It doesn't in the article linked in the OP. But:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sunday-mtp-olympics-future-gop-climate-change-n29911
Actually, it's not clear that it's really a debate, from this blurb.
Bill Nye is a master debater - Set to debate Marsha Blackburn on climate change
- Thread starter Escape Goat
- Start date
- Status
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sunday-mtp-olympics-future-gop-climate-change-n29911
Actually, it's not clear that it's really a debate, from this blurb.
ErnieMcCracken
Member
You weren't there.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Don't know if this has been mentioned but i feel like all Nye is accomplishing with these is making it appear that people like Ken Ham and whoever the fuck this bitch is, or rather their arguments, are on the same plane as an accomplished scientist's.
speculawyer
Member
Who is this Marsha Blackburn? *consults Wiki*
They give out B.S. degrees in Home Ec?!?!
So the Stepford Wife v. the Engineer. Sounds like fun.
They give out B.S. degrees in Home Ec?!?!
So the Stepford Wife v. the Engineer. Sounds like fun.
Femmeworth
Banned
Is he good at fishing too?
Brian Griffin
Member
oic, thanks.
When Bill was done and leaving the arena they were still trying to find all of Ham's body parts to put in the body bag.
Muppet of a Man
Member
Bill Nye is the real hero we need (and hopefully deserve one day).
Watching the previous debate was entertaining enough. I'll probably check this out too.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
The creationism thing was whatever, but this actually matters. I hope he wipes the floor with her.
I am really not sure what to think of global warming (yes I am all for new technology, but not giving the undeveloped contries access to the same life as we, and thus increasing energy consumption, which for the forseable future is oil/gas, is extremly ecotistical). And seeing this debate where I feel Nye looses bigtime, doesn't help this case.
http://youtu.be/gWT-EWKIR3M
And as the sceptic say, we are getting more and more technological, so we will be going forward with a greener future no mather whos to blame for the global warming.
http://youtu.be/gWT-EWKIR3M
And as the sceptic say, we are getting more and more technological, so we will be going forward with a greener future no mather whos to blame for the global warming.
-- No. A more "technological" future implies greater energy consumption -- perhaps orders of magnitude more depending on how 'optimistic' you want to be about development. Most of that energy and raw manufacturing materials is going to be coming from cheap and flexible petrochemicals.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
You're completely ignoring improvements and different materials and energy sources that come about from technological advancement.
Buckethead
Banned
Open up the debate with the "what would it take for you to change your mind" question.
End debate 5 minutes later.
End debate 5 minutes later.
SteveWinwood
Member
You'll notice he didn't actually name any yet.
So we are fucked no mather what if you believe that we (co2) are resposible for the change? Or do you want the undeveloped contries to stay underdeveloped in order for us to live like we do?
Devolution
Member
To be honest I'd rather see Neil Degrasse Tyson spar with folks. Maybe it's just me though.
Buddha Beam
Banned
Don't worry. With a hack like David Gregory moderating the show, it'll be a "Well I guess we'll have to leave it for another day!" Rather than anything where people learn something.
sonikokaruto
Banned
oh oh oh
put him against 9/11 truthers!
put him against 9/11 truthers!
He really gives no fucks. Nye at least tries to be approachable.
Best case scenario is Neil hijacking the topic mid debate to go on a rant about the lack of NASA funding and plugging Cosmos.
It's not as easy as it looks, he's constrained by reality when his adversaries are not.
Shake Appeal
Member
Glad there's actually a climate change segment on TV for once.
Fenderputty
Banned
Honestly, at the least other guy had the bible to fall back on.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Oh NBC... Have they really? All these are incredibly terrible examples to use and maybe I'm crazy but having the Winter Olympics in a place where the average winter temperature is well above freezing might not have been the brightest of ideas.
HalfBakedProphet
Member
holy fuck, fantastic post protein
Looks like there is a pro global warming crowed here. I have seen a couple of interviews with Marc Morano, and I can't see anyone having good arguments against him. I.e this:
http://youtu.be/Xh0q5euEV4M
Has he been debunked in a real way?
http://youtu.be/Xh0q5euEV4M
Has he been debunked in a real way?
HalfBakedProphet
Member
do you judge debate winners by who talks the loudest?
Solid Samus
Banned
I will bet money that this line is dropped
friskykillface
Banned
Nope, by the one who makes several scientific claims, founded in reports by the scientist and which is not refuted by the other side.
As well as having a good answere to all of the insaine questions by the reporter (forgot his name).
BrokenEchelon
Banned
I'm going to be ultra cynical here and say that he's probably doing all of this because he realized that if he didn't "mature" up, he would go down as that looney dude on the educational kid's show instead of being referenced in the same sentence as Carl Sagan et al.
I still hold that there's no point in trying to persuade these brainwashed sheep. They're too far gone.
He's much better off trying to educate kids in rural areas by giving speeches or interactive lessons or starting similar initiatives instead of all this "Science Pop-Star" bullshit that Tyson, Kaku, and others are riding around on.
I still hold that there's no point in trying to persuade these brainwashed sheep. They're too far gone.
He's much better off trying to educate kids in rural areas by giving speeches or interactive lessons or starting similar initiatives instead of all this "Science Pop-Star" bullshit that Tyson, Kaku, and others are riding around on.
He speaks quickly, not elaborating on any point whatsoever.
He starts off politicizing the argument, making it us vs. them right off the bat instead of presenting the science.
Offers no citations.
"why we still got snow?"
Buddha Beam
Banned
HalfBakedProphet
Member
where? The guy is pushing his political agenda
I actually feel he only talk about scientific findngs when he makes his points. And keeps it civiliced all the time. If the findings, no increase temp the last 20 years, see level going down, arctic ice expanding (that the break off was due to a storm, and that the draught and hurricansare less than before, are all wrong Bill Nye would have spoken against him, but he does not.
And he cites the UNs reports as well.
Femmeworth
Banned
I think I saw him get so into it once he choked a bishop.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
You're probably better off not basing your views around debates at all. They're a nice mix of entertainment and education but are not necessarily conducive to actually understanding a topic. I hadn't heard of Marc Morano, but a brief google search shows that he is an ideological pundit funded by vested interests with no formal science qualifications. Instead of asking if he has been "debunked", perhaps you should ask why you should trust his views over the overwhelming consensus of trained experts who find the evidence in favour of anthropogenic global warming to be compelling.
He debunks the funded part in a good way, and as I have written before, I just see people calling him a liar but with no evidence to back them up. So when he brings up his data, showing that CO2 isn't the main driver of climatic change, I want to see the other side refuting him, but they don't.
This site refutes it as well, so there are scientist believing otherwise.
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
More here
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
speculawyer
Member
Hitchen's wit and accent really made his debates. And he had some good logical arguments. But if you started going out in the weeds on science, he was weak so I prefer scientists.
My favorite: Lawrence Krauss. He has really become the pitbull fighter for science.
Being on infowars is all the debunking thats needed.
terrisus
Member
Good thing it wasn't a debate of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
He might have choked the chicken.
And if there's a debate about humans evolving from monkeys, he might spank the monkey.
I am not familiar with the site, but looking at the internet, there does not seem like everyone is agreeing on the point.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Look at the debate at the bottom of the page.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
You can't just say "refutes" or "debunks". How does he debunk the fact that he is funded by vested interests? Note that I didn't call him a liar, as I said I'd never heard of him before (or if I had I'd forgotten). You keep talking about "the other side", are you referring to debates here? If you want data, modelling, hypotheses and theories in support of anthropogenic climate change there is no shortage. The scientific consensus is that it is real.
The page you linked to does not qualify as a refutation. It contains no links to references or data. The three staff for which information is available are a geographer, a physicist and an agriculturist. No doubt they are very smart and experienced people but they are not climate scientists. I noticed on the sidebar there is a link to page about plants and CO2. This is a common tactic to obfuscate the debate about the greenhouse effect by pointing out that plants grow by extracting carbon from the air. This does not lead me to believe that the website is a reputable and unbiased source.
- Status