Posted on 02/23/2010 2:05:30 AM PST by Suvroc10
when he went on Rachel Maddow’s program on MSNBC on February 10 and assaulted Americans who disbelieve in global warming as somehow being unpatriotic.
If there is anyone that hates America more then that cow Maddow and works to dismatle it, I would be shocked...
I hope Glenn Beck was listening in.
Just saying......
And if Nye used Venus as an example, he's a doofus. And a 'science' idiot. There is no comparison between Earth and Venus. Not CO2, not 'greenhouse' effect, not anything, and not in a million years.
Bill Nye, 'the science guy' should watch the 'SCIENCE CHANNEL'.
They just ran a series last week on 'The Planets'. Venus was naturally covered and a real scientist (/s) explained the Venus Atmosphere issues from pressure (90 Earth Atmosphere's), to the surface temperature (900oF), to CO2 and other gases that would kill us.
The CO2 level on Venus would be the least of our problems.
1) Is there Global Warming and is it out of line with past trends and historical data? [This is the now greatly disputed "Hockey Stick".]
2) How great is the danger and how consistent is the measurements? [Feet of sea level increase = Danger, Centimeters of localized = no danger.]
3) What are the tests to prove this trend and are they based on commonly available data and do they accurately track current trends from a starting point of 10 to 50 years back as a starting point?
4) What evidence is there that these trends are SPECIFICALLY Anthropogenic (man-made / caused [AGW]) versus natural actions?
5) What is the actual cost to the human population and the ecosystem if these AGW trends continue over decades?
6) What costs are we being asked to bear to fix this AGW and are they proportional to both the problem, our proven impact on the problem and the contributions made by others?
7) Will the fixes made to combat AGW have a real and measurable effect in a defined period of time?
8) Do the proponents of these fixes stand ready to make their own sacrifices in the name of this crisis they are proclaiming? What will they do or say if they are proven wrong?
My personal suggestion for #8 would be a period of several days / weeks in the public stocks in terms of public humiliation. My current belief right now is that this is a scientific theory that has been seized by alarmists and statists who have seen it as a convenient tool for funding and control.
I think this is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=fSjQDa7Cbio&v=aV0xwfZpiYo
Epic Weather Man!
:-)
He was a grad student at Penn State. He did the PBS weather for Pennsylvania at 6:00 PM. Pennsylvania stopped when he was on.
I rarely watch that show, but I happened to be in room where others were. I remembered that Nye was a warmist so I stuck around.
Bastardi simply clobbered Nye. He out-scienced him. In addition, he spoke twice as fast and in authoritative terms, and made Nye look like a wimpy pencilneck. Nye did OK retaining his composure, but was saved from sinking into ad hominem by an interruption by BOR. He was about to begin ranting about the source of skeptic funding - undoubtedly coal or oil companies - but time constraints prevented that lame ploy.
And of course Bill Nye used the boilerplate AGW opening line “The evidence is overwhelming...”
“Joe’s a good guy. In his blog yesterday, he compared his performance in the debate to “beating up on the Easter bunny.”...
He is a great guy and is one of the few meterologists to state: “we don’t know” when trying to make a forecast.
Can’t wait to watch this; missed it the first time around
“The utterly mortifying results of this debate are what occur when an actual scientist with a degree in meteorology”
Being a weatherman does not necessarily make you a scientist nor does having a degree in meteorology. Our local stations “weather forecasters” all have meteorology degrees (likely Bachelors degrees) since they appear to be in their early 20s. Its a job requirement, not a profession.
I think Bastardi was the one who was clobbered: (1) because he had poor command of his visual props, and whipped through them and (2) Nye was slower and calmer and seemed more confident (decades of TV training).
In the future, place your blog material in our bloggers forum.
Thanks,
I can’t agree or disagree with you because I barely understood anything either of them said.
Joe Bastardi's been doing this for years. Did Bill Nye survive? I didn't see the end.
Regarding Venus, that could be used to counter global warming if we wanted.
I don’t have time to do the math myself, but from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Venus - 2647-2576 W/m2
Earth - 1413-1321 W/m2
So Venus receives about twice as much solar radiation as the earth does. So the sun has a huge impact in “global warming.”
Shame on you. You know you can't bring things like actual laws of Physics into the Global Warming 'debate'.
Real Science makes the cultist's heads explode.
(they are living proof of the Einstein quote I have as my Tagline. Stupidity has no limits.
;-)
All that is correct. The previous solar cycle 23 is very similar to solar cycle 20. They were both moderate peak cycles that were followed by very extended and wide minimum cycles. That means the winter of 77/78 corresponds to the same conditions of this 09/10 winter. The El Nino was also moderate during both of these winter periods. Where they will differ is this spring. The 77/78 El Nino faded for a few months and then came back. The 09/10 El Nino does not appear to have that unusual mid-term fade. That means that this 2010 spring will have more El Nino distributed moisture then the 1978 spring. Actually Cycle 23 to 24 minimum was longer then the the 20 to 21 minimum. So we are currently having one of the coldest solar springs occurring with a moderate El Nino. Might be first time in the era of satellites. Should be interesting to say the least. We have a blizzard for the Yankees coming later in the week, a snow storm currently for the Texans and a monster blizzard with the potential to be the strongest yet of the season hitting the Yankees as a Nor'easter early next week.
BTW - In between the two weaker cycles 20 and 23, solar cycles 21 and 22 both had strong maximums followed by very short minimums. Those cycles probably played a significant role in our warming toward the end of the last century.
You raise a good point. Neither of these guys has a post graduate degree in anything.
bumpola
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.