famouse line about Scientific Advancement by Max Planck
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
This is the truth of the Millennials, fools that know nothing other than what they are taught. They have made no effort to learn of or understand the world on their own terms, they have been fed dog food their entire life and know nothing of anything else!
Imagine a world with a life expectancy of 160, rather than 80 years. Just talking about doubling it.
160 years ago, slavery was still legal. Imagine having people that used to own slaves still being able to vote today.
Imagine if Castro, Lenin, Papa Doc, all the escaped Nazi's etc. were still alive.
To mis-quote Joss Whedon - "Death is our gift".
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The argument is entirely pointless unless you can get every country to agree to cut emissions.
Earth : 4 Billion Years Of Climate Change... No one deny the changes... some argue the causes.
Human caused climate change. Blah blah blah. We're all gonna die. Blah blah blah. Millennials said so. Blah blah blah.
Schools for the most part are controlled by liberals. It's no wonder that the young lean more towards liberal positions when teachings are biased.
Older people have been alive longer to see more weird weather events from time to time. It's easier for them to discount today's weird weather (or tomorrow's predictions) as just another blip in the circle of life.
Millennials freak out the first time they see a tree blow over. There's nothing magic going on here, it's just the way age and experience work together.
Social and financial pressure to agree (or at least pretend to agree). Everyone is now too concerned about "getting Eich'ed" to take a stand against any of the typical left-liberal talking points. So, of course, the same left-liberals are going to harp on the consensus that they willed into existence through terror to defend their righteousness. In the end, they might be right...maybe. But undoubtedly the way the treated people on that road makes them pieces of shit.
Bill Nye to Climate Change Deniers: "You Can’t Ignore Facts Forever"
Denier to Bill. I can ignore the 'facts' that are without basis.
The weather seems strange lately. Probably true.
We have a theory for what might be happening: True.
We can connect the dots and understand what is happening: Probably not the truth
We have models that tell us what is happening with sufficient accuracy to know what to do to improve things: No way
It seems a good time to apply the Greens universal truth of doing less to the environment: Probably true, provided it is balanced with keeping our lifestyle.
OK, there's 100% consensus that climate change is happening. It's a fucking dynamic system, how can it be static?
HOWEVER, there is ZERO consensus that it is caused by human activity.
The sum total of human activity on this planet takes place in the lower 37,000 feet of the atmosphere, to a depth of about a thousand feet beneath the surface.
THERE IS MUCH MORE in the Universe than that seven and a half miles. A LOT more that directly affects this planet, to much larger extent than even our entire nuclear arsenals are capable of.
Vulcanism. Tectonics. Solar flares. Asteroids. Tidal forces. Precession. Whale farts.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Deniers? Nah. I'm just not going to voluntary pay to fix it. Convince enough men with guns that I need to pay and we'll talk. That's why you and I pay other taxes, after all.
Bill Nye is an entertainer, not a scientist. Millennials are, by definition, young, inexperienced people. That young people believe what a TV personality tells them is not exactly a news flash.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
As long as the climate prophets of doom preach/propagandize that any climate change is bad, why wouldn't people become more anxious?
Take a page out of the Nazi playbook - lie big and lie often
Castro is still alive. I think maybe you mean Stalin.
Anyway, it goes both ways. Many would argue that people who were born at the beginning of the 20th century were harder working, didn't believe they were "entitled" to various benefits and supported many of the ideals that this generation has forgotten.
Six of the ten biggest companies in the world are in the Oil & Gas Industries. The costs of global warming--literally, one planet--would bankrupt them if they ever actually had to pay for the damage in a lawsuit or under a new law.
It turns out that the dregs of those trillions of dollars buys not only protection from lawmakers, but that the lawmakers and related armies of talking heads will espouse the theories your pet "scientists" prepare as talking points, until even they no longer remember that you started those rumors. The stories about how good you are or how natural global warming is or about how government regulation of environmental protection is bad make it into the press (and your perspective jury pool) free of your fingerprints.
As a result, plenty of good people--even intelligent people who share the political beliefs of your army of lobbied lawmakers--come to believe that it's not your fault.
Poof, the anthropogenic nature of global warming and the needs for action and environmental regulation start going up in smoke. And you can keep burning your oil.
Clearly climate change is happening. We have enough data to assert that without question, unless you are a shill for the CO2 emitting industry or a jihad anti-climate change ideologist who uses this as a litmus test of blind allegiance.
I am still a "the world is coming to an end" skeptic, for many reasons:
One is that the press focuses on bad news because it attracts readership.
Another is because made up crises attract more funding. To give an example of a made up crisis on top of a real problem was last year's prediction by WHO of 1.4 million dead from Ebola. Actual deaths? About 11,000.
The third reason why I'm an end-of-the-world skeptic is Stein's law. If things do seem to become nearly apocalyptic we can expect that rapid, drastic action will be taken. E.g. the first time the Koch brothers mansion in the Hamptons gets flooded will see a very different tune coming from the GOP.
Fourth reason is because as a technologist I know that some seemingly insurmountable problems are often overcome via technology. E.g. the drop in the prices of solar cells has been much more dramatic that I had ever expected. Cost used to be the main problem with solar, not any more. Now it seems to be storage and lo an behold improvements in battery technology (power wall anyone) seem rather promising.
Fifth, the models are a hell of a lot more imprecise than the press lets you know. We *are* tickling the climate dragon, so we *will* get a reaction. What exactly will it be? pretty hard to tell just yet.
So every time some one predicts the end of the world be it Ebola, overpopulation, or global warming I put my skeptic hat on.
Having said that, I'm in favor of renewable energy and less CO2 production now because polluting less makes sense regardless of apocalyptic climate change or not.
I will believe in global warming if - and ONLY if - I see DEMOCRATS start believing in global warming. This means Al Gore using the train, instead of his private jets. This means Obama admitting that Air Force One should not have been tootling him around the country campaigning for his various causes when he knows perfectly that just warming up the engines on that thing will negate every possible CO2 sacrifice I will ever make in my entire lifetime. I want to see celebrities taking selfies from trains and buses instead of with Ferraris and Lamborghinis. I want to see celebrities LIVING FULL TIME IN CALIFORNIA AND PAYING "THEIR FAIR SHARE" BY THE LIBERAL'S DEFINITION instead of bookkeeping their way - by jet - around the country to multiple residences so they can "live" in some state with lower taxes while they leave behind the California middle class to pay the confiscatory taxes they advocated for them. I want to see Al Gore trading in his multiple mansions for one or two two-bedroom houses that don't take 500 megawatts to heat and cool. I want to see Bill Nye the Science Guy not going to political events because the extra carbon emissions for that travel are gratuitous and, after all, *I* already believe, and I'm the last person who ever would - UNLESS I saw DEMOCRATS actually ACT like they REALLY DO BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T, AND IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE!
When non-climate scientists are critical of this consensus science we're told they have no standing because they're not climate scientists.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Bill Nye (along with Al Gore) got caught faking a experiment to "prove" climate change - the results were totally not reproducible in any way and the footage he had was cut to make it look like it proved his claim (google "bill nye fake experiment" to see it exposed). Since then, I don't see why anyone listens to the guy. He's Bill Nye The Propaganda Guy
It seems every time there's 'proof' of man made global warming, the data is cooked, the experiments are not reproducible, the predictions don't materialize. Not sure how that state of affairs became the standard of "science".
Correction, if Castro was still in power.
As for your opposing world view, I believe it is garbage. Everyone always thinks "their" group was better.
What usually happens is that when group (A) is wrong, group A2 fixes the problem. But group A mostly can't admit they were wrong, so they claim the 'fix' that A2 did is really a problem.
Prime example is the 'entitled' feeling you discuss. It's roots is in the belief that rights are you actual rights, rather than privileges. As in , blacks are entitled to a fair trial, Jews are entitled to go to law school, women are entitled to an equal wage.
But if you disagree with the above entitlements, you get shouted down for being a racist, anti-Semitic misogynist.
So instead you complain about a generic "entitlement" culture of today's youths.
Similar thing happening now with the new sexual liberation. The backlash is about how we are 'oppressing' good honest Christians that just want to live by their sincere beliefs.
If your sincere beliefs are hateful, bigotry, then yes, we are not going to let you live by those beliefs - at least not to the extent that they infringe on other people's actual, real civil rights.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I think the main issue folks have with Climate Change is that there is just so stinking much corruption in the government and all the organizations that buy their agendas ways into the government, that people have become disenfranchised. I would bet the demographic split mentioned in the post would support that argument as well. Millennials haven't seen enough political corruption, disappointment, and dishonesty to really loose faith in what leaders are telling them. Those advanced in age might just be fed up with all the corruption and are just pissed about the whole situation.
I don't know - but the demography seems interesting. Intelligence has never been associated with a "generation", so it is not like Millennials have figured out something Boomers haven't. Not generationally anyway.
Exactly! Best reply I've read on Slashdot this week, s.petry.
The problem most people have with the climate change issue is that people with expensive agendas are found swirling all around it. There's lots of money on the table, waiting to be swept up by anyone proposing "environmentally Green energy alternatives" their business can supposedly provide. If you want to make sure that gravy train doesn't end, you've got to keep everyone fearful about the future and believing your solutions will save them.
The "carbon tax" thing isn't actually an inherently terrible idea. It falls apart in practice, though, because we simply don't have an equitable way to collect an appropriate amount of tax from everyone polluting and then spending it again on things that actually work to remove that much pollution again. All it does is help a few rich people get richer the more they can encourage people to continue contributing to the problem and then paying them to compensate for it.
The elephant in the room that many people choose to ignore is the fact that we've all collectively gotten so much benefit from the energy produced by the fossil fuels that are so despised. I don't know that it's remotely fair to make the oil, coal or gas company the "bad guy" who must pay for all the environmental damage the use of their fuels caused, when it was all of us willingly buying them or the energy produced by them, the whole time. There needs to be more recognition that fossil fuels helped advance society for everyone on this planet who could take advantage of them. And yes, it looks like that caused downsides we need to examine more closely and start addressing. But doing so may just involve accepting we're in for a slightly warmer climate, and relocating some people and buildings would be a good idea over the next 100 years.
What troubles me is the suddenness at which that phrase seemed to have been dropped by the media and "believers" in favour of the more generic term "climate change" that does not, somewhat conveniently, attribute a possible cause.
Do I believe "climate change" is happening? Yes, according to geological evidence it's happened at least four times before during planetary Ice Ages, we're probably about due a fifth Ice Age.
Do I believe man is the cause? Unsure, I don't think we've been able to measure our potential impact on the planet over a long enough period to make too many assumptions - we'd probably need to compare temperature measurements over the century before industrialisation to temperature measurements after industrialisation to make any reasonable assumptions. But we don't have that data.
Do I think burning less fossil fuels, recycling more and being green are worthwhile? Not everyone who smokes gets cancer but not smoking reduces the risk of cancer. I don't smoke because I want to minimise my risk of cancer, in the same way I am happy to be greener *in case* my carbon emissions are having a big impact on climate.
I don't see the above as being a doubter, I am happy to proceed with caution until empirical evidence proves things either way - and I don't think the proof exists for either way except that we are very confident that this planet went through at least four cooling/warming cycles before man was ever here. Therefore my opinion at the moment is climate change is more than likely natural, whilst keeping an open mind.
Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
The most brainwashed, lazy, uneducated generation of all time.
As long as Bill Nye says it's true it must be!
It's very hard to find a millennial-aged person that is not concerned about climate change.
Of course Millennials are concerned about it. Modern school systems and society have basically indoctrinated Millennials in the belief of man-made climate change. Society often considers them to be fools or ignorant for even questioning the belief, instead of encouraging them to ask "why" and search for truths and data that supports or refutes climate change theories. Furthermore, Millennials have never been taught or seen the things that make some of the older people doubt the validity of claims related to global climate change.
The fact that Millennials believe in things related to climate change really has nothing to do with greater acceptance of scientific research. It is just a product of their upbringing.
What he is really saying is that young, naive people are easier to brainwash.
Yeah, no.
Depends very much on what life looks like at 160, but as it is the human brain doesn't fully develop until mid-twenties, so that leaves about 30 or so good years of being in full control of your faculties.
Not really enough time to gain some wisdom and put it to good use.
I believe they saying "history repeats itself" is precisely because no one ever lives long enough to have a broad view, and certainly doesn't live long enough to come to terms with the follies of their youth and move towards something better.
Extending middle age will be one of the most dramatic shifts ever in our species, pushing intelligence further than even the web, and for the nihilist, forcing people to live with their decisions.
Millennials are weak minded, incapable of critical thinking and are dimwitted enough to believe whatever people tell them.
Climate Change ranks dead last on the list of things that people are concerned with these days.
Go ahead, try to hide the facts again by down modding
Weather is not climate. For about the millionth time.
And as stated above, yes, the climate is changing.
How much of that is caused by man, and more importantly, how much will be caused by man in the next hundred years or so, has not been established. The models that purport to be predictive disagree with one another; disagree with the actual observed climate; offer no precursor climate event that shores up their ideas; suffer from precursor climate events that contradict their ideas; and are almost certain to be massively disrupted by technological change even if they were spot on WRT today's conditions anyway.
Aside from that, the obvious sane path is to contribute the least that is practical to changes in atmospheric gas mix, particulate levels, and temperature change. Solar and nuclear power are the two technologies that offer the best shot at reducing all of those. Solar is growing and advancing technologically at a very high rate, storage (a required facet of really solid general solar power supply) is behind but changing fast in the right direction, and nuclear... sigh. Nuclear is still suffering various slings and arrows that have little or no actual relevance today. Never underestimate the power of fear-mongering. They ever want to put a nuke in my back yard then PIIMBY (Put It In My Back Yard), I'll bake them a cake and move all my stuff out of the way.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There is nothing like a few inconvenient facts to demonstrate how out of touch with reality a person's ideas are. Look at the numbers, there has not been a significant improvement in how humans are actually behaving with regards to the issue of climate change. There is no purer form of denial than actually ignoring advice completely, as if it was never given.
Instead of focusing on just climate change, why don't people focus on what can be seen?
Smog: you want to breath this in?
Water quality: See Flint Michigan.
There's numerous examples of people dying or having near immediate symptoms.
Every opinion poll taken says you're full of shit.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Imagine having people that used to own slaves still being able to vote today
You mean as opposed to having people that used to force people with black skin at the back of the bus still being able to vote today?
Probably pretty bad. I might take up chain smoking, ignoring the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that's it's terrible for me and despite telling children not to smoke, waving my hand in front of my face as if I couldn't bear the smell.
These are the same people, that, when stopped in the street, cannot find their own state on a map, think Hitler would be a good VP, get hosed by some talk show guy thinking a phone handed to them is the NEW iPhone and on and on. These 20-30 somethings, have been INDOCTRINATED into the culture of socialism, that private business is BAD, all good comes from government, that they need a "safe space", should be treated like a little snowflake. Boy, these clowns will get EATEN ALIVE if they ever go into business.
computer models that rely on dat athat stops prior to 1976 isn't evidence. That's a broken model.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that there are also people running models with modern data. But that wasn't even my point. The point is that all the tools and data are there to show how the consensus is wrong. And yet, nobody's doing that. If you think the model is broken, please fix it, and show your results. You'll be famous.
There is a middle ground between the consensus being wrong and the models being right.
We KNOW the last century has been warming.
We KNOW that CO2 concentration has been increasing.
We KNOW that CO2 is coming from our activities.
We KNOW that increased greenhouse gases will trap more energy and cause warming.
That's the consensus. Things like how bad things get by 2100 and what impact our changes in emissions will have are NOT well understood. It's the IPCC that says so too, so again that's also the consensus.
The models do NOT have strong evidence to help us predict the impacts of climate change. This is because the models CAN NOT realistically hind cast the global energy imbalance, let alone predict it. The IPCC states as much in the fifth AR: ...maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system
It's fundamental that the entirety of the physics beneath global warming is more energy being trapped leading to higher temperatures. When the models can NOT accurately hind cast this without being hand tuned, they are NOT able to predict the future impacts either.
That isn't saying models are worthless. Models are terrifically valuable in furthering our understanding of climate functions, and iterative improvements to this will get us to the point where they CAN hind cast energy imbalance on their own. Until they reach that benchmark though, we do not have a strong understanding of what impact future emission and change scenarios look like. We are vastly over stating our understanding to suggest otherwise.
some guy said some thing, for sure, just google it
you sound like a fucktard. YOU prove it.
I think its been proven a long time ago that the Earth has gone through many changes in climate. Long before man has ever had any ability to affect it.
The question is, whether man has anything to do with it now? Or is it just another cycle of the many that has happened over millions of years. The debate is more can we actually do anything about it? Or is it inevitable that change will happen no matter what we do?
I get it, climate change is real. But, FUCK, there are so many bigger problems than CO2. The air, the water, the food are more and more toxic and you want me to cry over CO2 that makes the C we are made of and the O we breathe?. One big volcano eruption and we have more green-house gases than the CO2 we make. Climate change is hard, but guess what, it happen in the past. DEAL WITH IT!
Sorry Billy and Millennials But https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3XlooigupM
Whats Bill Nye's and Millennials plan for when the carbon cycle shuts down and everyone starves and suffocates in the name of hastening the start of the next ICE AGE?
Can we at least get an argument from Nye that isn't a variation of argumentum ad numerum?
Propaganda + Inexperience = Belief in anything. Hence Millennials believe in just about anything as they are fed the most propaganda ever. I don't think climate change is the problem, the problem is getting everyone to question the answers and figure it out for themselves. Science seems to be the pet of those with money. Just as the "news" agencies sold out to money so to have the scientists. Until the news media and the scientists are given funds without knowing where the funds came from and not attached to puppet masters, or expected answers, the information we receive is going to be specious at best, propaganda at the worst. There needs to be a firewall between the funds and the scientists who receive them so they don't know what answers they are supposed to give or what answers will bring in the next funding cheque, rather the would be funded by the quality of the results whatever those results are. Perfect world expectations maybe, but regardless there does need to be a higher standard or most people will believe what they want to believe and will always be able to find "science" to prove it, and higher quality proof comes with deeper pockets.
The mechanical engineering turned comedy actor guy!
Just the other day I had a conversation with an 11th grade student and a science teacher about global warming. Turns out, the students were doing a research essay on the subject, one page, and the teacher accepts every paper that's backed up with good sources. And they have a good conversation even evaluating some of the sources. He openly tells students that he firmly believes global warming is real, but it's an open dialog with students.
Not every school discourages open conversation regarding climate change. And I'm equally frustrated that there's just as much closed-minded fervor from both sides of the conversation.
In my study of the topic, I've concluded that climate change is happening, and humans are partially responsible for the change. But the Earth has ways of compensating for the change, though some of these compensations will necessitate either adaptations or extensions from all walks of human life. We humans have had such success in adapting to our environment that we should have no troubles adjusting, but ironically, we resist change. In order to adapt, we need to talk about the changes taking place and how to respond to them accordingly. That's becoming incredibly difficult; climate-change believers are so self-righteous, they feel humans need to take full responsibility for its existence and pretentiously claim we have to "undo" it all; and climate-change deniers don't want to accept any responsibility at all, especially due to the costs.
Climate is changing every moment of every day, and the complete calculus that is climate is so complex, it's nothing short of arrogance to think we alone are at fault. Milankovich cycles. Volcanic vents. Solar output. Water vapor. Not to mention butterflies, methane emissions from cattle (and don't forget buffalo), forest fires, surface volcanic eruptions, and who knows what else. The only explanation I have for taking a ~30 year warming trend within the billions of years of our planet's existence and constituting it as a global crisis is because we humans like to imagine that we're in control of this world. But we're not.
It angers me even further that, just because there's so much in this world that we do not and cannot control, there's no good reason -not- to do what we can to clean up our planet. Until we can find another one to take its place, and find a way to get a subset of the human population there, this is the only one we have. So let's not fuck it up.
citation?
the only acceptable solutions involve other people making sacrifices while said idiots continue to do whatever they want.
I refer to the tonal change. /. climate change articles regularly bring out the worst of the deniers, and the worst in those deniers.
Yet here we have an entire thread of comments saying things like "well yes, of course climate change is real. What I object to is some tiny little side issue..." Yet in 20 years of reading /., the deniers routinely disputed literally everything about climate change, including that it was real at all. The personalities and behaviour of the scientists involved were attacked. Allegations that "big money" and Al Gore and bizarre secret societies were drumming up the whole matter.
What we have here is a collection of suddenly more reasonable deniers. Was it the compelling personality and impeccable dress of Bill Nye that caused you to change tone? No, of course not. And yet it was something...
Climate change deniers are a symptom of the larger problem. We have in the United States a wholesale attack against science in general. Fracking causing earth quakes and contaminating ground water, intelligent design, global warming, corporations have human rights, are just a few of the battle fronts in this war. The purchasing of propaganda power of largest ½ dozen companies in the world combined allow them to do anything – change any law, commit any crime, plunder any resource in any country anywhere on the planet. Anyone with a contrary view must be discredited at any cost. The only way to reverse the trend in the US is to change how the election process is funded. Make politicians accountable to voters not oligarchy who currently buy and sell them. Members of today’s oligarchy were once idealistic Woodstock goers. Just as today millennials will grow into responsibility and power and they too will do what it takes to keep the status quo and silence opposing opinions.
Oh millennials, is there anything you can't fuck up?
Now if they phrased it such that "the weather is being oppressed by culturally-appropriated microaggressions", you'd see them all rally around the cause and tweet tirelessly until #ClimateChange was fixed.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Gallup's regular poll of the Most Important Problem doesn't even have Climate Change on the list.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Are you attempting to claim that Phillip Morris had one owner, and that owner only owned that one business, and when tobacco sales started to dry up they owner became destitute and died poor?
How do you live with absolutely no depth perception?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Florida is already suffering the consequences of climate change. Donald Trump's mansion is on the beach in my county. The beaches in the area are already having sand added as they have been vanishing. It is sad that so many people can not calculate the damage from just a bit of rising seas and warming. It is also sad that it takes the government so long to catch on to things that are changing. For example, the snakehead fish is considered a serious issue now. But i was catching snakeheads in the Pompano, Fl area as early as 1989. There are also a couple of lakes in the Pompano and Deerfield area that have yielded the red belly piranhas since about 1985. Personally, i enjoy catching invasive species, but they do represent a tremendous threat to native wildlife. Hooking into the banana piranhas is quite an experience. It is like hooking the bumper of a large truck at speed.
Climate has been changing radically, warming, cooling and everything else in between since earth had an atmosphere. Who could possibly imagine that just because humans are so populous now that the laws of millions of years of nature would suddenly stop? We really, really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Earth, biological life and climate changes existed long before we showed up and they will exist long after we disappear.
Gallup's regular poll of the Most Important Problem doesn't even have Climate Change on the list.
Well then, the poll doesn't tell us anything about public sentiment on climate-change because they didn't ask about it. They did ask about "Environment/Pollution" but that's a poor proxy.
Climate is weather on a longer time scale.
Weather systems can form in hours and last for weeks.
State is held in air masses and surface state.
Scientists have a history of measuring and modeling these. (With occasional success.)
Climate systems perhaps can change in years and last for millennia or longer.
State must be in something longer like ocean circulation patterns or ice packs.
Scientists are only starting to measure the oceans in any depth, detail, or time scale and models are a wish and a prayer.
Climate scientists seem to have a history of over estimating the availability of models in this area.
Perhaps because there is money there?
Nike Free Run plus a replacement of for reasonable shoes seriously isn't a large selection because excellent designed running footwear can provide higher feet mid-foot ( arch ) help, much less tiredness, increased jogging ease, and therefore significantly less calf as well as feet agony. All this suggests that eventually you will find yourself conserving money in the long term by way of protecting against high-priced incidents plus persistent harm. Listed below are tips that will aid to prolong the life span of one's running footwear. 1 - Keep your current footwear in the neat, dry position. You desire keep away from high temperatures and you also need to prevent humidity. The 1st will trigger your own stuff to bust and the second can cause the particular matrix which makes up the sole to shrink. Plus, it is advisable to switch the running sneakers simply because jogging truly does weaken the bottom, especially when it happens to be moist the particular running shoe desires time for it to air flow away and go back to its initial kind. Allowing the item the suitable volume of period to recoup is the vital thing to retaining your own footwear in excellent form.
Instead of pointing out the problem I suggest we start pointing out solutions.
Why are coal miners even in business? I mean if global warming is a problem, and burning coal makes it worse, then shouldn't we see coal miners find something else to do? We see coal miners in business because people want cheap electricity. Without something that can provide electricity as cheap as coal we will burn coal.
We don't burn coal because we want global warming. We burn coal because we like hot pizza in the winter, ice cream in the summer, air conditioned movie theaters, computers, cell phones, and all the other things that cheap electricity can bring us. What alternatives do we have? Wind is cheap but we can't rely on the wind to blow. Solar power costs double or quadruple what coal power costs. If we burned wood for electricity then we'd have made the land barren long ago.
Bill Nye is an engineer, he's studied this stuff in school and for his job. For a product to sell it must be on time, on budget, meet fit/form/function, and be better than the other guys' products. Do we have anything that can do that? Yes, nuclear fission.
Instead of saying the same thing over and over again about how climate change is "undeniable" I say we start talking about how to fix this. Barring some leap in technology the only solution we have is nuclear fission. So I say we need to talk about how we are going to build nuclear power plants at a rate sufficient to replace coal and meet future demand.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
What young people have been propagandized to "know" is NOT any indicator of the validity of what they have been taught to regurgitate.
This mindless moron, who is only a scientist on TV while talking to children, could have said the exact same thing about Jews in 1943 Germany. He could have celebrated the idea that all the young were in agreement that Jews were untermenschen and that, happily, the demographics and the efforts of herr Goebels had combined to make it that only a minority of older Germans still held the wrong-headed idea the Jews were human beings. Throw about a Godwin label if you like, but the example is perfectly valid, and I am NOT calling Nye a NAZI, just highlighting how bad the argument is and how it could be used to support the worst of things.
It's very amusing to watch the high-priests of the church of AGW use an endless supply of irrational arguments and sneaky dishonest political tactics to try to prop-up the faith and reassure each other. Even the labels they use are fallacies and political tactics rather then the tools of science which they only pretend to use. They label critics "deniers", seek to banish them from the scientific paper publishing and peer review processes, eliminate them from educational institutions, etc. I just cannot seem to recall the details of the time that Einstein labelled all his critics "deniers" and tried to get them banned......
Only a few decades ago, all the world's scientists held the "consensus" opinion that the earth's surface geology was essentially fixed and stable and had been since the early phases of the planet's formation. There were a few lonely nutjobs who denied this obvious FACT.
Alfred Wegener argued that the continents were actually on sections of crust floating on molten rock rubbing against each other at the edges and moving around over time. The majority of published and peer-reviewed scientists of the day disagreed. He turned out to be right and we all now believe in plate tectonics.
"Majority" and "consensus" are tools of politics, NOT of science, and the person who uses them is a politician, NOT a scientist.
No, it was an open-ended question: what do you think is the most important problem facing this country today? You didn't even read the page, did you? Respondents could answer with ANYTHING. The fact that climate change/global warming doesn't even show up - AT ALL - shows that it's really not a concern for the vast majority of people.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The problem is not if Millennials are concerned or not.
The problem is that people that are way older and *see* the climate change are to *blind* to realize it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Stupidity is reduced as the old, who tend to be more "conservative," die off, but is the decay-rate of morons rapid enough to result in a population smart enough, and informed enough to ACT before it's too late?
The most virulent form of this idiocy causes people to imagine that as you pump more and more heat-trapping poison into the air, you somehow DON'T get greater amounts of retained HEAT, or that doing so won't cause problems. That kind of stupidity runs deep, and might be contagious, or worse, hereditary.
I thought AGW was going to result in more steam, not less. So they are saying we are cooling off?
Have gnu, will travel.
Just wait a few more years and global cooling will be back. Obviously, the term 'climate change' will still apply.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
It's called climate change because global warming was proven wrong .its bs. Bully isn't even a scientist and you are all dumb ass sheep. Please punch bill Nuer the science douche
Dams kill fish, solar plants kill birds, windmills tilt at Spanish knniggits. There's just no winning with you people.
The world's got a bomb/we could all die any day/before I let that happen/I'll dance my life away
This is the most important point and it is a law I'd pass in an instant.
We are not cavemen, there's no reason to keep eating meat with all the alternative food there is.
A lot of people (and me) are proof that you don't NEED meat to live. You just WANT it.
As opposed to transportation, which gets you to your workplace and goods to your town, agricultural machines, house heating, lightning, energy for factories, etc. which are things we NEED, the way our world is organized.
To the many religious people it should not even be a question: eating meat in 2016 clearly qualifies as GLUTTONY, which I believe is harshly condemned.
Growing up, I used to believe in global warming. Then I started learning about growing crops, solar energy, and the first law of thermodynamics. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration improves performance of the C3 photosynthesis engine predominately used by most plants. When plants can convert more sunshine to biomass, less sunshine is converting into heat (first law of thermodynamics). This means there is an inherent counteracting force steering us away from run-away global warming. Al Gore, Bill Nye, etc -- these guys PROFIT from people believing their global warming propaganda. Long before humans showed up, the planet had much higher CO2 concentrations than we have today, and that is why C3 photosynthesis was adopted by most plant life compared to CAM and C4 photosynthesis that doesn't benefit as much from high CO2 concentrations. The C3 plants thrived and the planet survived to produce humans.
Plant fruits, nuts, vegetables, shade trees, and solar panels around your house. Forget about global warming and tell the propagandists to go to hell with their pseudo-science crap.
I'm probably a but too old to be a millennial. At a minimum I am on the older end of the millennial spectrum. I can recall seeing the shift in teaching about global warming. Now that I've gone back to college I find myself surrounded by the younger end of the millennial spectrum I find the difference in my earlier education quite profound.
Way back then I remember people openly mocking global warming and no one would say a word. Now you have people, seemingly seriously, calling openly for punishment of deniers. Some say the global warming deniers are such a threat that the death penalty should be imposed. I did not expect a Spanish Inquisition.
I'm studying mathematics in college (or rather a narrow branch of it) and I find my computer science professors taking class time to lecture on global warming. In statistics class I find nearly half of the class examples being about temperature, snowfall, ice sheet mass, rainfall, or some other climate phenomenon. (Much of the rest is on some racial, gender, social status, or something else to feed social justice warriors. A small portion of the class examples are on things like material strength, rock composition, or something else politically neutral.)
I'm in my fourth semester and I find that only the math professors seem content to keep their political beliefs to themselves. Oh, and the music instructors but that's an elective, not required for my course plan.
It's no wonder that millennials think global warming is a problem, they've been told it is in every class they took from kindergarten to graduate school. With the possible exception of courses like math and music like I've seen.
Oh, wait, I do recall politics coming up in music class. We got on the topic of old musical instruments and that lead to the discussion of certain woods being a problem politically and things like ivory and bone which may have come from endangered species.
Now that I say this I may have jinxed myself and politics will come up in math class tomorrow.
Also, way back when the problems were acid rain, polluted waters, deforestation, ozone layer depletion, and other such problems that rarely come up any more since we've basically solved those problems. I have to wonder if the people that fought for those things back then feel a need to keep fighting and will cling to anything, even if that something doesn't exist.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Rarely have I witnessed such a clueless person who cannot see the obvious. I'd explain it if I thought it would help, but I think you just established that no amount of assistance will cause the proper mechanisms in your cranium to engage.
Agree with climate change and deny humans can do anything about it. Sun's total energy that hits the Earth surface is 25 000 Terawats of heat energy every year. Think about it. Any spot with sunshine on Earth surface instantly heats surrounding ground, waters, plants, animals and atmosphere around us. It's physics law of thermodynamics, that this Sun's giant energy is dissippated into the ground, waters, atmosphere, human bodies etc. Now think about this fact: the entire modern humanity produces only 25 Terawats energy annually from all energy sources together, including nuclear. Yes, only 25. It is not a mistake. It is a fact! Again, this humanity generated energy is dissipating in the same way mostly across the Earth surface, as the Sun's giant energy. Can an ant move the elephant? Sun's activity periodically changes within 5%-7% over some 10 and 50 thousand years, and even every 11 years. Proved scientifically. Climate change is inevitable because of our changing star. Human technology is still tens of thouthands of years away from our capability to even slightly change the climate change. The guy who wrote the article better take his physics courses again. Hate this type of people who create histeria among politicians based on fears about the changing future. Hate also scum capitalists who subsidize with "research" grants for those fear-mongering "climate scientists" to earn billions of illicit fear money from their mislead by fake guilt societies in wealthy countries. Look at all those hedge funds and trading-bankers buying CO2 quotas for cheap in Africa and selling to naive Europeans, for instance.
I'd even raise the stakes to $100,000 but I feel bad taking your money.
However we need to agree on what the definitions of temperature are - and there absolutely must not be any bullshit tweaking of the data as is done, as is currently done on climate reports to fulfill your conspiracy theory.
No surprise that older people are more skeptical. In fact, that's kind of a silly observation.
Of course they are! They've had decades more experience in being served BS and are more aware of the fact that some people will intentionally mislead other people for personal gain.
Once upon a time the phrase was, "[The young] are more impressionable." Well, yeah. There was another: "If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you are old, you have no brain." So be a climate activist when you are young, and when you get old well you'll be wiser ... and seen as the 'doubter' for whatever the youth issue of the future is.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
100 comments and NOBODY has even mentioned HAARP? lmgtfy...
The fact that millennials are most susceptible to the propaganda of the left is no surprise. The less experience and easily influenced usually are. The idea that climate change (if it is occurring, bias in the science makes it impossible to know at this point) is caused and can be changed through human activity is laughable. What I love is how these true Marxists like Nye and Gore will say the most outrageous, demonstrably false, things and nobody makes them accountable. To say that nearly 100% of scientists agree on climate is so incredibly ridiculous it puts these guys in line with NAZIs and fascists. After all, EVERY study says 110% of scientist reject this crap and think that Bill Nye is a moron. Ok?
Or maybe it's because that they're the ones that will have to live with the consequences of what the Boomers are doing now? Hmm?
thats what climate do, change
lets reinvent the wheel
"Scientists believe" is not the same as scientific proof !
On one hand we hear "education is horrible..our kids score worse in the world ranks." Now we hear "kids are smart. They believe climate change"
Which is it?
Really?? We are supposed to respect the opinions of a bunch of whimpering babies that can't stand the sight of a Trump sticker on their campus without running in fear?? People who have signed petitions to ban the first amendment??
I suppose if Mr. Nye is desperate enough to look anywhere for support, he'll turn to anyone. Even the chronically clueless...
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
And, since technically a summary cannot contain everything, else it would be a transcript, the fact that the summary did not explicitly mention AGW as the cause for climate change is irrelevant. Moreover, since the entire conversation was about climate change today, where the climate is changing because it's AGW, if it WEREN'T about AGW, what the hell would the subject be about?
Your point is pointless. I discard it utterly and cry heavenwards for the arrogant idiocy you have here displayed.
See, for example, BEST.
Of course, after they didn't get the wanted result the deniers hoped for, they insisted that BEST was corrupt. It seems that the oly proof of corruption is not asserting that AGW is false....
If you believe in climate change, yet still drive anywhere other than work, or fly for any reason other than to support yourself, I don't really see how you can in good conscience look at anyone else. You haven't done all that YOU can do yet. Until you have, I don't care what you're cop-outs are, people are not going to listen to you. And that's the problem. Climate change is everyone else's fault. Always.
It's not the environmentalists criss-crossing the world in private jets to attend climate change conferences. Oh no. No no. Perish the thought. Academia's farts don't stink, nor do their vehicles emit pollution. Instead, they emit magic pixie dust. It's those gosh-darn working-class and unfashionable other-party industries.
Would you believe the Democrats take more annual airplane flights than Republicans, as well as fly more miles? Shhhhhhhhh. I won't tell if you don't. Those gosh-darn working-class southerners and their oil farmers whose products the liberal elite use more than anyone!
I do not own a car, nor have a flow in over 10 years. So, you'd think the climate change proponents would love me, right? Nope. They could not care less what my carbon footprint is (the bottom 1% of all Americans). Could not care less. They are upset because I don't talk about climate change and parrot their views.
Any you wonder why it doesn't get better?
It's because its most vocal advocates are insincere. Think about it. The people who are "too selfish" to have kids (their words), care deeply about what happens to the planet once they're dead and buried.
Why?
Why would they do that?
Why would proud, openly-selfish people give a damn about the well-being of people 10 generations from now? Generations they will not even be contributing to?
Well, they wouldn't care. They only reason they'd give a damn about global warming, were if it somehow benefitted them to pretend to give a damn about it.
Oh, but not you, though. You care so much about the people who will be alive 100 years from now because that's just who you are as a human being.
Okay, what about the homeless we have living on the streets today? We have more than enough money in this country to house everyone. Why do some people care more about climate discomfort when they no longer exist, than the do about needy people right now? Why do you always need to wait for a bandwagon to care about a problem? Why do you always wait until it brings you kudos and pats on the head before getting worked up about an issue? There are so many worthy issues not in the public eye right now, can you name three of them?
Why, exactly, do we need consensus on climate change when the affluent-class could make a HUGE difference just by themselves? IF everyone who believes that climate change was an issue, stopped driving and flying tomorrow, that would in and of itself, if not solve it, make great strides.
But they don't. Instead, they say it's your fault, or their fault, or someone's fault, then they fly home for mom's pumpkin pie. Yummy!
What you are witnessing is yet another ruling-class, neo-puritan moral-panic. It's not about climate change, it's about them. If you want to know what people really care about, pay no attention to what they say. Instead, watch what they do.
If you do, you will come to the conclusion that those who actually care about it talk less and do more.
It's not about what you do, though. It's about what you say. Snark, snark, sarcasm, snark. Climate change proponents are rich in snark. They'll tell you with the wit of Lorne Michaels why "the others" are oh-so-lame.
If only snark, sarcasm, and insults solved the problem (climate change proponent's primary solution to the issue), it would be solved. You care about humankind so much that you run around calling
It's amazing the hoops conservatives jump through just to avoid saying 'I was wrong'
To be honest, I also know a lot of Millennials who believe in Ghosts wandering around their apartments, and that their cat is the same as a child, and that almost everything is a "hate crime". So.....
If you don't believe that these same people can accurately forecast the general trends 50 years from now, however, you're an "idiot". A "moron" even. A redneck, probably poor, but definitely, oh DEFINTELY unfashionable.
I got called similar things last week during a discussion about gender issues. Before class began, a group of UW Students informed me that gender was a 100% social construct, and had no basis in science whatsoever. I do not exaggerate, this was, verbatim, their claim. When I mentioned chromosomes being the primary thing that determines gender, they called me, well you know ... they ridiculed me.
Then, one of them said something like "I bet you don't believe in climate change either!"
I'll let that stand on it's own.
There seem to be Orwellian rules for applying the term "denier." I don't deny the UAH satellite data.
UAH satellite data
Do you deny the UAH satellite data?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
You're claiming the UAH satellite data isn't legitimate scientific evidence?
UAH satellite data
I do not deny the UAH satellite data. Do you?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Because he is a giant douched and his douchiness pushes me away from proselytizing about climate change/agw/whatever the fuck they are going to call it next. Look, I don't care if global warming is occurring. I really don't. I have no fear of it and it's a dumb thing to even talk about.
Yes the weather(You call climate change) is happening all the time.
But, how can you tell me about future global warming, when you can't even actually predict the temperature tomorrow.
I'm sure Nye (Cocteau) is right, the Millennials have been taught/conditioned to believe anything a person in position of authority says. It's really quite sad. Skeptics are needed and necessary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The reason why "older" people don't jump at weather(climate change) is because we remember when alarmists(scientist) where jumping up and down about Global Cooling in the 70's, and then Global Warming in that 80's these alarmists(scientist) were jumping up and down saying that by now New York City would be under 100ft of water.
It isn't doubting climate change, it is wisdom every time an alarmists(scientist) is jumping up and down about something.
I am very proud to say that I stand with the first victims of the Climate Change debate: the scientists. For sure it is about politics...whereas dissenting opinions regarding scientific theories are treated with respect dissenting opinions regarding politically charged scientific theories are treated with disdain to the point of potential political punishment. There is no debate that climate change is happening but the question is why. It is not because of people. It is because of SUNSPOTS...too discount the effect of the sun is ignorant. Finally humans do not effect the weather unless they are blowing things up at the behest of the same Robber Barons seeking to control the means of production through rationing so that the fat cats in DC, NYC, London, and Paris can get even fatter while the rest of us are destitute.
A real scientist would never refer to others in the field as 'Deniers'.
He is nothing more than a media whore.
Noting that millennials care more about Facebook/Instagram etc, the Kardashians (and other "celebrities") than they care about most anything else speaks volumes.
Climate has been changing on this planet since the planet formed. What is his point?
See Georgia Guidestones for true agenda which is genocide wrapped in Climate Change movement. Yes it is a movement because 10 years there was no such thing as "Climate Change". Back then it was global warming. 10 years or so before that it was something else. It goes back to Agenda 21 which is really a soft approach to depopulate the planet. Listen to Bill Gates...he will give you the formula for genocide...
I am going to tell you all one thing: while we're debating who's right and who's wrong for decades, climate *is* changing and we're not doing enough about it.
While our only home we call Earth is becoming increasingly more hostile to all life, we are debating. It will be of absolutely no importance who's wrong and who's right once the life on Earth becomes really hard, because we're all in this together. :(
Have a happy life...
Instead of spending billions on doomsday scenarios which will never happen how about fixing our poisonous water and food!!!!
This news, if true, only confirms the failure of science education; we now have a generation of teachers who don't know science leading the next generation into a society based upon fascist myths
Moo! Moo! All the cows get in line, all aboard the climate change crazy train! The band is playing the symphony of destruction and it's a sing along, right to the slaughterhouse. Now you'll do what they told you. Now you're under control! Moooo! Right to the slaughterhouse...
Bill Nye now expands the scientific evidence for climate change by saying that young people believe Man Man Global Intergalactic Climate Flux (MMGICF) is a 100% proven fact. This is outstanding news.
Not only do we know that 9 / 10 climate scientists believe in MMGICF, we now know that young people believe them. So obviously it is true.
Nowhere does it mention anything that would be considered science. Yet people still wonder why people doubt science. If Bill Nye wanted to change the hearts and minds of those stupid white southern republicans who believe MMGICF is a conspiracy by smug liberal elites to keep the price of energy high, maybe he should have talked about science in his press statement. No. Cant do that. Better just to talk about how many people believe in MMGICF, and to call all those who don't believe in it faggots, because obviously they are. After all 9/10 climate scientists agree that anyone who disagrees is a commie.
Yes it's warming up. It's been warming up for over 1000 years. Not man's fault. Even NASA is distancing themselves from the bullshit some of their "scientists" have put out there - https://www.rt.com/news/338810... . If Turkey can tell you're full of crap, isn't it a bit obvious guys?
BTW, understand that Bill Nye isn't a scientist. He just plays one on TV. Check out his bio.
Nealy all the teachers in the US are members of the giant Teachers' unions that are integral parts of the hard-left base of the modern Democrat party.
These are the completely dishonest and fanatical freaks who used students (other people's kids) as human shields in the PR fight in Madison WI while they occupied the state Capitol building during their temper tantrum over the idea that the state might no longer serve a a dues-collector for the union and might no longer force its teachers to belong to unions.
It's in their vested interest to produce adults who are stupid and brainwashed, bad at math, bad at logic, ignorant of history and who will blindly vote for Democrats. In return, the Democrat party will protect the Teachers' unions from reform and competition (remember when Obama killed the charter schools in DC?) and will protect their pensions no matter what happens to the taxpayers (most of whom HAVE no pensions) who are paying for those pensions.
"Half a century" (your rhetoric to pretend it's longer than I indicated) equates to about 50 years AKA 5 decades. Five is "a few".
You are working very hard NOT to get the point that what is the "overwhelming consensus among scientists" has many times in history (even VERY recently, as in the case of plate tektonics, which I cited) been proven wrong and the opinion of the tiny minority in the field has been proven right. Simply being in the minority does not of course make one correct, but it as absolutely true that "consensus" and "majority", while vital to windbags in political offices, are meaningless in science. "consensus" and "majority" are NOT evidence.
As for being a moron, I designed instruments that were being used by Woods Hole decades ago, while you feel compelled to resort to expletives to cover your intellectual deficit.
I need to make no arguments to you about thermodynamics because I made no argument about or criticism of thermodynamics, which I suspect I have a better understanding of than you do. In fact, thermodynamics has nothing to do with this argument about the validity of AGW and the application of consensus to arguments of scientific validity, but I'm sure you got that on some web site as something to refer to in an argument with a "denier".
As far as I am aware, nobody is arguing about the thermal properties of CO2, although anybody using a closed jar of CO2 as an analog for an open and mixed upper atmosphere in a simplistic attempt to prove AGW is only good enough to mislead school children.
Is there CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. Does CO2 have different thermal properties than other gasses? Yes. Do humans produce CO2? Yes. Does this prove all the AGW hype? No.
Is there asphalt on the ground? Yes. Does asphalt have different thermal properties than grass? Yes. Do humans produce asphalt? Yes. Does this prove all the AGW hype? No.
The fact that something may contribute to some degree to some aspect of the planet does not mean it proves all sorts of associated things, nor does it establish the contribution as being significant, or the most significant, or a problem, nor does it establish control of that thing as the best solution if the problem itself is real. The picture is made more cloudy when you realize that there is no design document for the system, therefore you do not know what the ideal conditions for the system are. The fact that a particular global temperature (if such a thing is even valid, or more important than for example regional temperatures) is something other than what we humans consider best does not in any way prove that the particular temperature IS optimal. Other lifeforms on this planet might do better with a different temperature and might be worse adapting to the temps we prefer than we are at adapting to the temps they prefer.
You really need to drain yourself of all the pent-up hostility and emotion and start thinking a little more clearly.
Just drop a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon in Antarctic Ice Sheets. You'll REBOOT the planet.
Casteism
It does, however, have environment/pollution on the list.
When will people start talking about the real 'unscientific' remedies being touted as 'solutions'. You don't need to be much of a scientist to recognize these politically motivated economic changes are basically more about rewarding industries with political ties than providing real scientific facts to show these or any actions can have a measurable effect on halting or reversing the stated effect. Try getting some research funded for that and you will see this is all a political charade.
Karmashock is perhaps the most rational commenter I've ever seen on a climate change thread. Thank you for at least attempting to raise the level of the discussion.
If the science were really that strong, the believers wouldn't have to resort to threatening Aussies with sex.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-09/climate-change-and-your-sex-life/7311702
Bill Nye and the Numbskull who posted a comment about his views on April 7th, 2016, raised my ire and demanded a response. There are very few people who hold the view that there is no such thing as climate change. There are plenty, however, unlike Nye and his ilk, who are un-fanatical enough to see, realize, admit, that it is not only possible, but essential,. to realize that it is not human causation (sometimes called anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) causing climate change. Such claims are non-scientific, foolish and, may I say it, stupid. The Global Warming Cabal has attempted to and, has fairly successfully, yelled down, victimized, pilloried and witch-hunted anyone who does not swallow the cool-aid of AGW. There are not only many, many, scientists, but many others as well, who are, for some reason, able to see that the AGW hypothesis is goofy and tragically flawed. These people, of whom I am one, for some reason have managed to maintain their sanity in an insane world. Remember the devastation caused to many fellow humans by the thoroughly discredited ideas and proponents of society being devastated by witchcraft and devil worship, or by Satanically-influenced child abuse, or even by an epidemic of deadly cholesterol caused by eating eggs, or by 'recovered' memories of long past sexual exploitation. AGW and these other witch hunts are on a par, but the longest lasting delusion of AGW wins the anti-prize.
I forgot to add one important fact: The vaunted millenial-aged cohort that 'unquestionably' believes in AGW according to Bill Nye and his supporters were probably the ones that voted in the Canadian federal Liberal party and their leader Justin Trudeldumb because he promised to legally legitimize marijuana use in Canada. What a reason to suddenly get interested in politics. Who cares that his policies will likely bankrupt Canada! Naive fools abound.
Contrary to what he pretends to be, Bill Nye has absolutely ZERO climatology education or experience. He is not even qualified to be a weekend weatherman for a small-town TV station.
However, Bill Nye IS a rabid progressive liberal, which means he lives by the mantra of "the end justifies the means'.
Apparently, Bill Nye has never heard of Milankovitch Cycles and their role in influencing our climate. Nobody seems willing to even mention them.
http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/milankovitch-cycles/
More than likely, like his hero, Al Gore, he is set up to profit greatly from the carbon credit and cap and trade scams. I find it convenient that our government passed numerous job killing "free trade" agreements which sent most of our carbon producing, manufacturing jobs overseas, before further taxing and regulating the few survivors that remain.
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/339222/climate-profiteers