Bill Nye the Science Guy was totally clobbered in a debate against meteorologist Joe Bastardi from AccuWeather over global warming on the O’Reilly Factor last night. The utterly mortifying results of this debate are what occur when an actual scientist with a degree in meteorology, Joe Bastardi, debates a pro-global warming, self-professed “scientist” in Bill Nye whose biggest claim to fame, ridiculously, was hosting a pre-teen kids show on PBS during the 90s. Bill Nye, of course, shocked his one or two, remaining fans (who can even remember him) from his 90s TV show 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. Note to Bill Nye: Don’t quit your day job of being a has-been, 90s TV-show host for pre-teen kids and instead leave the climate science to meteorologists like Joe Bastardi, who actually are educated in weather patterns!
According to Bastardi, the reason behind the recent Snowpocalypse in the mid-Atlantic that paralyzed things with severe blizzards for a while was threefold. Number one, El Nino had a role because its state, currently, mirrored conditions in the 60s and 70s when there was a lot of...snow. That’s right, just like this year, the mid-Atlantic had a lot of...snow. See, global warming advocates...this isn’t that hard. Then, solar cycles apparently are behaving in a way that’s similar to colder conditions. Finally, soot from volcanic explosions is also playing a role, blocking out the poles over the Arctic in high altitude conditions, which, apparently, helps with the increased snowfall and cooling.
Now, notice how Bastardi, again, for those global warming advocates who might have a hard time putting one and one together, uses science to make his arguments? Got that? Good! Now, for Bill Nye’s lame attempt at a rebuttal. He already made an insurmountable
mistake when he started it off by arrogantly declaring that the evidence is “overwhelming.” Just like there’s a so-called, mythical “consensus,” right Bill Nye, the Junk Science Guy? Not content to look incredible, Nye then turned to a fancy-schmancy prop (Seriously, folks, who in their right mind brings props to a debate on the O’Reilly Factor? First time I’ve ever seen that.) that he must’ve prepared himself in his basement or garage just before air time. He claimed that it proved that carbon dioxide levels increased from 1750 to today. However, the huge problem with this is how unscientific it was: Nye never divulged how he came to these results unlike Bastardi, who at least had his meteorological data to back up his assertions! Further, Nye completely killed off any vestiges of remaining credibility when he put all his trust into a chart from the IPCC...again, seriously. We all know that the IPCC has been relentlessly shamed for dubious research methods and sourcing (like including non-peer reviewed papers), so basing anything off a chart of theirs is misleading at worst, highly doubtful at best.
Bastardi, again, because he’s actually a scientist with credentials in the weather field and thus can speak more authoritatively than the has-been host of a 90s kids show, hammered Nye hard in his counterattack. This time, Bastardi went to more hard data—unlike the IPCC chart-clinging Nye who even interrupted Bastardi at one point and looked angry when O’Reilly had to “shush” him like you would a little child who spoke out of turn—to make the point that the effects of global warming are moot. That is to say, when you factor in the sun, the oceans, volcanic activity and even a natural reversal of cycles, you’d still only get an effect less than “the yearly human contribution equal to the width of a hair on a 1 KM bridge of trace gas needed for life.” Again...negligible as far as global warming is concerned!
Back to Nye it went for another rebuttal, and this has-been from a 90s kids show couldn’t stop using the completely discredited charts and “reports” from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). I refuse to waste my time or yours by listing all their black eyes here; just do a Google search with “IPCC” and “scandal” and be stunned at the number of precise results you get. Aside from this, Nye then went on to shamelessly mischaracterize completely the Climategate scandal, branding it as, essentially, name-calling between scientists, but Climategate centered around damning e-mails from scientists essentially confessing they cooked up data in favor of global warming. Not happy with implicating himself as a completely poor debater, Nye then proceeded to confirm in the minds of viewers what a total global warming shill he is—and thus not one to be taken seriously—by playing conspiracy theorist. He actually asked, rhetorically, in whose best interest it was for global warming to be denied...like the camp who rightly doesn’t believe in global warming is somehow agenda-driven. This is just insanity from an avowed left-winger in Bill Nye the Junk Science Guy.
Based on this debate, it’s beyond clear how each side in the global warming debate...debates. The skeptical side as represented by Bastardi in this exchange, uses science, data and actual research based on decades of work to make their arguments. Bill Nye the Junk Science
Guy’s side of fanatical, global warming advocates uses, like the blind lemmings they are, IPCC “data” and then mindlessly parrots the BS how the evidence in their camp is “overwhelming.” You folks will make your own minds up, but for my money, it’s clear that the pro-global warming side are thugs in a debate. They cut you off, they arrogantly declare the science is settled, and they have no facts. This also proves how global warming is viewed as a cult by some because the belief in it by adherents like Bill Nye is just insane.
LV Dave, thanks for posting the entire review!
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.