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global warming is as silly as hiring a railroad engineer to chair a panel on climate change, isn’t it, or in passing unpublished student dissertations as reliable peer-reviewed studies in scientific presentations.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

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

It’s been proven that global warming propagandists, phony scientists and the like, were actively trying to get global warming “skeptics” removed from the process. You’re just willfully stupid and refuse to acknowledge these events.

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Gaaaak! I had to cut him off when he started talking about how easy it is to brainwash young people and get them to join this Carbon Cult. Keep him awaaaaay from your kids!!

starboardhelm on February 11, 2010 at 7:02 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?

Did you not say you wanted “proof”? I am unclear what would constitute that proof. I also don’t know of any scientific method that requires a proof for any hypothesis before lending it a strong measure of credence. Do you?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Wow, truly clueless….the UEA CRU and related “climate scientists” were caught manipulating climate data in ways that were clearly not scientific but political, they admitted the evidence (all those emails and computer code) of them doing it was genuine. Are you “denying” this?

And if skeptics are so welcome in the AGW debate, why has it taken YEARS to get any action on FOIA requests from Horner at the CEI and others, in clear violation of the law?

Does any of this sound the least bit “scientific” to you? Really???

runawayyyy on February 11, 2010 at 7:03 PM

It’s been proven that global warming propagandists, phony scientists and the like, were actively trying to get global warming “skeptics” removed from the process.

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

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:04 PM

I am unclear what would constitute that proof.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:02 PM

And there is exactly the answer we all knew was coming. Frankly, I’m amazed you admitted it. As I predicted upthread, no such proof exists in your mind and never will. You will never admit the lie that is AGW, no matter how much counter-”proof” is presented.

runawayyyy on February 11, 2010 at 7:06 PM

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

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:04 PM

CRU emails ring a bell? Jesus christ, do you live on the damm moon? Where have you been for the past few months when the story broke. The emails show scientists conspiring to get individuals, who they disagreed with, removed from the process. You can read them yourself online, if you can even do that much.

Pathetic.

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Wow, truly clueless….the UEA CRU and related “climate scientists” were caught manipulating climate data in ways that were clearly not scientific but political, they admitted the evidence (all those emails and computer code) of them doing it was genuine. Are you “denying” this?

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

CRU emails ring a bell? Jesus christ, do you live on the damm moon? Where have you been for the past few months when the story broke. The emails show scientists conspiring to get individuals, who they disagreed with, removed from the process. You can read them yourself online, if you can even do that much

Yes, I read about this, and it is reprehensible. However, I am not aware of actual falsification of temperature data that occurred in order to show a trend that did not exist. If I am wrong, please provide a specific reference.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM

And there is exactly the answer we all knew was coming. Frankly, I’m amazed you admitted it. As I predicted upthread, no such proof exists in your mind and never will. You will never admit the lie that is AGW, no matter how much counter-”proof” is presented.

You want proof, apparently. Scientists cannot prove or disprove; they can only interpret data as it tends to support or refute hypotheses. Do you know of anything that has been scientifically proven? As far as “counter-proof”, I am not familiar with that concept; I plead ignorance here.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:12 PM

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

Uh … climate nuts. The temperature must remain straightline and glaciers must always grow, if not, man’s responsible for it.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Uh … climate nuts. The temperature must remain straightline and glaciers must always grow, if not, man’s responsible for it.

Maybe…but not rational-thinking folks

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:16 PM

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

Look buddy, this is getting a little tiresome. I don’t know where you get your info but anyone with half a brain and a computer can see that the data has been falsified, manipulated and omitted.

Why must we do your work for you?

Read the East Anglia emails, and read up on the code that was hacked along with them.

Read up on NOAA and what they did to the surface station data … a hint: They got rid of 75% of it and kept stations that didn’t conflict with a warming trend.

There’s literally so much information out there I’m kinda shocked you have the balls to come here like a little school kid asking for help.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Yes, I read about this, and it is reprehensible. However, I am not aware of actual falsification of temperature data that occurred in order to show a trend that did not exist. If I am wrong, please provide a specific reference.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM

So if you read about it, why did you ask that I, show you where it had been proven? You’re confusing. With nut-jobs like Nye out there claim there’s a consensus on the issue, wouldn’t you expect the so called skeptics to be bullied by the industry set up to make a profit off of lies and exaggeration (global warming).

That’s a different issue altogether. Look at the actual emails themselves and decide for yourself. It seems pretty clear to me that that is what was going on.

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Maybe…but not rational-thinking folks

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:16 PM

That’s what GW supporters say it is. They deny natural climate cycles and insist it must be man doing it. In other words … climate change deniers.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 7:21 PM

. However, I am not aware of actual falsification of temperature data that occurred in order to show a trend that did not exist. If I am wrong, please provide a specific reference.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Did you ever read about Michael Mann and his infamous “hockey stick” graph? The thing was so rigged you could plug virtually any numbers in there and it would produce an extreme warming trend or “hockey stick”.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM

That’s what GW supporters say it is. They deny natural climate cycles and insist it must be man doing it. In other words … climate change deniers

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

What a fool.

Hey Bill, Orville Redenbacker called and wants his tie back!

omnipotent on February 11, 2010 at 7:25 PM

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

No, I can’t go to “any” website. I have to go to sites that don’t lie … like realclimate.org does. You know who’s involved in realclimate, right? Gavin Schmidt, climate modeler for NASA. No conflict of interest there … nope.

Ever try to post a dissenting comment there? Can’t do it. If you manage to sneak one in it disappears shortly.

Yeah, that’s real open discussion.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Great putdown tune: “Frozen Wasteland”
h/t to powerline blog to this Who paroday video

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/02/025566.php

onlineanalyst on February 11, 2010 at 7:29 PM

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-07-09.pdf

The investigation is ongoing, but I read some of the report (link above). Interesting, but no claim of falsification of data.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:38 PM

No, I can’t go to “any” website. I have to go to sites that don’t lie … like realclimate.org does. You know who’s involved in realclimate, right? Gavin Schmidt, climate modeler for NASA. No conflict of interest there … nope.

Liars? You decide.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM

The investigation is ongoing, but I read some of the report (link above). Interesting, but no claim of falsification of data.

What “data” are you referring to? Because the most current climate data I’ve seen shows there has been no warming for nearly a decade.

Tomblvd on February 11, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Liars? You decide.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Does that link explain what happened to that Ice Age we were headed towards (according to scientists in the 70s)?

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Bill, take a pill.

Mason on February 11, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Bow tie on the ground.

Coronagold on February 11, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Liars? You decide.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Until you understand that the UEA CRU, NOAA, NASA and the UN are all complicit you will continue to believe that these people are objective and honest.

Look, like I’ve said … if you go to NASA, NOAA, UN or any governmental website all you’re going to get is the party line.

Good luck.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 7:55 PM

The skeptics are welcome parts of the scientific process.

You mean the same skeptics that James Hansen equates to Holocaust deniers?

Or this from a Climategate email?

Next time I see (prominent climate skeptic) Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Or how about this Climategate email where they plan to take down a journal becuase it dares to publish skeptic studies:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

____________________________________

Have you really missed all this???

Tomblvd on February 11, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Liars? You decide.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Another Climategate email:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

If the show fits…..

Tomblvd on February 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Falsification is a high hurdle.

I don’t know how much of this stuff you read, but there are many issues with AGW beyond temperature record falsification.

I assume you know that we have very little temperature data to go on. Lots of contamination of the temp record. This is not experimental science. And only 30 years of satellite records for temp (and Arctic Ice)

I assume you know about the LIA.

So, let’s just say there may be some over-interpretation. Here’s something from a blog today that is relevant

The other part is that I am not oblivious of local history either. In his book ‘The Valley of Kashmir’, Sir Walter Lawrence, a British Govt revenue official writes:

“The old men of the valley declare that the climate is changing, and they are very positive that there are now no such winters as they remembered as boys. In Maharaja Gulab Singh’s time [1846-57] the snow was up to a man’s shoulders, in Maharaja Ranbir Singh’s [1857-85] time up to his knees, but now [Maharaja Partab Singh’ rule] winter passes without any fall of snow. Nearly every man who talks on the subject holds to this belief, and they all say that much less water comes into the valley than of yore. They point to the villages which once grew rice, and to old canals which are now dry, and they maintain that the mountain springs are decreasing and that the climate of Kashmir is becoming milder and more like that of the Panjab.” Lawrence published his book in 1895 and his characters talk of events that started long before humans started sinning on carbon emission. I saw this repeating in my life time — at least from snow up to knees, possibly in conformity with an old Kashmir saying: Karana changes every 36 years. Karana roughly translates to phase. Karana or PDO???

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/34567/#more-7997

r keller on February 11, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Hmmmm.

that was intended for oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:38 PM

r keller on February 11, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Must’ve been commented before but Nye mentioned the IPCC winning the Nobel. The IPCC did not win a scientific Nobel but won the 2007 Peace Prize. The scientific prizes are run out of Stockholm by a completely different panel than the Peace Prize (which is run out of Oslo).

bopone on February 11, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Look, like I’ve said … if you go to NASA, NOAA, UN or any governmental website all you’re going to get is the party line.

Why, then, did you put your stamp of approval on a NASA climate modeler?

Don’t know what you mean by the “Party Line”. I find it useful to read material written by those who have varieties of points of view and interpretations, including folks like Monckton, Coleman and Seitz.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM

The scientific community is now guilty of what the Catholic Church did to Galileo.

misterspork on February 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Have you really missed all this???

Tomblvd on February 11, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Please see the link I provided.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Wasn’t Bill Nye one of the original “Wiggles”?

BHO Jonestown on February 11, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Dude, I totally get it now.

There’s more Energyin the atmosphere.
Well that clears it up for me.
Up till now I had had my doubts, but…Californian’s know aboot energy, what else would make mud slide away?
Gravity?
Get real.

Observation on February 11, 2010 at 8:23 PM

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM

What happened to the Ice Age in 1970s???

I guess that question is like asking a liberal about Joe Biden after they’ve called Mrs. Palin dumb.

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 8:25 PM

The problem is that scientists are mostly wards of the State. They are after money first, facts second. Each branch of government should have their own scientists so they could fight against each other.

Mojave Mark on February 11, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Please see the link I provided.

No, we’re having a discussion here. If you have a point to make, make it. You link to a website, not any specific information. If you need someone else to make your arguments for you, you probably shouldn’t start them in the first place.

How about the rest of my points?

Tomblvd on February 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Bill Nye – Big Joke

AGW – Very Big Joke

O/T Obama – Very Biggest Joke

What parts don’t you understand?

galvestonian on February 11, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Wow. Of course it’s generational, Bill. The “younger people” that you are referring to have spent their entire young lives listening to a pretty well orchestrated campaign of enviroweenie propaganda from liberal douchebags like you.

To reject your bullspit now would actually be quite remarkable. Happily, some of us do figure it out.

Jaibones on February 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM

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

This is from the report recently published “SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION?:

Perhaps one of the biggest issues with the global data is the disappearance of temperature monitoring stations from the networks after 1990. More than 6000 stations were in the NOAA data base for the mid- 1970s, but just 1500 or less are used today. NOAA is said to be adding additional US stations now that USHCN v2 is available, which will inflate this number, but make it disproportionately U.S.

The stations no longer included were mainly rural, at higher latitudes and altitudes. This tended to make them cooler stations, introducing a warming bias and making any accurate assessment of warming impossible.

It’s on page 10. There are numerous other examples of data manipulation. (note: this is a pdf file)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

Tomblvd on February 11, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Damn.

I went to high school with Bill in D.C..
Great, nutty guy. (Just ask him about “TASAN”: Those Acknowledging Science As Neat)

I was so glad he hit it big when he went out to Seattle.

I heard he even had success with some Disney deal.
Kudos.

WTF is he doing drivelling on about such stuff?!

Sigh.

Bill, Bill, Bill.

Lockstein13 on February 11, 2010 at 8:44 PM

No, we’re having a discussion here. If you have a point to make, make it. You link to a website, not any specific information

I cannot convince you, as I am not an expert. I have read some of the information provided at the link, and what it tells me is that there was probably no falsification of data. Sure, there was inexcusable behavior on the part of some of the scientists with respect to their attitude toward some skeptics. However, for the claim that there is some great conspiracy to alter data to show a trend that did not exist, this has not been shown by anybody (according to this link). I am suggesting that you read into this reference and draw your own conclusions. I do not see any compelling evidence of some mass conspiracy to falsify data, or for that matter, any falsification at all.

Have you read any of the information in the link?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 8:48 PM

This guy was hilarious on Almost Live. Glad to see he hasn’t lost it.

MikeZero on February 11, 2010 at 8:49 PM

When my boys where growing up, I told them to let me know if any teacher tried to push global warming as science fact. I’ve had some rather interesting conversations with supposed ‘educators’.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, had ever question my patriotism – let alone because I don’t believe in this GW bullsh*t.

Bill Nye the ‘Brainwash’ Guy…

Timothy S. Carlson on February 11, 2010 at 8:54 PM

It’s on page 10. There are numerous other examples of data manipulation. (note: this is a pdf file)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

I have already read parts of this. Is this not a propaganda piece? One claim I hear constantly is that there is much propaganda concerning AGW (in terms of proponents). Why should propaganda in any form be considered worthwhile as scientific reference ?
If you look at a scientific paper (peer reviewed), one generally doesn’t see a conclusion at the outset, and the rest of the article including only information that supports the conclusion that the writers want the readers to derive; this would be poor scientific practice, no? I suggest that one read peer-reviewed studies (and there are many that don’t support the prevailing views), rather than pieces of propaganda – even those with heaps of references.

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Suggested reading — The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, Thomas Sowell

publiuspen on February 11, 2010 at 9:02 PM

I cannot convince you, as I am not an expert. I have read some of the information provided at the link, and what it tells me is that there was probably no falsification of data

And I have given you specific information, with links, that there has been data manipulation. At this point you must consider your website is wrong.

Sure, there was inexcusable behavior on the part of some of the scientists with respect to their attitude toward some skeptics. However, for the claim that there is some great conspiracy to alter data to show a trend that did not exist, this has not been shown by anybody (according to this link).

The head of the CRU and others conspired to put a science journal out of business if they didn’t replace the editor and stop publishing skeptic papers.

I do not see any compelling evidence of some mass conspiracy to falsify data, or for that matter, any falsification at all.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf

Have you read any of the information in the link?

No. It is both lazy and rude to put up a link to a website and tell someone, “The information is there, go find it.”

It isn’t up to me to do your argument for you.

Tomblvd on February 11, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Old people stupid = young people brilliant

Got it, Bill.

Now, broadcast this globally, to explain to everyone that they need to cower to the brilliance of the 18-25 year olds.

cntrlfrk on February 11, 2010 at 9:09 PM

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

How stupid are you? The CRU has stated that they no longer have the original data. Only the data they manipulated. Furthermore the Russians have claimed that CRU selected only those data points which supported the claim of global warming.

jdkchem on February 11, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Is this not a propaganda piece?

Is it?

Perhaps you can tell us why? And I mean by disputing the substance of the paper, not what someone else tells you to think.

Tomblvd on February 11, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Have you read any of the information in the link?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 8:48 PM

There hasn’t been an update to their information since revelations of lack of temperature data from various regions has been exposed. For that matter there has been no update to any of their information in recent months. And their Climate Research COuncil has utilized data from the IPPC which makes it open to debate. Also I have not read their conclusions about “Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data” which they discussed at their November meeting. Don’t take any report or group at face value without reading both sides of the discussion. This is especially true when it comes to science. And the question isn’t whether there is “climate change” but what is causing it. And that is not “settled.”

Deanna on February 11, 2010 at 9:13 PM

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Look stupid, if you create a computer program that takes raw data and performs an operation to modify that data to prove a claim. You’re falsifying data.

jdkchem on February 11, 2010 at 9:15 PM

If you look at a scientific paper (peer reviewed), one generally doesn’t see a conclusion at the outset, and the rest of the article including only information that supports the conclusion that the writers want the readers to derive; this would be poor scientific practice, no?

WRONG You might try actually reading peer reviewed scientific papers instead of playing Obama. Every scientific paper states at the very beginning of the paper in the abstract what they have done and what they intend to show in the rest of the paper.

You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about so instead of continuing to demonstrate that you’re more ignorant than you demonstrated in your last comment, go have a hot cup of STFU.

jdkchem on February 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM

I suggest that one read peer-reviewed studies

EVERYBODY DRINK!

Ahh, the pinnacle of sound science…the laughable peer review.

But I guess showing the emails of the “warmer” scientists at East Anglia attempting to shut down those “peers” who would not go along with the scam is propaganda in your eyes.

ClassicCon on February 11, 2010 at 9:24 PM

jdkchem on February 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM

The gent in question admitted in a thread that he is a non-scientist type. From your screen name I surmise you are a chemist. You are repeating arguments given to this true believer over the last few weeks. I’m not sure he is worth the effort but have at it if you think you can make a dent.

chemman on February 11, 2010 at 9:26 PM

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Data that disappeared, data from Russia and Australia that was manipulated, using student thesis for “proof” of agw
ect., ect., ect………

Johan Klaus on February 11, 2010 at 9:27 PM

I am sure that most of us can create a computer program that give an outcome that we desire.

Johan Klaus on February 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Bill Nye the Pseudo-Science Guy.

MeAlice on February 11, 2010 at 10:02 PM

If you look at a scientific paper (peer reviewed), one generally doesn’t see a conclusion at the outset, and the rest of the article including only information that supports the conclusion that the writers want the readers to derive; this would be poor scientific practice, no?

In computer science the abstract comes at the beginning of the paper. Then you will see an introduction, the body of the work, conclusions (which were summarized in the abstract), and possibly a description of future work. I have published two papers, and this was the format that we had to use for every journal and conference we submitted to.

I would love to see some papers analyzing the computer programs the CRU was using to manipulate the temperature data. I have glanced at the code online that was released through ClimateGate. I have not seen any substantiation for the way that they manipulated the temperature data. Therefore, I would not rely upon any study or evidence that relies upon the CRU data. I would prefer to see the original raw data and start from scratch to see if the data they were releasing can be duplicated.

What really concerns me is that the CRU and other agencies were refusing to release their underlying data and models to other scientists for review. This is a basic practice of science. If they aren’t forthcoming, then that is a red flag that there is something shady going on behind the scenes. More than likely they knew that AGW could not be supported by the facts (as shown in the ClimateGate emails), and that would jeopardize their funding and prestige. Therefore they had to cook the data to make it fit their theory, rather than changing or discarding their theory to make it fit the data. That is not the type of behavior exhibited by true scientists.

MeAlice on February 11, 2010 at 10:24 PM

It’s really quite simple. An average annual rainfall of 50 inches per year could mean 75 inches in year 1, 80 inches in year 2 and 15 inches in year 3. Obviously temperatures would not deviate so dramatically.

Most geologists believe we are in a interstitial period between ice ages. This would mean a TEMPORARY warming trend of perhaps 40-50 years and a temporary cooling trend of, perhaps, the same amount of time for centuries and centuries- but the long distance future promises cooler temperatures and re-advancing glaciers.

When you get socialism,however, ideology trumps science-and , of course, we all know it could just as easily be about global cooling or the declining population of some insignificant butterfly. It’s just an excuse to get social engineers to manipulate and micro-manage your lives. Such fascist fanatics would naturally view “heretics” as “unpatriotic”-because you threaten their dominance.

MaiDee on February 11, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Childhood icon status DESTROYED.

darii on February 11, 2010 at 10:56 PM

well, I’m sure all the warmists have gone to bed by now, but I just watched this clip from BBC of all places:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzb8FljvGGI&feature=player_embedded#

Our Progressive Poodle Press will hardly touch this. You’d think after The Guardian and the BBC gets interested our guys might awake from their love affair, but sadly we have to depend on the UK, Australia, etc.

Fortunately we have the internet.

r keller on February 11, 2010 at 11:12 PM

If you didn’t make it to the end of the tape–and who could blame you–you missed the “Science Guy” say: “The main thing is the IPCC got a Nobel Prize, they got a scientific prize for making a discovery. They didn’t get a minor award. This is a big deal. They discovered climate change through all kinds of evidence and it’s something we all should be very, very concerned about.”

Holy cow. Is this guy for real?

SukieTawdry on February 11, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Never trust a guy wearing a bow tie, said I about Nye.

If you have any science behind Global Warming,
Present It!
Don’t bloviate it

Kini on February 11, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Childhood icon status DESTROYED.

darii on February 11, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Fall back on Beakman!

daesleeper on February 11, 2010 at 11:52 PM

Childhood icon status DESTROYED.

darii on February 11, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Yup. :-(

Narutoboy on February 12, 2010 at 12:05 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

Ok, here’s one of many; but its very clearly detailed and explanatory how they deliberately manipulated data to force UHI warming onto rural readings so that an area showed warming it didn’t have.

http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/

If you want more, go to wattsupwiththat.com scroll and read for however long you’d care to… source data, original sources when available, numerical processes, etc. are provided for your entertainment and enlightenment.

But I’m sure all the adjustments to various rural areas, always adjusting the past lower and current temps higher to get the slope to look more drastic is just random mistakes… always in the same direction.

Or you know, something more acceptable sounding so we don’t have to admit that the adjustments are constant and used to inflate the warming numbers from minor/moderate to “OMG we’re all going to die”.

gekkobear on February 12, 2010 at 12:53 AM

The last time I heard someone equate belief in a scientific principal with patriotism was the Nazi party of Germany.
…..someone correct me if I’m wrong please?!

Great_Red_Dragon on February 12, 2010 at 1:00 AM

I also don’t know of any scientific method that requires a proof for any hypothesis before lending it a strong measure of credence. Do you?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:02 PM

You don’t? Really? I guess Carl Sagan was flat wrong about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. May he rest in peace. Claiming that we have to sacrifice trillions of dollars (Libs don’t have virgins, they have to use money) on the strength of assertions that haven’t panned out… that’s an extraordinary claim.

The CO2 water vapor feedback effect in nature has so far proved to be negative due to cloud formation and reflectivity. Increased carbon uptake by plants hasn’t helped AGW either.

Ever heard of Lysenko?

I’ll repeat my question slowly, Oakland:

Is… there… any… counterproof.. sufficient… to… disprove… alarmism… about increasing… CO2 ppm in the atmosphere… to 500 ppm?

Look, it’s simple: A credible hypothesis requires proof, or it’s just superstition. And if proof is required, then lack of proof (counter-proof) can disprove it. If the earth becomes a solid ball of ice to the point we have to shovel air into buckets and heat it up to breathe alarmist AGW theory will be disproved. Do you understand?

theCork on February 12, 2010 at 2:51 AM

Well if AGW is real (it is not, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is), then nuking a few states (China, Saudi Arabia, NW Pakistan and North Korea) should usher in enough of a Nuclear Winter to stop it and with a about a billion or so less folks on the planet we’d all have a access to more parking space. Well Libtards what about it?!?

In graduate school I heard a lecture just after the Gulf War about the soot and material coming out of all those burning Kuwaiti oil wells. Everyone thought at the time that all that soot would get into the atmosphere and cool down the planet; a mini Nuclear Winter as it were. Well air samples taken a few months after these things were torched, and with most still burning, showed that the vast majority of the soot was coming back down within about a 200 mile radius of the oil fields. Moral: experiment trumps theory.

AGW suffers from fraudulent data and as such falls in the realm of science fiction. If you must make data fit theory, you have nothing.

So now I’ll do to this Nye guy what the Libtards have been doing to scientists who dare question AGW, or even just global warming (another poorly written piece of science fiction):

NYE SHUT THE F$%K UP YOU STUPID PR&*K!!! YOU DON’T HAVE A PHD, YOU HAVE STUPID BOWTIE, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE AN UNEDUCATED FOOL WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT!! I HAVE A PHD IN CHEMISTRY AND YOU HAVE TROUBLE SPELLING CHEMISTRY!!

Payback’s a Bitch!

Bubba Redneck on February 12, 2010 at 2:59 AM

Oakland, I have three simple questions also, please. Each requires nothing more than numbers for answers. Thanks in advance for not writing anything except numbers since words don’t/can’t answer the question.
 
What should Earth’s temperature be right now?
 
What should Earth’s temperature be ten thousand years from now?
 
What should Earth’s temperature have been ten thousand years ago?

rogerb on February 12, 2010 at 4:34 AM

My 7th gr. son’s assignment was to find examples of bias in the news, movies, or commercials.

At my suggestion, he used “manmade global warming”. We decided anyone with half a brain is unbiased. That leaves the bias to the MSM, politicians, and “science”.

He deserves an A in my book.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 12, 2010 at 4:45 AM

The warm mongers must be getting desperate for a new messenger if they are rolling out the Matthew Lesko of science.

Get him a suit with hurricane swirls and some multi color goofy glasses Al Gore could be in real trouble of losing his title.

Mr Purple on February 12, 2010 at 6:19 AM

The last time I heard someone equate belief in a scientific principal with patriotism was the Nazi party of Germany.
…..someone correct me if I’m wrong please?!

Great_Red_Dragon on February 12, 2010 at 1:00 AM

I’m not sure. When was “Brave New World” written?

Squiggy on February 12, 2010 at 6:21 AM

Great_Red_Dragon on February 12, 2010 at 1:00 AM

T.D. Lysenko is a good example of what happens when an unproven scientific theory is advanced thru political force and skeptics are attacked or punished.

In an actual, level headed discussion about the subject I don’t think you’d want to bring the Nazi’s into the discussion – but the lessons of Lysenkoism should absolutely be a part of the discussion.

Mr Purple on February 12, 2010 at 6:42 AM

After reading two recent threads here at Hot Air, I have concluded the following:
It would be easier to convince the Pope that God does not exist that to convince Warmist that Global Warming is not man made.

(The Warmist beat-downs are quite amusing . . .)

BigAlSouth on February 12, 2010 at 7:08 AM

Heh, that’s pretty similar to what I was thinking BigAl. About as easy as convincing Rage Boy to convert to Judaism.

Anyway, the burden of proof (or supporting data/documentation) is on them, and the case just absolutely reeks at this point. The climate models have been dead wrong, the apocalyptic scare-mongering has been wrong, they were manipulating what got published and peer reviewed, and they were manipulating data in a very suspicious way, and did I mention, it’s not getting warmer?

The whole thing is a big expensive farce.

Anybody who doesn’t at least have some strong skepticism at this point is a True Believer.

forest on February 12, 2010 at 8:04 AM

This guys a freaking clown!

TrickyDick on February 12, 2010 at 8:24 AM

Wow. Of course it’s generational, Bill. The “younger people” that you are referring to have spent their entire young lives listening to a pretty well orchestrated campaign of enviroweenie propaganda from liberal douchebags like you.

To reject your bullspit now would actually be quite remarkable. Happily, some of us do figure it out.

Jaibones on February 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Exactly. Translation: It’s easier to make younger kids fall for this from a position of authority as ‘educator’ while it’s harder to get independent thinkers to buy it.

Dash on February 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

drjohn on February 12, 2010 at 8:38 AM

I think it’s a ridiculous comment for him to make, but pointing out that he isn’t a climatologist is ridiculous as well. He’s more thoroughly versed in science (i would argue) than most – if not all – of us commenting here.

We’re perfectly comfortable commenting on the science without a Phd in climate science – he’s welcome to his take on the scientific merit of the research that’s been done. I may be playing the apostate here, but I don’t have a problem with his view of the literature, only the ridiculous comment i feel he was goaded into by Maddow.

Even if this post had a valid point – aren’t we fulfilling the liberal contingent of the media’s view of conservatives by treating it as raw meat thrown to hungry dogs?

The ‘patriotism’ argument is a ridiculous one to make – and he should be called on the floor for that – but can we stop the ad hominem attacks in favor of pointing out the flaws in his statement?

blish on February 12, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Who would you rather believe?

Bill Nye or Freeman Dyson?

http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php

That’s kinda like comparing a roller skate to
a Corvette.

rrplyler on February 12, 2010 at 9:00 AM

I don’t think we need to respond to the idiots orange or oakland anymore, it’s obvious they have nothing to add (and perhaps never did).

When oakland stated outright she couldn’t even imagine a counter argument to AGW that would convince her to stop supporting junk science, it became obvious that this is her religion, science had nothing to do with it.

Thanks for playing everyone!

runawayyyy on February 12, 2010 at 9:32 AM

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

1) There is no such thing as a “climate scientist”.
2) The myth that the majority of scientists who’s work touches on aspects of climate agree that AGW is real was exploded years ago.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:03 AM

My kids loved Mister Wizard’s World,

Deanna on February 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM

“We’re gonna need another Timmy.”

Oh, that was Mr. Lizard.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM

he has no science degree whatsoever related to climate)?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

The head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:07 AM

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

1) From the vast majority of the scientific literature.
2) It’s believing in stupid things that makes you an idiot.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:10 AM

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

Because he speaks the truth and backs it up with evidence and logic.
Something the IPCC has never managed to do.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:11 AM

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

Using un-cooked data, show that the warming of the last 100 years is in any way unusual.
(There have been 3, possibly 4 times in the last 5000 years, when the earth was warmer than today. Several of these were much warmer.)

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:13 AM

The “patriots” who control the temperature, the sea level, and the global climate in general are closed down because of an “unexpected major snow storm.”

A political snow job closed down by nature’s snow job: priceless!!!

landlines on February 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM

I also don’t know of any scientific method that requires a proof for any hypothesis before lending it a strong measure of credence. Do you?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 7:02 PM

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.

Until then, a hypothesis is nothing more than a guess as to what might be happening. AGW was put forth as a hypothesis, then disproven by real world data.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4