Bill Nye: Global Warming Idiot!

Submitted by: 5cats 6 years ago in Science
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/05/28/bill-nye-science-guy-falsely-claims-not-many-countries-besides-us-hav

Article and 3 videos! I thought Nye was smart, but apparently he flings poo like all AGW gurus.
There are 131 comments:
Male 40,349
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@almightybob1: No, I mean it was wet & flooding 116 years ago, just like today.

IF today is caused by AGW, WHAT caused the same event 116 years ago?

WHY can`t the same reason for the old-time weather also have an effect on modern weather?

AGW `logic` is flawed in that it says one tiny part of the weather picture is MORE important than all the other pieces. And we should spend billions and trillions of dollars to "fix" it.

Back to Bill Nye: He`s asked a perfectly reasonable question: has AGW caused world-wide increases in tornados? He doesn`t know and flubbers about, looking stupid. BUT the question remains! Pro-AGW people tell us again and again it`s GLOBAL and local anomolies (like the Midieval Warming Period, which they claim is `local`) DO NOT disprove AGW. Logic then dictates that local anomolies also DO NOT PROVE AGW either! Like a 1 year heatwave, eh?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
5Cats: I don`t know, I`m neither a historian nor a climatologist. But even I have noticed several "since records began" claims being broken. You must have heard some of those right? Remember last summer`s heatwave?

CJ: there is no way you have any hard science degree with calculus knowledge like you`re demonstrating right now. Hell I`d still expect better from the soft sciences.

Your calculus knowledge is only outshone by your knowledge of the Bible.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Next time don`t try that baloney on someone with a science degree, or better yet don`t try baffling people with BS.[/quote]
Dude, seriously, stop talking before you hurt yourself.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Bob: first of all Glacier mass balance is calculated a bit different than sea ice extent. Why you may ask ? Sea ice can vary by thickness, so you can`t just measure it by the area of sea covered. That is why I linked you the color density maps, which you said you couldn`t interpret.

Mass balance is not calculated by derivative, derivatives calculate the slopes of curves, not the mass or volume of ice.

Next time don`t try that baloney on someone with a science degree, or better yet don`t try baffling people with BS.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
Well exactly my point @almightybob1! 116 years ago it was just as wet, why? The writer says this years floods ARE because of AGW, so what caused the same floods 116 years back?

I find this typical of ALL pro-AGW arguements. "it`s the hottest year since 1537! The cause is AGW!!" (um, why was it hot in 1537 then? Natural causes? SO why exactly are natural causes IMPOSSIBLE today?)

I know it`s page 3 already, lolz! The debate won`t be "solved" by IAB I`m sure.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]recently a pro-AGW reporter said: The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood. So 116 years ago, there was high floods, also caused by AGW? [/quote]
Nobody said the flood 116 years ago was also caused by AGW. Just that it was the previous record-holder for wettest April.

Stating what the previous record was does not imply that the reasons for the previous and current record are the same. I`m pretty sure you`re smart enough to know that.


Although yes, since that is a journalistic piece rather than a scientific one, there is a degree of sensationalism and drama in there. That`s the conclusion I`ve drawn from the first page anyway, I haven`t had time to read the whole thing.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@almightybob1: recently a pro-AGW reporter said: The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood. So 116 years ago, there was high floods, also caused by AGW?

I know, it`s not a "scientist" but still typical of pro-AGW claims. Newsweek link You`d think Newsweek would have extensive research to back such claims up, but ON THEIR FACE they make little sense.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
[quote]Also irrelevant, because my conclusion is about non-cat posts by you on IAB.[/quote]
@Angilion: you`re either willfully blind or dead ignorant. How is it irrelevant? Only in your closed mind, where if the facts don`t fit your theory, they`re not facts after all.
Good luck with that, eh?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I give up. Your maths is just appalling CJ, really. You`re arguing against the very definition of a rate of change. It`s blindingly obvious to me and indeed anyone with school-leaving level maths that you don`t know what you`re talking about. There`s really no point in continuing this.

Seriously, please go and read up about derivatives and differentiation and, once you`ve got that, glacier mass balance.


Also, I have no idea why you`re picking out 2010 as some kind of saving year for your point. It`s clear from that graph that, every year for the past 10 except 2007, the global anomaly has gone above 0 at SOME point. And despite that, the downward trend remains.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Bob your trying to equate the mathematical equivalent of a tipping scale to a how fast a car is accelerating, Sorry but that`s just wrong man.

I`ve described it so that even a child could understand it, and You continue to refute it with baloney. Balance =/= speed or acceleration, Period. You might be used to BS`ing others, But I`m well educated in statistics, graphic analysis, and how they both can both be abused to suit a certain perspective.

The graph you linked is biased, This one is not. Please note how the Sea Ice extent rebounded back to normal levels this last winter.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]So just ignore the example I gave, and all the other posts which don`t fit your "stereotype" eh?[/quote]

Every now and again, the boy who cries wolf actually sees a wolf. That doesn`t make them any more credible.

[quote]@Angilion: your whole premise is based on a falsehood: I (5Cats) did NOT create these videos![/quote]

You`re not familiar with logic, so you shouldn`t try to use it.

My conclusion is based on valid premises. The idea that you created the videos you posts isn`t one of those premises, so it`s irrelevant to my conclusion.

[quote]Also, I submit plenty of variety, it`s not MY fault that mostly this type gets through. AND I submit posts that others do too.[/quote]

Also irrelevant, because my conclusion is about non-cat posts by you on IAB.

[quote]FACTS @Angilion, perhaps you`ve heard of them?[/quote]

Unlike you, I don`t make them up to suit me.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I really can`t be bothered explaining the significance of `per capita` to you. I`ve just tried to drum the fairly simple concept of rates of change into CJ with seemingly no effect.

China`s high emissions are a function of its high population, not its high pollution.

And it`s utterly puerile to pretend that only China`s behaviour can possibly have an effect, when the USA is responsible for nearly 18% and Europe for just over 14%.

Shirking the responsibility just because a far larger country produces slightly more CO2 is so transparently feeble as to be laughable.
0
Reply
Male 68
I love sources like that bob...as they are useful in proving two different opposing points at the same time.
Yes we are the 2nd..but again we 2nd on pollution and we aren`t growing. The change between 2005 and 2009 is negligible for the USA (1% at worse negative at best) while the change for china is 5% at best and 12% at worse.
So unless China gives up its enormous growth of pollution it really doesn`t matter what the second place country does.
Will it really matter if America starts changing to "green" poo while China is all about destroying the environment?
Fix the country who produces the most total pollution before you start going after #2.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Viperjason: China produces 25.4% of the world`s CO2 emissions. USA is second with 17.9%. And as you so accurately pointed out, their population is over triple yours.

Per capita, USA is on about 18 tonnes per person per year, the highest of any developed nation. China is on 6.

Source
0
Reply
Male 4,290
You`re just embarrassingly wrong, CJ. There`s no other way to say it. Mass balance is a rate of change. It just is. It`s a way of measuring how fast a system is changing.

If mass balance is zero, the system isn`t increasing or decreasing. It might be 100000 gigatonnes or it might be 1 gram, but it`s staying constant. The rate of change is 0.

If mass balance is, say, +20 Gt/yr, the system is growing. Each year, its mass increases by 20 gigatonnes. It might have started at a billion, 273 or 0. But its change is +20 gigatonnes in that year. Similarly for a negative rate of change.

If you ever did maths at school (which I`m starting to genuinely doubt), you might remember derivatives. Gigatonnes per year, the mass balance, is the first derivative of mass (gigatonnes) with respect to time. That`s the definition of a rate of change.

I actually do know children who understand this concept. I`m talking 14, 15-year-olds. Legit children.
0
Reply
Male 68
Lets assume for a second that global warming is actually caused by humans. Lets say that is accurate.
Then before I move to change a single aspect of my life in the small polluting nation of the USA, I need to see China, India, and the other nations that produce many many times larger the amount of pollution than the whole of the USA. A few hundred million driving electric cars produced on wind/solar energy isnt going to change a damn thing when China and India with its billions of people continue to pollute to that large extent.

When they change their way of living then I`ll follow but until then take your carbon tax bull poo, your green energy rainbow poo, and shut up. If you want to make a difference, start where it will make a difference and the USA is the wrong country to start.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Bob: The Y axis, on those graphs, is NOT a `rate of change`. Gt/yr is NOT like mph. It`s like ppm (parts per million) which has nothing to do with `rate of change`. If it was a `rate of change` measurement that would make it even more critical that it be graphed logarithmically so that the percentage change scale be equally distant both at the top and bottom of the graph.

the percentage change between 50 - 100 is different than 350 - 450, 50 - 150 is a 200% gain, 350 - 450 is a 22.22% gain.

Do you finally understand it now ?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Pictures are worth a thousand words, It seems you are trying to deny what your eyes have seen. [/quote]
No. Humans are notoriously bad at judging quantities from pictures. Any basic optical illusion will demonstrate this. Start with that old one about which line is longer.

[quote]When the so called `downward trend` is mostly based on a few low sea ice extent years and they ignore or try to mitigate the years that have an `upward trend` (They are calling this last winter an `anomaly` in an effort to disregard it) then you may realize, as I have, the bias in most of the AGW claims.[/quote]
Outliers are not ignored when calculating the downward trend. I pointed out another example in one of my last posts:

[quote]You`ll notice that early 1996 also showed significant gains of around 150 gigatonnes/year for several months that winter. That didn`t overturn the overall negative trend either.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]The Y axis is NOT `rate of change` it is `mass balance`, aka volume, in gigatonnes.[/quote]
You really don`t know what mass balance means, do you.

It is the volume INCREASE (or decrease) in a given period of time. Not the total volume, the CHANGE in volume. The number of gigatonnes gained or lost in a year.


Speed (miles per hour, metres per second) is the rate of change of distance (miles, metres) per unit time (hour, second).
Mass balance (gigatonnes per year) is the rate of change of mass (gigatonnes) per unit time (year).

If you genuinely can`t see that it`s a rate of change, you`re just demonstrating why attempting to explain anything scientific to those without a grasp of the basics is a complete waste of time.
This is schoolchild stuff.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davy: You`ve pulled out that Stanford report before and I blew it out of the water last time by showing how they only counted those people that agreed with the concept of global warming to begin with.

Still waiting for your apology about how I proved 50% of meteorologists do NOT believe in AGW, and please don`t be condescending again and make the claim that somehow meteorologists somehow either don`t qualify as being knowledgeable enough or unscientific.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
[quote]Since that`s what you do for everything apart from pictures of cats[/quote]
So just ignore the example I gave, and all the other posts which don`t fit your "stereotype" eh? Just like counting "pro-AGW scientists" pnly count the ones who agree, ignore the rest and presto! 100%!
@Angilion: your whole premise is based on a falsehood: I (5Cats) did NOT create these videos! Also, I submit plenty of variety, it`s not MY fault that mostly this type gets through. AND I submit posts that others do too.

FACTS @Angilion, perhaps you`ve heard of them? No? You prefer to "double down on teh stupid"? Well I hope that works out for you...

I understand what he`s saying just fine @almightybob1, he`s just plain wrong though! (see above)
0
Reply
Male 12,138
But, whatever. The conservative right pulled the same bullsh*t with the science of Evolution, by actually convincing the public that there`s no consensus among scientists, that there`s some hot debate going on. "Teach the Controversy!", when there was no such controversy.

Anyways, I shouldn`t be posting links to peer-reviewed scientific journals. The people who don`t believe that 7 billion humans could possibly have an effect on our climate aren`t that interested in scientific evidence, or science in general for that matter. And most of them are scientifically illiterate. This thread is old, see you guys on the next one.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv "Over 90% of the scientists believe that global warming is real and that it is caused by humans."

If you have to lie with your opening, it doesn`t really matter that your argument based on that is a logical fallacy. Still worth pointing out that it is a fallacy, though.

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

Alright then, here`s a direct counter. A recently published Stanford University study found that 98% of Scientists say Anthropogenic Climate Change is a reality. As a comparison, those 2% that don`t have generally poorer scientific credentials and/or qualifications in the field.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
"Over 90% of the scientists believe that global warming is real and that it is caused by humans."

If you have to lie with your opening, it doesn`t really matter that your argument based on that is a logical fallacy. Still worth pointing out that it is a fallacy, though.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Angilion

Interesting views on the subject of who to believe. If I told you that almost all Catholic priests claim to believe in god, that would of course be evidence of god`s existence.

We wouldn`t look at why people become priests, why people are accepted into the priesthood, what these people have to say to remain priests, and where their financial interests lie. We would also not look into cognitive dissonance, the effect of them having invested their entire lives into religion, given up so much, and there is great psychological tendency to retain the belief not only in god but in an ecclesiastical power structure.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Bob: The Y axis is NOT `rate of change` it is `mass balance`, aka volume, in gigatonnes. Percentage change, on a logarithmic scale, is a more accurate representation of the data.

[quote]I need numbers, not a visual inspection.[/quote]

Pictures are worth a thousand words, It seems you are trying to deny what your eyes have seen.

[quote]the data of one winter will not overturn the downwards trend of the 20-year graph.[/quote]

When the so called `downward trend` is mostly based on a few low sea ice extent years and they ignore or try to mitigate the years that have an `upward trend` (They are calling this last winter an `anomaly` in an effort to disregard it) then you may realize, as I have, the bias in most of the AGW claims.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Ah @Angilion! But YOU criticize that book without having read it? How does that work?[/quote]

In the way I explained in detail in the post you`re pretending to respond to.

You`re picking out little pieces that you can squash into the interpretation that you have preconceived faith in.

Since that`s what you do for everything apart from pictures of cats, it`s hardly surprising that you`d do it to my post.

In case anyone sees your disinformation and thinks it`s real, I`ll quote myself.

[quote]If an author had written dozens of books, all on the same themes and all rubbish, it would be a reasonable assumption that, unless something has been changed, yet another book by the same author on the same themes will be equally rubbish.

There`s a difference between judging a book by its cover and judging a book on the basis of extensive prior experience and the description of the book that`s printed on the cover.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Ahhhh... they have gotten to you, poisoned your brain into believing. If you go and look, you`ll see that plenty of the scientist that don`t agree with GW have all the same kinds of degrees that the people that support GW do.[/quote]

I have looked. I didn`t find what you claim.

Have you looked, or do you just believe because they have gotten to you, poisoned your brain into believing?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I was explaining his words 5Cats, not agreeing with them.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
"your previous submissions on science-related matters, he knows what this science-related 5Cats submission will contain."

IC @almightybob1, because all my submissions are exactly alike, eh? So he can just tell, like magic! Voodoo! He`s some kind of wizard or something, wow!

Ugh! gtg again!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I`ll do better than that, How about we compare the 2006 summer ice mp vs. the 2010 summer ice map. [/quote]
That`s not better.
Pictures are nice, but you can`t extract any actual data from that to compare to the graphs I linked earlier. I need numbers, not a visual inspection.

In any event, as I said previously, the data of one winter will not overturn the downwards trend of the 20-year graph.

You`ll notice that early 1996 also showed significant gains of around 150 gigatonnes/year for several months that winter. That didn`t overturn the overall negative trend either.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Again, CJ, you`re just not reading it right.

Those values on the vertical axis are the RATE of change - that is, they are not values of Y, but value of dY/dX.

If I had R installed on this computer I could get some graphs to explain it better. But basically, a log scale turns an exponential curve into a straight line. Similarly, plotting the derivative turns a power curve into a straight line.

If anything, they`ve made the graph look like a less sharp decrease. Unless you read it correctly and realise the actual situation.


I really don`t have the time to run through Graph Theory 101. Suffice to say your claim, that the way NASA has presented the figures is a deliberate ploy to make them look worse, is nonsensical.
0
Reply
Male 4,854
CrakrJak: "The History Teacher you pointed out is the one that claimed there was a consensus, Naomi Oreskes` (the history teacher`s) work has been the one repeatedly cited as proof of `consensus`."

I didn`t site the history teacher you did. The link I added was to a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This paper sites an extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication. And they found that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (Global Warming). Expert Credibility in Climate Change.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Bob: The scale, you linked, is most certainly an arithmetic scale. Do you see the even 50 150 250 350 450.... on the Y axis ? That sir is an arithmetic scale, it also omits the latest sea ice extent numbers from 2010 and 2011 in which there was growth.

The scale also doesn`t take into account or show the total sea ice volume, only the change
0
Reply
Male 214
For every respected scientist one side has, the other side has a scientist that is just as respected that will totally disagree.
*************
If that was true, you`d have a good point. But it isn`t.
*************
Ahhhh... they have gotten to you, poisoned your brain into believing. If you go and look, you`ll see that plenty of the scientist that don`t agree with GW have all the same kinds of degrees that the people that support GW do.

On the upside, I have some nice carbon credits I can sell ya, just let me know how many ya want
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Bob: I`ll do better than that, How about we compare the 2006 summer ice mp vs. the 2010 summer ice map.
Here

Notice there is a lot more deep purple indicating thicker ice in the 2010 summer ice map.

Here are the comparative winter maps, Link

Notice how the island of Svalbard was locked in ice this last winter.

Feel free to explore a range of dates and see for yourself.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]What you are looking at are charts that end at Jan 1 2010. As I said winter 2010 saw a rebound in sea ice extent. [/quote]

Can I have your winter 2010 data?
Also, one winter`s data points are not going to level a 20-year negative trend.

[quote]Also NASA has purposely exaggerated the scale of those graphs by using arithmetic rather than logarithmic scale.[/quote]

*headdesk*

That graph is not an arithmetic scale of absolute volumes of ice.

Mass balance is the amount of change. This graph shows the amount of ice loss/gain. And it`s getting worse, by an average ~36 gigatonnes per year for the past 20.

You see the little 2 over the Yr on those values? That means "per year squared". Meaning this graph IS ALREADY measuring acceleration.
If this were an arithmetic scale, the line of best fit would not be straight, but accelerating downwards.

The graph is not deceptive. You just can`t read it.

0
Reply
Male 17,512
Bob: What you are looking at are charts that end at Jan 1 2010. As I said winter 2010 saw a rebound in sea ice extent.

Also NASA has purposely exaggerated the scale of those graphs by using arithmetic rather than logarithmic scale. That is a troubling commonality between AGW graphs, that deceives people into thinking there have been sharper rises, or declines, than have actually occurred.

Here is an Example of the differences between the same data represent by both methods and how a logarithmic scale is much less deceiving because it accurately portrays percentage change.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I think you misunderstand Angilion`s analogy, 5Cats. The whole point of what he was saying is that he doesn`t need to read this one.

To use a Twilight analogy, he`s saying that, having read the first 3 books by Stephenie Meyer and realising they are all crap, he can tell the fourth book by Stephenie Meyer will be crap without reading it.

Similarly, having read many of your previous submissions on science-related matters, he knows what this science-related 5Cats submission will contain.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
[quote]There`s a difference between judging a book by its cover and judging a book on the basis of extensive prior experience[/quote]
Ah @Angilion! But YOU criticize that book without having read it? How does that work? If you don`t like my posts don`t read them, or comment that you don`t like them that`s fine.
But to say `what the video`s about` without seeing it is... liberal of you.

@xKrazyKoalax - lolz! Thank you for `getting it`!

gtg!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Point from a while back by NitroJunkie, but it`s one that needs addressed:

[quote]Since when does a degree corral someone?[/quote]
It doesn`t stop them providing an opinion. That`s what we`re all doing, since to the best of my knowledge no IAB members are climatologists or meteorologists.
What it stops you from doing is providing an EXPERT opinion.

The amount of possible knowledge that exists is so vast that people cannot learn it all. So we specialise. We have experts, who devote their all to studying one area. Why would we then presume that someone else`s opinion on that topic deserves equal weight?

I`ll always defer to davymid on matters geological, because he`s trained in that and I`m not. Conversely, I expect I know more about power transmission or semiconductors than him, since my first degree was Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

We have experts, and expertise, for a reason. A very good reason. It works.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
CJ, if you look at the image on the right of xiquiripat`s linked page (I`ll link it again here for ease and zooming) you`ll see that, contrary to your claim, the 2010 data continues the downward trend in both Greenland and the Antarctic. Black and red represent two different measuring techniques which both show the trend.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Why would you ask Bill Nye about tornadoes when he isn`t a meteorologist? This seems to be an endemic problem in American media - taking the opinion of someone who is popular over someone who is qualified.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
xiquiripat: Your link references 2006 and 2007 which were the two lowest sea ice extent out of the last 10 years. Sea Ice levels have since rebounded and in winter 2010 sea ice grew, and this spring is melting slower then expected.

Sorry Charlie, I watch and study this subject a lot. Climate change has more to due with sun activity than anything mankind does.

We may be entering a `maunder minimum` cycle with the sun and that could very well spell colder global temperatures in the near future, not warmer ones. Colder temps would actually be more harmful then warmer temps.
0
Reply
Male 31
Wow what a stupid site. Just because Bill Nye (I have no idea who he is) told one little mistake, it claims he knows NOTHING about tornadoes... What a huge overstatement. Like one person can know everything. He probably studied lots about tornado physics and the relations to the US topology and never bothered to check other countries, which was probably not in his interest as a scientist.
I agree it was a mistake of him to claim he knew something, where he should have looked into it more before making that statement. Or he did look into it, but just worded it wrongly: Just check this link out: http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Tornado_records
He probably meant America is the leading country in tornadoes by far (sone site sais 75% of tornadoes are in the US, canada is second with 5%).
He also said the structure of the US makes for easier production of lots and strong tornadoes, which is totally true, but that is ig
0
Reply
Male 208
Tornadoes aren`t in other countries? Ridiculous! Wait, Bill Nye said it? Well then it must be true. Problem solved, now I`m smarter.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
@CrakrJak: I can play the link game too: NASA Study
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]For every respected scientist one side has, the other side has a scientist that is just as respected that will totally disagree.[/quote]

If that was true, you`d have a good point. But it isn`t.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
"Really? Interesting. Assume they haven`t yet discovered advanced climatic science then?"

"No sir, apparently they`re pretty advanced, for their age. Scientific Process is well established. Seems like 98% of their professional climatologists who are claiming that the planet is heading for a global warming disaster are being ignored in favour of political hacks and right-wing media"

"Really?"

"Yep. Data shows their polar ice-caps are f*cked, sir."

"Damn, that`s disappointing. Alright, thanks for the update, keep searching. There must be intelligent life here SOMEWHERE".
0
Reply
Male 12,138
"Hey, Zarqon, come look at this. Sensors are picking up advanced lifeforms on the third planet of the Sol system!"

"Heeeey, you`re right! Pick up their media, what`s the analysis?"

"Umm, post-industrial, some space technology. Still in Carbon Age. But wait, there`s a large amount of chatter on their radiowaves of how their atmosphere isn`t being screwed by pumping 28 billion tonnes of CO2 into their atmosphere every year... sounds like they`re blaming it on their star, or ignoring it completely."
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Hey davymid, did you get this one too? [/quote]
Hey Lazy, just read through the comments, and I see that others caught this one long before I did. And yes, my batting record remains sound. One hundred f*cking percent. Maybe the 1.8 rating subconsciously gave the game away.

5Cats, must try harder. Not me talking, the community apparently find your submitted sh*t boring, predictable and lame.

I was going to just do a linky, but I`ll actually transcript something I posted many years ago. Flame away at me, it was just my thoughts on one drunken night back in the day. ;-)
0
Reply
Male 269
Well, you could discuss here why Bill Nye is believed to be an expert while clearly having no clue and how the media can thus manipulate us. Or we could start Global Warming Discussion #5231643123423. Gladly that`s not a hard decision seeing the description and title of this. Thanks. Really... refreshing. What`s next, another one about religion? We had none of those for at least 2 days!
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Haven`t watched the video, no idea what this is about, just went straight to to the comments section after making a cheeky bet with myself that this was a 5Cats submission, based on the Description.

And sure enough, my 100% batting record remains sound.
0
Reply
Male 214
Simply put, until there is a actual consensus of scientist that either believe or don`t believe that global warming is caused by humans, no one should put faith into it. For every respected scientist one side has, the other side has a scientist that is just as respected that will totally disagree. There is no consensus, never has been... if someone says there is, they are telling you a lie.

Myself, I do believe that the Earth is warming... but I believe to be a recurring cycle and not caused by man. Millions of years of the temperature going up and down is all the proof I need.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@angilion, if only all people were smart like you!@ They`d never need to read a book, just look at the cover & judge it! Tah-dah![/quote]

If an author had written dozens of books, all on the same themes and all rubbish, it would be a reasonable assumption that, unless something has been changed, yet another book by the same author on the same themes will be equally rubbish.

There`s a difference between judging a book by its cover and judging a book on the basis of extensive prior experience and the description of the book that`s printed on the cover.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Also, The northern ice cap last year was thicker than it was 10 years ago, even though it covered fewer sq. Km., Even in the middle of summer. Link

The polar bears aren`t going to drown, that`s a myth that Al Gore started.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
xiquiripat: Globally there has been very little sea Ice cap change since 1979, Link

There is more sea ice in the southern hemisphere, than in the north, and the southern ice caps have been growing. So it pretty much evens itself out year to year.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
markus: The History Teacher you pointed out is the one that claimed there was a consensus, Naomi Oreskes` (the history teacher`s) work has been the one repeatedly cited as proof of `consensus`.

You just shot down your own argument there man.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
Yay! You noticed @flingspoo! It was on purpose :-)
A little inside joke for us IABers.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
Thanks for being reasonable @IrishJesus, I hope I have been too, in return.

AGW is a fraud, IMO. Long, science-filled articles about why are boring, sadly. This is IAB and folks here like short, funny and weird stuff.
If Bill Nye isn`t an expert on AGW, he shouldn`t accept a speaking bit on the subject, but he did! And he botched it, big time. That`s funny (to me at least).

AGW: more tornados = proof! less tornados = proof! Some science, eh? Ditto for heat/cold, rain/drought, wind/calm & etc. It ALL proves AGW is real.
Didn`t the weather change before humans were around? Ice ages and hot periods? No? lolz! Of course it did, to think WE are the sole cause of `climate change` is hubris.

Sure, less polution would be better, but not ONE AGW `plan` actually calls for that. It`s all about money: your money! How to tax, tax and tax you some more: in the name of `saving the planet`.
0
Reply
Female 999
Hey! You said my name!! Yay!!
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@Smutleybutt: I never listen to myself. I only listen to the voices, the voices in my head!

No poop jokes? eh?

Biased? this is biased? how exactly?

If you don`t like my submissions, don`t look at them. Close your mind, obey your MSM masters and have another cup of kool-aid.
0
Reply
Male 4,854
I mentioned this earlier but here is the technique Opinion Media uses to manipulate their followers: proof by assertion. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
0
Reply
Male 483
5Cats: I`m not arguing that this site isn`t more liberal; I`d argue that most of the world is. What worries me is that your articles and videos tend to magnify and dissect some very minuscule details aimed at derailing "libtards". For example; the argument here is that Bill Nye didn`t know enough about weather, and since he`s sided with global warming, this means that all or most arguments about global warming are fallible. This of course is a bad argument whenever it is looked at as a whole. Bill is an engineer, which means that he doesn`t have the formal education in weather patterns to warrant a relevant source of information. I wouldn`t ask a baker how to rebuild a car engine. I`m not saying stop believing what you believe. All I really want is structured, logical evidence or arguments rather than petty nitpicking. For the record, I can`t say whether or not global warming is real, because I know next to nothing of it. All I can do is take all firm evidence and form conclu
0
Reply
Male 4,854
5CATS: "So I should give up having my own opinion? Just accept whatever I see or read as true? Or should I just ignore the rest of the world entirely?"

What I am suggesting is to give up Opinion Media so you have your own opinion. Right now, for the most part, all you are doing is repeating what has been pushed into your mind through repetition. I am not calling you week minded. You are probably pretty smart. Our minds have a flaw that Cable News uses to manipulate their followers. No matter how strong you are when a trusted source uses repetition you eventually will believe what they are saying no matter how ridiculous the notion.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
5Cats you rant like an insane man. Do you even listen to yourself?
I have never made a `poop` joke so try again to insult me. Try to act mature if you can.
It`s scary to think that if you submit `dozens` more of links to IAB, that this is one of the acceptable ones that made it through. Jebus Help us all if we had to see the rest.
Your submissions are mostly cats and biased news reports. You choose them, no one else. You can`t force people to love what you do, or think like you do by shoving it down their throats. We have the right to determine if we like them or not and from most of the comments in this thread I would say most don`t.
0
Reply
Male 4,854
5CATS: "by "Cable News" do you mean Fox or all the leftist channels?"

By Cable News I mean Fox News and MSNBC. They are both are very partisan and cause harm to humanity through negativity. CNN isn`t as partisan but I still won`t watch it. How many families members and friends are no longer speaking because of the damage Cable News does? It is ridiculous. Especially since we have no control over pretty much everything they get us riled up about. You say your Canadian government won`t allow you to watch Fox but everyone here knows you do. At the very least you watch the clips. I`m telling you brother life is so so so much better once you rid yourself of Opinion Media. It was a night and day experience for me. It is amazing how deep a hold they had on me.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@IrishJesus: No, my descriptions alert the reader that it IS a "right wing" slanted piece. If they don`t like that sort of thing they can avoid it. Also: most are mine, but some have been changed by the mods. Usually for the better actually!

Expecting sanity: I tried to fix the typos, but internet weirdness wouldn`t let me `copy` for some reason and I didn`t feel like re-typing the whole thing. I can copy now...

Are you sugesting I should "balance" my submissions? That`s too funny. I`m a righty, who complained there was too much leftist stuff at IAB, was told: submit other stuff then! So I did! That was a while ago, there`s a lot more balance here these days, IMHO.

And more cat videos! Thanks (in part) to @kitty9lives.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@Markust123: by "Cable News" do you mean Fox or all the leftist channels? Because our Canadian government won`t allow us to watch Fox, eh?

So I should give up having my own opinion? Just accept whatever I see or read as true? Or should I just ignore the rest of the world entirely?

I`m glad you`ve found inner peace and happiness, good luck! (sincerely)
0
Reply
Male 483
I judge by your posts because you posted them. Can you honestly tell me that your descriptions are unbiased, allowing the viewer full potential to assert his/her own assessment? Anyone, no matter political bias, can see that you don`t. So you may have posted tons of extra material, but I think by your links and comments that none of them would have the same amount of slant in the "left" that yours show towards political conservatism.

Also, unsure what that last comment is...expection sanity? maybe inspecting, I`m truly unsure.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@IrishJesus, those are only the submissions approved by IAB, I submit dozens more, eh? To judge me by this criteria is weak, dontyathink? Wait, @IrishJesus is expection sanity at IAB? lolz!

I also submit plenty that others do too, so when @madest posts something that I also suggested, does that make HIS submission wrong? @Angillion`s logic would say so.

Sure thing @Smutleybutt! And you stick to what YOU do best: Poop Jokes...

Why is it a "stupid question" @DShepard?
IF AGW is a global thing (they tell us over and over that it is) AND it`s making tornados worse in the USA; THEN is this also happening all over the world? What exactly is wrong with asking a "science expert" that? Bill Nye stumbles and mumbles rather than admit he doesn`t know: and thus says stupid things!
Your second and third paragraphs make zero sense dude, the UK in total easily fits into Manitoba, eh? Ireland and all...
0
Reply
Male 4,854
I used to live in a partisan world of Left and Right. It was pretty miserable. Through repetition Cable News tricked me into hating my fellow man. It`s a brainwashing technique called proof by assertion. As soon as I gave up Cable News, partisan radio and fact check sites I started to become happy again. It took a while but life is wonderful again. I don`t feel sorry for people like 5CATS. I know what they are going through. I just hope people like him see the light and rid themselves of Opinion Media. It causes nothing but negativity in your life.
0
Reply
Male 1,595
What Bill said was true, almost no other country has the same `set-up` for tornadoes that North America has. But it`s the site taking the awkward moment caused by a stupid question on the anchor`s part all the way into flippin` pitch levels of crazy by dragging it out into other meanings, sacrificing sense to try to prove the science man wrong.

Such as their fact that The Netherlands and the UK have more combined tornadoes than America. But remember that video on here about the limits of England, UK and the British Isles? The UK is a pretty substantial area, and then adding the Netherlands, which, granted isn`t that much of an addition to the total landmass of the several combined countries.

I don`t necessarily agree with `The Nye` and what he`s saying, but I think that the proprietor of `NewsBusters` has a personal beef with Billie from a failed science experiment as a kid, like a lemon-battery doing nothing but stinging a paper-cut or a baking soda volcano staining
0
Reply
Male 483
I just did a skim of your link submissions, 5cats. It`s like looking into the eyes of a madman.

Also, I noticed that there`s just a /teeny/ bit of bias In your submissions and descriptions. In the future, when submitting something, try and keep your description a little less personal and maybe you wouldn`t be accused of looking like such a conservative conspiracy theorist.

No, I`m not a "Lefty", and no, I don`t submit much. Neither of these things should change the validity of my argument.
0
Reply
Male 2,085
Just because something has not happened in your lifetime, does not mean it had never happened.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
I think 5Cats should stick to submitting `cute` cat videos and leave the other topics to the big boys. Wait, I`m sick of the cat videos too. Do us all a favor please and stop submitting anything 5Cats.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@angilion, if only all people were smart like you!@ They`d never need to read a book, just look at the cover & judge it! Tah-dah!

Then they`d post snarky comments about that book, like: The plot was teh stupid!

When questioned as to what the plot actually was, they`d reply "You`re just some conspiracy nut! You don`t know anything about books!"

At least @angilion admits his love of being ignorant...

Um, thanks @Gerry1... (I think) (lolz!)
0
Reply
Male 39,593

[quote]"*Sees it`s a 5cats post*
*Leaves thread laughing*" [/quote]
I think you guys are being unfairly rude to 5Cats.

He often provides insightful commentary.
Okay, it`s insight into the world of crazy, but all input is good, right?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Did ANY of you bother to view the 1:39 video?[/quote]

No need. You posted it, so it`s some conspiracy theory malarky and/or a profound misunderstanding of something. That`s what you post. I`m bored of it by now, so I don`t look.

So...your best argument is that you don`t know whether or not one specific type of wind is becoming more common everywhere and that proves that nothing humans do can affect the climate.

And you wonder why people don`t even bother watching?
0
Reply
Male 526
I still say that big tornadoes in the U.S. is proof that God hates our lazy fat selves :P
0
Reply
Male 12
Proving once again stupid people cannot gauge intelligence. They don`t know they`re stupid.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
OK lefties who are dissing this post: Riddle Me This:
"Are other countries seeing the same type of activity, the intensity of these tornadoes picking up in those regions as well?"

Did ANY of you bother to view the 1:39 video? She asks a valid question: IF AGW is causing more tornados, are tornados increasing across the globe? He humms and haws and talks about "hurricains" FFS!

SO: if AGW is "causing" more tornados, shouldn`t it be global? If Bill Nye is getting paid to be on a show, shouldn`t he at least, you know, read up about the subject before spouting "...those are facts. That’s the real deal." eh?

STFU unless you`ve actually read the article or viewed the video. Your chanting of the same dogma, regardless of topic, is sickening.
0
Reply
Male 24
"The left! SO open minded! SO ready to learn! Eager to address the issues head-on! /sarc

Stay ignorant IAB libtards; it`s better to close your eyes and repeat the AGW mantra than to face reality."

At least they`re not trying to square a circle.

Lazy you? Yes, absolutely. You comments and links continually seek to find simpleton black and white answers in a world that is far more complicated.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]His argument is completely true. Tornadoes are almost a completely unique phenomenon to the USA.[/quote]

No, they aren`t. We get loads of tornadoes here in England and there are loads more in Europe.

The difference is size. It was national news a few years ago when a fairly sizable tornado hit Birmingham, doing a fair bit of property damage (roof tiles pulled off, stuff hit by toppled trees, etc) and injuring a dozen people.

Tornadoes powerful enough to do major large-scale damage to strong buildings are very rare outside the USA, but tornadoes in general aren`t.

So you can interpret it either way, depending on whether you include the lower range of tornadoes or not.
0
Reply
Male 605
@5cats. I`m not from the left... but thanks for bringing every aspect of anyones personality to some vague `left` and `right` category. very mature.
0
Reply
Male 265
It`s always a good thing when everyone assumes all scientists are climatologists.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
"OOOOOOOH, 5cats posted this. Never mind guys."

Thread should`ve ended here.
0
Reply
Male 787
His argument is completely true. Tornadoes are almost a completely unique phenomenon to the USA.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
LOL Am I blocked, because Baal just echoed me.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`m sure someone much more patient than me, like you or maybe angillion will debunk this...[/quote]

Not me. I don`t know enough.

No, wait, I do know enough. I know that conspiracy theorists who go against the mass of data in areas they have no understanding of are very rarely, if ever, right.

I also know that 5cats posted this, so I could safely assume it`s not true without even looking at it.

Just out of interest - is this video completely made up and stating things that simply aren`t true or is it just cherry-picking a tiny minority of stuff that can be interpreted into the desired preconceived conclusion if you don`t look at them too hard?
0
Reply
Male 40,349
[quote]3. 5Cats is not a credible news source[/quote]
LOLZ! Oh @lazyMe! Smacking strawmen like you`re a real hero! ALL of your "factoids" are lame, but that one is just precious!
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Here`s the list of European tornadoes for the past 900 years. It pretty much fits on a Post-It note.

Now compare that to the list of
tornadoes in the US.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
[quote]5cats posted this. Never mind guys. - hatface[/quote]
[quote]A post by 5Cats? Ummmmm...I`ll pass... - patchouly[/quote]
[quote]Sees it`s a 5cats post* *Leaves - Smutleybutt[/quote]

The left! SO open minded! SO ready to learn! Eager to address the issues head-on! /sarc

Stay ignorant IAB libtards; it`s better to close your eyes and repeat the AGW mantra than to face reality.
0
Reply
Male 758
What does it say about us when we`re comparing death tolls of natural disasters?
0
Reply
Male 638
Nye was absolutely correct in what he said about Tornado`s in the US vs the rest of the World. This blogger is an idiot.

And comparing death tolls due to a tornado in Bangladesh is ridiculous, I left a fan on over night and 137 people in Bangladesh died.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Just to be clear here:
The tornadoes in the UK are more numerous, but they are cat farts. There`s a reason there were 0 deaths this year in the UK "the most tornado ridden country on earth", and 500 in the US.

97% of the deaths are in the US. Why?
0
Reply
Male 4,546
So.... should I rename this to "Blogger puts comma in wrong place when transcribing Bill Nye?"

Reading the text:
Bill Nye claims America only place that makes tornadoes. This is incorrect.

Watching the video:
Bill Nye claims America creates tornadoes slightly differently to other countries. This is correct.

As an indicator:
[quote]As of May 28, there have been 1,383 tornadoes reported in the US in 2011 (of which at least 960 were confirmed). 2011 has been an exceptionally destructive and deadly year for tornadoes; worldwide, at least 533 people perished due to tornadoes: 12 in Bangladesh, one in New Zealand, one in the Philippines and an estimated 519 in the United States.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 758
PER LAND AREA, being the key operative phrase. The US is something like 50 times the size of the UK, so there you go. If you lads had as many tornadoes as we do (not to parse words, but I do mean the same amount, just as many, an equal amount, the exact same number, etc- NOT `per area`), your lovely country (and I mean that literally, not in any way a stab) would constantly look like an Alabama trailer park of destruction.
People LOVE picking nits, don`t they? And besides, why the f--- do we care about who has more tornadoes? Personally, I`d prefer we have exactly NONE.
0
Reply
Male 605
@aburn damn, I`m such an idiot for recalling fact, sorry. I found the book and I horrendously misquoted:

"The UK, for its land area, has more tornadoes than any other country in the world."

That is a very drastic fact from the one I quoted, my bad.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
(to expound)

The UK averages 33 tornadoes a year. The US has had 1383 SO FAR and tornado season doesn`t end until November.

SO ya wanna take it back?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"If you mean the USA has more tornadoes than anywhere else in the world, then I should tell you the United Kingdom actually receives more tornadoes, per year, than the United States."

Europe has more than the US, not the UK. Thing is, the European tornadoes, are the pissy spin up EF0s and EF1s that a person can stand up in if they have the balls. Europe almost never, ever, gets the big OMG FML ones. The ones in Asia that kill lots of people, are those same little small ones, but they live in huts pootier than trailers. No crap they die.
0
Reply
Male 758
Oh. Newsbusters. They`re about as reliable as Fox Ne- I mean, Fox Entertainment. When the CEO of the company calls it `entertainment` rather than `news`, how the hell can it be considered reliable?
0
Reply
Male 758
Since when does a degree corral someone? I`m working on an associate`s in HVAC/R and finishing up the Nuclear Engineering sheepskin I started in the Navy, but I`m still very knowledgeable and proficient in many things...it certainly doesn`t mean he can`t contribute something useful just because he has a degree in a particular, unrelated field.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
*Sees it`s a 5cats post*
*Leaves thread laughing*
0
Reply
Male 605
Lazyme, I agree with every single thing you say, except:

"Bill was, in fact, correct when he said the USA has more tornadoes"

If you mean the USA has more tornadoes than anywhere else in the world, then I should tell you the United Kingdom actually receives more tornadoes, per year, than the United States.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
But since I have nothing better to do, let`s get this ball rolling...

1. Fox news is not a credible news source
2. Newsbusters is not a credible news source (just look at that name)
3. 5Cats is not a credible news source
4. Bill Nye is a TV celebrity, his background is in Mechanical Engineering, not climatology
5. Bill was, in fact, correct when he said the USA has more tornadoes
6. There is a difference between less tornadoes and no tornadoes at all
7. Even if Norway had tornadoes, it wouldn`t change the facts behind climate change
8. Stumping someone on something unrelated to what they do doesn`t prove anything
9. Both sources emphasize "science guy" to deliberately deceive those who (really) don`t know better into thinking he`s an authority

I`m sure you guys can add to that...

The only mystery here is why bill nye bothered to show up on a FN interview. Maybe he was bribed, or maybe he wants to get his TV career bac
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Hey davymid, did you get this one too?

I wasn`t sure myself but I grew suspicious immediately once I saw bill nye on Fox News.

Right then I thought this was from either that nut 5Cats or that other nut Crakr.

I`m sure someone much more patient than me, like you or maybe angillion will debunk this...

I`ll just sit back an laugh at this train wreck.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
And yet, somehow, the icecaps are still melting.
0
Reply
Male 511
"Hmm, this is strange. I`m surprised this sort of drivel is on IAB."

*checks submitter*

"Oh, 5Cats, that explains it."
0
Reply
Male 6
So what do we see here?
1) Scientist makes point
2) Asshat blogger totally misses said point
3) dratwit denialist crazies have field day
Nothing out of the ordinary with that...
0
Reply
Male 28
Its so funny to hear these "self proclaimed" experts bash someone who is smarter than they are because he said something that may be taken as incorrect. I grew up watching bill nye and learned a lot from him and he is no idiot. I guess it takes a fault in others to feel good about ourselves...
0
Reply
Male 39,593

I think the point he was making was not that don`t occure elsewhere, but N.American continent is more condusive and gets more of them.
0
Reply
Male 4,854
I`ve got to sign off. The sun is starting to come out. I can`t sit inside talking to a wall all day.
0
Reply
Male 4,854
CrakrJak: Your proof made me laugh. The first person quoted in the link you attached is a history professor and the latest "expert" is a Medical researcher. Why don`t you try finding data from an actual climate researcher? Someone who studies in the field.
0
Reply
Male 105
>newsbusters

LOLNO
0
Reply
Male 4,854
CrakrJak: A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sites an extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication. And they found that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (Global Warming). Experts Credibility in Climate Change
0
Reply
Male 25,417
yep silly
0
Reply
Male 875
i never liked him
0
Reply
Male 4,745
A post by 5Cats? Ummmmm...I`ll pass...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Male 483
Also, just noticed the site`s motto:
"Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias"

Really? So unlike you, 5cats.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Markust: Of the 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 of them, that`s 7%, gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. 32 papers, 6%, reject the consensus outright. 253 of the papers, the largest category at 48%, are neutral, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis of AGW.

That`s not consensus at all.
0
Reply
Male 49
That just lead to a malicious site.
0
Reply
Male 483
Lol, well his degree is in Mechanical Engineering. Mine is too, and I don`t know anything about weather patterns.
0
Reply
Male 670
I agree with hatface, he nailed it.
0
Reply
2,767
you know those fake `my computer screens` that says every things infected? ya, just got that from this link...on my mac. first mac malware attempt i have personally encountered. i dont think it was from this site as its not reappearing.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Wow, talk about blatantly ignorant. He prepares for a tv news show and doesn`t even bother to do some rather basic reading/research on the topic.

Do a search for "weather pattern 2011" and see for yourself.

"La Nina weather pattern may be factor in more tornadoes | Reuters" and other links mentioning `La Nina` are in the top 10 searches.
0
Reply
Male 4,854
Over 90% of the scientists believe that global warming is real and that it is caused by humans. If 90% of your doctors told you that you had cancer I`m pretty sure you would get your partisan ass to a treatment facility. Global Warming is a problem that is affecting everyone on this planet. It is not a partisan issue. But what if the 10% of the scientist end up being wrong? Our planet will still be a little better off because of the efforts to clean up our act. What is the harm in trying to make the world we live on a little cleaner?
0
Reply
Male 605
OOOOOOOH, 5cats posted this. Never mind guys.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
Link: Bill Nye: Global Warming Idiot! [Rate Link] - Article and 3 videos! I thought Nye was smart, but apparently he flings poo like all AGW gurus.
0
Reply