Video: New test of patriotism – AGW belief

posted at 2:22 pm on February 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

So now he’s Bill Nye, the Judge-Your-Patriotism Guy, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially since Rachel Maddow got the renowned climatologist as a guest. Wait, Nye isn’t a climatologist? He’s a mechanical engineer? Well, then, asking him to verify anthropogenic global warming is as silly as hiring a railroad engineer to chair a panel on climate change, isn’t it, or in passing unpublished student dissertations as reliable peer-reviewed studies in scientific presentations.  Maybe Nye is an expert on patriotism?  Er, no (also at Townhall and Story Balloon):

This is the worst possible time to claim that AGW is settled science, as even the IPCC has decided to dramatically revamp its processes after a series of embarrassing disclosures on how they conducted that “settled science.” Does Nye insist that a sufficient test of patriotism is belief in the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035? Until a few weeks ago, that was “settled science,” too, according to the same authorities on which Nye bases his “patriotism.”

Questioning scientific claims is not unpatriotic. In fact, refusing to question and test scientific claims is itself unscientific, as was many of the actions of the IPCC in building its claims in the first place.  Demanding unquestioning acceptance of recent scientific claims as gospel amounts to a forced belief system, and our Constitution actually has an explicit prohibition against religious tests for office.  Is the Constitution unpatriotic as well?  Maybe Nye should stick to classroom demonstrations of basic science and leave AGW and the measurement of patriotism to those more intellectually capable of discernment.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Please show this “willfully stupid” person where this has been “proven”.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Read the e-mails.
Talk to those in the field who have had their careers ruined because they went against the insiders.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM

From what I have read, there has been no “manipulation” of actual temperature data, other than attempts to make the data more of a representative sample of actual temperatures. If you have information that is contrary to this, please let me know the exact reference.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:07 PM

I have never seen someone so willfully clueless.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:21 AM

That’s quite a claim. Go to any scientific organization website that references climate change, read it and see if that’s what they assert. You might be surprised.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Read up on the history of Mann and his hockey stick.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:22 AM

…findings which are agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists.

orange on February 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM

The definition of “science” does NOT include the word “majority.”

Science attempts to test theories abaout how things work by using repeatable measurements and validating predictions. People who spout theories and make predictions which cannot be measured or validated are not scientists: they are politicians.

In science, facts rule: the majority is irrelevant because truth is singularly un-democratic.

landlines on February 12, 2010 at 10:33 AM

I have never seen someone so willfully clueless

Rather than provide any information, this is your answer? Is this because you are still looking?

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM

The definition of “science” does NOT include the word “majority.”

Science attempts to test theories abaout how things work by using repeatable measurements and validating predictions. People who spout theories and make predictions which cannot be measured or validated are not scientists: they are politicians.

Is this not precisely why there is so much effort ongoing to gather meaningful data from across the globe?

Certainly, anthropogenic global warming is not dependent upon whether a majority agree with supporting theories or not. But, if you doubt that there isn’t overwhelming concurrence that such theories have much backing, you can go online to the American Physical Society, or any one of a number of scientific professional organizations for the scientific disciplines and see what their take is on the matter. I think that you will find that the biologists are the most in tune with the changes in climate, as they notice the consequences of climatic changes (most of which are extremely subtle, but real) whereas the rest of us don’t.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Rather than provide any information, this is your answer? Is this because you are still looking?

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM

People have given you answers, given you direction … but it’s quite apparent that nothing will satisfy you because your mind is already made up. You believe in AGW, and more importantly, you want to believe in AGW.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Since warmists love anecdotal evidence, here is mine. I knew an Astrophysicist in college who said it was bunk, CO2 is a crappy greenhouse gas only capable of absorbing the IR wavelengths of 2.3, 4.7 and 15 Microns where as man made structures will absorb more energy across the entire Infrared spectrum than any green-house gas.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM

People have given you answers, given you direction … but it’s quite apparent that nothing will satisfy you because your mind is already made up. You believe in AGW, and more importantly, you want to believe in AGW.

I would like nothing better than AGW to go away, as the consequences for the biosphere are horrifying if even the most modest predictions come true. It would be nice if I woke up one morning and discovered that all of the deniers were perfectly correct; we would all draw a big sigh of relief. The fact remains, however, that nobody has shown that actual data were falsified by the CRU such that trends were shown to exist that are not factual. At least, I have not been made aware of such falsification. This was my assertion yesterday, and it remains with me until someone has proof of falsification. Show me proof of falsification and I will change my mind, if that really matters to you. If you deem me as being close-minded, then you might not want to bother.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM

The fact remains, however, that nobody has shown that actual data were falsified by the CRU

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM

You’re wrong. It has been shown … and also shown that NOAA has manipulated the surface station data. In fact, for one example you’ve been told to research Michael Mann and his “hockey stick”, but I guess you don’t want to.

Going to websites like NOAA and NASA doesn’t work because they’re invested in promoting AGW. Why did NASA have to be sued to release information? Because their info proves AGW?

Look, the information is out there and easily found. No one can help you if you don’t want to help yourself.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 10:53 AM

What a complete and utter moron you are okie.
By definition, a hypothesis is the weakest form of science. It generates no credence. When scientists perform experiments that support the hypothesis, it eventually becomes a theory. Then when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it becomes a fact, perhaps even a law

Again, using ad hominems to try to make your point; is that really necessary?

Please show me one theory that has been proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. In fact, hypotheses are not “the weakest form of science” but are rather the basics of scientific understanding.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Russia recently came out and said CRU or the group in New Zealand cherry picked Russian weather stations.

There are lies, damned lies and Statistics.

1st Rule of Statistics: You can make statistics prove anything.

Why haven’t Climatologists created a model that is accurate at Hindcast as well as Forecast?

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Show me proof of falsification and I will change my mind, if that really matters to you. If you deem me as being close-minded, then you might not want to bother.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Here’s where they “hid the decline”.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM

You’re wrong. It has been shown … and also shown that NOAA has manipulated the surface station data. In fact, for one example you’ve been told to research Michael Mann and his “hockey stick”, but I guess you don’t want to.

Going to websites like NOAA and NASA doesn’t work because they’re invested in promoting AGW. Why did NASA have to be sued to release information? Because their info proves AGW?

Look, the information is out there and easily found. No one can help you if you don’t want to help yourself

You can get all the information and data you want from NASA and NOAA, as it is public domain. Is this not correct?

Now, as far as “manipulated data”, I am not quite sure what your understanding of that is, nor what you mean by it in terms of how the data is processed. How can data be made useful if it is not put through some process. If you mean that the data have been falsified, I would like to see some reference that backs that claim – from peeer-reviewed scientific literature.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Show me proof of falsification and I will change my mind, if that really matters to you. If you deem me as being close-minded, then you might not want to bother.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Primer and additional info on NOAA and deletion of surface temp stations.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Here’s where they “hid the decline”.

There is no reference for the first figure, as to its origin. There is no reference to data that would show the “real” trend. This was written by a scientist and submitted to peer review? No evidence of that here.

It is one thing to claim that data are false, but another to show that this is the case by giving the “correct” values.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Thanks for the link, Darwin; I’m checking it out.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 11:12 AM

You can get all the information and data you want from NASA and NOAA, as it is public domain. Is this not correct?

Supposedly … however, NASA had been stonewalling and refused to give information to Chris Horner who after 3 years of requests finally sued. It would seem if their info was unassailable NASA should have no problem releasing it.

Now, as far as “manipulated data”, I am not quite sure what your understanding of that is, nor what you mean by it in terms of how the data is processed. How can data be made useful if it is not put through some process. If you mean that the data have been falsified, I would like to see some reference that backs that claim – from peeer-reviewed scientific literature.

You’re intentionally ignoring the link I just gave you. There is clear cut proof that lower temperatures were intentionally omitted to skew the trend upwards. You are very, very, disingenuous.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM

It is one thing to claim that data are false, but another to show that this is the case by giving the “correct” values.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM

You’re hopeless. Everything is linked and referenced. Your real name must be Gavin Schmidt.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Measureable snow fall in all 50 states at the same time. Fox says this has never happened in America.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Thanks for the link, Darwin; I’m checking it out.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 11:12 AM

If the most renowned and respected meterologist in the world stated that AGW is false. That it is politically driven, and the data is wrong.
If this one great scientist, from the leading academic institution in the world stated that global warming is politically and not science driven.
If this one (of course he has many others supporting him) doctor of meteorology has written paper after paper, and his peers have never attacked him for his science.
The lead author on the IPCC Third Climate report.
His bio reads like this:

Educated at Harvard University (Ph.D., ’64, S.M., ’61, A.B., ’60), he moved to MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964–1965), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965–1966), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966–1967), University of Chicago (1968–1972) and Harvard University (1972–1983). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967. Lindzen is an ISI highly cited researcher. As of January 2010, his publications list included 230 papers and articles published between 1965 and 2008, with five in process for 2009.

And how has the highest “chair” at MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology.

His awards include this:

..is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

This is the man that you think is not aware, is not knowledgeable?
You choose someone like Hansen who has literally taken tens of millions of dollars of grants to advocate for global warming over Dr. Lindzen?

Really?….Really?…you don’t know of Dr. Lindzen’s writings for decades warning of this…or his warnings in the 1970′s about political motivated movement for the global cooling hysteria?
Think, here is a scientist warning of this political movement when they were pronouncing global cooling, and now he has done the same with global warming.
What is the common thread between global cooling and global warming…the same political people heading up both efforts…
Think and read…now read a little deeper, draw on the past.
“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”…
Global cooling, global warming…this is your first time, many of us, the second time…

right2bright on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

The definition of “science” does NOT include the word “majority.”

landlines on February 12, 2010 at 10:33 AM

I don’t remember the exact quote, but Einstein once said that it didn’t matter how many people believed in his theory. It would only take one person to disprove it.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Rather than provide any information, this is your answer? Is this because you are still looking?

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM

The data has been shown to you. Many times.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Measureable snow fall in all 50 states at the same time. Fox says this has never happened in America.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 11:37 AM

To climate nuts this proves “climate instability” … where any variation from 75 degrees F and sunny days means it’s global warming.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM

You’re intentionally ignoring the link I just gave you. There is clear cut proof that lower temperatures were intentionally omitted to skew the trend upwards. You are very, very, disingenuous.

Did I not just thank you for the link? I am reading it and related commentaries. I’m sorry if you are offended by my seeming disingenuity.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Is this not precisely why there is so much effort ongoing to gather meaningful data from across the globe?

If only this were true.

But, if you doubt that there isn’t overwhelming concurrence that such theories have much backing

I know for a fact that these theories do not have widespread backing amongst scientists.

you can go online to the American Physical Society
oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM

A solid majority of the members of the APS have called on the politicians who run the society to retract this support.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM

I would like nothing better than AGW to go away, as the consequences for the biosphere are horrifying if even the most modest predictions come true.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Over the last 40 years, even excluding the cool down of the last decade, even the most modest of warming predictions has proven to be way more than the actual warming that has occurred.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Why did NASA have to be sued to release information? Because their info proves AGW?

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Despite being sued, they still haven’t released the data.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Again, using ad hominems to try to make your point; is that really necessary?

Please show me one theory that has been proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. In fact, hypotheses are not “the weakest form of science” but are rather the basics of scientific understanding.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:58 AM

It’s not an ad hominem when it’s true.
And I see that you like to double down on stupid.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Russia recently came out and said CRU or the group in New Zealand cherry picked Russian weather stations.

There are lies, damned lies and Statistics.

1st Rule of Statistics: You can make statistics prove anything.

Why haven’t Climatologists created a model that is accurate at Hindcast as well as Forecast?

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 11:01 AM

The Russians accused the CRU of cherry picking the data.
NOAA has been caught cherry picking N. American data as well.

The New Zealanders were recently forced to admit that the data they based all of their studies on, doesn’t exist.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Did I not just thank you for the link? I am reading it and related commentaries. I’m sorry if you are offended by my seeming disingenuity.

This is outrageous. I gave you multiple links and quotes last nite to the same questions. Yet you completely ignored them all, only to come back today like nothing was said.

Don’t feign shock and complain of “ad hominem” (even though you don’t know what it means) when people accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. You actions support that conclusion.

Tomblvd on February 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM

You can get all the information and data you want from NASA and NOAA, as it is public domain. Is this not correct?

You love playing the clueless dolt.

Now, as far as “manipulated data”, I am not quite sure what your understanding of that is, nor what you mean by it in terms of how the data is processed.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM

If this process, that always manages to produce warmer data, is so solid, why do they refuse to let anyone see it?
For years they have absolutely refused to allow anyone to see their source code. They have refused to reveal how they choose some sites but exclude others. (Funny things, the sites excluded are always cold weather sites.)

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM

I would like nothing better than AGW to go away, as the consequences for the biosphere are horrifying if even the most modest predictions come true.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM

No, warming is a great thing, so is more CO2 in the atmosphere until you are getting into whole number percentages of the atmosphere and precipitation. The most diverse biospheres are not frozen wastelands but warm and humid zones such as the Amazon, Africa and Asia.

Warmer climates equal more land that can be used for agriculture, less damage to crops due to frost and longer planting seasons even years where you can plant more than one time. More precipitation can alleviate future water shortages by rain water capture.

Yes, Polar Bears will be hurt. But tropical felines such as Lions, Jaguars, Leopards and Tigers will excel in that sort of weather. Especially due to the biosphere able to sustain more food for the predators and more food for their prey.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM

A few months ago I was reading an interview with an Israeli astrophysicist. He told of a meeting with an editor of a major scientific publication. The editor told him that any paper that disagreed with AGW had to be rejected because it had to be politically motivated.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Yes, Polar Bears will be hurt. But tropical felines such as Lions, Jaguars, Leopards and Tigers will excel in that sort of weather. Especially due to the biosphere able to sustain more food for the predators and more food for their prey.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM

The claims that polar bears are going to be hurt have been discredited.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Green Is The New Pink. Under The Pink, Clouds In My Coffee. Are You A Socialist – Bill O’Reilly Video.

Dr Evil on February 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM

The claims that polar bears are going to be hurt have been discredited.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 12:01 PM

I know. Polar Bears are apex predators and apex predators are not known for being specialized. And they won’t drown, they are exceptional swimmers. They’ll simply adapt and hunt Walrus and Seal on land.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM

They’ll simply adapt and hunt Walrus and Seal on land.

And Canadians.

/jk

Tomblvd on February 12, 2010 at 12:26 PM

And Canadians.

/jk

Tomblvd on February 12, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Don’t think so. Look up the Polar Bear and the Dog.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Here it is, The Husky and the Dog

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 12:32 PM

More Polar Bears playing with Dogs

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Remember last year when all the models showed the USA in a white out? Nope me neither.

1. The climate models have never predicted anything correctly.

2. The climate models have never been able to reproduce previous temperature conditions.

It has failed as a model.

jukin on February 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Hitler chimes in on AGW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds

mwdiver on February 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM

IPCC got a Nobel Prize…

-
Well then, that settles it. /chuckle
-

RalphyBoy on February 12, 2010 at 1:06 PM

More Polar Bears playing with Dogs

I’d rather see polar bears playing with Canadians.

Tomblvd on February 12, 2010 at 1:12 PM

There’s no math in science anymore… not the way the climate scientists do it anyhow.

gekkobear on February 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Bcs math is ‘too hard’, from what I hear from my whining high schoolers.
When I was in HS, I flunked out of math & had to take dummy math.
LAter in college I took tons of it & did fine, though I had to work my butt off.
I’m not a math whiz, but it’s kinda fun after you get the hang of it, differential eq. & calc & eng. physics & geophysics & stuff.
Math is especially interesting when it’s applicable.
Climatologists don’t seem to be using ‘math’.

Badger40 on February 12, 2010 at 1:31 PM

I’d rather see polar bears playing with Canadians.

Tomblvd on February 12, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Are we suggesting Rywall be eaten by polar bears?!

Badger40 on February 12, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Are we suggesting Rywall be eaten by polar bears?!

Badger40 on February 12, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Can polar bears digest him? They’re used to tender juicy seals and such, not tough, chewy liberal hide.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Bill Nye is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists advisory board, which in and of itself establishes nothing . . . except that he has also been utterly uncritical and outspoken in his “chapter-and-verse” support of the IPCC reports, including, curiously enough — as Ed Morrissey pointed out, above — right now, despite all the embarrassing revelations that are coming out, mostly in the British press, about bogus glacier melt claims, and other utterly unsupported or bogus IPCC claims.

A few years ago (2007), Bill Nye appeared on Larry King’s show along with Richard Lindzen, and a few others. Nye began the exchange, all puffed up with some pontifications about how global warming is absolutely generated by “humans . . . extra ones” and he then went on to wax eloquent about “what makes the Gulf Stream go” and other assertions of “fact” according to Nye.

Here is one clip from YouTube about that appearance. It is a bit lengthy, but when you get to the end you’ll realize that Bill Nye had quite embarrassingly just had his lunch handed to him by Richard Lindzen.

No wonder he is now making appearances on leftie TV with Rachel Maddow – she would never have Richard Lindzen on to question Bill Nye, or anyone else for that matter!

Some facts might “accidentally” work their way into the conversation!

Trochilus on February 12, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Can polar bears digest him? They’re used to tender juicy seals and such, not tough, chewy liberal hide.

darwin on February 12, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Don’t forget that he is probably sour, rotten, & foul- much like a Harpy would probably taste.

Badger40 on February 12, 2010 at 2:10 PM

What do you expect…he says it himself…He’s an “educator”…You should not question educators…

Marconi on February 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4