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!").
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.
Pretty much sums up religious beliefs in a nutshell.
-
If you are stating something as factual then produce the facts and Nye cannot do it because they aren't there. It is speculation.
Pretty much sums up religious beliefs in a nutshell.
Pretty much sums up religious beliefs in a nutshell.
I'm not religious at all but how is religion the issue in this thread? This is about Bill Nye, not producing the science that he's claiming is a fact. Turning it into another pointless attack on OBF's religious beliefs is not helping that fact to be objectively explained sufficiently. It's just a way to distract from it.
-
Pretty much sums up religious beliefs in a nutshell.
I'm not religious at all but how is religion the issue in this thread? This is about Bill Nye, not producing the science that he's claiming is a fact. Turning it into another pointless attack on OBF's religious beliefs is not helping that fact to be objectively explained sufficiently. It's just a way to distract from it.
I'm not religious at all but how is religion the issue in this thread? This is about Bill Nye, not producing the science that he's claiming is a fact. Turning it into another pointless attack on OBF's religious beliefs is not helping that fact to be objectively explained sufficiently. It's just a way to distract from it.
Not an attack at all, just highlighting an irony. And if this board was concerned about staying on topic, it wouldn't be nearly as cluttered as it is. But, point taken. Guess I just had a moment.
-
Just to be clear, on a live TV interview what does 'producing the facts' exactly mean? Citing specific papers? Because one paper by itself doesn't make a conclusive case, there are countless papers coming to the same conclusions.
-
Just to be clear, on a live TV interview what does 'producing the facts' exactly mean? Citing specific papers? Because one paper by itself doesn't make a conclusive case, there are countless papers coming to the same conclusions.
Just to be clear, on a live TV interview what does 'producing the facts' exactly mean? Citing specific papers? Because one paper by itself doesn't make a conclusive case, there are countless papers coming to the same conclusions.
But Nye didn't provide immediate facts to answer all of Carlson's questions. Therefore, Nyes side is no more legitimate than the denier side.
... Duh
-
Hey everybody is it time yet?
WSS
-
Answer me first. I've been asking for a while now and all you seem to be able to do is copy and paste articles...
LOL I make a comment about what Al Gore said and then provide the link so I don't get "where's the link?" and now that is copy and pasting...
The comparison is apples to oranges. There is a clear link between smoking and lung cancer which is why tobacco industry has lost a number of lawsuits. The science is not there to prove man made climate change so people can and do disagree about it. The polar ice cap hasn't melted away as Al predicted it would years ago.
LOL I make a comment about what Al Gore said and then provide the link so I don't get "where's the link?" and now that is copy and pasting...
The comparison is apples to oranges. There is a clear link between smoking and lung cancer which is why tobacco industry has lost a number of lawsuits. The science is not there to prove man made climate change so people can and do disagree about it. The polar ice cap hasn't melted away as Al predicted it would years ago.
I don't care what Al Gore said, I was still waiting for an answer from you. My comment about you just copy and pasting articles comes from your previous posts in this thread.
So you agree that tobacco companies knowingly pedaling false info should be prosecuted? That's what I'm asking.
(and the evidence is there for man made climate change. You just won't see it on RedState.com)
-
LOL I make a comment about what Al Gore said and then provide the link so I don't get "where's the link?" and now that is copy and pasting...
The comparison is apples to oranges. There is a clear link between smoking and lung cancer which is why tobacco industry has lost a number of lawsuits. The science is not there to prove man made climate change so people can and do disagree about it. The polar ice cap hasn't melted away as Al predicted it would years ago.
I don't care what Al Gore said, I was still waiting for an answer from you. My comment about you just copy and pasting articles comes from your previous posts in this thread.
So you agree that tobacco companies knowingly pedaling false info should be prosecuted? That's what I'm asking.
(and the evidence is there for man made climate change. You just won't see it on RedState.com)
I don't care what Al Gore said, I was still waiting for an answer from you. My comment about you just copy and pasting articles comes from your previous posts in this thread.
So you agree that tobacco companies knowingly pedaling false info should be prosecuted? That's what I'm asking.
(and the evidence is there for man made climate change. You just won't see it on RedState.com)
I think regardless of any information the tobacco companies put out in minimizing the risk of cigarette smoking most people knew already smoking wasn't good for you. Back in the 1930's people were calling cigarettes "coffin sticks" for good reason. Tobacco companies are being sued civilly and not criminally and I agree with that.
The evidence is not there about man made climate change as a scientific fact. There are thousands of scientists who don't agree with it. If the evidence was there Bill Nye would have at least stated some of it but he couldn't. The idea of prosecuting those who don't believe in man made climate change is a terrible idea in a free democracy.
-
So a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting
What exactly would you have wanted Nye to present in a 10 minute interview where the interviewer was clearly hostile towards him? How is he going to run through the peer reviewed reports and all of the facts and data?
A consensus of climate experts agree it is happening. Please post your "thousands of scientists" that think otherwise. And remember, Nye has already been minimalized because he's just an engineer. So if you give me a list like Cal has, where it's anyone with a vague science degree, hardly any will count
-
So a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting
What exactly would you have wanted Nye to present in a 10 minute interview where the interviewer was clearly hostile towards him? How is he going to run through the peer reviewed reports and all of the facts and data?
A consensus of climate experts agree it is happening. Please post your "thousands of scientists" that think otherwise. And remember, Nye has already been minimalized because he's just an engineer. So if you give me a list like Cal has, where it's anyone with a vague science degree, hardly any will count
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A HoaxSo a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting
What exactly would you have wanted Nye to present in a 10 minute interview where the interviewer was clearly hostile towards him? How is he going to run through the peer reviewed reports and all of the facts and data?
A consensus of climate experts agree it is happening. Please post your "thousands of scientists" that think otherwise. And remember, Nye has already been minimalized because he's just an engineer. So if you give me a list like Cal has, where it's anyone with a vague science degree, hardly any will count
http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html
-
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A HoaxSo a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting
What exactly would you have wanted Nye to present in a 10 minute interview where the interviewer was clearly hostile towards him? How is he going to run through the peer reviewed reports and all of the facts and data?
A consensus of climate experts agree it is happening. Please post your "thousands of scientists" that think otherwise. And remember, Nye has already been minimalized because he's just an engineer. So if you give me a list like Cal has, where it's anyone with a vague science degree, hardly any will count
http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax
http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html
If I follow the breadcrumbs and this mentions the oregon petition, I'm not going to be impressed. I'll get back to you shortly...
-
And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields.
And yep - http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
Do we need to rehash this one yet again? I mean, I love the classics from time to time, but you've got to keep up with the times.
-
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A HoaxSo a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting
What exactly would you have wanted Nye to present in a 10 minute interview where the interviewer was clearly hostile towards him? How is he going to run through the peer reviewed reports and all of the facts and data?
A consensus of climate experts agree it is happening. Please post your "thousands of scientists" that think otherwise. And remember, Nye has already been minimalized because he's just an engineer. So if you give me a list like Cal has, where it's anyone with a vague science degree, hardly any will count
http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax
http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html
Yep. The "yeah, but..."s should start shortly.
-
So a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting
****************************
I'm open but I tend to think this was more of a case where tobacco companies chose to go with studies to support them over those that didn't. As late as 1964 the surgeon general only had the warning put on cigarettes it may be dangerous to your health. I see this more of where civil liability is applicable.
-
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax
http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html
Yep. The "yeah, but..."s should start shortly.
-
The issue is whether those who deny MMGW should face criminal charges. The "science fraud guy" thinks it would be a good idea. I disagree.
-
I have done it in the past, too. lol. The de niles start - if they can't pick it apart,
even bogusly, somehow, mmgw people will ignore it. But, Good Job, OBF.
My point always was, when there are contradicting scientists, there is no
definate absolute stance to take on either side of it, except to refuse to
go with the mmgw side of it, because it is not settled, not at all.
That is being proven more and more over the years. It's nice I was ahead of the
curve - wasn't wrong about being a skeptic. We were correct to be looking
at both sides of the issue.
-
Are we still rehashing this 30k scientist claim that was rife with climate knowledgeable folks like psychologists and social workers etc, etc? I mean even the phd'd were in fields unrelated. Im sorry i dont care what an electrical engineer who hasn't spent one month in a true climate lab, thinks
-
The issue is whether those who deny MMGW should face criminal charges. The "science fraud guy" thinks it would be a good idea. I disagree.
The issue is whether those who deny MMGW should face criminal charges. The "science fraud guy" thinks it would be a good idea. I disagree.
So then what do 30k random scientists (not climatologists or anything) have to do with it? Considering the sheer volume of scientists globally? Are you just trying to throw things out and see what sticks? If you weren't around last time, Woody, myself and others around here would be eligible to sign it, but you don't respect our opinions on the matter...
Anyway, you and woody are clearly playing 'stubborn keyboard warrior chicken' about this so I'll go ahead and say for him, nobody thinks you should be penalised in any way for legitimate research that contradicts (or supports) anything. The scientific community would *love* legitimate information on this topic whatever it says. The point being made is that large corporations with vested interests in people continuing to consume tobacco suppressed science documenting the negative effects of it, and people have died or had severe medical issues because they were smoking three packs a day. Same deal with lead companies. Now we're seeing a similar consensus in the scientific community, while supposed scientists, generally funded by parties with vested interests, are being trotted out as definitive experts with science that is debatable and intentionally misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst, while the world suffers the consequences.
-
The truth never goes far away, despite dishonest attempts at
making it hide.
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 š
Register Login