Nye gets his data from IPCC, the same IPCC that received their Nobel Prize the same time as Al Gore, when Gore predicted that oceans will rise 20 feet in the next century, & the IPCC said it will rise 14 inches...using the SAME data. This is the SAME IPCC that had their email system hacked, after being sued for data that they've refused to release, & they were sending emails to each other to DESTROY data as to not get caught LYING to the global community that is paying them to find "evidence".
@jqbtube CO2 does not stay in the air for hundreds of years. Plants need it for photosynthesis in order to convert it into oxygen for lifeforms to breathe and turn into co2 for plants again. It goes through cycles just like water does. Maybe if you payed attention in biology class you would know that.
Is it just by chance that Bill Nye's view on this is consistent with his liberal ideology? If Mr. Nye was a conservative I might be swayed to the global warming side.
@ranger1843 So, regarding a scientific question, you make your decisions based on the political leanings of those making the argument? Fail. First, the ONLY debate about global warming is political, not scientific. Scientists of all political persuasions who have relevant expertise agree that global warming is a fact. Second, your argument can be turned around. Is it just by change that Bill and Joe's view is consistent with their conservative ideology? If they were liberal I would be swayed.
@ianman6 "Scientists of all political persuasions who have relevant expertise agree that global warming is a fact." So you believe that one's beliefs on global warming and one's political ideology CAN be independent of one another? Exactly my point. It CAN be done, but it wasn't in Bill's case.
Secondly, there are plenty of other reasons why the earths climate warms, such as the ever-changing eccentricity of earth's orbit and sun cycles.
Third, the green movement is called green for a reason. Plants LOVE a CO2 rich environment and the earth has been warmer before with no harm. The idea that more CO2 will lead to a run-away affect is unfounded and illogical if it's MAN MADE to begin with.
@ianman6 said [[Scientists of all political persuasions who have relevant expertise agree that global warming is a fact.]]
Part 1...
Sorry, but climate change is not the same as "global warming". The latter is the idea that anthropomorphic effects are causing the earth to warm and if we cease doing what we're doing, the earth will cease getting warmer and possibly even cool. Not only is that unscientific, it's illogical. That's a logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent.
You can't vote global warming out of existence, you can't pray it out of existence. I host a local science cafe where scientists answer questions from the public. I don't filter them in any way other than inviting people who are activly doing research in their field. I have yet to find one who does *not* believe that humans are contributing significantly to global warming. This is just like the "smoking doesn't cause cancer lobby".
Why do people focus so much on Co2 when water vapor is a much more abundant greenhouse gas? Are we going to suggest sucking water out of the air next? Greenhouse gases are not evil. Without them, the earth would not keep in any heat at all. Stop trying to pretend what you know the temperature of earth should be. If human actions caused it, further screwing around with the air will make it worse.
@josh18230 "Why do people focus so much on Co2 when water vapor is a much more abundant greenhouse gas" -- Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years whereas water vapor precipitates out. Because CO2 is rising whereas water vapor is steady state. These are basic facts, and your ignorance of them shows that you have no knowledge of or interest in the facts of global warming.
@jqbtube said [[ Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years whereas water vapor precipitates out. Because CO2 is rising whereas water vapor is steady state.]]
WRONG.
First of all, there is a CO2 cycle just as there is a hydrological cycle and a nitrogen cycle. Secondly, % of CO2 & water vapor in the atmosphere will both rise as the earth gets warmer. If you look at the superimposed graphs shown in An Inconvenient Truth, you'll see that temp leads CO2, sometimes by as much as a century.
fox news is trying to keep you un educated and in fear so keep that in mind during this conversation, the vendictive replies such as `what you HAVE TO beleive` with false information in there
It really doesn't matter whether it's happening or not it is obvious we are hurting our environment the only reason Republicans are denying the fact it could be real is because they get money from damaging our environment so of course they are going to go out of their way to prove to all the other idiots it's not real they are selfish and blind....also Joe is just stupid there is a reason why bastard is in his last name.
Bill Nye claims that CO2 emissions is the cause of the warming trend. He never backs it up. On other programs, he has dodged the man-made cause claim merely stating the planet is warming (which it is). Bill Nye and Al Gore need to show the proof or at least a convincing scientific study that the undeniable warming trend is caused by CO2 emissions.
@dsgregg CO2 is greenhouse gas, like methane, nitrous oxide, even water vapor. These gases trap incoming electromagnetic radiation (sunlight) and exist naturally. In fact, without greenhouse gases the Earth would be frozen. Varying concentrations (more/less) of the gases would affect the temperature of the Earth by trapping more or less energy. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere via fossil fuel combustion, we increase the earths energy budget (trap more heat). The proof is out there, just look.
@G8RHE15MAN That still doesn't make the case that man made CO2 emissions are causing the warming. Its clear that CO2 will help prevent infrared from radiating to space but how much heat and what is the impact on a planetary body with many regulating systems and a huge thermal mass. I don't know all of the science to "climate change" but I do know that Bill Nye has yet to say its caused by man made emissions and a Nobel Prize winning scientist ...
@dsgregg You are correct, there are many coupled, regulating systems that affect one another and climate science is complicated. But the fact is that anthopogenic CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels, removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. We are mining this carbon out and adding it to the atmosphere. The additional CO2 will lead to warming. The ocean will eventually take up the CO2, but this takes hundreds to thousands of years. all the while the earth is much warmer than today
I normally don't care what people think about when it comes to science (because their opinions don't change the facts) but when it comes to man made global warming we have to care because the people that deny it can vote. And our political processes (not just the U.S but the world) is going to have to play a big part in solving this problem.
If we continue business as usual our kids and grand kids are going to pay a huge, huge price.
sure the global is warming, has been for thousands of years..... and man can't take credit for the glaciers melting back then. How can science determine when man took over and nature left off?
@AznAndy9000 that is the laziest argument ever. I can't research anything you said, because you didn't say anything. I'll just assume your family tree is still in the monkey side of evolution.
@romney27 Yeah it's true that earth is sometimes warming, sometimes cooling due to natural processes but the issue is that that cycles or variations shifting up always.
For example think about ice cream sales. Every year, during summer ice cream sales increase, in winter it drops. Let say Winter 2010: 100, Summer 2010: 200 .
But if economy grows, it will be something like Winter 110, Summer 2011: 220.
@romney27 If you look at directly to data, you will say "well we can't determine that economy is growing or not, because ice cream sales sometimes increase it sometimes decreases.
But if you remove trend or seasonality through basic statistics methods, you will see that ice cream sales increase by 10 percent.
I also love Bastardi's highly precise weather chart. 'Not as Cold nor as Snowy'? Should we trust this man to comment on the accuracy of meterological calculations, I think not.
Are they trying to draw people to the denier side by pitting a 'reputable' meterologist against a children's television star? Because if so, bad move; Bill Nye wins every time. Brave man to go up against this.
People please if you want to learn something about science, try reading a scientific journal. This will help you determine the differences between ideologues and scientific method.
Bill Nye the not so bright Guy. The heating of this planet has to do with solar climate change. The same changes are happening on the other planets in the universe. The sun is being stressed in one direction. It is causing it to have a reaction of heating up it's planets. I say the weather man will always beat a Science teacher, because the Weather man is not paid by the Government for their conclusions. Why will Bill Nye spread himself so thin on this issue. Government grants Bill Nye Fishey!
@papermermaid, Scientists like Bill a General Science Scientist and they have no reason to question a professional in their field. He also goes after people to try to debunk them with what seems to be the Government standpoints. Bill just seems to be sniffing for large Government Grant money. I wonder who signs his checks....
@blackbass4u2c The planets of the universe are heating up because an insignificant star, in an insignificant galaxy, in an insignificant corner of our visible universe is stressed?
That's an Interesting hypothesis you've formulated, stands up there with "tide goes in, tide goes out", now I wouldn't mind betting you can't explain that.
@snm359 I would comment on it, butt you might want me to moon you. LOL Bill Nye is not so bright and if you can't look past the bow tie then I feel sorry for you.
@HerrKichern Nope, both of them provided their own visuals. Bill Nye used the same low tech props he's been using on his kiddy science show for the past several decades while Joe Bastardi is using the same props he uses for his AccuWeather broadcasts. Try to keep up, huh?
@HerrKichern Joe had already created those graphics. They were brought onto the show because they existed. Bill did not have any visuals or graphics because he never made any. Its not bias, its just the availability of material. I am not supporting Fox, I am just pointing out facts.
Well, one of them feels the need to be loud mouthed and egotistical about it. Where does that come from? A desire to have an honest argument, to get to the bottom of things, to have a give and take with what you figure to be your honest understanding so far?
This...I'm surprised I seen no one else pointing this out... they were out to shut bill up plain and simple, they didn't have a real debate due to this douchebag lol Not to mention they gave the weather guy opening AND closing words lmfao But what can u really expect from Fox news and the people that follow it?
Even if we're wrong about global warming or its not as bad as people say... does that really justify continuing to hurt + pollute + destroy the only planet we have?
Bastardi makes up charts with his input of info. They are not facts. Bastardi is a foxnews favorite and he is catering to the conservative view of warming is a hoax. He is dead wrong. Watch my video on KNOWITALLDAVE. I would put Bastardi away easily just with the truth. Nye is a goofball when it comes to debating. Bastardi upsets me cause he knows dam well warming is a problem but he lies to promote himself on foxnews period.
Where does Bastardi get his info??? Fantasyland? Search KNOWITALLDAVE on youtube he is a true genius. Nye looks like a dope with that hair but he is 100% correct. This is the warmest decade on record. Bastardi has a agenda he must with his views on this problem
@knowitalldave ROFL! Clearly his information came from the actual data, unlike Nye who was fumbling around with his own charts, unable to prove anything with them. KNOWITALLDAVE sounds like a very reliable source... I mean it says so in the name so it must be true. LMAO!
@mkieltyka I agree... But i wouldn't call them intelligent, thoughtful, or calculated. I would describe them as bewildered, brainwashed, and calculating. And the look is that of surprise that someone isn't buying their BS unlike in all the other liberal venues.
The easiest defense against "man-made" global warming is pointing out:
1) it was as warm or warmer in the past such as in Medieval times There was no industrial revolution so what made it so warm?
2) science was warning us of man made global cooling back in the 1960's and early 1970's. Now its switched. Were I debating Nye (the same man who called people unpatriotic for questioning MMGW) I'd ask why should we cripple our economies to try to stop something we might not even be doing?
@FiendsInRedSatin1 1) Nobody said humans were the only influence on the climate, but that in no way takes away from the fact that we are now.
2)Yes there were a few papers in the 70's that suggested that the climate was cooling, but there were many more papers that suggested the climate was warming.
You should really check out potholer54's videos on the climate change debate.
@Dursty87 1) We don't know for certain that humanity is having an impact globally on weather patterns. That's something that is theory which may or may not be true.
2) There were many papers that said the climate was cooling and man was causing it. There were far more than global warming. Things started to shift in about the mid-1970's going towards global warming and away from cooling Given that, it should make everyone cautious.
@HeadofRadio 1) If there are multiple things that can warm the Earth, then we cannot be absolutely certain man is causing warmer temperatures now.
2) It is not false that scientists once warned of man-made global cooling. That is fact for I've seen the scientific papers that said so. About in the mid-70's, things shifted away from this toward global warming.
My point in all of this is to be cautious, even when dealing with claims from scientists.
@tingtangs 1) No, we do not know for certain that humans have caused recent warm temperatures given there have been warmer periods in human history such as during Medieval times with NO industrial revolution to blame. Thus there can be multiple causes.
2) Yes, many did predict cooling up to about the mid-1970's. Then it switched to warming.
Stop acting like global warming is a religion and those who question it are heretics. It's a scientific theory, not a writ from God.
@FiendsInRedSatin1 Even in the 70's, the vast majority of research indicated global warming. There is a cooling effect from aerosols, but unfortunately that also destroys ozone. Even if cooling was a popular theory in the 70s when this first got attention, that doesn't matter. The 40 years of work since then leave no doubt we're warming, and humans cause it. By your thinking, Romans using lead pipes for water means we're wrong to think lead is harmful now.
@Impulse725 that depends on which part of the 1970's you refer. By the mid to late '70's, global warming gained prominance. Before that was a different story.
You shouldn't be so quick to discount the situation with cooling. What would have happened had everyone rushed out to deal with global cooling in 1971 only to find out we were making things worse? Theories get changed, dropped, and added all the time. We should keep that in mind when someone demands we make drastic changes.
Bill nye we know you're a hoax a CIA agent for global domination you are a human you're a evil human we will Deafet this tyranny wake up infowars.com is a good place to find out
@aman111501 Infowars is nothing but an outlet for a pathetically vain, narcissistic, and delusional nonexpert's (Alex Jones) fabricated conspiracy rants and ridiculous illogic. Wake up and realize Alex Jones is nothing but a fear mongering attention whore who's mentally ill fanbase continues to do more harm to themselves and the whole of American social and political discourse by eating up all of his bullshit....Suckaaas!
Did anybody else notice the time periods Bastardi used for his correlation chart? For the CO2 level he only correlated the data between 1998 & 2007, but for the other factors he correlated 104-112 years of data. Hardly comparable! As Nye said, 1998 was an especially hot year & using that as the starting point hides all the cooler years before it. This is called "cherry-picking" your data in order to have it show something that is not found in the overall data set.
the weather man won! global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon, governments are using this 'debate' to extract more taxation, this world will be safe and well until the almighty says otherwise.
@steeplejackdibs A natural phenomenon that we are making irrefutably worse and irreversible.... No one denies global warming happens hot shot, it's humans are making it happen a lot faster and ruining other ecosystems at the same time by burning fossil fuels..
It doesn't matter whether it's "natural", stupid. If natural processes make the planet warmer in a costly way, we may want to take action anyway. My god, what an idiot you are.
@AntiSchiff your insulting comment and words only act as a useful mirror into your personality, you are mere cannon fodder to be perpetually duped by your globalist masters, if you knew anything worth knowing you would behave in a more adult manner, and perhaps learn something...please dont feel you have to comment further i already know where you are coming from !
you know, its funny. People scream about Global Warming, and not 90% believe its man made either. Yet life flourishes now a days, more species on this planet than there ever were before. And the beautiful thing is, it will continue to flourish. As long as the sun doesn't go into a solar minimum. If it does, then were in another Ice Age. Sorry folks, but no matter how much Co2 we throw into the atmosphere, we'll never equal to the amount that is naturally thrown. And further more, plants love it
@sliver01 You do realize that 99% of all species that have ever lived on the Earth's surface have gone extinct? Furthermore, current extinction rates are hundreds of times faster than they ever were in the fossil record. We're destroying the plants that provide the protection against the elevated CO2 levels in the form of clear cutting forests. Also, who's benefiting by lying to all of humanity about such a thing. What would be the point?
@calthopian yes, majority of the species have gone extinct. But humans are only responsible for about 2 % worth. Co2 is but a fraction as a Global Warming agent, so it can't be considered as a problem. The Sun is the problem, not an exhaust tube. The Earth is covered by a vast array of plants, not touched by humans. Many areas not touched by technologies at all, just because the news says it happens doesn't make it so. Benefiting? How about Al Gore!
@sliver01 Even if what you're saying about CO2 is true, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to lessen our impact on the one planet we live on. The problem is that we're altering our environment to the extent that the natural biosphere can't keep pace with the changes and species are going extinct in record speed. Also, climate change has been an issue before "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, Carter ('76-'80) was the first president I know of to address the issue.
@sliver01 cont'd- Why would Al Gore decide to just randomly bring this up out of the seeming blue if there wasn't credible science behind it? Why would every 1st world nation (but the US) and the vast majority of the 2nd and 3rd world sign onto Kyoto if there was no scientific basis behind global climate change? Why would scientists have a reason to lie to the greater world? Science itself is self-correcting by nature and has the capacity to admit that it is wrong and revise their conclusion...
@calthopian I never said there was no scientific basis. Some scientist stand behind Gore, however there 30,000 scientists standing behind John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel trying to get the media to listen to the counter arguments. But yet the media won't give them the time of day for a debate. Why do they hold back? As for Kyoto? I am glad we didn't sign it. As for them other countries? Can't tell why. Besides, why some scientists lie, well they benefit financially....
@sliver01 You still don't understand the process of peer review. Amongst actual climatologists, active in their study the general consensus that human have a large impact on climate change is 97%. These are the people who undertake the peer review process in studying another's claims. Meteorologists don't study the actual climate as it's evolved on Earth, that's the climatologists job. The media holds back (except faux news) because Coleman is to climate change, what creationists are to biology.
@calthopian Al Gore is a Co- Founder of a company called Generation Investment Management, and it invests in Green Projects which of course he'll get a wealthy return on his investments. In other words, GW is an investment to Al Gore. As long as people continue to believe it, just like Nye who failed to truly prove his point IMO. The more Al's company "GIM" will be successful. A lot of politicians as well, with help with the lobbyist. The News, they side along any leftist idea. IE gw!
@sliver01 You've still failed to tell me where scientists themselves would benefit from raising this alarm...the entire notion of climate change started with scientists who observed the elevated amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and know the consequences of continuing to do nothing about it. Politicians aside, what are the benefits for a scientist to lie to the entire world about something so drastic? Science always self-corrects and reviews, its part of the scientific method.
@calthopian Not all scientist are standing behind this GW push. First of all, Co2 IS NOT A MAJOR GLOBAL WARMING AGENT! Its only a fraction, even now in 2011; is only a fraction of the overall atmosphere. Many of the scientists, the 2500 that signed on with Gore even are the ones that come up with how GW is effecting something. So they bring it up with government to get a grant, 100,000's to millions of dollars (USD for example) and thus they got money they probably wouldn't have before.
@sliver01 If the science didn't add up they wouldn't be able to get the grants without scandal. The peer review process in science would not allow a scientist to doctor evidence, it is very thorough and only a small fraction of hypotheses are able to survive the process, afterwards they are continuously bombarded with attempts to disprove the conclusion. It would be in a scientist's best interest to profoundly disprove climate change. However in a 2009 survey 82% accepted that it was a fact.
Yes, it would be beneficial if they were. I can't explain for all the scientists who are out there standing behind GW. However, scientist HAVE been found to doctor evidence. NASA has, been caught, the email that came out prior to Copenhagen Conference, as for the survey that's 82% of the scientists polled. Not overall, especially with so many Climatologists around the world debunking GW. Explain to me than, FEB of 2011 2000 glaciers are growing in India? 48 growing in New Zealand.
As for Venus, simple (Which shows Bill Nye to be a complete idiot.) Venus has no moon to control the climate, no micro organisms to breath in the C02 like here on Earth, and lastly its millions of miles closer to the sun than Earth. Earth is unique and yes we need to protect this great planet. I do NOT mean that we should ignore all damages. But, the damage is more regional rather than global. I am for alternative sources of energy, cleaning the air, water, and land. However, I do not believe.
@sliver01 Although some glaciers around the world have been growing, The vast majority have tended to recede. Glacial growth isn't based on just the warmth of the Earth, but rather precipitation in the mountains. It may be that the locations in India and New Zealand just got more rain in the form of snow at the tops of the mountains and thus the snow pack formed into more glacier. But in the vast majority of areas, most glaciers have tended to decrease in size.
in GW. Or at least the man made kind. 100,000's of glaciers around the world. And only 10% are shrinking. Some areas have shrunk enough to show that humans lived in the area like one spot in the Netherlands. Lived some hundred years ago, only to abandon cause of the growing glaciers. 90% are growing, most fast. Antarctica continues to get thicker, Greenland ice sheet growing, and larger than lower US 48. Alaska is barely seeing temps above 65 in the summer. It all comes down the the sun.
@sliver01 Where are you getting your sources? The Netherlands is flat mostly below sea level land. If in fact there were glaciers around the netherlands and they melted, the Dutch would be without a home as the people of the Maldives off the coast of India are experiencing. None of the Ice Sheets you're mentioning are growing in fact much the opposite. You're just pulling shit out of your ass...
@calthopian Maldives? The oceans are shrinking and the proof is the Maldives. An out crop of rock in the ocean, there were bones of a woman who died 1200 years ago that was found in the out cropping. If the oceans were rising, the bones would not have been found. I was mistaken about the Netherlands, I apologize for that. I believe it to be Norway. I know it was somewhere in northern Europe.
@sliver01 The oceans are shrinking, and the proof is one island chain off of India. What a crock. By that logic, the rising sea levels off the coast of the Philippines prove that the ocean is expanding, right?
@sliver01 Where the fuck are you getting your shit from? Alaska had seen temps above 65 many times this summer and summers before. Greenland's ice sheet isn't growing. Seriously, where you getting your sources? Just like what calthopian said.
The sun is everything, 98% of the physical property of the solar system. For such a huge thingwe have no control over it at all. When we are going through a Solar Maximum, we get hot, we go through a Solar Minimum we get cold. That's basically everything right there, yet the News won't tell you that. Doesn't fit the modern mentality. The sun is heading towards a Solar Minimum, and by 2016. It won't be active at all, which could lead us to another Little Ice Age.
Lastly, we didn't start keeping temperature records till the mid to late 1800's. At the tailing end of the last Little Ice Age, when temps were at the lowest point. And beginning of a gradual rise. Then, we turn to the 1900's. We warm up, and then the 30's come around when we were at our hottest for a decade. And subsequent ups and downs since. So, it would seem that we warmed up, its just a coincidence that we warmed up during the Industrial Revolution. By one tenth of one degree. Sweltering!
@sliver01 No, actually, for the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. The Sun and the climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. So yeah, we may hit that Minimum in 2016, but the sun's been cooling for the past 35 years.
And temperature records are irrelevant. We have Ice cores from glaciers all over the world that can tell us what the average climate was. We have methods of determining the amount of gasses there were in the atmosphere eons ago. And where are you getting your sources? Also, if the average temperature of the Earth were to drop by only 2 degrees we'd be in an ice age equivalent to the one 18,000 years ago. 2 degrees. Brr! (also 1934 was only the hottest in the USA, not globally).
Temp records are irrelevant? Irrelevant? it has everything to do with this! It tells us whats been happening since we started keep records, and also in lieu of temp records ice cores can also tell us when the earth was HOTTER than it is now. Yet, life is here in all its finest forms. 1034, good point, however it just shows one thing. Hot is regional and global. Antarctica is NOT sweating. Nor is Greenland. Nor can we control temps. Its utter arrogance to think we can. Earth is not a...
@sliver01 Dude, Antarctica and Greenland have both been shown to have lost a large amount of Ice. Antarctica has lost a lot of it's land ice which is the worst kind of Ice to loose because that's what raises sea levels. Greenland has lost a lot of Ice which is troubling because the interference of the fresh ice water with the gulf stream could wreak havoc on Western Europe. We are pumping 100x more CO2 than nature is, and it's having the effect that our species aren't able to evolve fast enough.
@calthopian Antarctica has pretty much had one area that lost ice, its the peninsula that juts fat out into the ocean fairly close to South America. And, records show that it is not unusual for that to happen in that area of land. Dude look, we cannot in anyway shape for form throw more than nature. Not with the large pacific ocean, with its volcanic rim, many various active on land volcanoes, and many deep-sea hydrothermal vents and various other natural means. Yet, plants and such...
thriving more because of it! I know we have some damage. I agree with that, but like I said. The problems are more regional rather than global. We fix these problems, but it'll take time. I also said, I am for the cleaner alternatives, but again the infrastructures will take years to change. Like I tell people, don't go all stir crazy over it, calm down. Its more scare tactic than anything.
@sliver01 No, where are your sources. The entire continent is loosing land ice. You may not think that we can throw more force than nature, but we are. We consistently pump more carbon and other greenhouse gasses than nature can recycle (because human's can't readily recycle atmospheric carbon) leading to a build up of Carbon dioxide which traps heat in from the sun. A massive volcanic eruption would actually help us by making the world a bit cooler.
@calthopian I did not say were not, I just can't throw as much as nature does itself. My sources? Iceagenowdotcom, too start. Volcanoes, also throw a lot of pollutens in the air as well. Like C02 for example. But a volcano overall won't effect the entire planet, as far as cooling is concerned, unless it is a extremely large eruption. And on your previous post, we are cooling. Slowly, like we slowly warmed. I live in the south and our winters are becoming more hectic. Wasn't like this 5 years ago
@sliver01 -cont'd- Plants aren't thriving because of it, nothing is but humans. We're destroying our Coral Reefs (I know coral is an animal) because they can't survive in the too acidified oceans that result from a rapid rise in the amount of atmospheric CO2. Also, plants are worse off because of it, too much CO2 means plants need more of the other materials they need to survive, but when the climate changes and they receive less water, they die. I'm done talking to you, pick up a science book.
@calthopian come on now. I've been keeping this friendly. I do study thank you very much. I know we've damaged the coral reefs, I know we've done damage. I've said that twice already. And like many people I am for improving things, but just to jump the gun like we done everything but destroy the world is asinine. I have kept a friendly tone, but your last sentence tells all I need to know. Fine, I enjoy a debate. But if that is how it is then, fine. We'll agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
Bastardi, that's the plural of bastard right?
nomen23 4 minutes ago
Bill Nye the science Guy > Weather guy
beefjerkyinmymouth 1 day ago
Nye gets his data from IPCC, the same IPCC that received their Nobel Prize the same time as Al Gore, when Gore predicted that oceans will rise 20 feet in the next century, & the IPCC said it will rise 14 inches...using the SAME data. This is the SAME IPCC that had their email system hacked, after being sued for data that they've refused to release, & they were sending emails to each other to DESTROY data as to not get caught LYING to the global community that is paying them to find "evidence".
LucisFerre1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jqbtube CO2 does not stay in the air for hundreds of years. Plants need it for photosynthesis in order to convert it into oxygen for lifeforms to breathe and turn into co2 for plants again. It goes through cycles just like water does. Maybe if you payed attention in biology class you would know that.
josh18230 2 days ago
hardly a freaking debate if one guy has to shout to make his point..
Hrurak 1 month ago
Is it just by chance that Bill Nye's view on this is consistent with his liberal ideology? If Mr. Nye was a conservative I might be swayed to the global warming side.
ranger1843 1 month ago
@ranger1843 So, regarding a scientific question, you make your decisions based on the political leanings of those making the argument? Fail. First, the ONLY debate about global warming is political, not scientific. Scientists of all political persuasions who have relevant expertise agree that global warming is a fact. Second, your argument can be turned around. Is it just by change that Bill and Joe's view is consistent with their conservative ideology? If they were liberal I would be swayed.
ianman6 1 month ago
@ianman6 "Scientists of all political persuasions who have relevant expertise agree that global warming is a fact." So you believe that one's beliefs on global warming and one's political ideology CAN be independent of one another? Exactly my point. It CAN be done, but it wasn't in Bill's case.
ranger1843 1 month ago
@ianman6
Part 2...
Secondly, there are plenty of other reasons why the earths climate warms, such as the ever-changing eccentricity of earth's orbit and sun cycles.
Third, the green movement is called green for a reason. Plants LOVE a CO2 rich environment and the earth has been warmer before with no harm. The idea that more CO2 will lead to a run-away affect is unfounded and illogical if it's MAN MADE to begin with.
LucisFerre1 2 days ago
@ianman6 said [[Scientists of all political persuasions who have relevant expertise agree that global warming is a fact.]]
Part 1...
Sorry, but climate change is not the same as "global warming". The latter is the idea that anthropomorphic effects are causing the earth to warm and if we cease doing what we're doing, the earth will cease getting warmer and possibly even cool. Not only is that unscientific, it's illogical. That's a logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent.
LucisFerre1 2 days ago
Bill Nye won.......because he is Bill Nye.
redshadowsword 1 month ago
Joe is such a Bastardi.
jackwdc 1 month ago
When you blast SO2? What the fuck is SO2 weatherman?
astroboomboy 1 month ago
@astroboomboy Sulfur dioxide. It's a gas that is spewed skyward from volcanoes (and other places).
ReclaimXmas 1 month ago
@ReclaimXmas Oh, thanks for answering.
astroboomboy 1 month ago
someone get this joe guy off the screen. Bill's cool.
Phlurpit 1 month ago
Bill Nye - SCIENCE RULES!
gillgill02 1 month ago
lol their guy gets both first and last words
ihatealigators 1 month ago
@ihatealigators It's the Billious O'Reilly way.
jqbtube 2 days ago
I love Bill Nye's "you've got to be kidding me" expression, especially when O'Reilly is wrapping it up at the end.
LilDrummerBoy74 1 month ago 3
If those two were in the same room...SCIENTIST VS MORONS. Bill Nye would win by making heads explode. By using science.
DalekHunter1994 1 month ago
Climate and weather are two different things. Someone needs to explain this to Joe Bastardi.
NumberShift 1 month ago
ill trust bill nye a scientist over a meteorologist any day
sk8er4ever0101 1 month ago
Bill nye rules.
Jonnyshogunorganism 1 month ago
You can't vote global warming out of existence, you can't pray it out of existence. I host a local science cafe where scientists answer questions from the public. I don't filter them in any way other than inviting people who are activly doing research in their field. I have yet to find one who does *not* believe that humans are contributing significantly to global warming. This is just like the "smoking doesn't cause cancer lobby".
dlbattle100 1 month ago
Why do people focus so much on Co2 when water vapor is a much more abundant greenhouse gas? Are we going to suggest sucking water out of the air next? Greenhouse gases are not evil. Without them, the earth would not keep in any heat at all. Stop trying to pretend what you know the temperature of earth should be. If human actions caused it, further screwing around with the air will make it worse.
josh18230 1 month ago
@josh18230 "Why do people focus so much on Co2 when water vapor is a much more abundant greenhouse gas" -- Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years whereas water vapor precipitates out. Because CO2 is rising whereas water vapor is steady state. These are basic facts, and your ignorance of them shows that you have no knowledge of or interest in the facts of global warming.
jqbtube 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jqbtube said [[ Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years whereas water vapor precipitates out. Because CO2 is rising whereas water vapor is steady state.]]
WRONG.
First of all, there is a CO2 cycle just as there is a hydrological cycle and a nitrogen cycle. Secondly, % of CO2 & water vapor in the atmosphere will both rise as the earth gets warmer. If you look at the superimposed graphs shown in An Inconvenient Truth, you'll see that temp leads CO2, sometimes by as much as a century.
LucisFerre1 2 days ago
fox news is trying to keep you un educated and in fear so keep that in mind during this conversation, the vendictive replies such as `what you HAVE TO beleive` with false information in there
MrTuber6969 1 month ago
Haha. Joe Bastard.
picard94 1 month ago
Haha. I garentee the local wheather man didnt understand most of that
TheSicSmurf 1 month ago
It really doesn't matter whether it's happening or not it is obvious we are hurting our environment the only reason Republicans are denying the fact it could be real is because they get money from damaging our environment so of course they are going to go out of their way to prove to all the other idiots it's not real they are selfish and blind....also Joe is just stupid there is a reason why bastard is in his last name.
93luv2sing 1 month ago
History isn't going to judge people like Bastardi very kindly. By the time people really realize how serious of a problem this is it'll be too late.
BigBobsh2o 2 months ago
I love Fox News propaganda.
bb330708 3 months ago
i will always belive science over some idiot ranting crap,
bill nye makes claims built on evidence,joe doesnt know what hes talking about.
bullamarta 3 months ago
The Koch brothers funded a study performed by a global warming skeptic and found that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!
Time to ignore the skeptics.
granolanutpunch 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JOE BASTARDI IS THE FUCKING EVIL KOOPA FROM MARIO BROS OMFG SAVE THE WORLD !!!!!
LobotomizR 3 months ago
JOE BASTARDI IS THE FUCKING EVIL KOOPA FROM MARIO BROS OMFG SAVE THE WORLD !!!!!
LobotomizR 3 months ago
Bill Nye claims that CO2 emissions is the cause of the warming trend. He never backs it up. On other programs, he has dodged the man-made cause claim merely stating the planet is warming (which it is). Bill Nye and Al Gore need to show the proof or at least a convincing scientific study that the undeniable warming trend is caused by CO2 emissions.
dsgregg 3 months ago
@dsgregg CO2 is greenhouse gas, like methane, nitrous oxide, even water vapor. These gases trap incoming electromagnetic radiation (sunlight) and exist naturally. In fact, without greenhouse gases the Earth would be frozen. Varying concentrations (more/less) of the gases would affect the temperature of the Earth by trapping more or less energy. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere via fossil fuel combustion, we increase the earths energy budget (trap more heat). The proof is out there, just look.
G8RHE15MAN 3 months ago
@G8RHE15MAN That still doesn't make the case that man made CO2 emissions are causing the warming. Its clear that CO2 will help prevent infrared from radiating to space but how much heat and what is the impact on a planetary body with many regulating systems and a huge thermal mass. I don't know all of the science to "climate change" but I do know that Bill Nye has yet to say its caused by man made emissions and a Nobel Prize winning scientist ...
dsgregg 3 months ago
@dsgregg You are correct, there are many coupled, regulating systems that affect one another and climate science is complicated. But the fact is that anthopogenic CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels, removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. We are mining this carbon out and adding it to the atmosphere. The additional CO2 will lead to warming. The ocean will eventually take up the CO2, but this takes hundreds to thousands of years. all the while the earth is much warmer than today
G8RHE15MAN 3 months ago
@G8RHE15MAN (cont'd) resigned from a physical science society over their stance on the cause of "climate change".
dsgregg 3 months ago
why is joe allowed to have opening and closing remarks?
Lucas7Claus 4 months ago
I normally don't care what people think about when it comes to science (because their opinions don't change the facts) but when it comes to man made global warming we have to care because the people that deny it can vote. And our political processes (not just the U.S but the world) is going to have to play a big part in solving this problem.
If we continue business as usual our kids and grand kids are going to pay a huge, huge price.
BigBobsh2o 4 months ago
That guy is so ugly.
iOLY32 4 months ago
when will stop referring to weathermen as 'meteorologists'? It makes them sound like they have some kind of scientific background in meteorology.
ivymikeband 4 months ago
Everything that comes from O'Reilys show or mouth is bullshit. And never trust a guy whos name is spelled with BASTARD.
squirrelboyfan 4 months ago
OMG, this weatherman bases his opinion on global warming solely on one year.....
RudeBoy9179 4 months ago
sure the global is warming, has been for thousands of years..... and man can't take credit for the glaciers melting back then. How can science determine when man took over and nature left off?
carbon dioxide is what plants breath, hardly bad.
romney27 4 months ago
@romney27 Pure ignorance. Go do some research, and not watch Fox News.
AznAndy9000 4 months ago
@AznAndy9000 that is the laziest argument ever. I can't research anything you said, because you didn't say anything. I'll just assume your family tree is still in the monkey side of evolution.
romney27 4 months ago
@romney27 Yeah it's true that earth is sometimes warming, sometimes cooling due to natural processes but the issue is that that cycles or variations shifting up always.
For example think about ice cream sales. Every year, during summer ice cream sales increase, in winter it drops. Let say Winter 2010: 100, Summer 2010: 200 .
But if economy grows, it will be something like Winter 110, Summer 2011: 220.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@romney27 If you look at directly to data, you will say "well we can't determine that economy is growing or not, because ice cream sales sometimes increase it sometimes decreases.
But if you remove trend or seasonality through basic statistics methods, you will see that ice cream sales increase by 10 percent.
kemalcs 4 months ago
you know your stats are legit when they have THREE EXCLAMATION MARKS AFTER THEM!!! 4:00
themeser 4 months ago
I also love Bastardi's highly precise weather chart. 'Not as Cold nor as Snowy'? Should we trust this man to comment on the accuracy of meterological calculations, I think not.
EphemeronRadiance 4 months ago
Are they trying to draw people to the denier side by pitting a 'reputable' meterologist against a children's television star? Because if so, bad move; Bill Nye wins every time. Brave man to go up against this.
EphemeronRadiance 4 months ago
@EphemeronRadiance
Richard Lindzen, an M.I.T climate scientist, totally destroyed Bill Nye the Science Guy on a Larry King show. See for yourself
GSZ64AA 2 months ago
Comment removed
EphemeronRadiance 4 months ago
OHHH YES! *WINK*
Gwotch 4 months ago
People please if you want to learn something about science, try reading a scientific journal. This will help you determine the differences between ideologues and scientific method.
number1pride 5 months ago 18
Bill Nye the not so bright Guy. The heating of this planet has to do with solar climate change. The same changes are happening on the other planets in the universe. The sun is being stressed in one direction. It is causing it to have a reaction of heating up it's planets. I say the weather man will always beat a Science teacher, because the Weather man is not paid by the Government for their conclusions. Why will Bill Nye spread himself so thin on this issue. Government grants Bill Nye Fishey!
blackbass4u2c 5 months ago
@blackbass4u2c conspiracy nut bag
qualityrkc 5 months ago
@qualityrkc I just know BILLS a hack.
blackbass4u2c 5 months ago
@blackbass4u2c
Bill is a seasoned scientist, and proficient in engineering to boot. I think I would defer to him than someone with a mediocre scientific background.
papermermaid 5 months ago
@papermermaid, Scientists like Bill a General Science Scientist and they have no reason to question a professional in their field. He also goes after people to try to debunk them with what seems to be the Government standpoints. Bill just seems to be sniffing for large Government Grant money. I wonder who signs his checks....
blackbass4u2c 5 months ago
@blackbass4u2c The planets of the universe are heating up because an insignificant star, in an insignificant galaxy, in an insignificant corner of our visible universe is stressed?
That's an Interesting hypothesis you've formulated, stands up there with "tide goes in, tide goes out", now I wouldn't mind betting you can't explain that.
snm359 5 months ago
@snm359 I would comment on it, butt you might want me to moon you. LOL Bill Nye is not so bright and if you can't look past the bow tie then I feel sorry for you.
blackbass4u2c 5 months ago
Wow Bill wasn't a complete douche in this one
then00best 5 months ago
LMAO! I think bastardi means bastard in italian!
Ratchet25 5 months ago
I love how bills just sitting there all chill and rational and dealing with the stupid people whereas joe bastardis just spouting nonsense lol
mrmaxthegreat1 5 months ago
Wow I've never seen Bill Nye look like he's gonna stare someone to death.
TheAndiePerson 5 months ago
Dinosaur farts caused the ice age. You heard it here first folks.
ac1013dc 5 months ago
Also, Bastardi looks terrible in that suit. Find a tailor, ya hippie!
snoopyguy405 5 months ago
I guess they call him Bastardi for a reason
snoopyguy405 5 months ago 2
notice, bill had to create his own visuals with paper, while joe was provided visuals by fox, i smell bias!
HerrKichern 5 months ago 37
@HerrKichern Holy sh!t... I had to stop at 2:48 to make sure this comment was made...
Ducky1138 5 months ago
@HerrKichern and joe got the first and last word.
ThePhilipBeckwith 4 months ago
@HerrKichern What? fox has a conservative bias? Say it aint so!
aaronvespro 4 months ago
@HerrKichern Nope, both of them provided their own visuals. Bill Nye used the same low tech props he's been using on his kiddy science show for the past several decades while Joe Bastardi is using the same props he uses for his AccuWeather broadcasts. Try to keep up, huh?
1smallstep 3 months ago
@HerrKichern Joe had already created those graphics. They were brought onto the show because they existed. Bill did not have any visuals or graphics because he never made any. Its not bias, its just the availability of material. I am not supporting Fox, I am just pointing out facts.
rickytherocktumbler 3 months ago
i did notice that. whats more, fox's guy arguing for global warming is an old kid's program host that has no PhD or even Masters in any science.
madtownmccazle 2 months ago
What a rat Bastardi... no seriously he even looks like a rat.
Bill held his own even on Fox. Congrats.
Maffuman1 5 months ago
Fuck Joe bill wins
iRunThisZone 5 months ago 2
Well, one of them feels the need to be loud mouthed and egotistical about it. Where does that come from? A desire to have an honest argument, to get to the bottom of things, to have a give and take with what you figure to be your honest understanding so far?
ion010101 5 months ago
@SnakeWearingaVest
This...I'm surprised I seen no one else pointing this out... they were out to shut bill up plain and simple, they didn't have a real debate due to this douchebag lol Not to mention they gave the weather guy opening AND closing words lmfao But what can u really expect from Fox news and the people that follow it?
Even if we're wrong about global warming or its not as bad as people say... does that really justify continuing to hurt + pollute + destroy the only planet we have?
CrimsonSkies260 5 months ago
Bill's face from 6:35 on is exactly the face I was making.
TheSaxby 5 months ago
Joe gets to put his figures and tables on the big screen and Bill has to content with holding up little cards? Oh right, Fox News...fair&balanced
TapSangBong 5 months ago
Joe is aptly named...
personEks 5 months ago
Bastardi makes up charts with his input of info. They are not facts. Bastardi is a foxnews favorite and he is catering to the conservative view of warming is a hoax. He is dead wrong. Watch my video on KNOWITALLDAVE. I would put Bastardi away easily just with the truth. Nye is a goofball when it comes to debating. Bastardi upsets me cause he knows dam well warming is a problem but he lies to promote himself on foxnews period.
knowitalldave 5 months ago
Bill Nye got owned.
jnichols3 5 months ago
dude i would never wanto argue with bill.
steaklover505 5 months ago
It is pretty depressing how poorly most people understand the scientific process
kommienzuspadt 5 months ago
One of the creepiest winks at 1:32
bubmanXIV 5 months ago
Where does Bastardi get his info??? Fantasyland? Search KNOWITALLDAVE on youtube he is a true genius. Nye looks like a dope with that hair but he is 100% correct. This is the warmest decade on record. Bastardi has a agenda he must with his views on this problem
knowitalldave 5 months ago
@knowitalldave ROFL! Clearly his information came from the actual data, unlike Nye who was fumbling around with his own charts, unable to prove anything with them. KNOWITALLDAVE sounds like a very reliable source... I mean it says so in the name so it must be true. LMAO!
3bitha 5 months ago
his last name has the word bastard i it.... what are the odds....
FERGbeibah 5 months ago
I've noticed everyone intelligent, thoughtful, or calculated who comes on Fox News has that same look Nye has at 6:35.
mkieltyka 5 months ago
@mkieltyka I agree... But i wouldn't call them intelligent, thoughtful, or calculated. I would describe them as bewildered, brainwashed, and calculating. And the look is that of surprise that someone isn't buying their BS unlike in all the other liberal venues.
3bitha 5 months ago
Wow that, Bastard-y bastard is really, really, really dishonest and disgusting.
tingtangs 5 months ago
I tried to pay attention, but I was distracted by Bastardi's gigantic suit. Did global warming make it expand?
Burningtree22 5 months ago
Creepiest weatherman ever.
Nic3378 5 months ago
I like how Fox helps BASTARDi with graphs and charts but Bill had to provide his own...
kilroy227 5 months ago
Bill Bill Bill Bill
Controversialize 5 months ago
the weather mans argument is debunked by this years weather patterns
luckywalt21 5 months ago
The easiest defense against "man-made" global warming is pointing out:
1) it was as warm or warmer in the past such as in Medieval times There was no industrial revolution so what made it so warm?
2) science was warning us of man made global cooling back in the 1960's and early 1970's. Now its switched. Were I debating Nye (the same man who called people unpatriotic for questioning MMGW) I'd ask why should we cripple our economies to try to stop something we might not even be doing?
FiendsInRedSatin1 5 months ago
@FiendsInRedSatin1 1) Nobody said humans were the only influence on the climate, but that in no way takes away from the fact that we are now.
2)Yes there were a few papers in the 70's that suggested that the climate was cooling, but there were many more papers that suggested the climate was warming.
You should really check out potholer54's videos on the climate change debate.
Dursty87 5 months ago
@Dursty87 1) We don't know for certain that humanity is having an impact globally on weather patterns. That's something that is theory which may or may not be true.
2) There were many papers that said the climate was cooling and man was causing it. There were far more than global warming. Things started to shift in about the mid-1970's going towards global warming and away from cooling Given that, it should make everyone cautious.
FiendsInRedSatin1 5 months ago
@FiendsInRedSatin1 see the videos by potholer54 he addresses both the points you made. they are both false
HeadofRadio 5 months ago
@HeadofRadio 1) If there are multiple things that can warm the Earth, then we cannot be absolutely certain man is causing warmer temperatures now.
2) It is not false that scientists once warned of man-made global cooling. That is fact for I've seen the scientific papers that said so. About in the mid-70's, things shifted away from this toward global warming.
My point in all of this is to be cautious, even when dealing with claims from scientists.
FiendsInRedSatin1 5 months ago
@FiendsInRedSatin1 You are WRONG. Scientists did NOT predict cooling in the 70s.
tingtangs 5 months ago
@FiendsInRedSatin1 1) We DO know for certain that humans are affecting the global climate.
2) WRONG. Scientists did NOT predict cooling.
STOP LYING, YOU DENIALIST BASTARD.
tingtangs 5 months ago
@tingtangs 1) No, we do not know for certain that humans have caused recent warm temperatures given there have been warmer periods in human history such as during Medieval times with NO industrial revolution to blame. Thus there can be multiple causes.
2) Yes, many did predict cooling up to about the mid-1970's. Then it switched to warming.
Stop acting like global warming is a religion and those who question it are heretics. It's a scientific theory, not a writ from God.
FiendsInRedSatin1 5 months ago
@FiendsInRedSatin1 Even in the 70's, the vast majority of research indicated global warming. There is a cooling effect from aerosols, but unfortunately that also destroys ozone. Even if cooling was a popular theory in the 70s when this first got attention, that doesn't matter. The 40 years of work since then leave no doubt we're warming, and humans cause it. By your thinking, Romans using lead pipes for water means we're wrong to think lead is harmful now.
Impulse725 5 months ago
@Impulse725 that depends on which part of the 1970's you refer. By the mid to late '70's, global warming gained prominance. Before that was a different story.
You shouldn't be so quick to discount the situation with cooling. What would have happened had everyone rushed out to deal with global cooling in 1971 only to find out we were making things worse? Theories get changed, dropped, and added all the time. We should keep that in mind when someone demands we make drastic changes.
FiendsInRedSatin1 5 months ago
Bill nye we know you're a hoax a CIA agent for global domination you are a human you're a evil human we will Deafet this tyranny wake up infowars.com is a good place to find out
aman111501 6 months ago
@aman111501 Infowars is nothing but an outlet for a pathetically vain, narcissistic, and delusional nonexpert's (Alex Jones) fabricated conspiracy rants and ridiculous illogic. Wake up and realize Alex Jones is nothing but a fear mongering attention whore who's mentally ill fanbase continues to do more harm to themselves and the whole of American social and political discourse by eating up all of his bullshit....Suckaaas!
dbrand41253 6 months ago
@dbrand41253
He might be worse than you think: watch?v=1dRCrSvnelM
AntiSchiff 5 months ago
@aman111501
Oh, infowars run by this naked idiot calling Steve Jobs evil as he maybe dying from pancreatic cancer?
watch?v=1dRCrSvnelM
AntiSchiff 5 months ago
4% of C02 is manmade.
The east side of Greenland is melting because of different weather patterns (not related to GLOBAL WARMING)
Fresh water mixing with Sea water doesn't stop its current. Only wind can affect it.
There.
ZhuRongStudios 6 months ago
Why does this weather man sound like a mentally challenged kid?
MrG0TH1ER 6 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER HE TALKS IN CAPSLOCK TO SOUND SMARTER.
UltimaXG2 6 months ago
imagine how hard it was to find a weatherman who doesn't believe in global warming...
carly3579 6 months ago 24
@carly3579 san diegoes john colman. He started the weather channel.
pressbox1492 5 months ago
@carly3579 Not hard at all, just go to fox news. if they go against the network the get blackballed.
clgrayson1 5 months ago
@carly3579 The founder of the Weather Channel, meteorologist John Coleman, said man-made global warming is a "money making scam."
filoIII 5 months ago
@carly3579 The founder of the WeatherChannel, meteorologist John Coleman, said man-made global warming is a "money making scam."
filoIII 5 months ago
Did anybody else notice the time periods Bastardi used for his correlation chart? For the CO2 level he only correlated the data between 1998 & 2007, but for the other factors he correlated 104-112 years of data. Hardly comparable! As Nye said, 1998 was an especially hot year & using that as the starting point hides all the cooler years before it. This is called "cherry-picking" your data in order to have it show something that is not found in the overall data set.
pallasathena17 6 months ago
the weather man won! global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon, governments are using this 'debate' to extract more taxation, this world will be safe and well until the almighty says otherwise.
steeplejackdibs 6 months ago
@steeplejackdibs A natural phenomenon that we are making irrefutably worse and irreversible.... No one denies global warming happens hot shot, it's humans are making it happen a lot faster and ruining other ecosystems at the same time by burning fossil fuels..
Mistersamsam 6 months ago
@steeplejackdibs
It doesn't matter whether it's "natural", stupid. If natural processes make the planet warmer in a costly way, we may want to take action anyway. My god, what an idiot you are.
AntiSchiff 5 months ago
@AntiSchiff your insulting comment and words only act as a useful mirror into your personality, you are mere cannon fodder to be perpetually duped by your globalist masters, if you knew anything worth knowing you would behave in a more adult manner, and perhaps learn something...please dont feel you have to comment further i already know where you are coming from !
steeplejackdibs 5 months ago
Why does the Bastardi get the last word? He got the first word, hence Bill Nye should have the last word. WTF O'Reilly?
TheCesium133 6 months ago 4
What's wrong with your teeeeeeth?
southeastarrow 6 months ago
you know, its funny. People scream about Global Warming, and not 90% believe its man made either. Yet life flourishes now a days, more species on this planet than there ever were before. And the beautiful thing is, it will continue to flourish. As long as the sun doesn't go into a solar minimum. If it does, then were in another Ice Age. Sorry folks, but no matter how much Co2 we throw into the atmosphere, we'll never equal to the amount that is naturally thrown. And further more, plants love it
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 You do realize that 99% of all species that have ever lived on the Earth's surface have gone extinct? Furthermore, current extinction rates are hundreds of times faster than they ever were in the fossil record. We're destroying the plants that provide the protection against the elevated CO2 levels in the form of clear cutting forests. Also, who's benefiting by lying to all of humanity about such a thing. What would be the point?
calthopian 6 months ago
@calthopian yes, majority of the species have gone extinct. But humans are only responsible for about 2 % worth. Co2 is but a fraction as a Global Warming agent, so it can't be considered as a problem. The Sun is the problem, not an exhaust tube. The Earth is covered by a vast array of plants, not touched by humans. Many areas not touched by technologies at all, just because the news says it happens doesn't make it so. Benefiting? How about Al Gore!
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 Even if what you're saying about CO2 is true, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to lessen our impact on the one planet we live on. The problem is that we're altering our environment to the extent that the natural biosphere can't keep pace with the changes and species are going extinct in record speed. Also, climate change has been an issue before "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, Carter ('76-'80) was the first president I know of to address the issue.
calthopian 6 months ago
@sliver01 cont'd- Why would Al Gore decide to just randomly bring this up out of the seeming blue if there wasn't credible science behind it? Why would every 1st world nation (but the US) and the vast majority of the 2nd and 3rd world sign onto Kyoto if there was no scientific basis behind global climate change? Why would scientists have a reason to lie to the greater world? Science itself is self-correcting by nature and has the capacity to admit that it is wrong and revise their conclusion...
calthopian 6 months ago
@calthopian I never said there was no scientific basis. Some scientist stand behind Gore, however there 30,000 scientists standing behind John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel trying to get the media to listen to the counter arguments. But yet the media won't give them the time of day for a debate. Why do they hold back? As for Kyoto? I am glad we didn't sign it. As for them other countries? Can't tell why. Besides, why some scientists lie, well they benefit financially....
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 You still don't understand the process of peer review. Amongst actual climatologists, active in their study the general consensus that human have a large impact on climate change is 97%. These are the people who undertake the peer review process in studying another's claims. Meteorologists don't study the actual climate as it's evolved on Earth, that's the climatologists job. The media holds back (except faux news) because Coleman is to climate change, what creationists are to biology.
calthopian 6 months ago
@calthopian Al Gore is a Co- Founder of a company called Generation Investment Management, and it invests in Green Projects which of course he'll get a wealthy return on his investments. In other words, GW is an investment to Al Gore. As long as people continue to believe it, just like Nye who failed to truly prove his point IMO. The more Al's company "GIM" will be successful. A lot of politicians as well, with help with the lobbyist. The News, they side along any leftist idea. IE gw!
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 You've still failed to tell me where scientists themselves would benefit from raising this alarm...the entire notion of climate change started with scientists who observed the elevated amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and know the consequences of continuing to do nothing about it. Politicians aside, what are the benefits for a scientist to lie to the entire world about something so drastic? Science always self-corrects and reviews, its part of the scientific method.
calthopian 6 months ago
@calthopian Not all scientist are standing behind this GW push. First of all, Co2 IS NOT A MAJOR GLOBAL WARMING AGENT! Its only a fraction, even now in 2011; is only a fraction of the overall atmosphere. Many of the scientists, the 2500 that signed on with Gore even are the ones that come up with how GW is effecting something. So they bring it up with government to get a grant, 100,000's to millions of dollars (USD for example) and thus they got money they probably wouldn't have before.
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 If the science didn't add up they wouldn't be able to get the grants without scandal. The peer review process in science would not allow a scientist to doctor evidence, it is very thorough and only a small fraction of hypotheses are able to survive the process, afterwards they are continuously bombarded with attempts to disprove the conclusion. It would be in a scientist's best interest to profoundly disprove climate change. However in a 2009 survey 82% accepted that it was a fact.
calthopian 6 months ago
Yes, it would be beneficial if they were. I can't explain for all the scientists who are out there standing behind GW. However, scientist HAVE been found to doctor evidence. NASA has, been caught, the email that came out prior to Copenhagen Conference, as for the survey that's 82% of the scientists polled. Not overall, especially with so many Climatologists around the world debunking GW. Explain to me than, FEB of 2011 2000 glaciers are growing in India? 48 growing in New Zealand.
sliver01 6 months ago
As for Venus, simple (Which shows Bill Nye to be a complete idiot.) Venus has no moon to control the climate, no micro organisms to breath in the C02 like here on Earth, and lastly its millions of miles closer to the sun than Earth. Earth is unique and yes we need to protect this great planet. I do NOT mean that we should ignore all damages. But, the damage is more regional rather than global. I am for alternative sources of energy, cleaning the air, water, and land. However, I do not believe.
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 Although some glaciers around the world have been growing, The vast majority have tended to recede. Glacial growth isn't based on just the warmth of the Earth, but rather precipitation in the mountains. It may be that the locations in India and New Zealand just got more rain in the form of snow at the tops of the mountains and thus the snow pack formed into more glacier. But in the vast majority of areas, most glaciers have tended to decrease in size.
calthopian 6 months ago
in GW. Or at least the man made kind. 100,000's of glaciers around the world. And only 10% are shrinking. Some areas have shrunk enough to show that humans lived in the area like one spot in the Netherlands. Lived some hundred years ago, only to abandon cause of the growing glaciers. 90% are growing, most fast. Antarctica continues to get thicker, Greenland ice sheet growing, and larger than lower US 48. Alaska is barely seeing temps above 65 in the summer. It all comes down the the sun.
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 Where are you getting your sources? The Netherlands is flat mostly below sea level land. If in fact there were glaciers around the netherlands and they melted, the Dutch would be without a home as the people of the Maldives off the coast of India are experiencing. None of the Ice Sheets you're mentioning are growing in fact much the opposite. You're just pulling shit out of your ass...
calthopian 6 months ago
@calthopian Maldives? The oceans are shrinking and the proof is the Maldives. An out crop of rock in the ocean, there were bones of a woman who died 1200 years ago that was found in the out cropping. If the oceans were rising, the bones would not have been found. I was mistaken about the Netherlands, I apologize for that. I believe it to be Norway. I know it was somewhere in northern Europe.
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 The oceans are shrinking, and the proof is one island chain off of India. What a crock. By that logic, the rising sea levels off the coast of the Philippines prove that the ocean is expanding, right?
Sabohaque 6 months ago
@sliver01 Where the fuck are you getting your shit from? Alaska had seen temps above 65 many times this summer and summers before. Greenland's ice sheet isn't growing. Seriously, where you getting your sources? Just like what calthopian said.
GTAIVman 6 months ago
The sun is everything, 98% of the physical property of the solar system. For such a huge thingwe have no control over it at all. When we are going through a Solar Maximum, we get hot, we go through a Solar Minimum we get cold. That's basically everything right there, yet the News won't tell you that. Doesn't fit the modern mentality. The sun is heading towards a Solar Minimum, and by 2016. It won't be active at all, which could lead us to another Little Ice Age.
sliver01 6 months ago
Lastly, we didn't start keeping temperature records till the mid to late 1800's. At the tailing end of the last Little Ice Age, when temps were at the lowest point. And beginning of a gradual rise. Then, we turn to the 1900's. We warm up, and then the 30's come around when we were at our hottest for a decade. And subsequent ups and downs since. So, it would seem that we warmed up, its just a coincidence that we warmed up during the Industrial Revolution. By one tenth of one degree. Sweltering!
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 No, actually, for the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. The Sun and the climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. So yeah, we may hit that Minimum in 2016, but the sun's been cooling for the past 35 years.
calthopian 6 months ago
And temperature records are irrelevant. We have Ice cores from glaciers all over the world that can tell us what the average climate was. We have methods of determining the amount of gasses there were in the atmosphere eons ago. And where are you getting your sources? Also, if the average temperature of the Earth were to drop by only 2 degrees we'd be in an ice age equivalent to the one 18,000 years ago. 2 degrees. Brr! (also 1934 was only the hottest in the USA, not globally).
calthopian 6 months ago
Temp records are irrelevant? Irrelevant? it has everything to do with this! It tells us whats been happening since we started keep records, and also in lieu of temp records ice cores can also tell us when the earth was HOTTER than it is now. Yet, life is here in all its finest forms. 1034, good point, however it just shows one thing. Hot is regional and global. Antarctica is NOT sweating. Nor is Greenland. Nor can we control temps. Its utter arrogance to think we can. Earth is not a...
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 Dude, Antarctica and Greenland have both been shown to have lost a large amount of Ice. Antarctica has lost a lot of it's land ice which is the worst kind of Ice to loose because that's what raises sea levels. Greenland has lost a lot of Ice which is troubling because the interference of the fresh ice water with the gulf stream could wreak havoc on Western Europe. We are pumping 100x more CO2 than nature is, and it's having the effect that our species aren't able to evolve fast enough.
calthopian 6 months ago
@calthopian Antarctica has pretty much had one area that lost ice, its the peninsula that juts fat out into the ocean fairly close to South America. And, records show that it is not unusual for that to happen in that area of land. Dude look, we cannot in anyway shape for form throw more than nature. Not with the large pacific ocean, with its volcanic rim, many various active on land volcanoes, and many deep-sea hydrothermal vents and various other natural means. Yet, plants and such...
sliver01 6 months ago
thriving more because of it! I know we have some damage. I agree with that, but like I said. The problems are more regional rather than global. We fix these problems, but it'll take time. I also said, I am for the cleaner alternatives, but again the infrastructures will take years to change. Like I tell people, don't go all stir crazy over it, calm down. Its more scare tactic than anything.
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 No, where are your sources. The entire continent is loosing land ice. You may not think that we can throw more force than nature, but we are. We consistently pump more carbon and other greenhouse gasses than nature can recycle (because human's can't readily recycle atmospheric carbon) leading to a build up of Carbon dioxide which traps heat in from the sun. A massive volcanic eruption would actually help us by making the world a bit cooler.
calthopian 6 months ago
@calthopian I did not say were not, I just can't throw as much as nature does itself. My sources? Iceagenowdotcom, too start. Volcanoes, also throw a lot of pollutens in the air as well. Like C02 for example. But a volcano overall won't effect the entire planet, as far as cooling is concerned, unless it is a extremely large eruption. And on your previous post, we are cooling. Slowly, like we slowly warmed. I live in the south and our winters are becoming more hectic. Wasn't like this 5 years ago
sliver01 6 months ago
@sliver01 -cont'd- Plants aren't thriving because of it, nothing is but humans. We're destroying our Coral Reefs (I know coral is an animal) because they can't survive in the too acidified oceans that result from a rapid rise in the amount of atmospheric CO2. Also, plants are worse off because of it, too much CO2 means plants need more of the other materials they need to survive, but when the climate changes and they receive less water, they die. I'm done talking to you, pick up a science book.
calthopian 6 months ago
@calthopian come on now. I've been keeping this friendly. I do study thank you very much. I know we've damaged the coral reefs, I know we've done damage. I've said that twice already. And like many people I am for improving things, but just to jump the gun like we done everything but destroy the world is asinine. I have kept a friendly tone, but your last sentence tells all I need to know. Fine, I enjoy a debate. But if that is how it is then, fine. We'll agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
sliver01 6 months ago
Source- skepticalsciece. com/ argument. php
What are your sources?