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global warming is as silly as hiring a railroad engineer to chair a panel on climate change, isn’t it, or in passing unpublished student dissertations as reliable peer-reviewed studies in scientific presentations.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

I always liked Beakman better anyway.

Bill Scrunty on February 11, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Uh, has anyone told this stunning example of intellect that a Nobel PEACE Prize is not a “scientific prize” (2:40)?

CJ on February 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Bill Nye – the Josef Goebbels of the Green Police.

Bruno Strozek on February 11, 2010 at 2:39 PM

The new green is the old red.

Johan Klaus on February 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM

“Demanding unquestioning acceptance of recent scientific claims as gospel amounts to a forced belief system,…”

Can’t wait for the inquisitions…

“Confess! Connnfeessss!! Cooooonnnnnnfffffeeeessssss!!!”

Seven Percent Solution on February 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Rachel: and our next guest is Snnokie from Jersey Shores who will explain the difficulties the construction industry faces building beach front condominiums.

Rachel: so Snookie what are the problems as you see them.

Snookie: there are no problems, there are plenty of condoms on the beach front.

Rachael: well there you have, it the Republicans are just saying no to the positive economic news -again

donabernathy on February 11, 2010 at 3:24 PM

If we have to call what the IPCC has been up to “science” can we get a new word for what science used to be?

Or is that unpatriotic of me to ask?

gekkobear on February 11, 2010 at 3:26 PM

What does Captain Kangaroo think?

Ronnie on February 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Or Howdy Doody?

Johan Klaus on February 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I saw Bill Nye last night use the Nobel Prize argument: “But but they even got a Nobel Prize for this research!” ….

Marcus on February 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM

I remind my liberal co-workers who make that “Nobel” announcement that Drs. Moniz & Hess were also awarded the Nobel Prize ….for the invention of the Lobotomy.

batterup on February 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

What a tool.

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 3:30 PM

OK, to be fair, you do not have to be a climatologist to assess the viability of any scientist’s conclusion based on their data.

Badger40 on February 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Yep, once you can get access to their data and formula, anyone with a math-centric degree can certainly work their way through the formulas and look at the data and the processes.

Wait, here I am asking for data, expecting data that hasn’t been “massaged” or “normalized” without explanation or has had offending data removed; asking for formula and the underlying structure used to adjust the data and calculate things.

I’m denying science and being unpatriotic aren’t I? There’s no math in science anymore… not the way the climate scientists do it anyhow.

We really need some new words so we can differentiate “old school science” that uses data and numbers and math and stuff with the “climate science” that looks more like three-card monte with data sets.

gekkobear on February 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Nye – an avid global warmist – what happens when one is virtually lobotimized.

docdave on February 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I hope liberals never change their winning strategy of calling people who disagree with them stupid.

Cindy Munford on February 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Well, it is slightly better than calling us all evil.

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I see stuff like this and I just think, “Shut up, already. It’s over. You lost; common sense won. Spend your energy on finding another way to deny us our Constitutional rights to liberty and property. Just shut up. Your back-door-to-Marxism, global warming scam is over. Just. Shut. Up.”

Rational Thought on February 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

This blathering fool wears a bow tie; nothing he says has any validity.

jgdp on February 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

And people thought the Green Police commercial during the Super Bowl was just a farce? Uh no

Jdripper on February 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

New test of patriotism – AGW belief

The old test of patriotism is much better, defending your country against those who would reduce it to 3rd. world status.

fourdeucer on February 11, 2010 at 3:36 PM

He has the chops to evaluate whether the science of AGW is valid — because he knows what statistical methods are, and he’s perfectly capable of understanding why dendroclimatology is inherently iffy.

But he let his religion get the best of him, and he’ll go down with the ship.

dicentra63 on February 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Well it’s all part of that post-normal science, where up is down, cold is hot and quality is a replacement for truth — but it’s all good, if you believe.

Nichevo on February 11, 2010 at 3:38 PM

The commies will carrier any flag to garner supporters;
Rainbow, pink, green, Black, Brown.

TheSitRep on February 11, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Simply more evidence how intellectually and morally bankrupt MSNBC and the majority of their guests are.

Carl on February 11, 2010 at 3:39 PM

I just can’t believe most of the comments here. Didn’t you hear Nye, a Nobel prize has been awarded! That’s the last word on the argument. Nothing else matters. Earth is doomed!

Ira on February 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Rational Thought @ 3:35
You may be overly optimistic. We are dealing with people who disregard facts that are not consistent with their beliefs, and who want to govern us on the same basis, sort of like running a cult. The radical Obama administration has done us a great favor by bringing this out into the open. We will find out in November how much the voters support the cult.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 11, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Ira on February 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I shoveled some snow, I gots me a peace prize.

cyclown on February 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Rachel Maddow is one good-looking dude.

Who are you going to believe? Me? Or your own lying thermometer?

Mord on February 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

My computer science degree makes my opinions just as valid as the host of TV show that does elementary school science experiments. I expect Maddow to contact me for rebuttal just as soon as hell freezes over – from AGW of course.

slug on February 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

We really need some new words so we can differentiate “old school science” that uses data and numbers and math and stuff with the “climate science” that looks more like three-card monte with data sets.

gekkobear on February 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM

The AGW folks are using “new science”.

Johan Klaus on February 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Y6LtILYiY

Look carefully Bill Nye is one of the Hi Five’n White Guys

Daveyardbird on February 11, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Rational Thought @ 3:35
You may be overly optimistic. We are dealing with people who disregard facts that are not consistent with their beliefs, and who want to govern us on the same basis, sort of like running a cult. The radical Obama administration has done us a great favor by bringing this out into the open. We will find out in November how much the voters support the cult.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 11, 2010 at 3:43 PM

The Joseph Goebbels method of disseminating information.

Johan Klaus on February 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Givin us a baaaaad name Nye.

Stick to teaching kids about magnets or something…

MechEng5by5 on February 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I just can’t believe most of the comments here. Didn’t you hear Nye, a Nobel prize has been awarded! That’s the last word on the argument. Nothing else matters. Earth is doomed!

Ira on February 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I wonder if he also thinks that The Won and Mother Theresa were also awarded science prizes?

BritAm on February 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I’ve always loved Nye (started watching him years ago on Almost Live!), but he’s another non-scientist that has been pushing AGW at kids since the 90′s.

29Victor on February 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Bill Nye, Science Guy, as much as admits that belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming is a matter of faith rather than a matter of logical conclusion when he says it is much easier to convince children of the validity of the theory than adults. Children are not equipped to critically evaluate a theory based on the available evidence, and are much more likely to believe an authority figure. But if you tell an adult that it is warm, he is liable to look out the window and see three feet of snow and conclude that you are incorrect.
I don’t know anything about the teaching of science, but I do have some experience in the teaching of religion. When I have a child in my sixth-grade Sunday School class who has been brought up in the faith and been attending church regularly since they were born, I know that child will be ready to accept knowledge and be easy to teach. But when a child walks in who has never been to church, and needs to start at Square One at the age of twelve, because Confirmation is coming up in a couple of years, I know it is going to be rough sledding.

The Jesuits say, “Give me a child until the age of eight, and I will give you the man”. This applies to any kind of teaching that requires a triumph of faith over reason, including environmentalism.

Haiku Guy on February 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

We really need some new words so we can differentiate “old school science” that uses data and numbers and math and stuff with the “climate science” that looks more like three-card monte with data sets.

One quick and easy method to separate the “old school science” from “climate science”. Put the known facts in a beaker, shake it up and dump it out. Whatever is “settled” when it comes out is “climate science”.

Whatever has to be analyzed, measured, and calculated by people who actually know what they are talking about and not only can, but will, show their data to others who then duplicate their results is “old school”.

Lily on February 11, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Oh, and by the way, Bill Nye Science Guy can kiss my Unpatriotic Ass!

Haiku Guy on February 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM

If you want to be young and hip, you must believe in AGW. If you don’t, you’re just old and stupid. Glad Nye spelled that one out for me — I didn’t realise AGW had such a logical and firm scientific foundation.

He is the last word in young and hip, isn’t he, with his dyed hair (Bill Nye, the chem dye guy), natty royal blue suit and spiffy bow tie.

Mulligan on February 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Beakman could take Bill Nye.

BigWyo on February 11, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I’m thinking Beaker could take Bill Nye. My money’s on the Muppet.

RedMindBlueState on February 11, 2010 at 3:57 PM

The smug, ignorant bullpoop is piled so high and deep in that clip that it’s hard to get through the whole thing.

Django on February 11, 2010 at 4:00 PM

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.

Or as silly as suggesting that the EPA not being interested in a global warming paper by an economist is probably criminal.

You’re right that Nye isn’t very well qualified to speak about climate science specifically. But he can speak about the importance of paying attention to scientific findings which are agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists.

orange on February 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM

My kids loved Mister Wizard’s World, which also brought back lots of memories for me. As for Bill Nye, my kids thought he was boring and silly. Guess they were right.

Deanna on February 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Mr. Wizard?

This is the only Mr. Wizard I remember.

And yes, he’s apparently a better “science guy” than Bill Nye.

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 4:04 PM

The smug, ignorant bullpoop is piled so high and deep in that clip that it’s hard to get through the whole thing.

Django on February 11, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Yep. Bill’s from Seattle. That’s how Seattle liberals talk.

29Victor on February 11, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Check out the Frozen Wasteland vid over at Ace. Well done.

http://ace.mu.nu/

Geochelone on February 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Bill Nye.

Mr. Wizard he ain’t.

J.J. Sefton on February 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Or Howdy Doody?

Johan Klaus on February 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Howdy Doody probably thinks that Kaptain Kangaroo looks a lot like Clarabell Hornblow.

Oldnuke on February 11, 2010 at 4:08 PM

But he can speak about the importance of paying attention to scientific findings which are agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists.

orange on February 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Exactly how do you conclude that the “vast majority of climate scientists” agree? Secondly, the reliability of these so-called findings are seriously in doubt. There’s question whether there’s actually been any warming at all.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 4:09 PM

The Jesuits say, “Give me a child until the age of eight, and I will give you the man”. This applies to any kind of teaching that requires a triumph of faith over reason, including environmentalism.

Haiku Guy on February 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Great post!

It would take an ignorant and trusting child to believe that record snowfall and record low temperatures are symptoms of global warming.
Ignorant and trusting…hhmmm…sounds like an average Obama voter.

Mord on February 11, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Mr. Wizard?

This is the only Mr. Wizard I remember.

And yes, he’s apparently a better “science guy” than Bill Nye.

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Nope. it’s this one…

During World War II he was a pilot, and later became an actor before becoming “Mister Wizard.” Watch Mr. Wizard was Don Herbert’s first appearance as Mr. Wizard, and it soon caught on. Watch Mr. Wizard ran on NBC from 1951-1965, then was revived briefly in 1971.

In 1983, Mister Wizard’s World debuted on the then fledgling cable kid’s network Nickelodeon, and ran for seven seasons, and then continued to air in reruns up until 2000, thus making it Nick’s all-time longest running show. It had 78 episodes to its credit.

On all his shows, Mr. Wizard sought not make science accessible to everyone, and show kids how to perform scientific tricks with everyday materials, and to encourage them to ask questions about the world around them. Many people have credited Mr. Wizard with their career choices in science or computers.

Perhaps Mr. Wizard represents the differences between Nick then and now, because Mr. Wizard never talked down to kids, or underestimated their intelligence.
http://www.johnnorrisbrown.com/classic-nick/mrwizard/index.htm

Here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liikKUCB7pk&feature=related

Deanna on February 11, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Bill Nye the Commie Guy!

MCGIRV on February 11, 2010 at 4:14 PM

farce? Uh no

Jdripper on February 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

From the files of “The TRUTH will ALWAYS be stranger than fiction”
The line in the Audi commercial about the orange rind going into the garbage disposal is actually a city ordinance in Baghdad by the bay (or so says SF’s mayor)

Blacksmith8 on February 11, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Minnesotans 4 Global Warming are at it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03QcymdCtg

Watch it, Post it, Enjoy.

Jerricho68 on February 11, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Maybe next she can interview Captain Kangaroo for input on how to handle Iran.

29Victor on February 11, 2010 at 4:19 PM

If you want to be young and hip, you must believe in AGW. If you don’t, you’re just old and stupid. Glad Nye spelled that one out for me — I didn’t realise AGW had such a logical and firm scientific foundation.

He is the last word in young and hip, isn’t he, with his dyed hair (Bill Nye, the chem dye guy), natty royal blue suit and spiffy bow tie.

Mulligan on February 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Exactly. It’s become a political “test” as to whether you “believe in science” or not – just like embryonic stem cell research a few years ago. Anyone remotely connected with science jumps on issues like this because suddenly they get to seem hip and current, and get to be on TV like Bill Nye was last night (I can’t even remember the last time I saw him.)

We cannot let the leftists get away with branding us as “anti-science” on this the way they did on ESCR.

rockmom on February 11, 2010 at 4:27 PM

People, we MUST believe anything liberal activists that claim the mantle of science say. That’s the whole essence of the post-modern scientific method. Proof is superfluous now.

theCork on February 11, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Bill Nye wouldn’t know a patriot if he was tarred and feathered by one. Ahole.

ronsfi on February 11, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Bill Nye the Settled Science Guy- bleh

Hades69 on February 11, 2010 at 4:31 PM

BTW, Isn’t he the same guy with the question marks all over his suit?
Wait..no…thats Matthew Lesko.
All things being equal he’s just as credible.

MechEng5by5 on February 11, 2010 at 4:34 PM

“Unpatriotic” seems to be the Left’s latest favorite word for maligning anyone and any ideology that disagrees with their socialist/progressive/ecological/redistributive/big government policies and agenda. (Sheesh, this is getting cumbersome.)

What the Left doesn’t seem to grasp yet is that the numbers of people disagreeing with them are huge, and those numbers are more informed than past generations by far. That old bromide about being able to fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time is coming to bear big time on their activities this past year. With the help of the MSM’s attempts to “manage the news” during the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, the Left actually thought it had utter control of public discourse.

Wrong. And they’re only just beginning to get a serious clue about just how wrongly they assumed they had absolute control. Even within the Democratic Party they couldn’t exert that absolute control when the chips were down, because frankly even among Liberals there are those who are intellectually honest and ethical enough to realize that absolute one-party power corrupts absolutely. That segment of the population is now abashed to be witnessing the utter implosion resulting from the wasteful destruction of what took them decades to build.

Perhaps this is how we will eventually find common ground between warring political factions in this country. If there’s no viable United States of America left for all of us to enjoy by the end of Obama’s term as POTUS, then who “won” won’t matter one whit.

Well, except for Barry and Michelle post-2012 as they ease into a plush retirement while leisurely enjoying building their Obama Legacy Library somewhere in the greater Chicago metropolis, and earn bazillions in speaking tours and book deals. Although I suspect they -will- miss the Wagyu Beef and caviar and White House parties, and special personal date-nights out on Air Force One and Marine One, or at Camp David.

KendraWilder on February 11, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Bill Nye is a disgrace. I grew up watching him, so it’s very hard and disappointing to say that, but it’s true. :-(

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 5:15 PM

But he can speak about the importance of paying attention to scientific findings which are agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists.

orange on February 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM

And exactly which of these “scientific” findings are actually legitimate considering your side will go as far as falsifying data to impose this myth on the rest of us?

ClassicCon on February 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Bill Nye is a disgrace. I grew up watching him, so it’s very hard and disappointing to say that, but it’s true. :-(

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 5:15 PM

I grew up watching him too, but never liked him and thought he was a creeper. So, I feel very vindicated. :D

Emily M. on February 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I’ve always been a big fan, only to have him question my patriotism. :(

OneGyT on February 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Ummm. . . the IPCC got a “scientific prize?” It was the “Peace Prize!” Well, whatd’ya expect from MSNBC? MSU as you go along. (MSU – make . . . up)

Pablo Snooze on February 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

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

Yes, Ed. So why are so many willing to accept what Lord Monckton says (he has no science degree whatsoever related to climate)? And, why do so many put faith in the thousands of signatures of “scientists” who declare that they are skeptical of AGW claims when many, many of them are physicians, veterinarians, engineers, grad students in whatever, and scientists in unrelated fields (if they even exist at all)? And, why do folks put any credence in political figures (i.e., DeMint, Gore) and talk show personalities (Limbaugh). Shouldn’t we be listening more the actual scientists who are involved in research in climatology more than those mentioned above?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Why are we giving these bimbos any attention whatsoever? Who the hell actually watches MSNBC? Simply ignore them like the rest of the world.

Metanis on February 11, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Sigh. I used to love watching Bill Nye. I learned a lot of cool stuff. Why is it as I get older all the people I loved as a kid turn out to be people I dislike now? I wonder if Lefties know what it is like to grow up.

ConDem on February 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Bill Nye the science lie.

chewmeister on February 11, 2010 at 5:43 PM

You’re right that Nye isn’t very well qualified to speak about climate science specifically. But he can speak about the importance of paying attention to scientific findings which are agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists.

orange on February 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Show me ONE shred of evidence that a BARE majority, let alone a vast majority, of climate scientists agree with what Nye said. Oh, and while you’re at it, define “climate scientist” for us.

What you’re not allowed to do is cite a single “petition” that doesn’t include a description of both climate scientist and the “scientific findings” that Nye is discussing.

And even if that’s all you got (and I doubt you have even that much), you would still have to name every other “climate scientist” on the planet so we can all see that your idiotic assertion of a “vast majority” holds up.

Now you and I both know you can’t do any of what I just outlined. You lied, outright, to all of us here. You need to apologize for that and try again with a little less hyperbole.

Similarly, you can’t admit that virtually all “climate science” has now been completely debunked by the very “climate scientists” you insist on bowing down before. They have utterly destroyed their own work by hiding or destroying the raw data, wrecking the peer review process, and bullying anyone who didn’t agree with them out of the business of “climate science”.

God, but you’re an idiot.

runawayyyy on February 11, 2010 at 5:50 PM

So what do warm summers mean? Global cooling?
Well, if this so called science guy thinks it is unpatriotic to question him, then just what the heck has happened to science?

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Albert Einstein:

I think that only daring speculation can lead us further and not accumulation of facts.

Arthur C. Clarke:

The First Clarke Law states, ‘If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible he is almost certainly right, but if he says that it is impossible he is very probably wrong.’

Carl Sagan:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Henri Poincare:

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.

Great scientific discoveries have been made by men seeking to verify quite erroneous theories about the nature of things. ~Aldous Huxley, “Wordsworth in the Tropics”

To know the history of science is to recognize the mortality of any claim to universal truth. ~Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science, 1995

The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he’s one who asks the right questions. ~Claude Lévi-Strauss, Le Cru et le cuit, 1964

I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups rather than to make men happy. ~Bertrand Russell, Icarus, or the Future of Science, 1925

Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue. ~Robert K. Merton, Social Theory, 1957

JellyToast on February 11, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Similarly, you can’t admit that virtually all “climate science” has now been completely debunked by the very “climate scientists” you insist on bowing down before. They have utterly destroyed their own work by hiding or destroying the raw data, wrecking the peer review process, and bullying anyone who didn’t agree with them out of the business of “climate science”.

God, but you’re an idiot

1. Where are you getting this from?

2. Why do you call people who disagree with you “idiot”?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Shouldn’t we be listening more the actual scientists who are involved in research in climatology more than those mentioned above?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Nye doesn’t even begin to compare to Monckton.

If you can’t listen to someone like Monckton and refute anything he says on your own, why look to someone that has a degree in that specific field (which really makes no difference whatsoever). Nye’s comments on their face are stupid.

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Shouldn’t we be listening more the actual scientists who are involved in research in climatology more than those mentioned above?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

I do just that: Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH, Dr. Lindzen of MIT, and Willie Wei-Hock Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. But even that’s not enough. I want proof.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” as Carl Sagan used to say. So far, the only solid, incontrovertible proof we have regarding warming alarmism is proof of fraud. Transparency, duplicability, falsifiability and independent review are the very basis of science, but alarmist scientists practice absolutely none of those things, as the Climategate e-mails, computer programs, and NASA GISS homogenization clearly show.

We have 30 years of alarmist predictions to judge from. How have those worked out? Has even the smallest island disappeared under the waves? Has the global sea ice extent reduced beyond normal variations? Did the globe warm (according to satellites) in line with their predictions? Why aren’t alarmist scientists held accountable for their failed predictions?

If the earth became a solid iceball, it wouldn’t be enough to shake the faith of these eco-worshipers. Repent and recycle! Humans have sinned against the Earth Mother; buy carbon indulgences from Rev. Al!

I’ve written that before but it bears repeating.

theCork on February 11, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Yes, Ed. So why are so many willing to accept what Lord Monckton says (he has no science degree whatsoever related to climate)?
oakland on February 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

I think you’d better read up on ole Lord Monckton. He’s a brilliant mind and a good challenge to the inbred climate science community.
Besides, “modern science” screwed up when it put all it’s faith in basically five guys, Jones, Mann, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes. King Jones is dead (figurativly), Mann is under investigation, and the rest are in hiding or pointing fingers.

MechEng5by5 on February 11, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Please tell me why folks listen to Monckton. What are his credentials as a scientist? And particularly as a scientist that has training and expertise in climatology? Please tell me why Nye should know much more than he.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I do just that: Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH, Dr. Lindzen of MIT, and Willie Wei-Hock Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. But even that’s not enough. I want proof.

What constitutes “proof”? Is there anything at all that has “proof” in the sense that you mean it here?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:04 PM

I think you’d better read up on ole Lord Monckton. He’s a brilliant mind and a good challenge to the inbred climate science community

I have done this. I have also read refutations of his assertions. I am not impressed with Monckton; I imagine that any scientist would be less impressed with him than I. Perhaps you could check to see what scientists are saying about him.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Please tell me why folks listen to Monckton. What are his credentials as a scientist? And particularly as a scientist that has training and expertise in climatology? Please tell me why Nye should know much more than he.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Please … on one hand we have Monckton, who takes reproduceable science and presents it. Science by the way, which the people who deny that climate can change naturally refuse to show. On the other hand we have Nye, who takes theory, conjecture, and wild claims and presents it.

Monckton isn’t theorizing or making claims as Nye is.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM

I have done this. I have also read refutations of his assertions. I am not impressed with Monckton; I imagine that any scientist would be less impressed with him than I. Perhaps you could check to see what scientists are saying about him.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Hmmmm … this is interesting. You take the time to investigate Monckton. I wonder if you’ve taken the time to investigate AGW proponents such as Hansen, Jones, Mann, Schimdt, Briffa and others.

Mann’s wildly inaccurate “hockey stick” graph should have at least given you cause to doubt his other work.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 6:11 PM

It seems to me Nye blames El Nino AND then AGW for the extreme weather this year.

ronsfi on February 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Similarly, you can’t admit that virtually all “climate science” has now been completely debunked by the very “climate scientists” you insist on bowing down before. They have utterly destroyed their own work by hiding or destroying the raw data, wrecking the peer review process, and bullying anyone who didn’t agree with them out of the business of “climate science”.

God, but you’re an idiot
1. Where are you getting this from?

2. Why do you call people who disagree with you “idiot”?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM

As I said, you can’t admit it. It’s been all over the news for months, but you missed every single story about it. Are we to believe you live in a cave but still have a computer, electricity, and internet access?

THAT’S why I call you idiots. Not because you “disagree” with me, but because you refuse to see what’s right in front of your face. What would you call such people? Geniuses???

runawayyyy on February 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Video: New test of patriotism blind faith – AGW belief

That headline just screamed for a correction because it is not American patirotism, but Mudder Gaia worship.

steveegg on February 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Bill Nye the Stupid Pig guy~ who is a libtard sucking joke that’s consuming precious carbon from my landscaping…. No wonder my garden is having a difficult time growing my food supply!…
STFU you idiot freak….so glad that I stopped watching him in high school.

hawkman on February 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Unpatriotic? How on Earth can one conclude this?

Bill Nye was my youngest child’s favorite TV character when he was 3 to 5.

Now as a teen he is smarter than his one time hero.

FireBlogger on February 11, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Please tell me why Nye should know much more than he.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:02 PM

You just answered your own question. Why should anyone believe what Nye says. He’s not a climate scientist, he’s a performer.

chewmeister on February 11, 2010 at 6:22 PM

runawayyyy on February 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM

.
Climate change is an established fact backed by mountains of mutually supporting data. What is in question is how much if any can be attributed to human activity and whether it can be mitigated through higher taxes, behavioral modification and a world wide socialist oligarchy.

ronsfi on February 11, 2010 at 6:23 PM

As I said, you can’t admit it. It’s been all over the news for months, but you missed every single story about it.

Don’t know what you mean by “it”.

THAT’S why I call you idiots. Not because you “disagree” with me, but because you refuse to see what’s right in front of your face.

I suspect that your calling folks “idiots” simply because they disagree with you indicates that you are not secure in your own beliefs. Do you really think that people want to carry on intellectual discourse with you if you resort to ad hominem attacks?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:24 PM

You just answered your own question. Why should anyone believe what Nye says. He’s not a climate scientist, he’s a performer

In other words, he is not a scientist, but a celebrity. Perhaps we common folks are listening too much to the wrong people??

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:26 PM

OAKLAND get a life sheesh. Bow down at the alter of climate change and GTFO you dupe.

CWforFreedom on February 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM

I suspect that your calling folks “idiots” simply because they disagree with you indicates that you are not secure in your own beliefs. Do you really think that people want to carry on intellectual discourse with you if you resort to ad hominem attacks?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Oh please, you have no interest in carrying on “intellectual discourse”. You probably needed spell check to get that part right. No, YOUR interest is in propping up discredited scientists and their discredited science for nothing more than a political agenda you happen to agree with (enslaving all those who “don’t agree with you”). Oh, and you might want to look up the definition of “ad hominem”, lest you get spanked yet again for using words you know not the meaning of. Hint: NOW I used them, calling you an idiot was a mere statement of fact based on your own admission that you have no idea what we’re discussing.

And ronsfi, I know climate change exists, always has and always will. My point was that the “climate scientists” the science deniers are STILL bowing down to have been caught red-handed cheating in every way they could get caught cheating. If it was such a threat, why did they have to do that? Tell ya what, when algore starts ACTING like it’s really a threat, I’ll take his “science” a little more seriously, deal?

runawayyyy on February 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Bill Nye had a bit more credibility when he was one of the High Five’n White Guys.

ironman on February 11, 2010 at 6:35 PM

In other words, he is not a climate scientist, but a celebrity. Perhaps we common folks are listening too much to the wrong people??

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:26 PM

You left out one small detail.

chewmeister on February 11, 2010 at 6:36 PM

What constitutes “proof”? Is there anything at all that has “proof” in the sense that you mean it here?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Yes. When the seas rise in line with Hansens projections:

“Prof. Hansen and his colleagues argue that rapidly melting ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland could cause oceans to swell several metres by 2100 – or maybe even as much as 25 metres, which is how much higher the oceans sat about three million years ago.”

Source: Globe & Mail

I’ve got more sources on that prediction. So when the seas stars rising 25 cm a year as opposed to 3.2 cm as it has for over a century… I’ll believe it. And the seas haven’t risen since 2006.

Let me reverse that question: What counter-proof would convince you that AGW is a minor effect nowhere near spending trillions on? Or is this your religion?

theCork on February 11, 2010 at 6:37 PM

stars=>start

theCork on February 11, 2010 at 6:38 PM

near [worth] spending.

argh. got interrupted during review.

theCork on February 11, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Let me reverse that question: What counter-proof would convince you that AGW is a minor effect nowhere near spending trillions on? Or is this your religion?

theCork on February 11, 2010 at 6:37 PM

And there we have it!!! The perfect question, which will in fact never be answered by a science denier like oakland or orange. I bet they’re STILL wondering why I call them idiots.

I submit to you that there is no such counter proof, but I’d like to be wrong. Please, oakland, enlighten us as to what would finally convince you that the science isn’t “settled”.

runawayyyy on February 11, 2010 at 6:43 PM

orange & oakland = climate change deniers.

That is, the climate can’t change unless man is responsible.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Et tu, Nye?

(That’s the sound of my childhood memories shattering)

Techie on February 11, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Oh please, you have no interest in carrying on “intellectual discourse”. You probably needed spell check to get that part right. No, YOUR interest is in propping up discredited scientists and their discredited science for nothing more than a political agenda you happen to agree with (enslaving all those who “don’t agree with you”). Oh, and you might want to look up the definition of “ad hominem”, lest you get spanked yet again for using words you know not the meaning of. Hint: NOW I used them, calling you an idiot was a mere statement of fact based on your own admission that you have no idea what we’re discussing

I suggest that you do some research into the science climate change (such as National Academy of Sciences). Also, look up “ad hominem”. You might learn something. I have done plenty of reading into “denier” and “skeptic” assertions. The skeptics are welcome parts of the scientific process. I don’t know how you assert that modern climatic science vis-a-vis AGW has been “discredited”.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:56 PM

I guess she’s still trying to find a definition of “ad hominem”……..

runawayyyy on February 11, 2010 at 6:56 PM

That is, the climate can’t change unless man is responsible.

Whose assertion is this? I don’t know of any rational person who would believe this – especially a climate or atmospheric scientist.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4