Tucker Carlson Brutally OUTS Bill Nye as a Fake Science Fraud [VIDEO]
-
-
Is this our boy coatse?http://orig07.deviantart.net/513c/f/2012/018/9/e/profile_picture_by_spongbab-d4mrazz.png
-
Can someone verify?
-
Some of the takeaways for me in this interview are highlighted below. Nye is just making things up...our climate would be like it was in 1750 if not for man??? Those who post here who make science almost their god how can you defend that? You can't.
Carlson tried to generously throw Nye lifelines throughout the interview, like asking him what the weather would be like without mankind’s supposed contribution. Nye pulled a story out of his posterior that we’d be somehow be stuck with the exact same weather as it was in 1750 with no change in climate since then, giving absolutely zero science to back up his argument.
Again, without supporting evidence, the phony scientist argued that climate change is now occurring at a “catastrophically fast” rate, a total faith-based claim.
“So much of this you don’t know!” Tucker shot back. “You pretend that you know, but you don’t know. And you bully people who ask you questions!”
-
"generously throw Nye lifelines"
Oh fuck off. He wasn't doing anything of the sort. The only thing more biased than Carlson in that interview is the guy that wrote this article. How can you even read that article and think "Yep, that accurately summarizes the interview."
Carlson is doing the same thing creationists do. "Oh, you can't answer every question I have? Then your answer is no better than mine!" Ignoring the completely disproportionate supporting evidence.
And again, what do you think Nye said about jailing skeptics?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I will plagiarize a little here:
Posted Today, 10:17 AM MLD Woody
"generously throw Nye lifelines"
Oh fuck off. He wasn't doing anything of the sort. The only thing more biased than Carlson in that interview is the guy that wrote this article. How can you even read that article and think "Yep, that accurately summarizes the interview."
Carlson is doing the same thing creationists do. "Oh, you can't answer every question I have? Then your answer is no better than mine!" Ignoring the completely disproportionate supporting evidence.
And again, what do you think Nye said about jailing skeptics?
-
"generously throw Nye lifelines"
Oh fuck off. He wasn't doing anything of the sort. The only thing more biased than Carlson in that interview is the guy that wrote this article. How can you even read that article and think "Yep, that accurately summarizes the interview."
Carlson is doing the same thing creationists do. "Oh, you can't answer every question I have? Then your answer is no better than mine!" Ignoring the completely disproportionate supporting evidence.
And again, what do you think Nye said about jailing skeptics?
"generously throw Nye lifelines"
Oh fuck off. He wasn't doing anything of the sort. The only thing more biased than Carlson in that interview is the guy that wrote this article. How can you even read that article and think "Yep, that accurately summarizes the interview."
Carlson is doing the same thing creationists do. "Oh, you can't answer every question I have? Then your answer is no better than mine!" Ignoring the completely disproportionate supporting evidence.
And again, what do you think Nye said about jailing skeptics?
Give me the science where the climate would be the same as 1750 today if not for man and you can have the last word. He made it up. Reminds me of a liberal friend I had who when losing an argument had a tendency to make things up out of thin air.
-
An intolerant, mean-spirited, condescending, and arrogant Bill Nye the “science guy” clowned himself on national TV Monday night, with a big assist from FOX News host Tucker Carlson, who simply asked Nye questions about the dubious claims of global warming scientists about so-called “climate change.”
Nye appeared following comments he made on Monday in a Facebook Live event with Soviet-style socialist Bernie Sanders that anyone who doesn’t worship at the alter of the false progressive god of global warming is a “climate denier” who suffers from psychological delusions.
Carlson explained to Bill Nye, who despite his stage name is not a real scientist (he has an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering and is a former comedian who played a scientist on TV, PBS, of course, to brainwash children with taxpayer dollars) that he understands the climate is changing and that it always has, but questioned the degree to which mankind contributes, if at all, and he simply asked Nye to explain his phony science.
As you can see in the video clip below, Nye becomes visibly angry when asked to back up his “science” in manmade global warming, refusing to give a percentage number that represents mankind’s contribution (because there isn’t one), all while simultaneously claiming (Al Gore, anyone?), that “the science is settled” and that the “evidence is overwhelming.”
Carlson tried to generously throw Nye lifelines throughout the interview, like asking him what the weather would be like without mankind’s supposed contribution. Nye pulled a story out of his posterior that we’d be somehow be stuck with the exact same weather as it was in 1750 with no change in climate since then, giving absolutely zero science to back up his argument.
Again, without supporting evidence, the phony scientist argued that climate change is now occurring at a “catastrophically fast” rate, a total faith-based claim.
“So much of this you don’t know!” Tucker shot back. “You pretend that you know, but you don’t know. And you bully people who ask you questions!”
Of course, like most progressive leftists, Nye cannot demonstrate the science proving his belief in his fake pagan religion, he’s left with just repeating the mantra like an overpaid George Soros-paid puppet on a string, that the “science is overwhelming.”
Watch Bill Nye get owned by Tucker Carlson below. And all it took were a few questions.
http://politistick.com/tucker-carlson-brutally-outs-bill-nye-fake-science-fraud-video/
An intolerant, mean-spirited, condescending, and arrogant Bill Nye the “science guy” clowned himself on national TV Monday night, with a big assist from FOX News host Tucker Carlson, who simply asked Nye questions about the dubious claims of global warming scientists about so-called “climate change.”
Nye appeared following comments he made on Monday in a Facebook Live event with Soviet-style socialist Bernie Sanders that anyone who doesn’t worship at the alter of the false progressive god of global warming is a “climate denier” who suffers from psychological delusions.
Carlson explained to Bill Nye, who despite his stage name is not a real scientist (he has an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering and is a former comedian who played a scientist on TV, PBS, of course, to brainwash children with taxpayer dollars) that he understands the climate is changing and that it always has, but questioned the degree to which mankind contributes, if at all, and he simply asked Nye to explain his phony science.
As you can see in the video clip below, Nye becomes visibly angry when asked to back up his “science” in manmade global warming, refusing to give a percentage number that represents mankind’s contribution (because there isn’t one), all while simultaneously claiming (Al Gore, anyone?), that “the science is settled” and that the “evidence is overwhelming.”
Carlson tried to generously throw Nye lifelines throughout the interview, like asking him what the weather would be like without mankind’s supposed contribution. Nye pulled a story out of his posterior that we’d be somehow be stuck with the exact same weather as it was in 1750 with no change in climate since then, giving absolutely zero science to back up his argument.
Again, without supporting evidence, the phony scientist argued that climate change is now occurring at a “catastrophically fast” rate, a total faith-based claim.
“So much of this you don’t know!” Tucker shot back. “You pretend that you know, but you don’t know. And you bully people who ask you questions!”
Of course, like most progressive leftists, Nye cannot demonstrate the science proving his belief in his fake pagan religion, he’s left with just repeating the mantra like an overpaid George Soros-paid puppet on a string, that the “science is overwhelming.”
Watch Bill Nye get owned by Tucker Carlson below. And all it took were a few questions.
http://politistick.com/tucker-carlson-brutally-outs-bill-nye-fake-science-fraud-video/
it is so tough to ask a liberal questions, and impossible, often, to have an intelligent
conversation with them without personal attacks. Nye the Fake Guy kept interrupting
Carlson again and again, then used his calculator to time how long it took Carlson to
interrupt him? LOL
We keep getting the same old liberal run around -
"How do we know that mankind is CAUSING the global climate change?"
"er...because England can now grow grapes"
LOL.
The truth is, liberals can't defend their emotionalist/political stances with concrete evidence.
The point being, if it was concrete evidence, there would not be conflicting evidence.
Worse, liberals burst out angrily when it happens, and they go personal attack. Bringing Tucker's
children into it proves mankind is ... WHAT? Nye the Fake denies he said that,
not good, fake guy: yes you did.
-
"And again, what do you think Nye said about jailing skeptics?"
***********************
Bill Nye says that we should throw “climate deniers” in jail."Bishop of the Church of Climate Change, Bill Nye, has been preaching the fire and brimstone theology of global cooling – I mean global warming – I mean climate change for a while. Not only is he a diehard in the faith, but he’s lashed out against those who don’t quite see it his way.
His latest sermon has him stating that “climate deniers,” maybe should go to jail.
YouTube channel, cfact, sat down with Nye and at some point Marc Morano asked the celebrity in a lab coat if the idea being passed around by climate change activists to throw skeptics in jail isn’t too extreme.
“We’ll see what happens, was it appropriate to jail the guys at Enron?” responded Nye. “Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive?”
The heretics, such as myself, would argue that we’ve seen far too much evidence that points to Nye’s end times climate gospel being nothing but a false story drummed up to get votes and expand government control through regulatory actions from unelected officials, such as the EPA. I mean, should I also just believe in a flying spaghetti monster?
Even without the evidence that Nye was an unkempt beard, and set of ragged clothes short of being a doomsday corner crazy, jailing people who simply disagree with you only further proves that maybe the strength of your arguments isn’t all that hardy. If everything Nye said was true, then he could easily disprove it, and not worry about the opposition being taken seriously. But he can’t.
Instead, Nye is suggesting we strip freedoms from the citizenry, and punish those who would dare speak out against him, so that his faith can spread. No dissension, or else.
I realize Nye’s time as a children’s show host has garnered him a loyal following amongst the citizenry, but I think it’s time he ditches the childish notions of throwing people into the lion pit because people, even within the scientific community, say he’s wrong."
http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/04/14/no-one-expects-the-climate-inquisition/
-
Nye going apecrap on CNN
-
how opportunistic and dishonest, using the flood as "proof" that mankind
is causing it.
Flooding has always been happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927
and.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_United_States_before_1901
-
1) Yes, you're doing exactly what Carlson did. "answer every last question I have or you're wrong." Nye fell for the bait there. I'm guessing he was referring to 1750 as the point where man starts to affect the climate. Without that, it's not difficult to say we'd be closer to 1750 climate today. Without the influence of man on the climate.
2) Again, what do YOU THINK he said. You're just copy and pasting literally the most biased sources you can. (Again, how can you read that article and think "Yeah, that told the whole story!").
-
1) Yes, you're doing exactly what Carlson did. "answer every last question I have or you're wrong." Nye fell for the bait there. I'm guessing he was referring to 1750 as the point where man starts to affect the climate. Without that, it's not difficult to say we'd be closer to 1750 climate today. Without the influence of man on the climate.
2) Again, what do YOU THINK he said. You're just copy and pasting literally the most biased sources you can. (Again, how can you read that article and think "Yeah, that told the whole story!").
-
1) Yes, you're doing exactly what Carlson did. "answer every last question I have or you're wrong." Nye fell for the bait there. I'm guessing he was referring to 1750 as the point where man starts to affect the climate. Without that, it's not difficult to say we'd be closer to 1750 climate today. Without the influence of man on the climate.
2) Again, what do YOU THINK he said. You're just copy and pasting literally the most biased sources you can. (Again, how can you read that article and think "Yeah, that told the whole story!").
1) Yes, you're doing exactly what Carlson did. "answer every last question I have or you're wrong." Nye fell for the bait there. I'm guessing he was referring to 1750 as the point where man starts to affect the climate. Without that, it's not difficult to say we'd be closer to 1750 climate today. Without the influence of man on the climate.
2) Again, what do YOU THINK he said. You're just copy and pasting literally the most biased sources you can. (Again, how can you read that article and think "Yeah, that told the whole story!").
If you are stating something as factual then produce the facts and Nye cannot do it because they aren't there. It is speculation. I don't see why Nye doesn't just make more of the case the facts appear to suggest this instead of speaking about climate change being caused by man as an exact science and even going so far as to want to punish scientists who differ on it.
The article is about the interview with Carlson and Nye and I watched the video.
-
I watched it, too. Nye the Fake Guy answered his question...about proof that mankind caused it...
"because it flooded in Louisiana"... something like that.
If he's going to arrogantly make claims, even to the point of jailing skeptics...
and he can't answer legit questions... that's egg on his face.
He looked as stupid as Debbie Wasserman Shultz of the DNC....
-
I'm sick to the death of articles going
"Joe blow DESTROYS noob dingleberry!"
"Haircut McGee OUTS col. Bowtie!"
"Lenin Stalin mcMarx OBLITERATED by John Smith with simple gotcha question!"
Sick. To the death.
I'm sick to the death of articles going
"Joe blow DESTROYS noob dingleberry!"
"Haircut McGee OUTS col. Bowtie!"
"Lenin Stalin mcMarx OBLITERATED by John Smith with simple gotcha question!"
Sick. To the death.
In the house of commons when a speaker says something an MP agrees with, that MP will stand briefly to show support for said statement. It's quite comical at times, like whack a mole. But on this, I stand with you.
-
1) Yes, you're doing exactly what Carlson did. "answer every last question I have or you're wrong." Nye fell for the bait there. I'm guessing he was referring to 1750 as the point where man starts to affect the climate. Without that, it's not difficult to say we'd be closer to 1750 climate today. Without the influence of man on the climate.
2) Again, what do YOU THINK he said. You're just copy and pasting literally the most biased sources you can. (Again, how can you read that article and think "Yeah, that told the whole story!").
If you are stating something as factual then produce the facts and Nye cannot do it because they aren't there. It is speculation. I don't see why Nye doesn't just make more of the case the facts appear to suggest this instead of speaking about climate change being caused by man as an exact science and even going so far as to want to punish scientists who differ on it.
The article is about the interview with Carlson and Nye and I watched the video.
If you are stating something as factual then produce the facts and Nye cannot do it because they aren't there. It is speculation. I don't see why Nye doesn't just make more of the case the facts appear to suggest this instead of speaking about climate change being caused by man as an exact science and even going so far as to want to punish scientists who differ on it.
The article is about the interview with Carlson and Nye and I watched the video.
The article is his drug fueled interpretation of the interview. I mean, it must be. It has hardly any basis in reality...
Because we're at a consensus of climate experts agreeing on man influencing the climate. Not "Well we think the data might point to this." I realize, based on the sites you're frequenting for your news, this may come as a shock.
Again, he isn't calling for every denier to be jailed. Though, again, RedState or whatever might be saying that.
-
If you are stating something as factual then produce the facts and Nye cannot do it because they aren't there. It is speculation. I don't see why Nye doesn't just make more of the case the facts appear to suggest this instead of speaking about climate change being caused by man as an exact science and even going so far as to want to punish scientists who differ on it.
The article is about the interview with Carlson and Nye and I watched the video.
The article is his drug fueled interpretation of the interview. I mean, it must be. It has hardly any basis in reality...
Because we're at a consensus of climate experts agreeing on man influencing the climate. Not "Well we think the data might point to this." I realize, based on the sites you're frequenting for your news, this may come as a shock.
Again, he isn't calling for every denier to be jailed. Though, again, RedState or whatever might be saying that.
The article is his drug fueled interpretation of the interview. I mean, it must be. It has hardly any basis in reality...
Because we're at a consensus of climate experts agreeing on man influencing the climate. Not "Well we think the data might point to this." I realize, based on the sites you're frequenting for your news, this may come as a shock.
Again, he isn't calling for every denier to be jailed. Though, again, RedState or whatever might be saying that.
Even if he went with that argument he should just state the facts. More scientists agree with MMGW than disagree with it. That would be factual.
I don't care if he is calling for every denier of MMGW to be jailed (or just a few)...calling for the jailing of even one is terrible under a free democratic society that prides itself on the concept of free and open speech.
-
Nye was totally owned. Totally.
-
The article is his drug fueled interpretation of the interview. I mean, it must be. It has hardly any basis in reality...
Because we're at a consensus of climate experts agreeing on man influencing the climate. Not "Well we think the data might point to this." I realize, based on the sites you're frequenting for your news, this may come as a shock.
Again, he isn't calling for every denier to be jailed. Though, again, RedState or whatever might be saying that.
Even if he went with that argument he should just state the facts. More scientists agree with MMGW than disagree with it. That would be factual.
I don't care if he is calling for every denier of MMGW to be jailed (or just a few)...calling for the jailing of even one is terrible under a free democratic society that prides itself on the concept of free and open speech.
Even if he went with that argument he should just state the facts. More scientists agree with MMGW than disagree with it. That would be factual.
I don't care if he is calling for every denier of MMGW to be jailed (or just a few)...calling for the jailing of even one is terrible under a free democratic society that prides itself on the concept of free and open speech.
That would be the most denier friendly interpretation of that fact
If a tobacco company was knowingly publishing false reports claiming no ill effects to smoking, should their be legal consequences?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login