Bill Nye's Crazy Response/Challenge To Tucker Carlson

[GURPS]

MUST WATCH: Bill Nye's Crazy Response/Challenge To Tucker Carlson



As The Daily Wire and others reported, Nye's appearance on Carlson's hit Fox News show in February did not go particularly well (video below). The problem came down to Nye's inability to answer some very fundamental questions on the theory of man-made global warming, on which Nye presents himself as somewhat of an expert, despite not being a climatologist, meteorologist, or any other kind of -ologist for that matter.

"To what degree is climate change caused by human activity?" Carlson asked Nye. "Is it 100 percent caused by human activity, is it 74.3 percent? It’s 'settled science,' please tell us to what degree human activity is responsible." That question proved to be a bit too direct for Nye, who eventually resorted to: "100 percent! If that’s the number you want. Humans are causing it to happen catastrophically fast."


-----------------------------------------------


In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

 

[PsyOps]

Consensus to these people is... those that agree with global warming are the real scientists; those that don't aren't real scientists, therefore they don't count.

 

[GURPS]

Consensus to these people is... those that agree with global warming are the real scientists; those that don't aren't real scientists, therefore they don't count.

the science has to be settled otherwise the agenda falls apart ..... you cannot demand billions be spent to change behavior if the science is still up for debate

 

[Wishbone]

The reason it MUST be agreed upon and ACCEPTED is... It is Scripture! Tenet! Gospel!

This isn't a scientific examination. It's religion.

All Hail The Wise and Powerful Gore!

 

[PsyOps]

the science has to be settled otherwise the agenda falls apart ..... you cannot demand billions be spent to change behavior if the science is still up for debate

If the global warming advocates completely shut out debate, because they believe it's settled, there is no debate.

 

[Larry Gude]

This is exactly why I don't like Tucker; he drills down to being obnoxious and any chance of conversation goes out the window once boiled down the tried and true "Why can't you answer my question? Why won't you answer my simple question? You won't answer my question. Answer my question." Left or right, it's all about the gotcha, declare victory and avoid, at all costs, an actual conversation. I'm no fan of Nye, at all, but there is no reasonable way to paint this...encounter...as some sort of big win for Tucker. Or for Nye.

 

[GURPS]

.... once boiled down the tried and true "Why can't you answer my question? Why won't you answer my simple question? You won't answer my question. Answer my question."

if you don't answer the question, how can there be a discussion

 

[Larry Gude]

if you don't answer the question, how can there be a discussion

I'm not trying to give Nye a pass. He SHOULD have said "Tucker, obviously, knowing the EXACT specific percentage of human activities contribution is problematic and it's not a simple thing to calculate the EXACTE increase in rate of change over what might have been expected and predicted. However, when there is smoke, you don't ask specifically how hot the fire is and specifically how big it is and how, specifically, fast it will destroy the house. You, at the very least, begin to take some action and try and get it under control. You don't just stick your head in the sand and say "I'm not doing a thing until we got us a YUGE fire."

Nye should have said "Yeah, Tucker, you have a point about specificity but that is the point of science; the hypothesis is that burning enormous amounts of oil rather likely is going to harm the environment. So, we work at it and work at it. Tucker, you sound like an apologist for smoking that denies any risk, at all, to setting a weed on fire and inhaling it, until you're dying in the hospital from emphysema."

Tucker and Nye aren't helping anyone.

 

[This_person]

I'm not trying to give Nye a pass. He SHOULD have said "Tucker, obviously, knowing the EXACT specific percentage of human activities contribution is problematic and it's not a simple thing to calculate the EXACTE increase in rate of change over what might have been expected and predicted. However, when there is smoke, you don't ask specifically how hot the fire is and specifically how big it is and how, specifically, fast it will destroy the house. You, at the very least, begin to take some action and try and get it under control. You don't just stick your head in the sand and say "I'm not doing a thing until we got us a YUGE fire."

Nye should have said "Yeah, Tucker, you have a point about specificity but that is the point of science; the hypothesis is that burning enormous amounts of oil rather likely is going to harm the environment. So, we work at it and work at it. Tucker, you sound like an apologist for smoking that denies any risk, at all, to setting a weed on fire and inhaling it, until you're dying in the hospital from emphysema."

Tucker and Nye aren't helping anyone.

In my opinion, Nye should have said, "Tucker, I'm a mechanical engineer and TV personality - I have no real idea what I'm talking about on global warming and can't substantively answer your question. Also, you make a great point that we don't know a percentage because we're not even sure that it's happening, let alone what the causes are; and, we really can't predict what would have happened without humans because, frankly, we exist. Is pollution bad, Tucker? Of course it is, and we should try to limit pollution. But, without providing a massive fear campaign, we can't force people to do what we want, and spread the wealth of the United States and a few other major world economic powers to the smaller, weaker countries. So, we've made up this plan, which in itself has sound basic concepts of reducing pollution, to control people and spread that wealth."

That would have been the right answer.

 

[Larry Gude]

In my opinion, Nye should have said, "Tucker, I'm a mechanical engineer and TV personality - I have no real idea what I'm talking about on global warming and can't substantively answer your question. Also, you make a great point that we don't know a percentage because we're not even sure that it's happening, let alone what the causes are; and, we really can't predict what would have happened without humans because, frankly, we exist. Is pollution bad, Tucker? Of course it is, and we should try to limit pollution. But, without providing a massive fear campaign, we can't force people to do what we want, and spread the wealth of the United States and a few other major world economic powers to the smaller, weaker countries. So, we've made up this plan, which in itself has sound basic concepts of reducing pollution, to control people and spread that wealth."

That would have been the right answer.

But he DOES have an idea. And he does not claim to know things he does not know. I totally reject this 'you gotta be a fireman or you can't comment on the fire' horse####. I reject the 'it's a black thing/woman thing/gay thing/Native American thing/ boy thing/ girl thing, you wouldn't understand line. You don't need to be a heart surgeon to understand the basics. You don't need to be a nuclear physicist to understand the basics. In fact, we'd be a whole lot better if more of us were weighing in ON THE basics. We know a LOT more about photosynthesis than maybe we think and people are afraid to speak out because someone will reject them because they're not an 'expert'. So, we fall in line, as intended, when someone denounces us for not being 'expert' enough to say "Dunno, man. Smells like a fire to me."

I don't fault Nye for using his weight, his celebrity, for whatever the heck he can pull of off. To me, that simply means Tucker, because it's his show, maybe ought to be a little better at asking questions IF conversation is what he wants. Maybe Tucker is doing EXACTLY what he intends; just have little pissy squabbles.

And FWIW, your comment is wrong. We should NOT reflexively say we 'should' try and limit pollution. We SHOULD say we should be concerned. But, then, science. WHAT if we ARE elevating CO2 levels? Is that automatically bad? Heck, is it GOOD?

And we only have that conversation...by having it.

 

[Wishbone]

If elevated CO2 levels were a good or bad thing, wouldn't DC be the prime example either way?

 

[Larry Gude]

If elevated CO2 levels were a good or bad thing, wouldn't DC be the prime example either way?

Not necessarily. Someone's gotta consume all that greenhouse gas, O2, that our big 'ol greenhouse emits.

 

[This_person]

But he DOES have an idea. And he does not claim to know things he does not know. I totally reject this 'you gotta be a fireman or you can't comment on the fire' horse####. I reject the 'it's a black thing/woman thing/gay thing/Native American thing/ boy thing/ girl thing, you wouldn't understand line. You don't need to be a heart surgeon to understand the basics. You don't need to be a nuclear physicist to understand the basics. In fact, we'd be a whole lot better if more of us were weighing in ON THE basics. We know a LOT more about photosynthesis than maybe we think and people are afraid to speak out because someone will reject them because they're not an 'expert'. So, we fall in line, as intended, when someone denounces us for not being 'expert' enough to say "Dunno, man. Smells like a fire to me."

I don't fault Nye for using his weight, his celebrity, for whatever the heck he can pull of off. To me, that simply means Tucker, because it's his show, maybe ought to be a little better at asking questions IF conversation is what he wants. Maybe Tucker is doing EXACTLY what he intends; just have little pissy squabbles.

And FWIW, your comment is wrong. We should NOT reflexively say we 'should' try and limit pollution. We SHOULD say we should be concerned. But, then, science. WHAT if we ARE elevating CO2 levels? Is that automatically bad? Heck, is it GOOD?

And we only have that conversation...by having it.

If he were to speak as a layman on the subject, I would agree with you. He was speaking as an expert on climatology, on the science involved. The science is anything but even close to settled, and strongly indicative that it is NOT man-influenced. CO2 levels lag warming, not lead it. Planetary alignment, as I posted in a couple of threads, is more likely the cause. But, that wasn't Nye's position - Nye specifically said it is 100% man-induced warming.

So, you are correct that a person does not need to be the expert to offer an opinion; when offering an expert opinion, you need to be an expert.

I DO fault Nye for using his celebrity. I reject any celebrity using their celebrity to offer lay opinions. Their lay opinions are as useful as yours, mine, or the guy asking you to give him cash for gas at Wawa. If Snoop wants to talk about sound mixing, I'm in. If Nye wants to talk about putting on a kids' science show, I'm in. If either wants to talk about politics, I'll talk with the Wawa guy - more interesting.

Reflexively, you don't think it is obvious minimizing pollution (in general) is a good thing?

 

[Larry Gude]

If he were to speak as a layman on the subject, I would agree with you. He was speaking as an expert on climatology, on the science involved. ?

That was not my impression. If he'd said that, presented himself as a climatologist, it still doesn't excuse Tucker from turning the thing into 'how many digits can you take Pi out to?', a pedantic exercise in specificity that no actual expert would dare try and claim. Tuckers the host. It's his show. He didn't want to have a conversation. He wanted to embarrass Nye and turn the thing into a pissing contest and that doesn't help any of us. Except Tucker and, I guess, Nye.

 

[GURPS]

If Nye wants to talk about putting on a kids' science show, I'm in. If either wants to talk about politics, I'll talk with the Wawa guy - more interesting.

Nye is not a scientist ... he is educated as an Engineer

Sarah Palin Is Right: Bill Nye Is No Scientist

Case in point: her recent declaration that former television star Bill Nye “the Science Guy” is, in fact, “not a scientist.”

In a very real and important sense, this is true. But before we get to that, it’s worth reflecting on the fairly absurd reaction this has generated throughout a wide swath of the media. CNN, CBS, Time, U.S. News and World Report, Yahoo, the New York Daily News, Us Weekly—each of these outlets reported on Palin’s remarks as if it were actual news instead of just a throwaway line from a fading political star. The debacle was trending on social media, and many people rushed to poor Nye’s aid. Mic provided the answer to the burning question on everybody’s lips: Is Bill Nye a real scientist? “He is,” says Mic.

Our media cannot reliably and competently investigate the wholesale butchery and auctioning of unborn human beings or the criminal activity of one of the Democratic candidates for president, but they can sure jump on top of Sarah Palin’s remarks about a washed-up 1990s Saturday morning TV star.

FactCheck.Org Says Bill Nye Is A Scientist Because He Has Honorary Degrees In Science

Bill Nye is a dorky kid’s show host who liberals have pegged as an expert “scientist” on global warming despite his complete lack of credentials in the felid or science in general. Recently Sarah Palin questioned Nye’s scientific bona fides and liberals hit the roof. Luckily FactCheck.org has stepped in to settle the matter. It turns out that Bill Nye is a scientist because he has honorary degrees in science. No, I did not make that up.

Last week, Sarah Palin said, “Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am. He’s a kids’ show actor; he’s not a scientist.”

FactCheck decided to put that statement to the test by first showing that Palin is not a scientist. I guess they missed that she wasn’t claiming to be a scientist. Her point was that Bill Nye isn’t a scientist either.

On that, FactCheck is caught reaching:

Nye described himself as part of the “scientific community.” Since his background is in engineering… he explained, “engineers use science to solve problems and make things.”​

Bill Nye Is Many Things - But, He's Not a Real 'Science Guy'


Bill Nye, who goes by the nom de plume, “the science guy,” said in an interview with Climate Depot's Marc Morano, that he doesn't mind the the idea of jailing people who are skeptical of the manmade global warming hypothesis. Nye's attack on the First Amendment would be an extreme one for anybody. But, when one considers that the children's TV entertainer is NOT A SCIENTIST and has, at times, even been ridiculed by climate experts, his comment are even more outrageous.

During the interview, Morano asked Nye about Robert F. Kennedy's call to jail climate skeptics for treason and lock them up at The Hague (video of the segment is at bottom of this post)

Nye, who has been a vocal supporter of the climate change hypothesis, isn't any more qualified to speak about climate science than any other non-scientist:

• He has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell University, and worked at Boeing in the mechanical engineering department,
• His entry into TV was not because of any science expertise, but because he won a Steve Martin look-alike contest and began moonlighting as a stand-up comic by night,
• Eventually, he quit Boeing and became a comedy writer and performer on a sketch comedy television show in Seattle, Washington, called Almost Live! The host of the show, Ross Shafer, suggested he do some scientific demonstrations in a six-minute segment, and take on the nickname "The Science Guy."

At times, Nye gets treated like Rodney Dangerfield and gets no respect. Like the time the liberal Washington Post's weather editor Jason Samenow (who actually has a master's degree in atmospheric science from the University of Wisconsin) viewed Nye speaking about climate change on MSNBC and was motivated to write a column absolutely eviscerating the children's TV star. Samenow said that Nye's performance "was one of the most flawed discussions of meteorology I’ve ever seen on a national network." He continued:

In likening the blizzard and hurricane Sandy, Nye implies both storms originated off the coast from Africa, which is wrong. (...) Nye then draws an absurd comparison between East Coast storms and West Coast storms in an attempt to equate them.

“If you live on the West Coast … that same type of storm is called a Sou’wester,” Nye says. “If you go to the sailboat store you can get a Nor’easter hat in New England but it’s a Sou’wester hat in Seattle.”

Big problem: storms typically hit Seattle from the west not from the south. They don’t form off the Pacific coast of Los Angeles or San Francisco and charge northward. In my entire life, (until watching Nye’s comments) I had never heard the term “Sou’wester” used in reference to a West Coast storm (a Google search reveals there is an apartment complex and a lodge with such a name in the region – but I couldn’t find a meteorological reference).​

 

[This_person]

That was not my impression. If he'd said that, presented himself as a climatologist, it still doesn't excuse Tucker from turning the thing into 'how many digits can you take Pi out to?', a pedantic exercise in specificity that no actual expert would dare try and claim. Tuckers the host. It's his show. He didn't want to have a conversation. He wanted to embarrass Nye and turn the thing into a pissing contest and that doesn't help any of us. Except Tucker and, I guess, Nye.

I accept we have different impressions. But, as you say, it's Tucker's show, and as a non-scientist Tucker was making the point the science is anything but settled. That's the only impression I got from the back-and-forth on the percentage-question.

Reflexively, you don't think it is obvious minimizing pollution (in general) is a good thing?

 

[Larry Gude]

If But, that wasn't Nye's position - Nye specifically said it is 100% man-induced warming. ?

Thus making my point. Tucker wanted to badger him into saying something, anything, that could be used as a 'gotcha'. In context of Nye's point, the hypothesis, the contention, IF climate change has been accelerated by human activity, then, by default, 100% of human cause climate change acceleration is...human caused climate change acceleration.

And no, in and of itself, I don't think minimizing pollution is a good thing. It has to be a good thing for a reason. As I've said any number of times, elevated CO2 levels, however they're getting there, us, the sun, burning oil, there is every bit as valid an argument that it may be a good thing rather than this inane presumption that it is CHANGE, and, therefore MUST be bad. Even smoking has benefits. Stress relief. Nicotine, as harmful as it is to the smoker, also kills germs. I think, on the whole, smoking is something one really ought not do but if you can't take out the behavior many deal with absent smoking; MORE stress, eat too much, eat for stress, etc.

To that end, CO2 is getting the bums rush and, specifically, the anti's do NOT talk about a climate that is CO2 enriched, ENRICHED, and the positive effects on PLANT life and thus the positives as a GREENER planet that may well moderate temperature extremes even if it, MAYBE, raises over temps by a couple degrees; perhaps the colder and hotter areas moderate. We can't say that warming is a net negative even if we COULD say, and we can't, that rising CO2 levels are even causing warming.


So, the whole things falls back on....climate change. And it takes the position, the UN scientific position of assuming man made climate change is, de facto, BAD.

 

[Larry Gude]

I accept we have different impressions. But, as you say, it's Tucker's show, and as a non-scientist Tucker was making the point the science is anything but settled. That's the only impression I got from the back-and-forth on the percentage-question.

Reflexively, you don't think it is obvious minimizing pollution (in general) is a good thing?

Oh, you stepped right into that one! Tucker, the non expert is declaring Nye, the non expert, as an invalid source of good information??? That is no more logical or reasonable than what Nye is being accused of. Tucker is claiming an expertise on Nye's position? Tucker no more knows Nye IS wrong than Nye knows he IS right.

 

[This_person]

Thus making my point. Tucker wanted to badger him into saying something, anything, that could be used as a 'gotcha'. In context of Nye's point, the hypothesis, the contention, IF climate change has been accelerated by human activity, then, by default, 100% of human cause climate change acceleration is...human caused climate change acceleration.

And no, in and of itself, I don't think minimizing pollution is a good thing. It has to be a good thing for a reason. As I've said any number of times, elevated CO2 levels, however they're getting there, us, the sun, burning oil, there is every bit as valid an argument that it may be a good thing rather than this inane presumption that it is CHANGE, and, therefore MUST be bad. Even smoking has benefits. Stress relief. Nicotine, as harmful as it is to the smoker, also kills germs. I think, on the whole, smoking is something one really ought not do but if you can't take out the behavior many deal with absent smoking; MORE stress, eat too much, eat for stress, etc.

To that end, CO2 is getting the bums rush and, specifically, the anti's do NOT talk about a climate that is CO2 enriched, ENRICHED, and the positive effects on PLANT life and thus the positives as a GREENER planet that may well moderate temperature extremes even if it, MAYBE, raises over temps by a couple degrees; perhaps the colder and hotter areas moderate. We can't say that warming is a net negative even if we COULD say, and we can't, that rising CO2 levels are even causing warming.


So, the whole things falls back on....climate change. And it takes the position, the UN scientific position of assuming man made climate change is, de facto, BAD.

Well, they say that because that's the best way to get money from the wealthy and give it to the poor (via, of course, the politicians in the poorer countries).

If you look at the geologically-long-term temperature vs. CO2 charts, you see that CO2 levels LAG warming. The implication is clear to a layman - we cooled, which killed plants, which raised the CO2 levels. As we warmed, plants came back, which lowered the CO2 levels. No cause-effect of CO2 to temperature, but rather the other way around.

 

[This_person]

Oh, you stepped right into that one! Tucker, the non expert is declaring Nye, the non expert, as an invalid source of good information??? That is no more logical or reasonable than what Nye is being accused of. Tucker is claiming an expertise on Nye's position? Tucker no more knows Nye IS wrong than Nye knows he IS right.

Of course he does! Tucker used Nye's arrogance against him. It's like me with atheists - "ok, if you need to have a peer-reviewed, repeatable test to 'prove' something, show me your peer-reviewed, repeatable test of the origin of the universe. Oh, you can't, then by your own standards you are just full of faith, not fact, just like me." Tucker did the same thing, use the arrogance of the other side against him - "ok, it's settled, then give me the stark details. Oh, you cant? Then by your own standards you are lying."