Tucker Carlson Brutally OUTS Bill Nye as a Fake Science Fraud [VIDEO]
-
The truth never goes far away, despite dishonest attempts at
making it hide.
-
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/47720 Fact-Checking Bill NyeJoe Bastardi · Mar. 1, 2017
Let’s fact-check Bill Nye regarding comments he made about something near and dear to my heart — wine — during the Feb. 26 edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
Here’s his response to what the earth would look like today if man was not the culprit for all the warming:
“It would have looked like it did in 1750. Britain would not be very well-suited to growing grapes as it is today. French wine-makers would not be buying land to the north as they are now. People who plan to run ski resorts would still be able to do it in Europe.”
First of all, grapes are being grown in modern day Britain, but they were also being grown back when the Romans were in charge. There were 50-100 vineyards in Britain between 1000 and 1300 AD and even one in Scotland! And Britons were still giving it a go as late as the 1700s before the Little Ice Age. The reason is two-fold. 1) You could grow grapes and make wine because it was warm enough to (we were in a climate optimum both times). 2) The occupiers were of Roman and then French descent (the Normans showed up in 1066), both known for their love of wine. I can certainly speak for the former. Obviously, the northern tastes are more toward ales, and this combined with the cooling lead to the necessary change from the fruit of the vine to the harvest of the field.
Here’s an excellent read on this.
What about the ski industry?
Looks like there are plenty where people usually go to ski — the Alps.
And locations north of the UK still have theirs.
A big hint to all this lies in the cyclical nature of the oceans. The shift in the Pacific in 1978, called the Great Pacific Climatic Shift, from cold to warm naturally started elevating global temperatures, and that was followed by shifts in the IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) and, most importantly for Europe and the Arctic, the Atlantic to its warm phase. It does not take a science guy, just common sense, to understand the earth’s major warm ocean bodies, with 1000x the heat capacity of the air, would have a warming effect on the planet. (Inconvenient truth: Warming oceans also release CO2.) But why quibble with such trivialities as the ocean when you can just label people like the late Dr. William Gray, who had 50 years of experience in the field and a PhD — something Bill does not have — delusional? Perhaps a read of his paper is in order.
Here’s what it comes down to. By saying CO2 is now the climate control knob, i.e. 100% responsible, you are denying (there’s that word) the entire history of the CO2-temperature relationship in the known history of the planet.
Also being denied is that warmer times, including when grapes were grown in Britain, were called climate optimums because life flourished then.
And the increase even has a diminishing return.
I had the chance to talk with Bill Nye for about three hours in my home. He is not an evil demon, he is a man who believes he is right and wants to change the world for better. That is what he believes. The problems for me start when you resort to some of the things he has recently advocated — jailing people or, in the case above, labeling people delusional. And that’s a bit of a shame, for two reasons. 1) It’s step one toward the type of despotic view that people who think they know better try to force on others. That is not freedom, and that is not science. 2) He is someone who really brought science to the forefront. I have a picture of two former pro football players, Chris and Keith Conlin, choking me cause they told me to lay off Bill Nye.
No, I am not going soft, because it’s the totality of the journey that has to be looked at. But diminishing whatever authority you may have had before (if these two guy watched Bill Nye, then he has gotten a lot of exposure) with this kind of thing seems to be out of line to me. One is always taught to “Finish Strong.” The argument here is not that the climate does not change — it always has and always will — but it involves, in my opinion, three main points that sum up my position:
1.) How much is man responsible for variances that were previously exclusively natural?
In my opinion, most of the warmth today is likely natural given the tiny amounts of CO2 relative to the entire system, of which the oceans have 1000x the heat capacity and are the great thermostat of the planet, taking centuries of action and reaction to reach where they are now.
2.) Is this worth the draconian reactions that will handcuff the greatest experiment in freedom and prosperity in history, the United States of America?
3.) This question may arise, if one wants: Would not the cost of adaptation to such things, rather than trying to correct what has always happened in the past anyway, be a sounder fiscal response?
Now does that seem delusional or worthy of jail time?
I suggest Bill finish strong with his argument, but not by what is a soft tyranny of suggesting jail time or demeaning others, some with far more education and experience than he.
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm, and contributor to The Patriot Post on environmental issues.
-
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.
Tell me where he said that
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 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.
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.
Don't jump the gun Chris. I was working that slow build up...
-
Bill Nye open to criminal charges, jail time for climate-change ...www.washingtontimes.com/news/.../bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-...
Apr 14, 2016 - Bill Nye will perform at USA Science and Engineering Festival on Saturday ... skeptics should be prosecuted as war criminals, Mr. Nye replied, ...Apr 14, 2016 - Uploaded by cfact
Bill Nye Jailing Skeptics. cfact ... Bill Nye in conversation with Bill Prady on Climate Change ... Rumble ...Apr 18, 2016 - Uploaded by Anthony Brian Logan
Bill Nye (The Science Guy) gave a fascist, Nazi type of answer when asked ...deniers, and he suggested that ...
Bill Nye, 'The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!': Nye entertains idea of jailing ...www.climatedepot.com/.../bill-nye-the-jail-the-skeptics-guy-nye-entertains-idea-of-jai...
Apr 14, 2016 - ... call to jail climate skeptics for treason and lock them up at the Hague. ... Wash Times:Bill Nye, the science guy, open to criminal charges, jail time ... Do I think they should be in jail, I think theyshould be enjoying three hots ... -
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.
Tell me where he said that
Bill Nye, the science guy, is open to criminal charges and jail time for climate change dissentersTell me where he said that
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/
-
Was it appropriate to jail the guys from Enron? Mr. Nye asked in a video interview with Climate Depots Marc Morano. Well see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive, and so on?
In these cases, for me, as a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen, Mr. Nye said. So I can see where people are very concerned about this, and theyre pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this.
-
That isn't "anyone that disagrees with man made climate change should be jailed"
-
That isn't "anyone that disagrees with man made climate change should be jailed"
What I said, "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 stand by what I said.
-
Except he isn't saying "those who deny MMGW should face criminal charges."
He's referring to companies knowingly publishing misleading data that can lead to harm of the general public. If you're purposely ignoring studies you disagree with, to push knowingly misleading studies, that could result in public harm, you should face backlash
-
Nye isn't supporting such a measure "right now". If it comes out later that deniers weren't doing so in good faith and deliberately obfuscating a serious issue, than theres a discussion to be had.
-
But I still think he wasn't smart to take that bait. It opens the door for the other side to take that same position with people who deliberately fudged climate data, which they didn't need to.....it only ammo'd up the deniers
-
This will fall on deaf ears to OBF, but listen to Nye's debate with Ham on creationism. Nye is not looking to silence anyone that disagrees with him. Any good scientists welcomes all of the legitimate data they can find. If someone can produce a report that flips climate change on its head, that's game breaking. They don't want to silence any legitimate science going on.
-
bs. all soaked in Egypt. Nye is a fake scientist. Prominent scientists who disagree with
mmgw are dissed as NOT being actual acclaimed *climate scientists" but they
readily go with algore and nye as their chosen experts.
that is just hypocritical.
-
-
All those guys apparently dissent and most to all of them appear more qualified than Bill Nye the science guy, former childrens television host.
-
All those guys apparently dissent and most to all of them appear more qualified than Bill Nye the science guy, former childrens television host.
All those guys apparently dissent and most to all of them appear more qualified than Bill Nye the science guy, former childrens television host.
And no one is saying "Well Bill Nye says it's happening, so it must be true."
....
Consensus of climatologists is generally where I'm looking
-
So much looking and speaking, but no 'doing'.
-
yep. The science cannot possibly be settled when you have all these scientists disagreeing.
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