Bill Nye On The Earth`s Climate Change

Submitted by: fancylad 5 years ago in Science

Could climate change be wildfire cause? Only Mr. Nye has the answers.
There are 93 comments:
Male 15,832
mesovortex, you`re as full of $#!+ as constipated elephant. You don`t have to research the positions of the global warming hucksters. It`s being shoved down our throats every day through every possible media source you can imagine. You couldn`t avoid it if you tried.

If, however, you seriously wanted to understand the skeptics` position, you actually have to make an effort to hear their point of view in their own words. (Listening to what the liberal media, liberal politicians, and corrupt liberal "scientists" TELL you about the skeptics` positions doesn`t count, because they all lie.)

You`re the one with his head up his ass, and you seem quite content to keep it there. Well, that`s just fine. YOU save the planet by driving around in a f***ing little tinfoil deathtrap. That leaves more gas for me, and if we ever meet at 50 mph, its all the less damage to my V8 SUV.

And "hide the decline" still equals "falsify the data."
0
Reply
Male 41,079



Goodbye @vortex, no more troll-chow for you!
0
Reply
Male 458
5Cats:
Data wasn`t manipulated. I explained it to you.

Judging by your careless behavior, spelling, and typing, I`m 100% sure you haven`t researched this adequately.

I`ve shown you what really happened. Why do you continually lie? It only makes yourself look bad.

That you are patently wrong in your `facts` and arguments is just more evidence in my favor.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]The ClimateGate crew knew that without some TRD included, they`d be laughed at! So they "fixed it" using as severely UN-scientific "trick" (as they called it). "[/quote]

That`s what I said, specifically mentioning that they themselves refered to "hiding the decline" as a "TRICK". Your reply:

[quote]You didn`t research this. It`s actually scientific to do this because that data after a certain point wasn`t reliable and was divergent.[/quote]

Not olny can you read my mind, KNOWING 100% that I`ve NEVER researched this, nor read papers written by those who have extensively sdone so: you KNOW I have not!
BUT you then say: "it`s actually scientific to do this" meaning... THEY DID IT! I don`t CARE if you think it`s "justified" or valid, THEY DID IT! THAT is all I said, and YOU proved me right.

Deal with reality bro.
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"Of course it makes absolutely ZERO sense. I suppose I`m just not as smart as @randomvortex is..."

I never said I was smarter than you overall. However, I`ve definitely researched this topic more than you have and this is quite apparent since I`m able to correct you on many things that you`ve said and based on the fact that you are incorrect about many things you have said and that you have a terrible understanding of climate science and the current consensus right now, as well as the consensus in the past.

I`d say that`s a pretty strong case that you are not very well informed in this subject.

By the way, how hard is it to just copy and paste someone`s name? Is it really necessary to mock their names like that and scream at the keyboard? How hard is it to just stick to the facts?
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"Except, you know, where YOU SAID it WAS manipulated"

I didn`t say that. I explained to you that the data wasn`t manipulated. I told you probably three times that it wasn`t.

You are so dishonest that you are telling other people what they said instead of listening to them.

My creationist remark wasn`t an ad hominem either, it was merely pointing out that you`re just as dishonest as they are. Calling you dishonest isn`t one either, because you actually are being dishonest.

0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]You refuse to do that.[/quote]
@mesovortex: and just how do you know that?
[quote]Else you would see yours is invalid[/quote]

OBVIOUSLY! @OldOllie CANNOT POSSIBLY have done even the slightest amount of research into the matter otherwise he`d 100% AGREE with YOU!

[quote]We have shown you that climategate wasn`t an issue and no manipulation went on.[/quote]
Except, you know, where YOU SAID it WAS manipulated... Oh of course that`s OK in your books: to `fix` the data to match the theory.

[quote]OldOllie, 5cats: Both of you would make excellent creationists. Have you considered doing that?[/quote]

HEY MARKUST! Are you paying attention? THIS = Ad Himinum! Get it now?

Of course it makes absolutely ZERO sense. I suppose I`m just not as smart as @randomvortex is...
0
Reply
Male 458
OldOllie, 5cats:

Both of you would make excellent creationists. Have you considered doing that?
0
Reply
Male 458
OldOllie:
You`re not a skeptic. A skeptic would research their arguments to see if they are valid. You refuse to do that. Else you would see yours is invalid and climategate really was a bunch of hot air and no data was manipulated.

You are denialist because you deny the fact that you are patently wrong regarding that issue. You refuse to read anything that disagrees with you, and you resort to talking points to back up your point when you`ve been shown to be wrong.

5cats:
The above goes for you as well. We have shown you that climategate wasn`t an issue and no manipulation went on. Yet you still cling to that over and over again. The reality is you are clearly incorrect, and you deny this reality continually.

No climate scientist ignores natural Earth changes. That doesn`t mean man cannot change climate. We know of no current natural cycle that can account for the current warming.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]If anyone is wasting time, it`s you.[/quote]
FINALLY! After all those posts! @mesovortex says something that makes sense!

I am wasting my time: reading your idiotic blabbering! Thanks for the heads-up!

vv @OldOllie is bang-on! The ClimateGate emails prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire AGW Scare is based on "junk science".

Earth gets warmer, Earth gets cooler. It`s been doing so with or without human help for a very long time!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"mesovortex, you just keep drinking your Kool-Aid like a good little liberal, and let us hide the decline from those bad old skeptics."
0
Reply
Male 458
5Cats:
There have been plenty of factual responses to your posts - but you ignored them all and resorted to childish name calling or saying stuff like "I know you are but what am I".

You aren`t able to discuss this on an adult level, nor are you intellectually honest enough to know when you are wrong, or how you can be shown wrong.

If anyone is wasting time, it`s you.
0
Reply
Male 458
5Cats:
I offered evidence that showed from a survey of publications in the 1970s that there was a clear consensus of global warming even then, and that the `ice age scare` was just a media job.

When I said what consensus, I meant what `ice age` consensus.

Just because I proved you were wrong doesn`t mean you can further backpedal and call me shifting my goalposts - which I`m not.
0
Reply
Male 458
OldOllie:

Wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/y8rz995

The published science is not some bully. You`re confusing that with creationism and the denialist crowd. The truth is that if you have real data you will not only become famous, but your research will become a focal point of future funding and science will change around you. What scientist doesn`t want that?

Those scientists that are `shunned` are usually shunned not out of evidence, but because they think they have evidence and really don`t - or because they are dishonest. This is why those that believe in ID are usually shunned from biology discussions - because they are dishonest creationists.

0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote">Don`t get your science from the media, get it from journals.[/quote">
inaria, the problem is that the journals are just as corrupt as the hoaxers behind the Climategate emails. They refuse to publish anything that contradicts the preconceived orthodoxy. Doing so will get an editor summarily fired. Not only can skeptical scientists and professors not get works published, they, too, are likely to be fired for not toeing the global warming line.

There is no such thing as honest scientific inquiry in this subject area. If you value your career, you follow the politically correct orthodoxy, or you will be destroyed.

If you don`t believe that this kind of intimidation is commonplace, just read here.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Climatologists and scientists VS corporations and oil barons...Who to trust...who to trust...[/quote]
The Climategate emails PROVED that the global warming alarmists are frauds and hoaxers. The undeniable fact is, there is absolutely no possible way to construe "hide the decline" as meaning anything but "falsify the data."

Given that, I`ll take the corporations and the oil barons. They at least provide a valuable commodity that makes my life better. The hucksters are only offering more socialism and central planning which has only brought poverty, misery, and mass murder wherever it has been imposed.
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Don`t get your science from the media, get it from journals.
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Oh I actually saw this when it aired on TV...That newscaster is so ignorant I wanted to bash my head against a wall. The fact is, scientists (in academia, therefore publishing their finding in academic journals) have been calling for something to be done about global warming for years. For decades. In fact, many believe we have reached the point of no return now. Too little too late. The fact that people on this forum are still so ignorant (that they assert the findings of tens of thousands of scientists is manipulated lies) just goes to show that the world, but most particularly America is being groomed by media and crazy people to believe that Science isn`t telling us the truth, and scientists aren`t to be trusted. Yes, there are always crack pot scientists out there (like the one who wrote a false paper linking Autism to vaccinations), you have to look at what is peer reviewed and accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
SO: I`m not being a hypocrite, eh?
Ad Hominum means you`re trying to agrue something.
I`m just insulting him, no bones about it!

I notice you complete LACK of actual resonses to my assertions/questions, but you`re criticizing ME for not responding politely to @baal? Hummmm...
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]There was no consensus about that:[/quote]
@mesovortex = moving the goalposts.

OK @mesovortex, who`s sock-puppet are you? @madest? Is that you with your arm up @mesovortex`s arse?

@Markust: @Baal has brought that "you`re a liar" up before and I called him on it then. He`s a coward and a bully yet you support that? Nice!
So he brings it up AGAIN and I reply with some ACTUAL lies he posted.
That is called presenting the facts.
I accused him of hypocricy and then showed evidence. =/= ad hominum.
Post #2 Continues to provide evidence by listing his lies.
Post #3 I tell him what I think of him: not "ad hominum" because I`m not trying to prove/disprove anything! Just letting him know my opinion.
It`s being straight-up RUDE! (Me that is) NOT a flawed for of arguement, ffs!
I`m putting the slipper on CinderBaal`s foot, and BOY does it fit well!
0
Reply
Male 28
Bill Nye... Still Awesome!
0
Reply
Male 5,185
I`m moving on. I was just seeing if you were honest enough to admit you were being a hypocrite. I got my answer.
0
Reply
Male 458
CrakrJak:
You are scientifically illiterate. You are a creationist. I don`t expect you to give a very good rebuttal to anything science related.
0
Reply
Male 458
auburnjunky:

Climate Scientists are well aware of milankovich cycles. However they are too long term to explain the current short term warming we are now seeing.

They explain changes over 10-30,000 years. We`re currently seeing massive changes over 100 years.
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"SO: There was NO manipulation of the data, except when there was, and 5Cats doesn`t know he`s telling the truth, here`s proof of it!"

Manipulation of data means changing it. The data was not changed. The data that was shown was the relevant data. Not showing irrelevant data is not manipulation.

If I were to chart average highs in the northern hemisphere and hide data from stations that were not reliable or accurate, that wouldn`t be manipulation of data. That would be careful selection of verified data.
0
Reply
Male 5,185
Read your ridiculous 3 post rant counter-attacking Baalthazaq 5Cats. You are a hypocrite of the highest degree. Your response to him is the epitome of ad hominem. And in your last response to me you accused me of using a strawman argument yet you really did use two in your response to Baalthazaq along with your initial hypocritical run on of ad homonyms. And yes I did read Baalthazaq`s comments. I wouldn`t go so far as saying you guys are frauds - just misinformed. But it is you who did not respond to him. This is why more and more people ignore you because you slither and sneak your way out of everything that comes your way. You accuse people of using ad hominem yet do it a lot yourself. You accuse people of using strawman arguments yet do it a lot yourself. You have zero personal accountability. Please for the love of humanity never ever ever go into management.
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"@mesovortex: Not ONE scientist agreed with this? NOT ONE? Then how did all those papers about "global cooling" and the "new ice age" get published? Oooo, must have been the "vast right-wing conspiracy"!! "

There was no consensus about that:
http://tinyurl.com/7paq6a8

Do you do any research before posting?
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@markust: Strawman
Don`t reply to my question or anything, don`t deal with or provide facts or anything...

@Baal attacks me, calling me names in more than one thread, when I reply I`M THE ATTACKER?

Next you`ll complain about this:
"Did you even glance at @Baalthy`s post before you made your stupid comment? Thought not..."
0
Reply
Male 508
Deniers like to use `el nino` as an excuse for our weather extremes, negating that we`ve been in a `la nina` cycle for the last two years and have only become cyclically neutral. HOWEVER, the last few decades have shown a decidedly large increase in the number of `el nino` events and a decline in `la nina`.
Causality suggests that`s akin to blaming the rain for the clouds. You have it bass ackwards.
0
Reply
Male 5,185
So it is only ad hominem when other people do it 5Cats. Thanks for the clarification. I love the added use of ad hominem in replying to an accusation of your hypocritical use of ad hominem. You really are something. I think you should go into politics.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Baal: You`re the fraud here sir. You didn`t give the person`s name to your supposed `NASA` quote and even though the quote emphasizes `natural shifts in our climate`, you go and declare AGW as fact regardless.

There is no solid proof of AGW and short term phenomena like El Nino is not proof of anything.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]So is it only ad hominem when other people do it 5Cats?[/quote]
Pop Quiz for Markust:

Person A punches Person B in the face.
Person B then punches Person A in the face.
WHO started the fight?

@markust: "Person B! Person B started the fight!"
Why?
@markust: "Because I disagree with Person B`s politics, therefor he/she is automatically GUILTY!"

Did you even glance at @Baalthy`s post before you made your stupid comment? Thought not...
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]Climate scientists didn`t go along with this.[/quote]
@mesovortex: Not ONE scientist agreed with this? NOT ONE? Then how did all those papers about "global cooling" and the "new ice age" get published? Oooo, must have been the "vast right-wing conspiracy"!!

[quote]There was no manipulation of data, period.[/quote]
Followed By:
[quote]It`s actually scientific to do this because that data after a certain point wasn`t reliable and was divergent.[/quote]

SO: There was NO manipulation of the data, except when there was, and 5Cats doesn`t know he`s telling the truth, here`s proof of it!

Really?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
0
Reply
Male 884
You have to expect a vitriolic response when you attack somebody`s beliefs. If there were any solid proof, they`d just explain it.
0
Reply
Male 5,185
Whenever people are saying things that go against their own interests just follow the money trail and you will find who is pulling the puppet strings. For the "We are causing part of global warming" deniers that would be the oil and coal industries. They have put so much money into propaganda that is repeated ad nauseum until it is burned into these peoples heads. The oil and coal industries have also paid a lot of money to have representatives in congress repeat these same lies. When a lie is repeated enough times by a trusted source it becomes fact.
0
Reply
Male 5,185
So is it only ad hominem when other people do it 5Cats?
0
Reply
Male 458
auburnjunky:
"Let`s not forget about the global cooling scare of the 70`s and 80`s! All that pollution we were giving off could block the sun, and make it coooooolder! ;)"

You didn`t research this. That was a popular media scare. Climate scientists didn`t go along with this. They were still predicting global warming back in the 1970s. Time Magazine is not a scientific resource.

Did you bother researching your points before posting them?

If you don`t want to appear in denial then you should probably not post things that show you clearly didn`t research your points.
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"It`s an extensive study from Finland, it closely resembles world-wide tree-ring data, AND TRD is the reason the ClimateGate crew wanted to "hide the decline" when the TRD failed to match their theory.
The ClimateGate crew knew that without some TRD included, they`d be laughed at! So they "fixed it" using as severely UN-scientific "trick" (as they called it). "

You didn`t research this. It`s actually scientific to do this because that data after a certain point wasn`t reliable and was divergent. That paper had been out for 10 years prior to `climategate`. The supposed manipulation of data was mentioned itself in the paper.

In other words, scientists read this paper, looked at the data, looked at the supposed manipulation, and for 10 years realized that it was insignificant.

Lie much? Or do you just not do your own research?
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"UNLIKE the AGW-Crew it didn`t try to FAKE it`s data! "

This is patently false. There was no manipulation of data, period.
0
Reply
Male 458
AuburnJunky:

"FACT: The sun is going through a flare up, that happens every 100,000 years or so. (That means it`s hotter kiddos) "

This is patently FALSE.
0
Reply
Male 508
@Squrlz4Sale I find the biggest climate deniers (besides those that have a vested interest in keeping up the status quo) are people that harbor some guilt because they are subservient to these very same money men. They support their families by chopping down forests, driving diesel tankers, fitting pipelines, running their gas bars, strip mining the earth, etc etc etc.

For them, if it turns out that climate change is 100% with out a doubt man made, then they themselves are partially responsible and that can be a hard pill to swallow.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
I find it discouraging that after posting several videos on here from the "Climate Denial Crock of the Week"--videos that carefully, patiently, and intelligently explain the science behind AGW and expose the mistakes and outright deceit of those denying it--people on here are still as uninformed as ever.

Like water off a duck`s back.

Not that I think people are learning, but here`s the latest video by Peter Sinclair.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Drat yourself @Baalthy, right up the arse!

Allah AND Muhammed Say It`s OK!(Slightly NSFW) for men to have gay anal sex with each other, so I assume it`s ok for auto-anal also.

Please do not speak to me after this thread unless you maintain the highest level of politeness. You can count on it: I won`t be speaking to you if I can avoid it.
Pour out all your hatred here, you seem to have buckets of it built up inside you.

Seriously Baalthazaq: don`t be a "madest"

0
Reply
Male 41,079
You post shiite that is so full of fail, yet you flat-out refused to admit it:

>Executive Order: not voted on = fail
>Repubs had Minority anyhow = fail
>One of the first things (Obama) did? = ONE YEAR after taking office? = fail
>Also: Obama Promised to "close Gitmo" WITHIN ONE YEAR and here you present proof he did not = fail
>Pushed into spending biil: a neat trick since the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY decides which bill goes where = fail
>Dems wanted to pass = fail (it was never brought to vote)
>BEFORE Repubs came to power in the house: in Jan 2009 they KNEW the results of the Nov 2010 mid-terms = FAIL

Counting Baalthy`s lies in ONE SHORT POST: 1,2,3,4,5,6...7! Seven outright lies in a sinlge post and YOU ACCUSE ME?
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Stfu @baalth, you are the ultimate hypocrite and I`m sick of you and your shiite. If you come here to abuse people plz remove your power to ban them, coward.

Remember this?


YOU are the liar: projection is a serious psychological disorder, I suggest you seek help.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
AMUUUUURICA!
0
Reply
Female 12
http://www.netetrader.com
!free shipping!
j0rdan sh0es........ 28 dollar
c0ach p-u-r-s-e...... 25 dollar
c00gi cl0thes........ 20 dollar
U.G.G B00ts.......... 39 dollar
Dear Friend:
We can supply all kind jersey with good quality and low price. contact me, let`s talk details.
Delivery time: 5-6days, Shipping Method: EMS
Newest stock list: every 3-5days updated
Warm Regards,
Carolyn

http://www.mineokmalls.com

09=
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Lets be really really clear here 5 Cats.

The problem isn`t the facts. The problem is when people like NASA say the temperature is going up by 0.6, and down by 0.3, and you declare NASA says the earth is cooling.

And I have to point out to you that 6 is bigger than 3. (net: +3)

And you deny it.

Meanwhile your side brings up myths like AJ saying it`s the sun, or that we`re too small to matter.

And forges conspiracy.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
5 Cats, remember when you had to lie and pretend NASA didn`t think the globe was warming?

Well, here`s a NASA quote for the wildfires:

"Are rising temperatures and shifts in rainfall and snowfall patterns anticipated from human-induced climate change happening? Absolutely, but it`s important to remember that natural shifts in our climate have and will continue to give us a wild ride. In the West, drought, heat waves and great fires are our history. Looking to the future, the uncertainties of human-influenced climate change will play a stronger and stronger role, and rewrite our fiery history."

Guess NASA is "drinking the AGW coolaid" too.

I don`t like frauds Crakr and Cats, and whilst you pretend to be on the side of science, you dismiss it at will when it disagrees with you. Which is always.
0
Reply
Male 7
@antagonizer Graphs arent like fishes where if you have more its better. You have to READ the graphs. Also verify that the graphs aren`t LIES as well.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Fancy that:
Pistol Shrimp also produce a "miniature sun".

Scale is important here. Yes, it`s the equivalent of a "mini sun". Mini here being incredibly mini.

Sun`s output in a year:
12`000`000`000 YJ

Biggest ever nuke:
0.0000021 YJ.

There have been a total of 2000 tests. Counting energy as roughly equatable to other means of energy production, and assuming they were all the biggest (they`re not, we`re multiplying by between 10 to 1000 here).

Humanity will contribute just as much in 6 months from regular human consumption.

If we take more reasonable estimates for bomb size, start to factor in that only 35% of the bomb`s energy is heat, etc, Greenland is a bigger heat source in a year than all nuclear testing ever.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
wow IAB is full of wannabe scientists who doesn`t know what they are talking about
0
Reply
Male 1,949
Isn`t a nuclear bomb test the equivalent of putting a miniature sun in our atmosphere? How have the two thousand+ nuclear bomb tests affected the atmosphere as a whole?

Nukes over time
0
Reply
Male 508
@OldOllie Prove me wrong. For every graph on one side of the debate, there`s another, opposite perspective on the opposite side. So, if the data is corrupt, then we need to look at the people behind the surveys. Climatologists and scientists VS corporations and oil barons...Who to trust...who to trust...
0
Reply
Male 1,268
@5cats, the chart had NO pertinent references to the discussion, it was just a chart. Could`ve been from some iceberg, the moon, or a smoothie made by the gods. The point was, you should`ve posted all that other stuff you posted along with the chart to begin with.
0
Reply
Male 771
Bill Nye the Science Guy. BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!
0
Reply
Male 41,079
(dammit! 880!)
Unlike @markust, I believe @HiEv and ALL IABers can look at the facts and make up their own minds!
Even if they disagree with me :-P

Hiya @Aj!
0
Reply
Male 41,079
MY chart doesn`t have the "important bits" because UNLIKE the AGW-Crew it didn`t try to FAKE it`s data!
MY POINT IS: I can read a chart too Mr.Nye! And this one says it`s been hotter before and the Earth still teems with life! Warmer climate has been GOOD for humanity in the past, and there`s no reason to think otherwise now.

SO: unless you can show how the Romans emitted enough CO2 to change the global weather, AGW=FAKE remains the truth.

Is the "climate changing" well, YES! Indeed it is! It`s called "the weather" and it`s been changing since life on Earth began, ffs.

Yes: 1998 was a HOT year, and 1997 had a LOT of sunspots. That`s not a "coincadence"...

Sunspots Explained

UNLIKE @markust, I think @HiEv can look at th
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"all i see is most scientist claim that global warming is a big problem, and yet, money sais it isnt."

The ones making money off of global warming, are the ones that want to sell you "carbon credits" (Al Gore owns one of these) and twisty light bulbs that cost 100 times more, but have the same lifespan.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Let`s not forget about the global cooling scare of the 70`s and 80`s! All that pollution we were giving off could block the sun, and make it coooooolder! ;)
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Jesus.

I started to write this in all caps, but that`d be too douchey.

Is the climate changing? Yes.

Has it changed before? Yes.

Did it change before man was even alive? Yes.

Are we significant enough to tell the Earth to stop warming or cooling? Nope.

FACT: We are closer to the sun now, than in any other time in recorded history.

FACT: The sun is going through a flare up, that happens every 100,000 years or so. (That means it`s hotter kiddos)

The Earth is going through a natural shift. Yes, we contribute to climate change, but not in a significant enough amount to make a damn bit of difference. I could care less that it is 95 degrees (f) this year, but it was 94.5 100 years ago.

I`m not one of those cooky conservatives who thinks man is doing nothing. I`m one of those kooky people who respects the Earth and nature enough to know that WE ARE INSIGNIFICANT. If mother Earth wanted us gone, she`d make us gone
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@markust: trying to recruit followers, how pathetic! Just because YOU cannot defend your "logic" or disprove mine doesn`t mean that this: ad populum will save you from your shame.

@flying_ltj: This graph`s for you! lolz!

@LilianDulci: HOW do you thing "tree ring data" is collected and applied? DUH! There are no "global forests", it is to laugh!
TRD is the backbone of studying ancient temperatures - DEAL with the facts.
This is a NEW study and it supports (not "proves") the NO-AGW theory.

@HiEv: @CrakrJak`s chart is for Satalite Data: not many satalites back in the Roman Warming Period eh>?? The point of his chart is to put the "hottest years" claim to the test: it FAILS. And miserably! Pathetically even.
more to follow...
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@turdburglar: I submitted it, but so far = nada! Here`s the source:
Tree Ring Data
It`s an extensive study from Finland, it closely resembles world-wide tree-ring data, AND TRD is the reason the ClimateGate crew wanted to "hide the decline" when the TRD failed to match their theory.
The ClimateGate crew knew that without some TRD included, they`d be laughed at! So they "fixed it" using as severely UN-scientific "trick" (as they called it).

So Bill Nye drinks AGW Kool-aid 3X a day, obviously.

@Scuziod: It`s the Earth and YES! The Earth`s GLOBAL temperature varies that little over the decades. Still: LOOK at the chart! It has been warmer in the past, for a century at a time, but we`re still here!

@flyin
0
Reply
Male 5,185
It`s a lot easier just to ignore them HiEv. You would have an easier time getting through to a wall.
0
Reply
Male 621
@OldOllie: A) You might want to learn the difference between a meteorologist (one that studies the atmosphere, primarily for predicting short term trends in the weather) and a climatologist (long term trends in climate). B) Many TV meteorologists are not scientists at all, with few having graduate degrees, and only about half having any kind of college degree in atmospheric science at all. C) Just saying, "The fact is, the vast majority of working meteorologists think man-made global warming is a hoax," doesn`t actually make that a fact. "Some do" is not the same as "the vast majority." If this really is a fact, where`s your evidence?

@CrakrJak: Your graph starts well into the industrial revolution, long after the trend started.

@5Cats: And your graph cuts off the important bit at the right.

Nice biased graphs, guys.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]More powerful, and more frequent tornadoes, hurricanes, temperature shifts, temperature extremes, etc etc etc, in the last 10 years than in the last 100...melting sea ice, warmer oceans...[/quote]
If any of that were true, you`d have a point. Fortunately, it isn`t.
0
Reply
Male 508
More powerful, and more frequent tornadoes, hurricanes, temperature shifts, temperature extremes, etc etc etc, in the last 10 years than in the last 100...melting sea ice, warmer oceans...NOPE no global warming here cause Bill O`Reilly says it ain`t so.

Conservatives love rednecks. lol
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bill Nye is a hack, the wildfires have nothing to do with `global warming`. We are entering a new El Nino pattern, which is mostly a phenomenon of the Americas.

Right now Europe is having some of the coolest temperatures for summer. Anomalies like these run in cycles. Using tragedies like the wildfires to score political points is as scumbaggy as it gets.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
This man is an unscrupulous liar. The fact is, the vast majority of working meteorologists think man-made global warming is a hoax.

When you have to lie to make your point, maybe that`s the first clue that you don`t have one.
0
Reply
Male 17,511


0
Reply
Male 4,891
Thx lillian.
5cats - Global temps are best determined with data from many places, over time using many different methods. Then analzed and debated by many experts to be confirmed. There needs to be a staggering amount of data to say for sure, but so far most signs point to yes, temps are rising globaly. If you want to debate the cause or the effects, you would have a much stronger case. That`s just how I understand things to be.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
turdburglar, what I was able to gather from googling that graph was it was from a study that examined trees in one specific area and used those trees to determine average temperatures over the years. It says nothing about global temperatures at all.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
It`s some measurement of some ice somewhere with some accuracy, turd. Lets measure something over a long period of time that doesn`t even have a full 6 degrees celsius of deviation and say "see, it`s cool bro."

My guess, it`s moon temperatures. Looks like the moon is doing just fine!
0
Reply
Male 4,891
5 cats - That one graph, is it global temps? Gathered by what method? Showing summer highs or averages (not yearly)? According to who? It explains very little, while EXPERTS who devote their life to the subject, and use more than the internet and partisan propaganda to form conclusions say otherwise. I`m sure you can find other graphs, but since this isn`t my field of study, I will defer to the majority of the scientific community. Don`t take it personal, but the majority of the evidence disagrees with you. But I do agree that cats are neat!
0
Reply
Male 334
he has got a strong point though.. all i see is most scientist claim that global warming is a big problem, and yet, money sais it isnt. ans a lot of people seem to believe money.. owell..
0
Reply
Male 41,079

0
Reply
Male 339
Im not a climatologist... but I can read graphs too.

Guess that makes me as much of an authority on this topic as Bill Nye.
0
Reply
Male 20,987
Listypoos, you nailed it.
0
Reply
Male 5,872
Two ugly people in one shot!
Normally I would not make such an observation for fear of being offensive, but in this case, Euurgh!
0
Reply
Male 4,309
colorado is always on fire
0
Reply
Male 4,891
Lets see, Agree with the vast majority of climatologists and scientists that global warming is real...or... some guy posting a comment on iab with stubborn conservative opinions.
0
Reply
Male 955
Whether climate change exists or not, we really shouldn`t be doing all we can to ignore it and make it potentially worse if we`re causing it.
0
Reply
Male 5,185
"CNN missed a trick... the caption under him should have read - "The End of the World is Nye"."

Best comment of the week.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
CNN missed a trick... the caption under him should have read - "The End of the World is Nye".
0
Reply
Male 1,793
you guy are idiots... he is right... keep saying it is happening... i am scared for our children...
0
Reply
Male 5,185
People who make health care and extreme climate change a partisan issue are suffering from a cranial rectal inversion.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Mankind is the keepers of this planet.. but selfish desires have stepped in the way of this duty of ours, and now people only care about selfish desires, getting more money, more materialistic things at any cost. Even at the expense of future generations. Why? Because of the "me" or "i" mentality.. eg. "Why should i care what happens after i die" or "i only care about me, and nobody else"

It`s a shame really, but this is what is happening, as bill said, 16 of the last 17 years have been the hottest ever. Businessmen want to keep that quiet, and pay lots of money to do so.
0
Reply
Male 130
he disproved his own point ???!!!
0
Reply
Male 2,085
Let`s see, climate records are only about 100 years old. The earth is billions of years old. I don`t think 15 years out of 4 billion is a very good sample to deduce anything.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Couple of things you cannot dispute: LOLZ! ZOMG! This guy has a great future as a stand-up comedian...
0
Reply
Male 20,987
Link: Bill Nye On The Earth`s Climate Change [Rate Link] - Could climate change be wildfire cause? Only Mr. Nye has the answers.
0
Reply