Bill Nye's Crazy Response/Challenge To Tucker Carlson

[Larry Gude]

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."

Nice try. No sale. If X and Y don't add up to the Z you claim, it's not my faith that says they don't add up. If it were, I'd not so readily concede that it still COULD be. I merely state that the evidence FOR is weak and getting weaker. That's not faith. It's reason.

If you like Tuckers mud fest, by all means. I don't see how it helps any of us.

 

[Larry Gude]

, you see that CO2 levels LAG warming.

That's not news to me. I just see no utility in this rather simple argument of how wrong they both are into a battle of the data points. Regardless of what rising CO2 levels do, one is obligated to state a little more than 'they're rising and we're all gonna die!'

 

[Wishbone]

one is obligated to state a little more than 'they're rising and we're all gonna die!'

Rule one of propaganda... Keep the message simple.

 

[This_person]

Nice try. No sale. If X and Y don't add up to the Z you claim, it's not my faith that says they don't add up. If it were, I'd not so readily concede that it still COULD be. I merely state that the evidence FOR is weak and getting weaker. That's not faith. It's reason.

You don't have the arrogance turned back on you because you don't have the arrogance in the first place.

If you like Tuckers mud fest, by all means. I don't see how it helps any of us.

I like it when people are proven wrong using their own logic. That's fun to me.

 

[Larry Gude]

Rule one of propaganda... Keep the message simple.

 

[This_person]

That's not news to me. I just see no utility in this rather simple argument of how wrong they both are into a battle of the data points. Regardless of what rising CO2 levels do, one is obligated to state a little more than 'they're rising and we're all gonna die!'

EXACTLY! Especially when the opposite appears to be true.

However, Nye presented himself as an expert saying exactly that, though.

 

[Larry Gude]

I like it when people are proven wrong using their own logic. That's fun to me.

But Tucker didn't prove him wrong. Intuitively, we KNOW all the oil we burn impacts the climate same as we know inhaling cigarette smoke is impacting our bodies. The question is WHAT is happening and why. It's easy to show nicotine's impact in harming tissue, especially lung tissue. Tucker wanted to get in the mud and no one wins that. Everyone is muddy.

 

[This_person]

Intuitively, we KNOW all the oil we burn impacts the climate same as we know inhaling cigarette smoke is impacting our bodies.

When you inhale a cigarette, I suspect the smoke is a significant portion of the air you are putting into your lungs. The whole CO2 concentration of the global atmosphere is 0.04%. Another word for that percentage is "insignificant". It's the highest it has ever been (as far as we can guess) at "insignificant".

I do not KNOW the impact is comparable. I think it is more comparable to the amount of dead-skin dust you breath in when around 10 people vs. when around just yourself. I think that's the impact all the oil we burn matters.