Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye Slams Donald Trump, Republicans On Climate Change (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: On the eve of Earth Day, environmental activist Bill Nye told CNN that while everybody is more aware of climate change "than ever before," we still have a long way to go (annoying auto-play videos). The science educator and engineer, who became an icon on his 1990s hit show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," criticized the Republican presidential candidates and the fossil fuel industry for not acknowledging the deleterious effects of climate change. "There's still a very strong contingent of people who are in denial about climate change," Nye said. "And if you don't believe me, look at the three people currently running for president of the world's most influential country who are ... climate change deniers," Nye said, referring to the three Republican presidential candidates: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich.
Does Nye still have *any* cache in the "pop science" universe? Or is he now just one of Al Gore's friends and late night talk show fodder?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Bill Nye is no science guy, just a guy with a B.S. Degree.
Nye is a known shill. His opinions are worth nothing.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
They can't fix what they think isn't broke. It's simple really.
Each day it becomes clearer and clearer that Trump will be President-Elect Trump by the end of the year, and soon after that he will become President Trump.
The Republican elite don't want to acknowledge it yet, but they're coming to realize that President Trump their only chance at winning the presidential race.
The Democrats aren't fielding any competitive candidates, which makes a President Trump win even more inevitable.
I know that some people will come along and claim that "the polls" are showing Clinton in the lead.
Yet these are the same kinds of polls that showed President Trump supposedly going nowhere, yet we see that reality is the complete opposite of what these polls predicted!
Bill Nye had better get ready for President Trump!
Other than the fact he seems to take himself way too seriously nowadays. I liked him better when he was doing science-y stuff for the Almost Live New Year's episodes (the Amazing Vortex of Science!).
But, in any case - I have my doubts that either Trump or the Republicans in general have been waiting with bated breath, hoping against hope for Nye's approval. I think The Donald and his mindless throng thrive on rejection from what they perceive as the Establishment.
#DeleteChrome
Trump and Clinton are the peoples' choice. So vote for Jill Stein. She has a new do, looks great. And don't forget to vote for the other 435 greens to fill the house. If you don't, your pensions will be completely wiped out and the oceans will boil off in eight years, then whaddya gonna do, eh? Don't come cryin' to me! This is a preemptive "I told you so"... I mean "shhh"
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
... and Republican doesn't give a flying fuck. The End.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Follow the road of Lenin and Trotsky!
And short Apple?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If Bill Nye (and the Democrat Attorneys General) weren't colossal hypocrites, they'd be complaining about:
1) Anyone who purchased fossil fuels (directly or indirectly) to commute, travel, heat a home, or turn on electric lights, appliances, TVs, or computers
2) Calling for the death penalty for anyone who ever opposed non-CO2 generating nuclear power.
But they're not, because they *are* colossal hypocrites.
Paraphrase:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. (2014,2015) - World leaders meeting at the Vatican last week issued a statement saying that 2015 was the âoelast effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius]." Strangely enough the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014â(TM)s climate summit.
2. (2014) - When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said âoewe have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.â
3. (2012) - In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obamaâ(TM)s second term was âoethe last window of opportunityâ to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said itâ(TM)s âoethe last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,â adding that if âoewe donâ(TM)t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.â
4. (2009) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only âoehas four years to save Earth.â
5. (2009) - World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canadaâ(TM)s Green Party wrote âoeWe have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,â Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. âoeEarth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.â
6. (2009) - United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned there was only âoe50 days to save the world from global warming,â the BBC reported. According to Brown there was âoeno plan B.â
7. (2009) - Letâ(TM)s not forget Prince Charlesâ(TM)s warning that there would be we only had 96 months to save the planet. Itâ(TM)s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be âoeirretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.â
8. (2007) - Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if âoethereâ(TM)s no action before 2012, thatâ(TM)s too late.â
9. (2002) - Environmentalists warned the world had a decade to go green. [Environmentalist] George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within âoeas little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the worldâ(TM)s animals or it continues to feed the worldâ(TM)s people. It cannot do both.â
10.(1989) - In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences. The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a âoesenior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.â
It's not science.
If it's warmer than normal, they say it's global warming.
If it's colder than normal, they say it's global warming.
If it's drier than normal, they say it's global warming.
If it's snowier than normal, they say it's global warming.
There are no hypotheses or theories. It's a screwed up religion the left wants to force on us.
Fuck religion. Fuck Jesus. And fuck Al Gore, too.
Please, Trump is an anti-competitive candidate.
Sure, he's good at wrangling through the Republican field, he can pander right to them, but when it comes to the middle? To them, he's toxic.
Not that he's any worse than the others they have, but when it comes down to it, he'll split the flippable states for Democrats.
It's almost as if he was a plant.
Besides, Republican polls DID show Trump going to the top.
How can Climate Scientist get any useful data when we are modifying the weather.
There are hundreds of Weather Modification programs such as this one in south Texas. That's just cloud seeding or "chemtrails" as some conspiracy theorists call them (video of spray nozzle). Sometimes the weather modification uses fuel additives, sometimes they use aluminum particles, these sprays can be turned on and off in mid flight. We also coordinate massive vapor releases from power plants to promote storms. I've seen evidence of directional energy systems that can heat the clouds to create greater temperature differentials. Some heat the particles we spray, others heat the ionosphere. Basically they're just larger versions of this.
Forgive me for not being alarmed. We control the weather to a great degree. Of course the media is silent on this -- liability from floods alone would be a nightmare if the general populace knew who to sue. We are creating the warmer weather and nicer climates by inducing greenhouse effect via metallic particles, not CO2. Until these factors are eliminated, I can't trust any "Climate Study" which doesn't mention correcting for the extensive weather manipulation going on. Hint: They're just trying to scare you into accepting some global tax. (this time it's a "Carbon Tax" on all items and labor the UN is shooting for). FFS, they already sell weather manipulation derivatives.
The climate debate is not over whether or not we should do something about climate change, it's about whether or not we should do MORE or LESS weather manipulation. We were afraid of "global cooling" remember that? Well, we did something about it! It's working quite well! Don't buy into scaremongering. That's just the UN and others trying to manufacture consent to accept new legislation.
If you're not educated on weather manipulation then you've been duped and your opinion on the climate is baseless. Time to get educated folks. Let's just take a deep breath, relax, let your fear pass over and through you, and where it has gone only healthy skepticism should remain. It's all going to be OK, we know what we're doing, we've been controlling Weather with Science for decades. We could probably even solve the problem of massive volcanic plumes or asteroid ash blocking out the sun. Everything is going to be OK. Hell, I haven't even told you about our secret space program's capabilities...
Nice try communist subhuman.
Dealing with climate change is not just a Presidential issue. Even if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were elected and they put all their political capital into play just for global warming, the level of change wouldn't be that high with a Republican controlled House and Senate Congressional races matter also. Emily Cain for example is running in one of the most competitive districts in the country against an opponent who is bad not just on global warming but on other environmental issues also. You can go and donate to her campaign http://emilycain.com/
But outside politics there's also a lot of other things you can do. You can at a personal level reduce meat consumption, try to use public transit, buy energy efficient appliances and if you do buy a new car by a hybrid or an electric car like the Chevy Bolt or any model of Tesla. Outside a personal level, you can give to charities and groups which will help make real change. For example, Everybody Solar http://www.everybodysolar.org/ gets solar panels for non-profits including schools, homeless shelters and science museums. The Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF) http://self.org/ helps get solar panels for developing countries. Both of these help the environment while helping good causes. SELF is particularly important because it helps reduce the problem of global warming from developing countries which are industrializing. The Wind Energy Foundation http://windenergyfoundation.org/ is another good cause. Every little bit helps, so if you are uncomfortable (for understandable reasons) with putting money in to politics, there are a lot of non-political ways of helping out here. Solar and wind won't solve global warming by themselves, but they are a major step in the right direction, and every little bit helps.
Let Ira Einhorn out on parole on the condition that he "composts" Bill Nye.
Nye is more like Michio Kaku---except for all of that PhD. science degree baggage.
At least Kaku published papers in peer-review journals. Nye is just a poser.
The three-way race in the Republican side, plus the dead-heat tie in the Democratic side means that both nominations are going to be up for debate at the conventions.
The Democrats allow non-directly-elected "super delegates" to vote, meaning it must be wide margin in the primaries in order for the nomination to be locked up in advance. The super delegates are not bound to either candidate, and will be enough to overturn the popular vote.
The 40-30-30ish split in the Republican primaries means that one of the lower two candidates could throw their support over to the other one creating a 60-40 win upending the current leader. This could lead the the third place candidate becoming the nominee. despite the popular vote.
Votes matter, but it's politics that decide the winners.
Relevant: http://fee.org/articles/18-spe...
I would take Bill Nye a lot more seriously if he wasn't looking more and more every day like Ash after he escapes the vacuum hole after picking the second wrong Necronomicon.
There's an interesting comparison between Trump and Nye... they both work by presenting ideas that are developed by other people.
Trump didn't create The Apprentice, he was just hired to be the on-air face. He hardly worked on the show, he just showed up then asked the people surrounding him about the most recent contest, and had the task of announcing who was out of the game.
Nye isn't a researcher, he's a promoter of 8th-grade level science concepts. He asked teachers all of the nation to submit lessons, and the show was him showing off the interesting ways to present such things.
If we wind up with Trump as president, ideas posted on Slashdot could become law quickly.
Amazing how very shortly after this feed gets put up, the first postings all follow the MO of the petro-chemical industry and the GOP...
So, let us address a few things here.
1)
"Bill Nye isn't a 'Science Guy', he just holds a BS degree!"
Assuming for a moment that we overlook the obviously implied "appeal to authority" fallacy this involves, he could be a bumbling idiot with cabbage in his beard that talks to empty chairs-- The data he directs people to is correct, and will continue being correct no matter what degrees or qualifications he has. So, discounting this obvious fallacy, there's buried ad-hominem goodness there too. Shooting the messenger like this does not make climate change less real, nor the message inaccurate.
2)
"The climate change crazies want to force their religion on us!!"
Science is not a religion. It is a process, and a damned cuthroat one too. It might surprise you to know that the scientifically literate population have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1909, and have raised the red flag on industrial release of this gas through fossil fuel combustion since the 20's, predicting mass climate change. Here it is, a century later, and we have bulletproof data showing exactly this. What exactly consistutes religion to you? The belief in something without proof (which is what denialism is, given the massive amounts of experimental and climatological data collected so far showing that fossil fuel use is cumulatively deleterious to the climactic environment) or observing repeatable phenomena, creating testable hypotheses, and then strongly advising the world based on those findings? (science, and in this case-- the message of 99% of the world's climate scientists.)
3)
"Release XXX from prison so they can (euphamism for harm) Bill Nye!"
Seriously? You advocate physical violence and harm to silence a message you find disfavorable? For real? No wonder the world is so fucked up, if you actually think killing the messenger makes the reality of the message go away. That is some premium magical thinking you have going there!
4)
"Bill Nye is a known shill/hippocrite! Everything he says is a lie!"
From whom exactly does he accept money in exchange for his activism (since he is "known" to be a shill, this should be easy.) and in what respects is he a hippocrite? Because he uses electricity? (There are carbon neutral means of generating it, and he has expressed a preferrence for this. How then is his message hippocritical here?) Because he drives a car? (There are some very nice looking electric vehicles these days. I dont know for sure if he drives one, but I would expect that he would prefer to use one over a destructive internal combustion vehicle, given his rhetoric. Unless you have proof he drives a gas guzzler, this isnt hippocricy either.) Seriously, where does this come from? Hopefully it isnt imagination land.
5)
"He and Al Gore........"
Guilt by association and bandwagon fallacies. Try to be intellectually honest here folks.
I grow tired of hearing all these absurd rationalisms for denying the realities happening all around us, just so we can pretend that everything is OK, when all the data shows it most certainly is not.
You misunderstand.
The problem isn't that these people are ignoring the problem. The bad thing is that they're ignoring the evidence in front of their eyes for ideological reasons and pretending the problem simply doesn't exist.
The trouble with people like that is that they might pretend any or all of the problems that you think are important don't exist because of the contradiction with their ideology. Those bigger fish you're talking about: they are quite capable of closing their eyes and flat-out claiming those fish simply do not exist.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Now I'm voting for Trump!
Nye is nothing more than an opportunist. Loves his name in the news.
They should go to mechanic school. I've seen people take in a good car to the mechanic, and $2000 later, the car is worse than when it came in. Fixing it, regardless of whether it's broken is a normal thing.
Learn to love Alaska
...the Lefty Guy, No one cares, he's just a cut rate Morgan Freeman.
They should go to mechanic school. I've seen people take in a good car to the mechanic, and $2000 later, the car is worse than when it came in. Fixing it, regardless of whether it's broken is a normal thing.
Those are ASE parts re-placers not mechanics.
The Democrats aren't fielding any competitive candidates, which makes a President Trump win even more inevitable.
Just to be clear, the Republicans aren't fielding competitive candidates either.
Nye played a scientist on TV, but was not one in real life. Nye lacks the credentials, the experience, and has not done work in the field.
Trump played a business man on TV, and is one in real life. Trump continued running his multinational empire while also hosting the show. He continues to run his empire even now as he runs for the White House. He has the credentials, experience, and has done very successful work in the field with which he is associated.
One of the two is a phony, and it's NOT Trump.
Oh, and being a science expert has never been a requirement for a national leader. In fact if you do a little googling you will find that such men make remarkably bad political leaders. Presidents are CEOs of the government. They set directions, select and appoint managers to run the various agencies of the executive branch, and hold their leadership teams accountable. Presidents hare and consult with experts as they need to and they can generally get the advice of any they choose to consult with. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan were all non-scientists. When Kennedy, for example, wanted to go to the moon Werner Von Braun was a phone call away. When Reagan wanted to build a space shuttle to replace the Challenger, he did not need to be an aerospace engineer; he just needed to know which of his people to call on the phone.
He is always doubling down his position
http://twitchy.com/2016/04/20/...
and I doubt he will answer a real challenge
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
He isn't particularly informative but it is fun to watch him squirm.
Hunh? Is this some kind of trolling? Clinton has a commanding if not insurmountable lead in elected delegates, and super-delegates aren't going to be getting in her way, to say the least. When you say it's a 40-30-30 split, is the last one you're referring to Rubio or Kasich? It's certainly conceivable that Kasich could somehow become the compromise candidate, but he is waaayyy waayyy farther behind in delegates than you indicate, it's 846 (Trump) - 544 (Cruz) - 149 (Kasich), so more like 60-30-10'ish.
Seriously, the Dems are messing up just as badly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Most of us don't do science ourselves but are capable of understanding it. Bill understands science and can ask relevant question to scientists. Hope you know how to read a scientific paper and understand it.
Dead bodies in the morgue.
The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen. Using the Scientific Method this means that the AGW hypothesis is not only not sustainable using the observed data (that is, reality) but it is falsified.
Bill Nye is refusing to use the Scientific Method. That means he is actually the ANTI-Science Guy. He is trying to bamboozle people with rhetoric and partial information, instead of telling the whole story and using the Scientific Method, which inexorably leads to the conclusion that the IPCC computer simulations do not model the effects of water vapor/clouds correctly (their Transient Climate Sensitivity estimates are a whopping factor of 4 out - worse even than the results I'm used to as a former astrophysicist). This means the warming we see is natural (which should be obvious, since it started 160 years ago when we were still using horses and mostly agrarian).
Ignore the rhetoric. Look at the observational data and compare with the predictions made by the AGW hypothesis. AGW is falsified. If this was normal science then people would have accepted they got the theory wrong, but since science has been hijacked by political "Lysenkosim" then we see persistent propaganda that denies the observed reality (kinda like that old man that wants to pretend to be a 6 year old girl).
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ! Stop pretending he does. AGW is not supported by the data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
http://docs.house.gov/meetings...
From https://climateaudit.org/2016/...
Do you want to be one of the people who pretends the naked Emperor has no clothes? is that the smart move? NO ! instead, stop listening to rhetoric from politicized Cultural Marxist Politically Correct flunkies like Bill Nye and look at the OBSERVATIONAL DATA - all of it!
If you disagree then that's cool, please give me your data and we can discuss it. In Science observational data is king. Too back Bill Nye is refusing to acknowledge this (or perhaps he is simply incompetent and doesn't know all the data).
Bill Nye is an engineer, not a Climate Scientist.
And we know, because it is repeated time and time and time again here on Slashdot, if you aren't a Climate Scientist, then shut the fuck up. You opinion, evidence, etc. means Fucking Shit.
who pays for your shilling?
0/10, not a very good troll attempt.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Which over-qualifies him to debate climate change deniers and flim flam artists like Sarah Palin.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And this guy has submitted how many scientific research papers to academic journals for peer review?
Oh right, he only has BA in engineering...
This is nonsense. You obviously have no idea how the primaries work, or how polling works. In the general electorate, Trump has the lowest favorability rating among any candidate in the last 9 Presidential elections, in either party.
The reality is not "the complete opposite" of what the polls predicted. The polls have had him at between 30-40%, and that is exactly where he has stayed. What the analysts did get wrong is predicting that his supporters would peel off to more mainstream candidates. However, he hasn't managed to pick up many more supporters either.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Why the world does he get any air time at all?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Clinton has about a 20% lead in elected delegates I wouldn't call that "commanding". California alone has enough delegates to make Sanders the leader. Where Clinton leads is in the superdelegates. Will that really hold out? I'm not sure. Say Sanders is up 60%/40% or even 55%/45% going into the convention: how many superdelegates would abandon ship? That is an open question. If it is close I can see enough super-delegates sticking with her that she'll win. But if it is clear that she isn't the "people's choice"? Or if it is clear that she isn't the best chance at beating whoever becomes the Republican candidate?
What if Bill dies? Which way does that swing things? Do people like Hillary enough if Bill isn't in the picture? Anyways lots of variables. I don't have a dog in the race other than wishing for someone not Bush-like (Obama is worse than Bush in some ways, he's basically GW without the southern accent) since I'm not American (thank God), I'm just hoping for a US government that will shit the fuck up and stop bombing brown people in sandy places.
So did Ronald Reagan.
Well, right now we're ignoring both problems, so does it really matter? People are seemingly quite happy with their country going down the tubes, why should I bother stopping them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
His credits in real science and global warming are a big ZERO! As for real science he's got the IQ of 10,000 middle school P.E. teachers, which is still below 100.
He's not even a scientist. "Science educator" he's on the same level as Rush Limbaugh. He's an entertainer and no more. The fact that he uses the "client denier" nomenclature to incite the vision of holocaust deniers, so in using that term alone he loses any credibility he claims to have. Let's make him go away.
Do you realize that it's highly possible that you are blindly believing false evidence in the same way you claim others are? Beware when politicians and companies start singing from the same hymnal. The problem with people you claim to be is that they are quite capable of going along with mob regardless. How many times in history have "the majority of scientists" being embarrassingly wrong?
Saw an editorial in WaPo today by George Will, about how progressives are so authoritarian because they want climate deniers to shut up. And he quoted an NSF (IIRC) paper about all the uncertainties in the science. A paper from 2001! Sheesh! 15 years ago, I was cautiously skeptical myself, but since then ALL the science keeps coming up the same, no matter how the questions are asked. Skeptics have long since been convinced, only ignorant fools are still arguing--fools like him who have to go back 15 years in order to find any reputable organization questioning it.
Paraphrase:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
Sir, place an orange dead ferret on your head before reciting the oath of Trumpllegiance!
To their credit, if its done long enough the problem and the people ringing the alarm about it will go away. At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
There is no middle. We've spent 16 years destroying it.
I live a life of pleasure and luxury courtesy of the Koch brothers, of course! I'm just waiting for their first check to arrive! Why do you ask?
The question you should be asking, however, is why you are confusing a guy who plays a scientist on TV with a real scientist?
I criticize Nye for not acknowledging the deleterious effects of GMOs.
Actual deniers or supporters, or... the blatantly obvious fact that most of either camp do not know the first thing about what they're denying/supporting?
Can I quote you on that in my next journal?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
what is his body of work? Where are his original contributions? His publications? His bona fides seem to be more along the lines of when and where he lends his brand, not the science he's produced. Which is fine. But a scientists? More like a Science Personality.
46 & 2
Another great post modded down. Thanks for giving me a good chuckle! Wish I could bump it up so it could be enjoyed by more. :)
Is there 97% consensus on that 90% or is that just a few studies? Was there 97% consensus on the Arctic being ice free? What year is that going to be, I've heard so many predictions from the 97% that I'm not sure anymore. How about New York, Holland, Florida being underwater? You'd think someone could post some satellite images of these events.
If this year is hotter than last year, and therefore the hottest evah, it won't be by much and will probably be accomplished by cooling some of those previous hottest years evah. I can't think of any other discipline that routinely alters the records of the past as much as climate science. Is there a limit to the tweaks that are made? I know there are some data sets that have been so thoroughly altered that the original data may no longer be available.
I realize that Donald is the front runner, but switching to Ted only makes things worse.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
And the goal is to trick everyone into giving up their freedoms to government so that we can be "saved" from a problem that isn't real.
Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
Bill Nye Only has a degree in Mechanical Engineering. He is by no means whatsoever qualified to be talking about climate science.
Just another Rothschild shill trying to push the agenda to Tax mankind's C02s output. Exhale C02? Enjoy a tax!
The title says it all.
This is Slashdot. You can't just throw out mic-drop facts with citations to highly reputable scientific sources that call into question the trending popular group-think on the first post like that.
There's consensus. The simulations are done. The science is settled. You can't draw that into question. It's heresy.
that climate change is pure bunk. And he further claims that everybody who claims otherwise is only do so to make money.
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
> Richard Lindzen, the famously discredited global warming skeptic . . .
> Lindzen received $2,500 a day to consult with coal and oil interests here and abroad in the 1990s, a fact Lindzen does not refute.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/richard-lindzen-global-wa_b_19010.html
Some believe Richard Lindzen to be an industry shill
> He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.
> When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen
At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
That time has already come. We have 100s of years before existing climate forcing reach equilibrium. The real question is how bad it is going to get. With business as usual, our descents will look back us with utter scorn.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"The polar bears will be fine".
Anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax.
20% lead is pretty commanding. California would have to go towards Bernie HEAVILY, whereas right now Clinton has a big lead in California.
It's like saying a basketball team down by 25 in the 4th quarter isn't out of the game. OK, sure, on some level basketball teams are easily capable of scoring 25 points in a quarter. Realistically, it just isn't going to happen. Sanders is just wasting donor's money, and the media is playing along because "Clinton continues to have it all but won" is a boring headline.
Any 'scientist' who calls other scientists 'deniers' is a fake. He will be on Cable TV selling a juicer or a Thighmaster by next year.
Because the world, when it offers you a choice, only ever offers you two choices, which conveniently will be completely diametrically opposed to each other. That's a boon because all you have to choose is between Good and Evil, never been good and better or bad and worse.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I tell my daughter all the time. You have to see a problem first, then you can fix it.
If you don't see a problem, then there is no need to change. We have a whole group of people who would rather not be bothered to do anything differently (or extra) and therefore they train themselves to not see problems right before their face.
From http://www.express.co.uk/news/... "John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible." Also, http://www.nationmultimedia.co... to quote: ***===> "New studies flip climate-change notions upside down The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have **near-perfect** accuracy." and "Our sun doesn't maintain a constant intensity. Instead, it cycles in spans of approximately 11 years. When it's at its maximum, it has the highest number of sunspots on its surface in that particular cycle. When it's at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth. But that's not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn't deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail." ******* I'll trust these guys over Bill Nye, thank you. *******
From http://www.express.co.uk/news/... [express.co.uk] "John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible." Also, http://www.nationmultimedia.co... [nationmultimedia.com] to quote: ***===> "New studies flip climate-change notions upside down The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have **near-perfect** accuracy." and "Our sun doesn't maintain a constant intensity. Instead, it cycles in spans of approximately 11 years. When it's at its maximum, it has the highest number of sunspots on its surface in that particular cycle. When it's at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth. But that's not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn't deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail." ******* I'll trust these guys over Bill Nye, thank you. *******
I don't think he does.
In fact, I do.
Sanders has already won. He has forced the demcratic party leadership to realize that their base is liberal voters not center-right like they have been ever since Reagan. The first Clinton relied on Southern whites to win. Sanders proved that they are no longer needed, or possible to get.
In so doing he changed the tone of the Clinton campaign and dictated the tone of the upcoming congressionnal campaigns. America has had a signifant liberal majority for many years. Sanders has ended the defeatist culture that left that majority with no party that represented their views. That is a victory far greater than the prezidency. Dont be surprized if Warren ends up being Hillary's running mate now.
At this stage winning the nomination is highly unlikely but dropping out is insane. He must stay in until the convention to prevent political inertia from erasing those gains before the general (and handing the white house to the republicans). Clinton could not have had a chance in the general without the policies Sanders has forced her to adopt.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
this post perfectly encapsulates how people don't understand risk, and suck at planning for it.
the danger from global warming may be far off, but it's not something we can wait to fix.
by the time the actual danger point arrives, it will have been decades, even centuries, too late to do anything.
you cannot ignore a problem just because it is distant.
the concerns you mention aren't species killing concerns.
and to correct it requires action now.
the idea that we have to focus on one thing, or can only focus on one or a few things, is ignorance.
yes its hard to keep all those balls in the air at once.
but inaction will create an even harder scenario with less likelihood of escape.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"And if you don't believe me, look at the three people currently running for president of the world's most influential country..."
Some how turns into "Bill Nye Slams Donald Trump". Is Donald Trump Trinitarian now? Or were you just trying to make the title better click bait?
He's becoming "Bill Nye the Annoying Guy"
Let's start with your presumption that anybody who challenges your beliefs is on the payroll of "Big Oil". This is false. I and most other people on planet Earth are not on the payroll of any oil company, but it's a common feature of religious cults that they encourage their members to believe that anybody outside the cult is part of some big evil conspiracy. Let me address your numbered strawmen:
Item#1: "Bill Nye isn't a 'Science Guy', he just holds a BS degree!" Assuming for a moment that we overlook the obviously implied "appeal to authority" fallacy this involves, he could be a bumbling idiot with cabbage in his beard that talks to empty chairs-- The data he directs people to is correct, and will continue being correct no matter what degrees or qualifications he has...."
Very interesting. You see, when critics of the AGW hype speak out, you AGW guys usually scream that the critics lack the proper degrees. In fact I have lost count of the number of times wold -famous scientists like Freeman Dyson have been cited by AGW critics on slashdot only to have you guys slap them down as not having the right degree. The funny part is that one of your heroes, James Hansen [formerly of NASA Goddard] had the same degree as Dyson, which was always perfectly good for Hansen but somehow not for Dyson. When you have to go to this level of inconsistency of things like academic credentials, you should pause and consider the legitimacy of your position.
Item#2: "The climate change crazies want to force their religion on us!!" Science is not a religion. It is a process, and a damned cuthroat one too. It might surprise you to know that the scientifically literate population have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1909, and have raised the red flag on industrial release of this gas through fossil fuel combustion since the 20's, predicting mass climate change. Here it is, a century later, and we have bulletproof data showing exactly this..."
Nice try. You are correct that SCIENCE is not religion, AGW however most-decidedly IS. Penn&Teller would be proud of your sleight-of-hand on that one. Science uses many tools, among which are the publishing of scientific papers, the peer review process, experiments that are falsifiable (i.e. experiments tied to theories which if they produce certain results will confirm the theory, but which will reject the theory if other results are produced), etc. The Climate Science community, however, was caught manipulating the peer review process, manipulating the paper publishing process, working to get anybody with contrary views fired from their jobs, etc. (Some of us actually took the time to READ the "climategate" e-mails, and even the climate model source code that got out). If the AGW guys were doing real, honest science none of this would have been needed, and they would not have needed to destroy so much raw climate data, leaving only the data they "adjusted" in the available data sets (no, I am not asserting it's ALL manipulated, but a significant portion is by their own admission and when you are arguing over 0.1 degrees here and there it's enough). It's all a bit too much like Nixon's secretary erasing a bit of tape... it's not the sort of thing innocently done by accident.
Item#3: "Release XXX from prison so they can (euphamism for harm) Bill Nye!" Seriously? You advocate physical violence and harm to silence a message you find disfavorable?...
Missed the source on that one, but if you are trying to claim all AGW skeptics/opponents/critics based on some lunatic spouting-off, then your own side has no legitimacy; Pro-AGW politicians are currently trying to prosecute skeptics as part of a project involving the Democrat Attorney Generals of several states. Pro-AGW professors have called for skeptics to be put to death, etc. For every obscure internet rant calling for violence against AGW activists there are a dozen pro-AGW types with a actual power calling for actual harm to their opponents.
Item#4: "Bill Nye is a known sh
I am wondering what will happen when/if the FBI announces charges in their case against Hillary. What she did is illegal, she failed to report classified leakage, and illegally ran her own email server (yes it was illegal at the time, the laws were changed when Obama took office). So, when the FBI announces charges against Hillary, then the Democrats go to Sanders, and likely it will be Sanders vs Trump, which would be an entertaining debate at least.
Sanders: never worked a day in his life, expects "others" to pay for everything.
Trump: turned $100 million into 2.5-10 billion fortune. Knows how to run a business, and has had thousands of successes (to a few failures...normal in business).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You even believe the bullshit about Trump's fortune ? In actual fact it's unlikely he even has 250-thousand dollars, more likely he is about 10-million in debt. He's been bankrupt more times than you can count (most people can count that high by age 6 but Trump supporters I assume cannot). The man is an atrocious failure as a businessman.
And even if what he said was true - we're talking about 40 years. If he had putty Daddy's inheritance into an index-tied investment fund, he would have about 4 times as much as he LIES about having ! 100-million in an index-tied fund over the past 4 decades would have been worth about 40 billion today. So his best bullshit about his fortune, is only a quarter as good as the AVERAGE of the market in a period that involved the 2 worst recessions in US history after the great depression ! At it's worst, the market is on average 4 times better at making money than Trump claims to be - and in reality he is nowhere near that claim.
As for Sanders not working a day - he has spent his life working for his fellow citizens. I know you think politicians don't work, republicans always do because your politicians have spent decades convincing you that you should make absolutely sure they never do the job you hired them to do (hell Ron Paul spent his entire career doing absolutely NOTHING but making speeches about how important it is not to make him work for his salary as a congressman). But Sanders has been an incredibly hardworking and extremely effective politician. In fact he is considered one of the most efficient legislators in Washington, despite his legal wishes being things the republicans hate and the democrats in their post-Bill-Clinton centre-right incarnation are nervous about, he has gotten more of his laws passed than anybody else on the hill.
If the scenario you are claiming comes to pass, you will find that the fact that Sanders has a far higher lead over Trump in national polls than Clinton does (and both beat him handily by the way) will prove to hugely underestimate him. In the general - you can't stop independents from voting for him.
Wake up and smell the coffee - the republicans are about to get the greatest trouncing of the last 50 years. It's going to be a slaughterhouse, and not just in the presidential election. I'm prepared to bet the democrats will take a minimum of 4 and most likely more than 10 senate seats in November as well. The forces that got the republicans their majority don't apply in the general - they can't gerrymander themselves into victory there. Republicans have been weak in generals for a while, and have only gotten MUCH weaker since 2012. The Delusion that they can win was strong then - look at that youtube Video of Karl Rove ranting that Mit Romney can't possibly be losing and refusing to believe the poll results as they came in. Bush II never won the popular vote. Romney couldn't get close... and those were viable candidates.
Today ? Nobody the republicans have fielded can be remotely described as viable except perhaps Kassich and he has no chance in hell of being the nominee. You run Trump in a year where you were already, barring a major upset of alien-invasion proportions, going to have the greatest loss since the Goldwater fiasco - and then run Goldwater without the tact ?
Mark my words, your party is led by idiots, and you're an idiot for voting for them and you should feel bad.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
http://247wallst.com/media/201...
I don't need to believe anything, experts in finance say he has the money. Go troll somewhere else.
Companies he has owned have gone bankrupt, this is not unusual in business as some businesses succeed and some fail, but no, Trump himself has never gone bankrupt.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?