Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Tucker Carlson’s heated debate with Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”

Tucker Carlson’s heated debate with Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”

Any resemblance to real science in Nye’s replies is purely coincidental.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQBm2eKoRAg

The last time we checked in with Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”, he was indicating that jail might be an appropriate place for climate change skeptics in an interview referencing the targeting of Exxon Mobil:

..Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive, and so on?”

“In these cases, for me, as a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen,” Mr. Nye said. “So I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this.”

Nye was Tucker Carlson’s guest last night, and this statement was referenced in FNC host’s introduction of the science-based entertainer:

The main point of inquiry that Carlson was attempting to have Nye answer was specific proof that human beings are the cause of the climate changes that are allegedly occurring. In response, Nye unleashed a flood of non-sequitors, and was upset when Carlson succinctly returned to the main question several times.

Despite Nye’s assertions that skeptics have “cognitive dissonance”, many scientists are “underwhelmed” by the evidence for man-made climate change. In fact, over 300 recently petitioned President Trump to abandon the UN Climate Change agency.

…In a Thursday letter to the president, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen called on the United States and other nations to “change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases,” starting with carbon dioxide.

“Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” said Mr. Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric physicist.

And, unlike Nye, these petitioners have degrees in actual climate science.

Carlson continued to hammer Nye on what the climate would look like without man…then Nye painted a dire picture of man causing wine grapes to grow in Britain:

“The climate would be like it was in 1750. And the economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today because the climate is changing. The use of pesticides in the Midwest would not be increasing because the pests are showing up sooner and staying around longer. The forests in Wyoming would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change. That’s how the world would be different if it were not for humans”.

I assert anything that expands wine country is a net positive, but that must be my “cognitive dissonance” kicking in. Furthermore, there is no proof that the climate would be as it was in 1750, when the world was coming out of a Maunder Minimum sun cycle scientifically known to impact global temperatures.

Because I hold a degree in geology, and spent many days of my college career puzzling out the glacial history of the Great Lakes region, Nye’s statements about ice ages were especially astonishing.

Nye kept insisting that man has accelerated the rate of global warming to the point we will never have another Ice Age. The reality is that we are in an “Interglacial Period“, and the start of Ice Age is theorized to be the result of a number of factors:

…During the present ice age, glaciers have advanced and retreated over 20 times, often blanketing North America with ice. Our climate today is actually a warm interval between these many periods of glaciation. The most recent period of glaciation, which many people think of as the “Ice Age,” was at its height approximately 20,000 years ago.

Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.

In fact, this interglacial period may still have between 8,000 and 42,000 years of delicious warmth left.

Nye should be grateful they don’t jail entertainers pretending to be something that they are not, as this episode clearly shows he has little understanding of science.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Isn’t the excuse of “the science is settled” kinda like saying the ball game is over a half time?

    When your “science” is based on predictive models that you won’t open to peer review and which require “adjusted” data to be even marginally correct, no, the science is not settled. Saying it is belies a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Either that or you are a f-ing liar.

      Tom Servo in reply to Paul. | March 1, 2017 at 8:18 am

      I think the most telling part of this interview was the end, when Bill Nye quit trying to even talk about climate change (well he never did get past shrieking “The Science is Settled!! Settled I tell you!!!) and suddenly started ranting weird stuff about Donald Trump and “fake news”, I think, which no one had even mentioned up to that point.

      Someone should tell old Bill that if you’re trying to convince people that you are a Serious Scientist, ranting and raving about left wing political talking points isn’t the way to do it.

    Tom Servo in reply to Redneck Law. | March 1, 2017 at 8:20 am

    Yep. Like the Super Bowl was settled once Atlanta took that 25 point lead. Like Hillary was a shoe-in once the NYT gave her a 97% chance of winning.

    Redneck, you are correct. It is known in some circles as the (Atlanta) Falcons Fans’ Fallacy.

In a normal world, scientists who are repeatedly wrong, who create models that consistently fail, who make outlandish predictions that fail to materialize, etc., are scientists who lose credibility. Since these claims bleed into their manuscripts, other well grounded scientists would reject these manuscripts in the peer review process. With outrageous claims that fail to materialize and with a poor publication record, these scientists are gradually marginalized until they eventually become unemployed and science moves on.
>
This is how science is supposed to work for the ultimate arbitrator of reality is Mother Nature and not the scientist. If the scientist cannot correctly predict with any degree of consistency future events, then science ceases being science and becomes fortune telling.
>
Unfortunately, this world ceased to exist around ten years ago when the politicization and perversion of science was cemented in place by Obama. Obama knew that he could never justify his policies on their own merits so he supported global warming for fear of catastrophic climate change was just the cudgel he needed to institute his warped environmental policies. How else could he justify follies such as the destruction of the US coal industry or a doubling or more of our electric rates?
>
By politicizing science, by appointing global warming zealots into positions of power and influence, and so forth, Obama created a scientific environment akin to Lysenkoism. If you did not promise to perform research that started with the assumption global warming was real, then you were not funded. Editors were appointed that would not allow dissenting perspectives and skeptical criticisms of global warming. By refusing as much as possible any anti-global warming information to come out, real science was stifled and, of course, Mother Natured could not have cared less.
>
Obama then added to this witches brew the influence of the MSM who mocked everyone who was a “denier” such that even the most ignorant and least educated person in the country became an avid supporter of global warming. It became so absurd that I actually have had (as have several colleagues) incoming freshmen students with little to no science other than the politicized high school tripe, tell me, their freshman Chemistry professor, that I was an ignorant and poor chemist for I did not support the idea of global warming as did Obama.
>
The result is that now we have huge sums of wasted money spent on a nonexistent issue, a public who views sciences as being completely discredited, and public policies that are as destructive as they are absurd. Trump and honest scientists are now trying to right the ship of science, but there is so much inertia behind the “useful idiots” who cannot conceive of global warming not being real that this change will be sure to be slow and difficult.
>
Years from now people will marvel at not only how one terribly misguided person who chose to manipulate science and thereby cause enormous damage to the country and scientific study, but how the public was manipulated into believing this nonsense. And thus ends America’s own experiment with our own version of Lysenkoism.

    snopercod in reply to Cleetus. | March 1, 2017 at 10:25 am

    Bravo! I do think the history of the warmist mentality goes back much farther than 10 years, though. Human nature never changes and there have always been those who are susceptible to charlatans. Before the “environmentalists”, there was the anti-nuclear crowd. Before them, there was the anti-war crowd. Before them there was the “better red than dead” crowd, and so on. Usually, it’s the same people drifting from one movement to the next.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to snopercod. | March 1, 2017 at 5:03 pm

      Well in the 70’s and early 80’s you had the cooling trend crowd who predicted that by now we would be having another ice age.

        And the “population bomb” that was going to result in mass starvation around the globe. Some of the fools that were shrieking about that one are the same fools riding this sham into the ground.

casualobserver | March 1, 2017 at 8:02 am

Anyone claiming the position of “science” who tells you this is “settled” or in so many words says we are now post-debate, exposes their true tactics and motives. They’ve moved the topic from the realm of true science (skepticism and accepting of continuous challenge as Carlson noted) 100% into the realm of pure politics. It is truly astonishing that they continue to claim the high ground in the debate when even the most unscientific among us can see what is going on. And their frustration at losing the argument is palpable. It isn’t necessarily a question of “change”, but one of impact. And the climate catastrophe criers are losing credibility in their positions.

    Tom Servo in reply to casualobserver. | March 1, 2017 at 8:29 am

    Nye is such an ideological fool that he didn’t even see, or understand, the scientific trap that Carlson set for him. (and Tucker admits to being just a journalist, not a scientist)

    The trap was set when Tucker asked him, “what would the world have been like today without mans influence?”

    The proper Scientific answer is “weather is a classic example of what is known as a chaotic system in which multiple variables, not all of which are known, combine to produce an outcome. In a chaotic system it is impossible to know, by definition, the effect that changing just one variable may have.” THAT is what any honest, serious, scientist with experience in the field would have said.

    Instead, Nye took the bait and declared that temperatures would have been like they were in 1750. Not only did he just make this claim up off the top of his head (even among warmists, there is not a single published paper that advances this claim) but even worse, 1750 was the peak of the “Little Ice Age”, which began in the 1600’s and was a time when the Thames river froze over frequently. The “Little Ice Age” ended in the 1830’s or so, and the world has been gradually warming ever since.

    Now world temperatures are almost back to where they were in the 1200’s, the last time that grapes were commonly grown in southern England, and when the Vikings found that coastal Greenland was actually quite Green.

    If mankind is making temperatures this warm now, what did we do to make it so warm in the 1200’s? That question opens up the whole issue of why the warmists have been working so hard to eliminate any references to the Medieval Warm Period – it doesn’t fit The Narrative at all.

      openeyes in reply to Tom Servo. | March 2, 2017 at 4:00 pm

      The growing grapes in England and northern France bit got me laughing real hard. Why on Earth would that be viewed as a negative? It is actually a positive effect of climate change!

      Typical Socialist/Totalitarian mindview that you can’t change your place in the world: “By Golly, if your grandpa and Pa raised barley and oats, what makes you think you can switch to grapes?”.

Science may have brought us Britain’s grapes. The university of Minnesota engineered a cold weather grape from the Pinot noir line. Picked up a case when I was in Minnesota last year. It is a very nice wine, now being grown in New England and possibly Britain, but Nye was vague in that conclusion as well as his other arguments.

Bill Nye is merely an ass!

you could build a corollary of the phase “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”, just substitute “science” for “law”, could also have second
“if the facts don’t fit, change them”.

by the way what happened to “you have to be a climatologist to criticize climate, Bill has nothing to do with climate.

what ever happened to scientists being “skeptics”??

I could go on and on, but that’s it for now.

Leslie Eastman: In fact, over 300 recently petitioned President Trump to abandon the UN Climate Change agency.

How many are named “Steve”?

(Very few of the 300 have ever published research on climate.)

    mailman in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 10:48 am

    The number is neither here nor there (and I wish people wouldn’t make these kinds of arguments!). What is important is that many HAVE published papers that are relevant to climate.

    The real issue with Mann Made Global Warming ™ is that the field of climate scientology has become SO heavily politicised as to be virtually worthless.

    On top of that think of the countless hospitals, schools, LEO and so on that COULD have been paid for with all those trillions that have quite literally been p1ssed in to the wind chasing ground unicorn horn power generation!

    Think of the countless people who have died thanks to all that money being diverted from their care to the pockets of land owners and people like Musk (who is the worlds largest recipient of tax dollars).

    One day we will look back on this and wonder why we were so committed to economic and cultural suicide.

      mailman: What is important is that many HAVE published papers that are relevant to climate.

      Most are either tangential to the issue of anthropogenic climate change, or insufficient to convince the vast majority of their colleagues to change their minds.

      The science on climate change is solid, but we’d be happy to look at any specific research paper you think shows otherwise.

      mailman: On top of that think of the countless hospitals, schools, LEO and so on that COULD have been paid for with all those trillions that have quite literally been p1ssed in to the wind chasing ground unicorn horn power generation!

      China has significantly increased their green power generation, and are set to become the international provider of green energy solutions.

      mailman: One day we will look back on this and wonder why we were so committed to economic and cultural suicide.

      That’s right. This may be the moment where the U.S. loses its competitive edge, and has to import green technology rather than export it. However, we have a great deal of confidence in American ingenuity, so they may yet surprise us.

        Tom Servo in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 11:13 am

        The Chinese bet a huge amount of money (maybe $40 billion?) on the hope that Maduro in Venezuela would get his countries act together. and that they could use this to become a big economic player in South American, in areas that the US and Europe were steering clear of.

        Now that Venezuela’s economy and oil production are both falling precipitously, the Chinese are having to deal with the fact that all of this money has been lost, and will have to be written off as a very bad bet.

        The Chinese aren’t the incredible business geniuses that your lot likes to make them out to be.

          Tom Servo: The Chinese aren’t the incredible business geniuses that your lot likes to make them out to be.

          Never said they were, nor does our position require that they be so.

        tphillip in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 11:17 am

        You’re a bit slow.

        All of these “green” “power sources” require a number of rare earths to be manufactured.

        And who has a 95%+ lock on the Rare Earth market on this planet? China.

        So we already “import” our green energy and we never had a competitive edge. And Musk’s Solar City will go bust once the government pork vanishes and China starts exporting panels to the US in sufficient numbers.

        But while we’re on the subject, what competitive edge are we giving up by not being on the forefront of “green energy”? Please provide primary sources for your conclusion which quantifies what we’re losing, preferably as an actual dollar amount and not a projected future amount.

          tphillip: And who has a 95%+ lock on the Rare Earth market on this planet? China.

          That is incorrect. China is just a low-cost provider, so constitute about 90% of global production. Furthermore, when a particular resource is limited, markets often find substitutes, such as newly developed solar panels made with earth-abundant metals.

          tphillip: Please provide primary sources for your conclusion which quantifies what we’re losing, preferably as an actual dollar amount and not a projected future amount.

          We were referring to the future, not the present. As green energy is coming, those countries with the ability to best meet demand will be those that will most profit.

        mailman in reply to Zachriel. | March 2, 2017 at 3:54 am

        “Boehmer-Christiansen joined the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex in 1985, working for a decade as a Research Fellow and then later as a Visiting Fellow.[2][7][11] Since the mid-1990s she had taught environmental policy, management and politics in the Geography Department at the University of Hull.[3][8] As an Emeritus Reader she still works from the University of Hull’s Geography Department.[1][7]
        She is a past member of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)”

        On the other hand, when you have climate scientologists of the calibre of Mann, Trenberth, Jones….need I say more (I know, its a rhetorical question and Ill HAVE to say more to cut through the hand waving of the climate catastrophiliacs). But by all means, lets black dot on the sideshows and just plug your fingers in your ears while you rock gently back and forth Zach.

          mailman: Boehmer-Christiansen

          Her name is Sonja, not Steve or Stephanie or Etienne.

          mailman: need I say more

          Sure. As the letter is not a valid appeal to authority (authority not speaking to the consensus), that leaves the evidence. As said, the science on climate change is solid, but we’d be happy to look at any specific research paper you think shows otherwise.

Meanwhile, China’s emissions of CO2 have peaked, and may be on the decline, as they move to be the international provider of green energy.

    Tom Servo in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Like almost all warmists, you are comfortable posting charts and graphs that you do not begin to understand, just so you can shriek “SCIENCE!!!” in hope that all the plebes will genuflect at the invocation of the Holy Name.

    Your chart is simply a proxy of Chinese economic growth. This has been show to be true in economy after economy for the entire course of the 20th century. When the Chinese Economy was growing strongly, emissions grew strongly. When China entered an economic slump, as it has in the last couple of years as the world economy has slowed down, then emissions slow down along with it.

    All that this means is that if the Chinese Economy continues to slow down, then emissions will slow down. If the Chinese Economy speeds back up, however, emissions will pick back up and begin to grow again. That doesn’t make a very sexy story about how wonderful the Chinese are though, does it?

    And this is why the Warmist movement is the enemy of economic growth the world around.

      Tom Servo: Your chart is simply a proxy of Chinese economic growth.

      While China’s GDP growth is somewhat uncertain, most estimates place the GDP growth at around 5-6% per year, yet CO2 emissions peaked and may be beginning to decline. Approximately 23% of China’s energy is from renewable sources, such as hydro and wind.

        Tom Servo in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 12:23 pm

        I’ve seen that chart – it’s always kind of cute to see Hydro lumped into the “renewable” category, even though the hard core environmentalists are still campaigning to tear all the dams down. The Three Gorges Dam in China is considered by many to be one of the most outrageous environmental catastrophes every put in place by any government, even though it is the largest single source of “renewable” energy operating in China today.

        But the reason Hydro is always included is because it’s the only way to make the “Renewables” number look promising. It’s nothing new, we have been doing Hydro in this country for well over a century now. It’s always going to be one of the cheapest and easiest ways to generate electricity, but you’ve got to have the right landscape and right geology to make it work.

        In China’s case, from the chart you’re looking at, Hydro accounts for 18.74% of China’s energy production – all of the rest of the “Renewables” category put together only accounts for 4.2% of supply. Not quite so impressive when it’s put that way.

    mailman in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 11:10 am

    What is an international provider of green energy? You mean they have a powerline to North Korea who is burning forests…sorry, I mean using bio mass, to generate power?

      mailman: What is an international provider of green energy?

      For instance, a country that exports solar cells, electric cars, wind turbines, or green technology. For instance, India is quickly adopting solar technology, with 3/4 of their imports from China.

        mailman in reply to Zachriel. | March 2, 2017 at 3:55 am

        Oh, you mean those things that don’t work when heat is most needed…ie. when its cold and dark (which usually happen at the same time).

        Not much use in generating useful energy when its needed BUT hugely successful at sucking up all that lovely government provided subsidy moolah!!!

          mailman: Oh, you mean those things that don’t work when heat is most needed

          Solar can provide power during daylight, wind often works best at night, hydro works around the clock, and fossil fuels still provide the ability to fill in the gaps while energy storage solutions are found.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 11:41 am

    The EPA data show CO2 emissions in the U.S. peaked in 2006. View this graph produced by the EPA. It packs an enormous amount of useful information into a single graph to enable you to draw major conclusions:

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/1970-2015_baby_graphic.png

    GDP has increased 246% since 1970. At the same time, CO2 increased only 28%. But the important thing is that CO2 peaked in 2006. That means the economy is beginning to “decouple” from CO2. Why? 1) Around 2008 or so natural gas became a cheaper source of energy to produce electricity than coal, so utilities built more natural gas powered plants. Natural gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit of energy than coal. 2) Every new generation of vehicle is more energy efficient and produces less emissions than the prior generation. 3) The most important fact, I think, is that manufacturing is a smaller share of the economy. Manufacturing is not shrinking (contrary to popular conceptions), it’s just that information technology, services, internet commerce and other sectors are becoming a large share of the economy. Plus, manufacrurers are subject to the same competitive dynamics as auto manufacturers, so they are constantly improving processes to become more energy efficient which leads to less pollution emissions.

    This idea that the economy is “decoupling” from CO2 also shows up in the graph. The EPA says that despite GDP having increased by 246% since 1970, emissions of six major pollutants have declined by 71%. In other words, the air has never been cleaner than it is today anytime in your lifetime.

    Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, and left wing environmental zealots generally should be doing cartwheels in the street celebrating the fact that we’ve figured out how to grow our economy at the same time we have the cleanest air in our lives. But they all have annual budgets in excess of $100 million a year. They need to keep fear mongering to separate rich people from their money and give lost aimless lefties a reason to live by pretending they are saving the world.

      MaggotAtBroadAndWall: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, and left wing environmental zealots generally should be doing cartwheels in the street celebrating the fact that we’ve figured out how to grow our economy at the same time we have the cleanest air in our lives.

      While the U.S. has stabilized its emissions of CO2, that is not sufficient to combat climate change, which requires much more significant reductions in CO2 emissions, and on a global scale.

      Don’t blame the messenger. You ring the fire alarm so that people know to put out the fire *before* it burns down the whole town. Nor should you ignore the political efforts required to implement clean air and water regulations, which seem ordinary and essential today, but were fought as dire threats to prosperity at the time.

The fundamental problem with the theory of GW is that it’s advocates don’t conduct experiments using the scientific method to test out their theory.

1) They need to develop a reliable way of measuring climate that doesn’t require that the raw data be “fixed” as the advocates of GW are wont to do.

2) Then their models predictions for the next 1,000 years should match, as the science is settled, and recorded.

3) The climate measurements to be taken and compared with the predictions for the next 1,000 years. If they match the theory could be considered valid.

Until they do this we can safely ignore their theory.

Carlson,thank you for engagin.
Eastman, thank you for reporting. Cleetus, thank you for following up; comments were easy to follow, and confirmable. This teacher thanks you all.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | March 1, 2017 at 11:09 am

The polar bear population has increased 27% since 2005. What is astonishing, though, is that there has been a significant loss of Arctic sea ice. Models created by experts said such a dramatic loss of sea ice would cause a sharp drop in the polar bear population and threaten their very survival. We’ve all seen the propaganda of bears falling out of the sky, starving, or desperately clinging to an ice berg due to man made global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0

Mediterranean sea levels are rising about 1.2 millimeters per year, or less than 5 inches per century. Pretty much the same rate it was rising before man figured out how to use fossil fuels to make his life less miserable with the Industrial Revolution.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216302689

Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787

ConradCA: The fundamental problem with the theory of GW is that it’s advocates don’t conduct experiments using the scientific method to test out their theory.

Of course they do. That’s why climate scientists release radiosonde balloons, mount scientific expeditions, launch satellites into orbit, drill into the ice, deploy ocean buoys, as well as make increasingly accurate surface measurements.

ConradCA: 1) They need to develop a reliable way of measuring climate that doesn’t require that the raw data be “fixed” as the advocates of GW are wont to do.

One way to build confidence in a scientific claim is to compare different data-sources and methods. This chart compares satellite lower-tropospheric anomalies with surface anomalies. You will note that they have very similar warming trends.

ConradCA: 2) Then their models predictions for the next 1,000 years should match, as the science is settled, and recorded.

It’s a moving target. Humans will attempt to mitigate climate change, so the result depends on when and how they do so. In addition, there are wide margins of error. Global warming is expected to be about 2-5°C per doubling of CO2, while the way the excess heat is distributed through the climate system is largely obscure.

ConradCA: 3) The climate measurements to be taken and compared with the predictions for the next 1,000 years. If they match the theory could be considered valid.

That’s silly. Newton’s Theory hasn’t been subject to a thousand years of testing. The primary mechanism of science is hypothetico-deduction, which allows us to reach some tentative albeit limited conclusions. Think of science as a flashlight that can illuminate some tiny portion of the world, while the vast expanse of the universe remains shrouded in mystery.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    The difference between Newton’s Theory and the myth of Climate Change is no one had to cook the numbers to make them fit the wanted conclusion for Newton’s Theory, while almost every study and experiment has to either “modify”, “Normalize”, or just completely misreport the data regarding climate change to keep the alarmist fear alive.

      mailman in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 2, 2017 at 4:06 am

      Well, you have merely pointed out the difference between real science and Climate Scientology. Newton tested his hypotheses while climate scientologists do everything in their power to keep their science secret (because we all know sunlight is the best disinfectant and they know this too).

      Gremlin1974: The difference between Newton’s Theory and the myth of Climate Change is no one had to cook the numbers to make them fit the wanted conclusion for Newton’s Theory

      One way to build confidence in a scientific claim is to compare different data-sources and methods. This chart compares satellite lower-tropospheric anomalies with surface anomalies. You will note that they have very similar warming trends.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 2, 2017 at 2:56 pm

        Yea, what you’re, frankly, middle school science fair, chart doesn’t show is how the numbers used to make it were cooked or just outright lies, which is what climate “science” is most known for these days by any reasonable person. So no the first place you start if by having confidence in your data that is used to make your chart, data which nine times out of 10 is hidden and unreleased, I am not talking about the data in the paper before you start I am talking about raw data. Which is the reason it took so long to catch Mann in his particular fraud.

        It also ignores the simple fact that climate “science” seems to want everyone to think this is the only time there have ever been short term warming trends like this every before in history. (Or cooling depending on the decade you actually pay attention to this trash). Such an assertion is not only unprovable it is ignorant to believe such idiocy.

        Which is also the main problem with climate science for every supposed horrible thing that ACC is doing all you have to do is go back in time and there is evidence that we have had exactly the same thing happen in the past for much longer periods of time and it didn’t destroy the planet. Also the claim that it is “happening faster because of man” is going to lead to some catastrophic effect. Something that can’t be proven.

        Sure industrialisation has increased the output of pollution of many kinds, however, what climate “science” can’t prove is that that industrialisation has actually had any significant effect on the climate. Which is why you have the alarmism perpetuated by the ACC crowd because the only way they can keep getting funding for their little cults activities, with “science” that is so anorexic, is to cause alarm and fear.

          Here’s a chart comparing UAH, RSS, and surface temperatures.

          Gremlin1974: Yea, what you’re, frankly, middle school science fair, chart doesn’t show is how the numbers used to make it were cooked or just outright lies, which is what climate “science” is most known for these days by any reasonable person.

          You can find out more about UAH here:
          http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

          You can find raw surface temperature measures, along with the methodologies used in analysis here:
          http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

          Gremlin1974: So no the first place you start if by having confidence in your data that is used to make your chart, data which nine times out of 10 is hidden and unreleased

          The data and methods are publicly available.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 2, 2017 at 8:51 pm

          @Zachriel

          “a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions”

          Oh, look a “proxy” something you don’t need if you have actual data, not that I trust anything coming out of Berkeley, if it comes from that cesspool of liberal indoctrination you can be fairly sure it’s tainted or an outright lie.

          Grenlin1974: “a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions”

          The proxy for anthropogenic forcing is the logarithm of CO2 concentration. It doesn’t include other anthropogenic forcings, such as deforestation or methane emissions.

          See Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2013.

          Grenlin1974: Oh, look a “proxy” something you don’t need if you have actual data, not that I trust anything coming out of Berkeley

          Fallacious and false to boot. The Berkeley Earth project was initiated by the libertarian Charles Koch.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 3, 2017 at 11:56 am

          @Zachriel

          “It doesn’t include other anthropogenic forcings, such as deforestation or methane emissions.”

          Oh, so by your own admission it doesn’t contain all the information that it should to be credible and is therefore worthless. Thanks.

          “See Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2013.”

          So what? There is still no proof that any of this is anthropogenic. You can’t take data for a couple of hundred years and screech that “this matters more and is gonna kill us all” when we have ice core samples that show conditions much worse than this in the distant past. You also can’t say that this hasn’t happened before in the past, before we have any short term data.

          “Fallacious and false to boot. The Berkeley Earth project was initiated by the libertarian Charles Koch.”

          And? Just because the money moved through one of the Koch organizations doesn’t make it less than junk science, which is all that “climate science” really is, junk.

          Gremlin1974: Oh, so by your own admission it doesn’t contain all the information that it should to be credible and is therefore worthless.

          We can cite the paper, but we can’t make you read it. There is a strong fit of CO2 and volcanism with the observations. Solar forcing doesn’t improve the fit. What it means is that CO2 and volcanism alone explain most of the observed pattern.

          Gremlin1974: when we have ice core samples …

          What will those climate scientists come up with next!?

          Gremlin1974: that show conditions much worse than this in the distant past.

          Worse for whom? Floridians during the Paleogene?

          Gremlin1974: Just because the money moved through one of the Koch organizations doesn’t make it less than junk science, which is all that “climate science” really is, junk.

          And waving your hands doesn’t make the research go away. To dispute the paper, you have to read and understand the paper first, then make more than semantic arguments about the meaning of “proxy” in context.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 4, 2017 at 5:23 am

          @Zachriel

          Actually I did read the paper, and I like any other credible scientist found it lacking. However, it has become clear that we aren’t going to convince each other, so I wish you the best.

          Gremlin1974: I like any other credible scientist found it lacking.

          This is where you point to specific reasons why the paper is “lacking”. Handwaving is not an argument.

buckeyeminuteman | March 1, 2017 at 12:09 pm

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of British wine. Whine from a guy with a B.S. pretending to be a climate scientist, that I have heard of.

Bill Nye the Condescending, Leftist Propaganda Guy.

I think that will fit on his business card in two lines of text, and/or a very tiny font.

Henry Hawkins | March 1, 2017 at 1:52 pm

My hope is that people don not blame science itself for this. The AGW ‘scientists’ are not practicing science, one reason being that testing the hypothesis = any hypothesis – requires eliminating human bias and extraneous factors and forces. AGW, being literally global, and with only the narrowest of reliable data and a fatal reliability on erroneous models, is not amenable to science if it’s unfalsifiable by those doing the testing.

First and only question I ever ask AGW believers: “What would you accept as evidence disproving AGW?” You’d be amazed by what you learn if/when they deign to answer.

Also, it is not the responsibility of so-called ‘deniers’ to disprove AGW. The responsibility resides first, always, and only with the claimant.

    Henry Hawkins: “What would you accept as evidence disproving AGW?”

    It would probably require either an overthrow of the basic physics of heat energy, or a mechanism that has not been discovered as yet.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing atmospheric CO2 will therefore increase the greenhouse effect. A doubling of CO2 will directly lead to about 1°C warming. As warmer air can hold more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, this will amplify the effect. The open question in climate science is how much amplification to expect. Various measures put this “climate sensitivity” at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 5:12 pm

      Nice answer – for middle school science students – and one which says absolutely nothing about AGW.

      Once again, in simpler English – what evidence would AGW believers accept as evidence that GW is not caused by A?

        Henry Hawkins: one which says absolutely nothing about AGW.

        Of course it does. Humans are emitting CO2, which is accumulating in the atmosphere, and which is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases warm the surface.

        Henry Hawkins: Once again, in simpler English – what evidence would AGW believers accept as evidence that GW is not caused by A

        As already answered, it would probably require either an overthrow of the basic physics of heat energy, or a mechanism that has not been discovered as yet that would automatically counter the greenhouse warming associated with increased CO2.

          Paul in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 7:15 pm

          How many times do you progs have to step on your crank before you stop with the idiotic reductionist “science?”

          Paul: stop with the idiotic reductionist “science?”

          Instead of waving your hands, you might try to address the point raised about the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

          Paul in reply to Zachriel. | March 2, 2017 at 3:40 pm

          That’s my point. Anybody who thinks we can magically turn the “CO2 Knob” and adjust the global climate is a moron. It’s reductionist science which has been proven over and over again to be faulty. You cannot reduce such a complex system to a single variable. You’re a retard if you do. Sorry.

          Paul: Anybody who thinks we can magically turn the “CO2 Knob” and adjust the global climate is a moron.

          Saying “It’s complicated!” is not a specific argument.

          Increasing CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect, but there are other factors which determine climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, albedo, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.

          The basic heat exchange is fairly simple as the Earth generally only gains or loses heat radiatively (cometary impacts excepted). That means albedo and the greenhouse effect are the primary factors to consider. How the excess heat due to greenhouse warming is distributed is a much more complex matter, and still largely obscure.

      Barry in reply to Zachriel. | March 1, 2017 at 10:39 pm

      “It would probably require either an overthrow of the basic physics of heat energy, or a mechanism that has not been discovered as yet.

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing atmospheric CO2 will therefore increase the greenhouse effect. A doubling of CO2 will directly lead to about 1°C warming. As warmer air can hold more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, this will amplify the effect. The open question in climate science is how much amplification to expect. Various measures put this “climate sensitivity” at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.”

      Nothing you write is correct you uneducated moron.

      Oh, do you know what a cloud is?

        Barry: Nothing you write is correct

        Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

        Barry: Oh, do you know what a cloud is?

        Indeed. Low clouds reflect more sunlight, but high clouds absorb more heat. Studies show that the overall effect is a positive feedback towards more warming, and very unlikely to be a negative feedback.

        See Stowasser & Hamilton, Relationship between Shortwave Cloud Radiative Forcing and Local Meteorological Variables Compared in Observations and Several Global Climate Models, Journal of Climate 2006; Lauer et al., The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific—A Regional Model Study, Journal of Climate 2010.

The most recent ice age ended, uh, . . . not yet. Last I heard, Antarctica still is ice-covered and there are still glaciers in the northern hemisphere; so, the Quaternary Ice Age lives on, by definition. Scientist Nye seems to be confusing the most recent period of glaciation, dubbed “The Little Ice Age,” with the actual ice age of which it is a part.

If they just had a pissing match… it would tell me more than we could get out of Bill Nye.

DouglasJBender | March 1, 2017 at 11:52 pm

Which produces more CO2: Man, or Nature? And what are the respective percentages?

Also, which has a greater effect on the Earth’s temperature: CO2, or clouds? And what are the respective percentages? And what has the greater impact on cloud formation: CO2, or the Sun? And what are the percentages?

From the little I have read, the relative impact of human activity, and CO2 overall, in comparison with natural processes that produce CO2, and in comparison with OTHER so-called “greenhouse gases”, is so small as to be laughable. That is, to claim that relatively “infinitesimal” changes in the amount of CO2 that humanity contributes to the total amount produced is not vastly overwhelmed by other factors (the Sun, volcanoes, naturally-occurring forest- and wild-fires, wild animal flatulence, oceans, etc.) is intellectually and scientifically bankrupt. It might be likened to arguing that one person smoking a cigarette in front of a factory belching smoke is going to create deadly smog in the city.

    DouglasJBender: Which produces more CO2: Man, or Nature? And what are the respective percentages?

    You would want to consider the carbon cycle.

    Huge quantities of carbon are exchanged between the oceans, atmosphere, and biomass. These exchanges have been close to net equilibrium for thousands of years, meaning the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been relatively steady. Fossil fuels represent carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for millions of years, and these are being rapidly released, leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2, which acts as a greenhouse gas.

    DouglasJBender: Also, which has a greater effect on the Earth’s temperature: CO2, or clouds?

    Without the greenhouse effect, there would be few clouds as the Earth’s mean temperature would be a very chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.

    DouglasJBender: From the little I have read, the relative impact of human activity, and CO2 overall, in comparison with natural processes that produce CO2, and in comparison with OTHER so-called “greenhouse gases”, is so small as to be laughable.

    CO2 represents about 10-20% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor represents most of the balance; but without CO2, the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapor. See Kiehl & Trenberth, Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 1997.

    This amplification is called climate sensitivity. We can study ice ages to approximate climate sensitivity, which indicate a value consistent with the accepted value of about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2. See, for example, Köhler et al., What caused Earth’s temperature variations during the last 800,000 years? Data-based evidence on radiative forcing and constraints on climate sensitivity, Quaternary Science Reviews 2010.

Sadly, as we have come to understand, the moment you don’t toe the line and follow the consensus you are hounded until you can no longer take it;

http://www.steynonline.com/section/71/defend-free-speech

Judith Curry’s crime…pointing out the inconvenient truth that Mann Made Global Warming ™ might not be the issue its being made out to be.

Im sure, though, that Zachary will be along any second now to tell us just how wrong Judith was and how she isn’t a real climate scientist (which is actually probably a compliment:).

Regards

Mailman

mailman: Sadly, as we have come to understand, the moment you don’t toe the line and follow the consensus you are hounded until you can no longer take it;

Thought the issue in Mann v. Steyn was that Steyn claimed that Mann committed scientific fraud, which is actionable, even if probably not worth the paper.

mailman: how wrong Judith was and how she isn’t a real climate scientist

She’s a real climate scientist, but doesn’t have the data to support her contrarian view.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend