Please note that Bill Nye is "The Science Guy"....as in an entertainer. Sarah Palin is....well....I'm not entirely sure. Entertaining perhaps but definitely not scientifically minded, if even bright enough to discuss it with a ten year old.
You're trying to minimize the work he does. He speaks on behalf of other scientists and as a man who is educated in mechanical engineering with all the science courses it entails, he is a scientist in every sense of the word. Bill Nye speaks the truth about what science does and what it generally supports. Sarah Palin just speaks incoherent phrases.
Sorry about that.....If you supported him as a ligit science " teacher" with all the credentials before, I am sorry I missed it. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have a degree in "science". It means that you have degrees in related fields and work and teach in it. Bill, did that and does that. Currently, he is the CEO of The Planetary Society. If that doesn't make him a scientist, I don't know what does. "The Planetary Society is a United States-based non-government, nonprofit organization that anyone may join. It is involved in research and engineering projects related to astronomy, planetary science, exploration, public outreach, and political advocacy. It was founded in 1980 by Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray, and Louis Friedman,[1] and has over 40,000 members[2] from more than one hundred countries around the world."
The validity of science is derived from empirical evidence,not opinion. The veracity of the evidence, not the number of people who accept the proposition,scientist or not, is what gives it weight. Moreover, even if scientific fact was determined by a popular vote, the petition represents only a small fraction of scientists,and only a small fraction of signatories are actually professional scientists with degrees in a relevant field. The OISM Petition Project ( aka Oregon Petition) is a sham.
You accused me of a thing I never would do. I don't dismiss institutions. However, institutions are the "house" of a lot of types of education. Institution is far too broad to use them as the authority over climate. I use Dr. Lindzen because he is so recognized as a theorist on climate, he was on the IPCC panel of experts. His problem with them was their alarmism. Even the worst abusers of climate change models speaks of 2100. My problem is I have seen a hell of a lot of climate in the past 77 years. I am fortunate to recall from the WW2 era. When the war was still going on. I have had storms come and go. Seen cold spells and warm spells. Seen not much rain and a lot of rain. I am in a place to pay close attention to weather and climate. When I trained to be a pilot, it was drilled into us all. We were expected to pass a FAA test on weather. Climate is a collection of weather events. When they speak of climate, they speak of storms and hurricanes and El Nino. Pilots must understand weather. Those who forget crash at times. I never dismiss the purpose of education. I believe when you get to me my age, you will have far surpassed what you know today if you study a lot as I always have done. It is not merely Lindzen and his 240 papers that I have looked at. But he is the best of the best. I sure do accept science produced if it is certain. What is certain about global warming to you? How can you be certain of future warming? Study that laugh of a graph, the hockey stick. When I studied graphs and math and Analytic Geometry and Calculus, I did a lot of graphs. I see propaganda in that graph. I have explained why in the past. When a graph treats a few hundredths of a degree warming in a nearly vertical line, it has to be bogus. Graphs should help. Not give you lies. If I graphed my jumping ability per the way that graph was drawn, you would get the impression I can leap vertically 50 feet. And that is how you lie to the public. It was not clear to the theorists for many years if Einstein got it right. So why are you so cocksure the world is in a heap of hurt and may burn to a crisp? Come on, you guys specialize in the tactic of the alarm. We are supposed to feel bad when we challenge such an uncertain science.
In a nutshell, the problem with predicting global climate is that it is far too complex to submit to predictions. Predicting the future warming of earth by models that vary a lot is junk science.
Pretty much anybody can join. Bill Nye was beat down by Dr. Richard Lindzen. [video=youtube;-hrUaD86XRw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw[/video]
Professor Richard Lindzen tutors Tim Yeo. [video=youtube;HUT7hLtFXIk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUT7hLtFXIk[/video] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-compared-fish-wriggling-hook-loses-case.html Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-wriggling-hook-loses-case.html#ixzz46OLO4h5K Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Here you can see the confusion being called out by Monckton. [video=youtube;K21amuBJcoE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21amuBJcoE[/video]
Richard Lindzen: limited understanding? A recent WUWT post by Richard Lindzen is a rather lame attempt to defend an equally lame opinion piece by Freeman Dyson in the Boston Globe. Evidently, Lindzen felt the need to defend Dyson’s piece because it was rather roundly refuted in a response by 8 members of the faculty of MIT. In a crowning achievement of irony, Lindzen attempts to turn a phrase used by the 8 MIT critics against them: A careful reading of the letter of the 8 professors leaves one wondering whether the dismay they express over Dyson’s “limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate science” is not merely a projection of their own limitations and biases. When Lindzen uses the phrase “limited understanding,” I think he can only be referring to himself. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/richard-lindzen-limited-understanding/
Lindzen pointed out the part attributed to man. Still, once the peak was hit, despite the rapid increase of Carbon Dioxide, temperatures were stable. Folks, to blame man, one has to use Carbon Dioxide and when that failed, so did the blame of humans.
Ha ha. Dicky just lies at a faster clip. Even the institutions he has his degrees from diss him. How does it feel to be on the wrong side of humanity. There are no 4 year accredited colleges or climate reasearch centers or governments in the free world that agree with you and Dicky.
There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases. http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html
Junk science. Look, were this proven, I and Dr. Lindzen among hundreds of others would stop talking and take action. Something the left refuses to do. If Obama believed in this, the wall around Florida would be in the budget.
Well, you didn't recognize Nye as one. So I'm in good company. It's apparent you don't know what a scientist is based on your posts. Not being believed by a someone that knows little about science is something to be proud of. Thank you.
Nye is a tv personality. So, now you are also one????? I am well educated in science. But per you, i just don't know a thing nor does a man with a Ph.d. know a thing. you smear Dr. Lindzen but get weak in the knees that I poke at Nye.
Here is a neat article about those "real commies " , Russia. Though they believe in climate change, like these guys, they argue for doing little about it. So, deniers are really closer to the communist POV. They mimic them exactly. Heck, deniers never want to do anything about CC....just like those leftist commies; the real ones from Russia. If Siberia warms up, people are more apt to move there and they have better access to their huge oil reserves under the polar ice cap. Sounds like the GOP. Let's use global warming to get to more fossil fuels so we can have more global warming. http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1934785,00.html
