Tucker Carlson Brutally OUTS Bill Nye as a Fake Science Fraud [VIDEO]
-
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?
-
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?
Should Climate Change Deniers Be Prosecuted?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?
http://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted-378652
-
But do you have an opinion of your own? It isn't looking good...
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! -
The ice isotopic ratio records available from three sites in the high Andes (Figures 6-1 and 6-2) together suggest warm conditions and weak Amazonian precipitation over the last two centuries, relatively cold and wet from 1400 to 1800, and relatively warm and dry before then (Thompson et al. 1986, 1995, 1998, 2000b, 2003, 2006). The current warm/dry period is a 20th century phenomenon at Quelccaya, but clearly began around 1750 at Huascaran (to the north) and is absent from Sajama (to the south). This latitudinal gradient is interesting but not yet understood. Ice isotopic ratios from Kilimanjaro reveal no consistent trend over the last two millennia (Thompson et al. 2002).
The combined isotopic signal from all available ice cores in Tibet and the Andes shows that the climate of the 20th century was unusual with respect to the preceding 1900 years (Figure 6-3).
In Greenland (Figure 6-2) and coastal Antarctica, ice isotopic ratio records clearly shows 20th century warming, a Little Ice Age, and earlier warmth. In Greenland, this earlier warmth is centered at about A.D. 1000, whereas in Antarctica it was much earlier. Borehole temperature analyses yield the same pattern (see Chapter 8). In Greenland, the 20th century warmth is not higher than that during medieval times (11th century). In the Canadian Arctic, ice isotopic ratio records from the Agassiz Ice Cap on Ellesmere Island show warming over the last 150 years, which is unprecedented for the last millennium (Fisher et al. 1995). As a group, the ice cores from interior Antarctica (Figure 6-2) show nothing anomalous about the 20th century (Masson et al. 2000).
I believe we have influenced the climate some, seems like common sense. But given the random data over the years, how do you designate a rate to which mankind has contributed? Its a fair question.
-
But do you have an opinion of your own? It isn't looking good...
It looks good for the first amendment as it doesn't appear that the brilliant idea of criminal penalties for those who don't agree with MMGW is going to happen any time soon under a RICO act or any other charge.
-
I really do hate this climate argument. I hate that it's such a partisan issue. I wish climate scientists could just work on this in peace and quiet and could slowly filter out recommendations.
I constantly see two arguments from the right. 1) it isn't happening. 2) it's happening but not our doing
See why ur all not serious people?
-
there is plenty of good reason to question the mmgw hysteria.
Nye was emoting, and couldn't back up his mmgw catch phrases.
and it's bogus to compare any deliberate hiding of true information
about the effects of tobacco smoke, etc....
with the controversy of global warming. It's the skeptics that are looking at evidence
on both sides... it's the UN, and many liberals, who choose to only look at their
sides' evidence.
-
Evidence that's been accumulating since the 70's and 80's, long before main stream people gave a flying fuck
-
Deforestation and Its Extreme Effect on Global Warming - Scientific ...By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon ... forest destruction, forest clearing will put another 200 billion tons of carbon into the ... “Conservation costs money, while profits from timber, charcoal, pasture and ...The Cost of the Biofuel Boom: Destroying Indonesia's Forests - Yale ...e360.yale.edu/features/the_cost_of_the_biofuel_boom_destroying_indonesias_forests
Jan 19, 2009 - The clearing of Indonesia's rain forest for palm oil plantations is having ... people, and releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. ... The Cost of the Biofuel Boom:Destroying Indonesia's Forests.
$5,000,000,000,000: The cost each year of vanishing rainforest | The ...www.independent.co.uk › Environment › Climate ChangeOct 2, 2010 - British scientific experts have made a major breakthrough in the fight to save the natural world from destruction, leading to an international effort ...Cocaine and the Destruction of the Rainforests - Drug-Aware.comwww.drug-aware.com/articles/157/cocaine-and-the-destruction-of-the-rainforests/... costs of cocaine production - Cocaine and the Destruction of the Rainforests. ... be cleared or burned (how's that for a carbon footprint), causing air pollution, ...The Impact of Agriculture in the Rainforest - Rainforestsrainforests.mongabay.com/0811.htmJul 28, 2012 - Agricultural use of some rainforest land proves to be a failure because of the ... with theprice fluctuations so common in international commodities markets. .... accuses McDonald's ofdestroying the Amazon rainforest (04/07/2006) ... When peatlands are drained, the stored carbonreacts with air to release ... -
but talking about destruction of the earth's rainforests doesn't
redistribute America's wealth.........
-
Saving the rainforests have been a liberal agenda for decades, where have you have been? Conservatives have been mocking the "tree huggers" for the whole duration.
-
But do you have an opinion of your own? It isn't looking good...
It looks good for the first amendment as it doesn't appear that the brilliant idea of criminal penalties for those who don't agree with MMGW is going to happen any time soon under a RICO act or any other charge.
It looks good for the first amendment as it doesn't appear that the brilliant idea of criminal penalties for those who don't agree with MMGW is going to happen any time soon under a RICO act or any other charge.
So what would you recommend if a tobacco company was willfully presenting false information to the public to downplay the health rusks of smoking?
-
It looks good for the first amendment as it doesn't appear that the brilliant idea of criminal penalties for those who don't agree with MMGW is going to happen any time soon under a RICO act or any other charge.
So what would you recommend if a tobacco company was willfully presenting false information to the public to downplay the health rusks of smoking?
So what would you recommend if a tobacco company was willfully presenting false information to the public to downplay the health rusks of smoking?
I will throw it back on you. Should Al Gore be charged with inducing panic for making false claims:
8 Years Ago Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be Ice Free in 5 Yearshttp://humansarefree.com/2017/01/8-years-ago-al-gore-predicted-north.html
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 đź’—
Register Login