FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
He made quite a few jokes that were corny but would have definitely gotten a chuckle out of a 'normal' audience. Being on creationist hometurf, that crowd was definitely not on his side at any moment of the debate.
Bill Nye is a master debater - Set to debate Marsha Blackburn on climate change
- Thread starter Escape Goat
- Start date
- Status
He made quite a few jokes that were corny but would have definitely gotten a chuckle out of a 'normal' audience. Being on creationist hometurf, that crowd was definitely not on his side at any moment of the debate.
I remember there was a this American life show about people not "believing" in climate change one of the stories was a high school student that said she didn't "believe" in it and one of the top researchers in the world on climate change.
The girl was told to ask anything she wanted about the subject.
The girl asks something along the lines of : if the sky is heating up why have there been so many snow storms?
The researcher points out when the air is warmer it holds more moisture, the more moisture the bigger the storms.
The high schooler was still unconvinced saying well ... i don't know.
I found the show:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics?act=2#play
it's like telling some one 2 + 2 is 4 and they respond with .... well I need to see both sides of this argument.
The girl was told to ask anything she wanted about the subject.
The girl asks something along the lines of : if the sky is heating up why have there been so many snow storms?
The researcher points out when the air is warmer it holds more moisture, the more moisture the bigger the storms.
The high schooler was still unconvinced saying well ... i don't know.
I found the show:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics?act=2#play
it's like telling some one 2 + 2 is 4 and they respond with .... well I need to see both sides of this argument.
He refutes it by saying that he has a vast number of backers, and that Al Gore has made 100 of millions in bying stock in green companies that the covernment later "helped".
The other side is Bill in the first video I posted. And these links I posted was just from a google search about scientist and CO2, I linked those I could see refuting the fact that CO2 is the leader, and by my lates link, it seems that it follows. But since Marco is the "godfather" of sceptics, I was hoping there would be some links on people debunking his statements that the sea level has fallen, temp not risen and so forth. But I can't find anything other than "Marco is a liar", I want to see the reciepts!
Here is an other link to people not agreeing:
http://www.*****************/news/a...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html
Since Daily Mail is banned here, here is an other link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/
Only a sith deals with absolutes!
Quote from the link "
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy. "
terrisus
Member
The fact that the website is blocked here probably isn't a good sign for its credibility.
Saw that, but I have no agenda here, I just find it an interesting topic, and it seems like there is a lot of facts supporting the claims of the sceptics..
terrisus
Member
The point is that whatever that website is, it's obviously been such an issue that GAF has felt the need to censor it.
Boom.
The Mail is blocked because it had a high proportion of trollbait articles that always turned out to be bullshit that people would make threads about. That it's blocked doesn't mean everything on it is wrong.
Ristlager, feel free to link to studies or actual data or... really anything beyond vague statements about how this guy sounds really credible and you've never found anything debunking him.
As a side note, "Al Gore has made 100 of millions in bying stock in green companies" is laughable nonsense.
Ristlager, feel free to link to studies or actual data or... really anything beyond vague statements about how this guy sounds really credible and you've never found anything debunking him.
As a side note, "Al Gore has made 100 of millions in bying stock in green companies" is laughable nonsense.
See my updated post. Forbes is saying the same. It would be better for anyone to give me links which supports the other side, that there actually has been an increase in temp over the last two decades, instead of refuting every link I put up.
crimsonspider89
Banned
How is that nonsence? Is it wrong? Is this piece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html just lies??
No, there really isn't. Barely 0.1% of peer reviewed papers on this topic have put forward a case against anthropogenic climate change.
It's not even a debate but the way the right wing press go on you'd think it was 50/50. You may as well be arguing against gravity or evolution.
Why do you think the debate format is conducive to the type of breakdown you are asking him to do? Because it isn't. Debates are about winning. That's why they the suck for that scientists that try to explain or refute things in proper depth.
Yes. Or rather, it's an incredible misunderstanding of how investing works at best, lies at worst.
Exactly it takes far too much time to debunk nonsense.
Anticitizen One
Banned
damn bill nye must have grown some balls lately
From the Daily Mail article:
The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.
The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models projection of a steeply rising trend.
Professor Curry went much further. The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways, she said.
Not here. The last topic was locked.
Anticitizen One
Banned
He looks like the lovechild of Pee Wee Herman and Leonard Nimoy
The source is linking to a published article in Climate Dynamics from two scientist.
So use that as your source? It isn't that difficult.
crimsonspider89
Banned
You do realzie that the Ocean absorbs most of the heat and that Global warming didn't mean rising temperatures in surface right?
Here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/global-warming-slowdown-ipcc
Explains why those instances are wrong in the total truth.
Well, here's the global surface temperature anomaly as measured by four different organizations:
You can see one of those with an easier-to-read x axis here: http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp
The "pause" in warming refers to the trend going flat starting sometime around 2000, depending on how you fit the data.
No warming for two decades is quite an exaggeration, though. The talk you hear from deniers about "no warming for the last 17 years" depends on cherry-picking the starting point to just catch that peak that you can see in 1998, which also happens to be the most recent El Nino event (edit: actually I see that there may have been another in 2009-2010, but the point remains that that peak is due to a known source of anomalously high temperature).
But for at least the last five years temperatures have risen significantly more slowly than predicted. Of course, climate scientists are well aware of this - the Forbes article you link relies on the expert opinion of the IPCC lead author to establish this point - and don't think it's significant evidence that climate change isn't a big deal. As I understand it, many of them are of the opinion that probably the oceans are absorbing more heat than expected, which can be a bad thing all by itself.
Also, when I glance over the Wyatt and Curry paper, it looks to me like what they're suggesting is that climate change occurs in a stages, only some of which involve increases in global surface temperature. It's downright dishonest to characterize them as arguing simply that "warming will not be a problem for decades" and certainly not that "arctic sea ice is recovering". This all seems basically consistent with the "the oceans are absorbing the heat" thinking. Perhaps you ought to look over the paper.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Serious question: With all the data points we have that produce graphs like what Gotchaye posted, why don't they ever have any kind of trend line? People tend to see the fluctuations as "see it gets cold too!" without seeing the overall picture of what those graphs are saying.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
That's not a refutation, that's a deflection. If I went around saying the health risks of smoking were overstated and then it came out that I was receiving funding from tobacco companies, would you be satisfied if my response was "but I get money from other people too plus doctors and counsellors make money from convincing people to stop smoking,"?
You have some links showing some scientists think some things. This does not mean that there isn't a scientific consensus on man-made global warming. If you want to see the receipts, that's the big one. If the science was so questionable that an untrained commentator like Morano could disprove it, the overwhelming majority of experts wouldn't be agreeing with it to begin with. Some like to compare the expert heuristic with blind faith or the appeal to authority fallacy, but it takes on a different aspect when dealing with something like a consensus based around the scientific method. Cherry-picked data about "pauses" in warming or changes in ice coverage don't actually dispute the fundamentals in question, e.g. the greenhouse mechanism. The scientists who are dedicating their lives and careers to this topic are aware of these things yet are still producing research which they say points to a warming Earth.
For those who don't know, Ristlager is quoting an article from a "journalist" called David Rose, someone who has misrepresented data and quoted out of context many scientists as part of his role as chief climate change denier for the Daily Mail. He is a massive bullshitter.
I know it is deflection, but if one side can argue his honesty, it should go both ways.
Looking at that chart it is very easy to see that the degree increased as much in 1900-1940 as 1960 up untill now. So I just can't see why we now can say CO2 is the massive weight on the scale.
That is why I am sceptical, but to make it clear, I am very pro technical advancement and green environment. But I just can't see a future without oil for a very long time..
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, it is garbage. Tons of green investments from the VCs out here have been money losers. There are have been some successes but it is much harder that internet space. The one mentioned, Silver Springs, doesn't really have anything to do with climate change, they make smart meters. The reason they are so successful is utilities saved a lot of money by not having send out meter-readers.
Al Gore has made a ton of money lately . . . but it was largely from selling his TV channel Current to rich oil sheiks that run Al Jazeera. So he's actually an oil billionaire!
The Telegraph is a hacky right-wing Brit newspaper.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know what you mean by this, but if you knew it was a deflection why did you call it a refutation? If you're not going to argue from an honest position I don't see why people should bother replying to you.
If you're talking about Al Gore, the good news is that Al Gore is not a climate scientist and him allegedly being a fraud has no bearing on whether anthropogenic climate change is real or not.
Yes, all those thousands of peer reviewed papers are discredited because Al Gore (someone who isn't even a scientist) is raking it in by using his connections. Come on now, that's utter drivel!
If you are genuinely interested and haven't made up your mind already, I recommend watching potholer54's video series: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
He debunks many of the myths climate change deniers wheel out on a regular basis.
I said he refuted it in a good way, which he did, he also turned the table on Al Gore, saying that the opposite side had just as a big problem with legimity on their behaf.
Thanks
will watch them later, this is the sort of answere I was looking for. (No sarcasm here).Thanks
Okay I won't doubt your sincerity then.
He also debunks the nonsense hyperbole from the climate change camp spouted by people who aren't scientists (like Al Gore). All his videos are a good watch.speculawyer
Member
Al Gore may be the worst thing that ever happened to climate change. He meant well. And said many great things and got the message out. (Although he certainly had his share of misstatements.)
But he is the worst thing to happen to climate change because since he brought it up as an issue, the right wing in the USA just all reflexively lined up in opposition.
It is kinda strange. There is a conserve party in the UK but they dispute climate change much. Heck, it was the iron lady Margaret Thatcher that set up the Hadley center that studies climate change.
But he is the worst thing to happen to climate change because since he brought it up as an issue, the right wing in the USA just all reflexively lined up in opposition.
It is kinda strange. There is a conserve party in the UK but they dispute climate change much. Heck, it was the iron lady Margaret Thatcher that set up the Hadley center that studies climate change.
Okay I won't doubt your sincerity then.
No, I am just curious about the topic, and I need to see both sides of the arguments. And since I still mean Marco "won" the debate with Bill, I wanted to find some counters on his "facts". So hopefully the video you linked to has that
HalfBakedProphet
Member
I agree unfortunately, but I think this is coloring your view on climate change. Ignoring data on this issue is the comforting route to take because the situation looks absolutely dire otherwise. When you really break it down and look at how much shit we're pumping into the atmosphere and see the very obvious correlation between co2 emissions and global temperature, you start to realize it might be too late. We're still living so absurdly and unsustainably that the our 11th hour halfassed tinkering and mulling over electric cars (which are largely powered by coal burning power plants anyway) means jack and shit against the unstoppable forces we already set in motion.
Future generations are going to wonder why we didn't do more when we had all the data and saw the signs. To still be burning our coal, driving in our cars, drilling for our oil at this stage will be seen as actions of a ignorant and stubborn people. Hubris on the level of Nero, singing and playing his lyre* as Rome burned. I wish this shit was just alarmist, but I'm not sure how else to view the situation. Denying climate change is placing yourself on the wrong side of history at best and helping doom civilization at worst. I do think the stakes are that high.
*
which may or may not have actually happened, but you get the idea
Seen most of the videos in the link given to me. And that was what I was looking for, a great summary looking at every angle of the "myths".
The problem is that not anyone living on the planet is really wanting to give up on their "privliges" in order to reduce power consumption, and the whole electric cars is, as you say not helping at all (except for better air in the cities). And the underdeveloped countries are slowly getting more and more advanced and therefor they will use more power.
So I don't think history is going to look at us with such negative light, we really do not have any other solution that is acceptable for the whole world. Unless we already are sitting on fusionpower technology and the oil companies are hiding it...
HalfBakedProphet
Member
we're stilling subsidizing fossil fuel and perpetuating our addiction. Money that should go toward advancing and improving our solar, geothermal, wind etc technology to make it cheaper is instead going into the pockets of oil and gas companies. There are a slew of issues in the way of us changing too, including US city infrastructure as urban sprawl necessitaties our need for personal vechiles, it isn't a simple problem to fix unfortunately. All while these oil companies and their lobbyist take advantage of that and hold our future hostage.
I don't understand why more people arent up in arms over this shit
that's what i loved about Hitchens. he uses "simple" logic and shreds the religion argument. He didn't need scientific facts to bolster his argument.
with that said..science saved my soul (that video on youtube is ace)
Meh. If it wasn't Al Gore, it would have been some other liberal/democrat since they would be the only ones supporting such a thing.
Is there an actual economic reason that oil subsidies continue to exist?
punkmaggit
Member
lol - came to post this
- Status