Bill Nye the Science Guy: Climate change deniers are ‘unpatriotic’

By David Edwards and Stephen Webster
Thursday, February 11th, 2010 -- 6:50 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

billnyescienceguy Bill Nye the Science Guy: Climate change deniers are unpatrioticFrozen water fell from the sky today, therefore thousands of scientists the world over are liars. Just go with it.

That's the narrative coming from Fox News in their coverage of the heavy snow blanketing the eastern coast of the United States this winter. Thankfully, there's Bill Nye the Science Guy, ready to explain the complexities of climate science in terms easy enough for even a child to digest.

Nye, however, jacked his assessment of meteorology into the realm of partisanship, scoffing on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show on Wednesday night that climate change deniers are "unpatriotic" in parroting simple minded, anti-science propaganda.

"[We] remind you that global warming was the first term for this phenomenon that we now call can climate change," he said. "So it‘s very reasonable that a snowstorm in Washington that‘s this severe is a result of climate change."

"There‘s more energy in the atmosphere, and this is stirring things up," Nye continued. "If you want to get serious about it, these guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are almost unpatriotic. It's really, they're denying science."

Story continues below...

Nye, who once hosted a popular children's show, explained that as an educator he's noticed a sharp divide between older and younger people when it comes to accepting the science of climate change.

"This is anecdotal for me," Nye said. "Older people just have a much harder time grasping the idea that you have many billions of people on the planet with a very, very thin atmosphere, you‘re able to affect its climate. It's younger people are able to sort of embrace it, understand the evidence and move forward."

Weather, he noted, is day-to-day. The average global climate on a year-to-year basis, however, is something else entirely.

NASA scientists announced toward the end of January that the last 10 years were the hottest decade in over 2,000 years, with 2009 being the second warmest on record.

"This thing of denying science, you know, science has done so much to make this country what it is: A technological leader," Nye said. "It's improved the quality of life for so many people, here and around the world. To deny what scientists or scientific evidence is showing, is inappropriate. And as I said earlier ... It's unpatriotic."

His words did not sit easily with conservative blog Hot Air, which retaliated in a Thursday post.

"Maybe Nye is an expert on patriotism?" writer Ed Morrissey rhetorically asked. "Er, no."

"Demanding unquestioning acceptance of recent scientific claims as gospel amounts to a forced belief system, and our Constitution actually has an explicit prohibition against religious tests for office," he continued. "Is the Constitution unpatriotic as well? Maybe Nye should stick to classroom demonstrations of basic science and leave AGW and the measurement of patriotism to those more intellectually capable of discernment."

This video is from MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast Feb. 11, 2010.

Download video via RawReplay.com

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • Bill is right. Denial based on cold weather is stupid.

    But, being skeptical based on faulty scientific handling by the IPCC and other scientists is healthy for science as a whole. Outright denial is overstepping and short sighted, but I see no problems into more scrutiny of the scientific data. I am disappointed Bill does not see this.

    I argue it is unpatriotic to have my money stolen from me to fund anything.
  • Aldo
    Thank God this is settled science, and not political
  • Markov
  • Pokwiz
    I guess Bill Nye has now decided on his religion of science, since he no longer believes in the scientific method. Thousands of scientist around the world question global warming as well, and most of the real scientist kn ow that the "science" behind global warming is very bad. It is too bad that he has had the opportunity to fill the minds of many children with his false doctrin instead of teaching them to think and question. But you cannot question his dogma. There are those who simply say how can anyone deny this is happening, but do not question whether it has been happening for a long time, and whether it is man made or not. Since no real scientific evidence has been published and verified, no scientific evidence has tested and the data cannot be accounted for they just want us to accept by "faith" that they are guessing correctly. I do believe in global warming but most of it is Nyes overheated imagination. It amazes me that supposed scientist have not even questioned their commandments from their leaders. Even the major climate bibles were created specifically to eliminate any people or scientist who did not go along with program. Many of them were ostracized, not because thir information was wrong, but becasue they dared ask questions. Global warming is not a matter of whether there are fluctuations in temperature, but whether it is a natural thing, and whether it is necessarily a bad thing. I happen to like diferent seasons you hot,cool, cold,warm etc. you get the idea. Global Warming as crisis is the biggest hoax since the lies of Adolph Hitler.
  • jigba
    How about instead of all this just explain the definition of global average temperature and instantaneous local temperature. 100% guarantee anyone who believes that cold weather trumps climate change arguments was lost after the basketball clips.
  • Markov
    Sure.
    How about you explain why two of the leading climate research institutes in the world don't agree on what the global average temperature was over the PREVIOUS 15 years: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0%2C1...

    Also, how about you enumerate the data points used to calculate global average temperature that are interpolated.

    Or, why, when the CRU, et. al. drop temperature stations from their datasets they always seem to drop the rural, non-urban-heat-island-effected ones... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpo...

    Also, provide a benign explanation for this study on influencing a population's belief in global warming involving scenarios where there's actually no warming: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp... (get inventive!)
  • Hiawatha
    And why don't you explain why station data, satellite data, and ship data all show global temperatures rising each decade, as predicted ?
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2...

    Why don't you explain why the southern hemisphere was the hottest in measured history last year ?
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2...

    Keep in mind that "natural variability" is not an explanation - you have to say exactly what has been varying in nature. Solar irradiance ? No. Aerosols ? No. Deep ocean currents ? No.

    Keep in mind that your amateur "explanations" get more and more laughable as the annual data comes in. The small fluctuations around the longterm global warming trend (sunspot cycles, La Nina) have reversed this year - you will be seeing longterm warming *plus* short term cyclical warming the next few years.
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2010

    Enjoy the record hot temperatures coming.
    Get your lame "explanations" ready.
  • Markov
    I didn't offer any personal "amateur" explanations.

    I asked why leading climate research institutes don't agree on what the average global temperature was over the past decade or so. This is settled science, right?

    I'm also curious as to why NASA Goddard says that there's warming in the past decade and now Phil Jones from the CRU says there's no warming.

    I come from this absurd belief system that thinks that if you can't measure the present and agree on what's happening now, you can't possibly predict the future. Hell, even if you can measure the present that doesn't mean you can predict the future.

    I mean, if the experts don't agree, who am I supposed to believe? Should I flip a coin? Should I just go with whomever gets the most press coverage? The most dire predictions?
    This is why people call AGW a religion. The "consensus" is vapor. If you can't agree within your reporting significance, you're not doing science.
  • Hiawatha
    Yes, you have plenty of 'questions' but you don't offer any "explanations". Even for a "skeptic/denier", you're an amateur.
    There are four organizations that calculate a single global temperature based on different methodologies and measuring instruments - they agree very closely, but are not identical. And *this* is your challenge to the science ?

    How about economics ? Try to find the exact number of vehicles produced by GM in 2008 - you will find that different organizations have different numbers, because of the way they treat vehicles produced by partially-owned subsidiaries (especially Chinese ones, owned a different levels below and above 50% over the year). Based on these different numbers, either GM or Toyota was the #1 vehicle manufacturer of 2008.
    Gee, I guess all economics is suspect. They can't measure past economic activity to your simplistic standards, so I guess they have no idea which country will be the biggest economy in 2010. Ooooh, everything is uncertain...

    As for Phil Jones:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/85116...
    E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    and:
    "I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

    Let me dumb this down for you:
    if you were trying to determine if dice were "loaded" (weighted to favor certain outcomes) you could roll them over and over and see if the results were random, or favored some numbers.
    Rolling a six 4 times in a row might not be "statistically significant" to a 95% confidence level (you could roll a real die 4 times in a row and get sixes, at some probability), but the more you roll a six, the higher the certainty that the die is weighted.
    For climate, the timescales are 30 years or more. Looking at 5 years, 10 years, 15 years is suggestive, but not definitive.

    Still, decade after decade, it has been warming:
    Last decade was the warmest ever:
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa...

    Experts agree - so you must be clueless.
  • I wrote an Article about this in July of 2008:
    http://www.nosocialism.com/2008/07/nasa-backtra...
    There's a chart on that Article that I pulled right from NASA's database that CLEARLY shows that Temperatures in the Decade following 2000, were about the same as temperatures following 1930. Back then, there was a High School kid that forced NASA to change some of their numbers. Now NASA's being sued because they won't release the rest of their data, so considering their track record, how can we believe these "Experts"?
  • Hiawatha
    You're confusing temperatures in the 48 contiguous United States (that's without Alaska and Hawaii, for the vocabulary challenged) with *global* temperatures.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    1.6% of the surface of the Earth is not *global*.
    If Zimbabwe had its warmest year ever, that wouldn't mean much, either.

    That's why they leave science to the scientists, Jimbo.

    And anyone can sue anyone for any stupid reason - look at the dentist/lawyer who tried to show in court that Obama was not an American citizen.

    How many men did *you* put on the Moon ? When you get to 12, then you can complain about NASA.
  • OMG, You've GOT to be fucking kidding me. Zimbabwe, one of the MOST Corrupt
    counties in the world. One of the countries that has their hands out,
    wanting the U.S. to give them hundreds of millions of Dollars over this AGW
    BS. I'm supposed to believe that they didn't tamper with the equipment.
    I'm supposed to believe that they've compensated for the "Heat Island
    Effect".

    Right... you go on, little sheeple. BAHHHH
  • Markov
    Experts once agreed the world was flat.
    Experts once agreed that witches float.
    Experts thirty years ago were warning us of the coming second ice age.
    Experts just a couple of years ago warned us that the Avian Flu was going to decimate human populations.
    Experts continually tell us that jobless recoveries are working and that the economy is fixed.

    So, I'm not insulted by your statement. Sorry. I am quite flummoxed by how easily people are duped by "authority figures". The whole world is just a big Stanford Prison Experiment, I guess.

    There are many experts on the other side of AGW, of course, but somehow they don't get favorable press coverage. I wonder how that is.. I'm sure there's no pressure from the potential of a parasitic $3 trillion/year carbon market. Obviously, the US press has never been used as a propaganda organ by everyone crossing the spectrum from Dick Cheney to balloon boy.

    Oh, and btw, with respect to that $3 trillion/year market, they're estimating 17+% to go to "transaction costs". Woe are we to the "efficiency of the marketplace". http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487...

    The 30 year climate period is totally arbitrary and was actually chosen by Phil Jones for convenience, so, maybe you shouldn't cling so closely to that.

    I understand statistical significance. I also understand that an easy way to get a better statistical significance (when your theory is correct) is to increase your sample size. Of course, it appears that instead of increasing their sample size the IPCC has been culling theirs and selecting data points for fitness to their assumptions.

    You say they agree very closely, but are not identical, but you're missing my point about significance. There's this concept called significant figures. When you report in science that a measurement is 5.1, the assumption is that your error is plus or minus .1 unless you note differently. When CRU and Hadley differ by .13 (which is larger than the assumed error for either) , and they're using 'settled science' and have all the same data available to them.. well.. you know my complaint: it's fishy. One or both are reporting that they have better precision than they actually have.

    Of course the problem is that they're not doing science, per se. They're doing modeling and simulation, and even to just get a historic average of the very recent past they're interpolating temperatures for a good portion of the Earth. So, of course it's not going to be that accurate for a giant chaotic system. But who's going to say that when there are millions of funding dollars (or euros) on the line?

    As to your statement: "I guess all economics is suspect." Shouldn't it be? Our economic system has been nothing if not a disaster for how long?
  • Riquin
    Compilation of lies from a fellow blogger:

    1) The Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035. Not so! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/cl...
    2) Fifty percent of Holland is below sea level. Not so!
    http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/sea-level-blu...
    3) The Hockey Stick graph. Not so!
    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/inde...
    4) Polar Bears are endangered because of global warming. Not so!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500424/...
    5) Oceans will rise and devastate coastal cities. Not so!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/c...
    6) Rainforest threatened by global warming. Not so!
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-...
    7) The science of man made global warming is settled. Not so!
    http://www.petitionproject.org/
  • Riquin
    Have a look at this. The US is under a severe censorship:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/evi...
  • Hiawatha
    You're a fucking moron.

    Anyone who believes an intellectual lightweight conservative Internet publication, "The American Thinker", home of the anti-President Obama smearer Ed Lasky,
    over NASA, NOAA and dozens of world-class research institutes all around the world, is a hopeless wingnut.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
    The world is warming, due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
    http://www.climate.gov/

    FOX News and The Wall St. Journal are clueless ideologues - you throw your lot in with them at your peril. Global warming is just getting started.

    When the shit hits the fan, you're on your own, Diquin.
  • Markov
    You can call people fucking morons, but that doesn't make it so.

    You're following dogma without digging in for yourself and finding out the truth. (Try doing that - here's an experiment you can recreate on your own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04&feat... )

    Do you really think the American "left" is right about everything? That really there are only two kinds of people in this world? Two sorts of solutions to every problem? That there's really a line you can draw through human attitudes and actions where one side is always right and one always wrong? Who's a moron?

    Riquin is correct. US "mainstream" media is extremely censored and any US "liberal" or "progressive" should be able to remember the Downing Street Minutes, front-paged in Britain on May 5, 2005 ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/articl... ) but as yet unpublished and unexplored by the US "mainstream" media.

    One thing that the 9/11, the Iraq war, the Afghan war, Cheney's energy meetings, Enron, the financial collapse, or gee, just about anything out of our recent history ought to teach us is: if the mainstream media agree on something it should be treated with EXTREME SUSPICION. Even when Fox and the WSJ mount some weak opposition.
    Ignore FOX and the WSJ and just follow the story in the European press.

    Also, notice how the prevalence of stories about climate change have taken up all the column inches that used to go to toxic pollution by major corporations.. "Climate Change" is a globalist dream.. where real pollution goes unnoticed and government collects mandatory fees from us but immediately places them into an unregulated derivatives market. It's not a socialist solution, it's a fascist solution. Get smart.
  • Hiawatha
    Hey "moderator" - if you know exactly what should be said and not said,
    why don't YOU write the Comments ?
  • Liberals, lose your agenda
    Why do all of the so called intelligent, informed liberals always ignore the scientists that disagree with the man made part of the global climate change issue. I think most would agree that the climate may be changing. The issue is whether or not man is causing it or contributing in a significant way. I have an engineering degree and a master in accounting. I am working on a second master degree at present. I am a conservative and I would defy any of the liberals to challenge my credentials just because I disagree with their agenda.

    The geological record shows periods of intense cooling and warming well before man ever appeared on the scene. Why are these facts ignored by the AGW crowd? They are ignored because they do not support the agenda of "man is evil".

    What about increased sunspot activity which affects the earth's climate? What about volcanic activity? What about the ocean's activity as repository of carbon dioxide?

    The liberals always want to believe that all bad must come from man and more specifically from any benefits or good that man is taking from the planet.

    Talk about the big picture guys; let's really look at the real big picture with an unbiased eye and no agenda.
  • Hiawatha
    See above, you fucking moron.
  • Wow, that's the most intelligent, well though out answer I've seen. You should win the Nobel Peace prize for that one.
  • L. Tebo
    How do we know what the truth is, when scientist give you doctored reports. I have read all the hacked emails. EXAMPLE. 10/4/98 Make emissions match observation. We can scale down inflated variance. We devised a simple method of scaling down. 9/19/96. I pulled ever trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of the DATA. I don't think It'd be productive to try and JUGGLE the chronology stats anymore then I already have. Mr. Nye should use fact when taking about science to our kids. His degree dose not qualified to take about shot term or long term weather.
  • Riquin
    No more global warming !!! Have a look at this link:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872...

    These scientists from the UK are not very patriotic.
  • Nattyspats
    Yea! Yea! Yea! Three cheers for Bill Nye. He is absolutely on target. And since science and reality don't match the haters / deny-ers distorted views they attack him. Ask a question about science, the deny-ers give you some response about patriotism or religion. Just like the airbag (Ed Morrisey) attacking Nye - then distorting the issue even more by trying to suddenly equate science (facts) on the same level as the Constitutional prohibition against a RELIGIOUS test. Science is not a religion, it is a reality. Hmmm. . . just something else for the deny-ers to deny.
  • Todd
    The most amazing part of this story to me is scientists have determined this has been "the hottest decade in over 2000 years"! I would be very interested to see those records and what instruments were used to make the measurements! Prove this statement in a manner that most people with common sense can believe and then I will give some merit to the "global warming" argument.
  • Dawn
    Problem is that you Global Warming alarmists lost all credibility when your emails were exposed. Plus, everyone over the age of about 40 remembers all the other calamaties that were foretold when we were young and gullible: overpopulation, ice age II, nuclear winter, DDT, etc. There's always someone in every decade warning that the end of the world is imminent. We view those types of predictions and their antidotes as excuses to control us and strip us of our money and liberty. Why should we listen to the boy who continually cries wolf? If you want to be heard, try distinguishing yourselves from Hal Lindsey.

    BTW, Maybe they think you are too young to comment on Huffington Post. Name calling and potty talk reflect immaturity.
  • Mr. T
    RH, you're an idiot.
  • Mr. T
    hmmm...seems a similar snow cover happened almost 30 years ago...but "science" proves it all wrong, the climate is changing. Whatever Bill Nye, go back to doing children's programs.
  • John M. Barricklow
    Mr.Nye, I read a report 2 years ago authored by Russian scientists who gave evidence that the earth is entering a period of global cooling. Am I unpatriotic because I am leaning towards believing their evidence? How dare you make that accusation about me and other free-thinkers! What gives you the right to insult me? If you are willing to be sucked into the whirl pool of politically leftist manipulated evidence, so be it. But I don't have to listen to your ranting and insults. Alot of pseudo-scientists are profiting with questionable studies that do not have anything to do with "global warming" and get government funding for themselves merely by tacking on that term in the paperwork they submit for funding approval. Why don't you expose them and call them unpatriotic for stealing OUR tax money? Do you have a conflict of interests???
  • michaelrivero
    This morning the British Press is reporting that Dr.Phil Jones, head of the Hadley CRU whose leaked software proved intentional misrepresentation of the data to create the "Hockey Stick" is now admitting that there has been no warming for at least the last 15 years.

    http://tinyurl.com/yb2loyt

    Yes, Virginia, there really ARE conspiracies that span the government, academia, and the media, to trick you into paying carbon taxes.

    When Louis Nye started using "Patriotism" to sell this snake oil, it became obvious that this was not science, but politics. He and every other con-artist who whored themselves to Al Gore's carbon-tax credit scam ought to be fired.
  • Not Obese
    People who deny global warming are losers. They know, deep down, that they will have to sacrifice something in their selfish lives to correct years of gluttony.
  • I usually find that people who call themselves "Not Obese", are usually Obese.
  • bored@stumbleupon
    Bill Nye is a dick. Gave a talk at my college, he talked for 50 minutes about how he invented some stupid thing in airplanes and some other stupid useless thing on one of the mars rovers. Then he spent ten minutes talking about how he has spent something like 40 million dollars making his house eco-friendly, and we should all follow his lead. Then he wouldn't sign my poster of him. I was not pleased. Would not recommend him to a turnip.
  • What about Global warming on MARS? Both planets are experiencing the same climate change. Obviously, there is no Human Behavior causing the ice caps of MARS to melt. We should do some REAL SCIENCE and find out what the REAL CAUSE is...

    That way we could take effective action...

    Build the Space Parasol. Millions of mirrors floating between the eARTh and The SUN blocking light and heat from shining on eARTh... IT'S COOLER IN THE SHADE. It would be essential that the space parasol be steerable so that if... and I say IF... it turns out that global warming is NOT REAL then we could use the space mirrors to focus extra light onto the eARTh helping with the excessive cooling... like a regulator for temperature... a thermostat for the entire planet.

    http://gregvanderlaan.com
    http://www.zazzle.com/gregvan*
  • Riquin
    Do we really have a problem or all this is just a way to get money from all of us in favor of Wall Street traders?. We may end up saying "The problem is that we do not have a problem".

    The main media BBC, ABC, NBC, CNN are all one sided and that has to stop.

    We need a complete investigation of the origin of the raw data and start collecting data in a scientific way.

    A lot of money and political power has been invested in so call “global warming” that if the general population sees this as a lie and a hoax, many well-known institutions of government and media will likely collapse from the scandal. The establishment is desperate fighting for its life. And we should expect them to take any and all desperation measures to prolong and preserve their status.

    When all else fails use scare tactics.

    1 - CRU studies disregarded hundreds of Siberian samples trees and concentrated on one tree YADO61 "the most influential tree in the world” seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern which is exactly what the researcher wanted. The rest of the trees showing a different pattern, Oh Well.

    2- This is the code for the computations; notice the” fudge factor” and the comment.
    =======================================
    ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
    ========================================

    Are we going to sink billions of dollars on this hoax? Give me a break!
  • HARRY
    GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FRAUD... FOLLOW THE MONEY AND WHO IT GOES TO. SLIGHT TEMP CHANGES HAVE GONE ON FOR THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF YEARS. REMEMBER BACK IN THE 70'S WHEN WE WERE TOLD GLOBAL COOLING....WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HEAT OUR HOMES NOR GROW OUR CROPS.....HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE.. THE YOUNG ARE BEING BRAINWASHED IN GOV SCHOOLS..SEND AL GORE TO THE SUN TO STOP SUN FLAREUPS. BUSINESS,SCHOOLS,PROFESSORS GET BILLIONS AND GRANTS. FOLLOW THE MONEY--
  • Spiffarino
    "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country: corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." – Abraham Lincoln

    To all the climate change deniers out there, the community of climate scientists considers the issue closed. The few climate scientists who are not convinced that it's a man-made phenomenon still don't deny it's happening, only the root cause.

    That leaves you with mostly right-wing ideologues who are either zealots or who are bought and paid-for by powerful extraction industrialists. And that leaves me wondering who their followers care most about; is it money interests or is it America? Because, if you cared about this great country you'd do what you could to make it greater. Instead, you would rather keep us fastened tightly to the teat of Mid-east and Venezuelan oil.

    I thought your side was supposed to be the most patriotic, yet you want to keep us enslaved to oil while making dictators and terrorist paymasters richer and richer. It's confusing and alarming.
  • "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country: corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." – Abraham Lincoln
    -- We now have Al Gore, with his "Carbon Businesses" enriching himself at the expense of the Republic. GE, with their Windmills, Fluorescent Light bulbs, Smart Grid Technology, enriching themselves at the expense of the Republic. IBM with their Smart Grid Technology, enriching themselves at the expense of the Republic. Wall Street, wanting to setup a Massive Carbon Exchange System, with their mouths WATERING at the prospect of enriching themselves at the expense of the Republic. Utilities, with their Guaranteed Profits and Monopolies, wanting to enrich themselves at the expense of the Republic.
    All of these Giant Corporations, love Big Government, because Big Government gives Big Business Big Contracts. NOTHING that we've seen will be as big as the Carbon Exchange system. It's Wall Street's dream come true. If it passes, we might as well all move to NY or Washington, because there's going to be a GIANT sucking sound coming from those two cities that will suck the life out of every other city in the U.S., and line the Traders and Regulators pockets with Billions upon Billions. It's going to be a TRILLION dollar business, and you and me will pay for it with double or Triple Heating, Gas and Electricity prices. Don't believe me, listen to Obama's OWN WORDS... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxnT5tHVIo
  • Markov
    Call me crazy, but when you start waving the flag and the bible around and start pointing at people and shouting "DENIER!", it seems to me that you've run out of science entirely, and that now we're just in straight up gangland bullying territory.

    Climate change is happening, but whether the driver of climate change is the tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere put there by humans is on increasingly thin ice. Also, it seems to many that the current phase of climate change is the end of warming and the beginning of cooling.

    Nevermind the startling revelations of Climategate => that the IPCC and AGW scientists have been funded by big oil for over a decade, that they're choosing data points by their proximity to a predefined curve, or that they've conspired to get dissenting publications banned, journal editors fired, or even to get the academic credentials of their critics rescinded. Let's just put all of that aside.

    Let's also put aside the fact that there's potentially a $3 trillion/year derivatives market waiting to steal our money while not doing anything to reduce the carbon output of humanity as soon as the last politician gets paid off. (You know, God knows what the Republicans are holding out for... a direct percentage? This is usually the type of thing they're all-in for).

    Let's just look at the performance of these computer simulations that are the stand-ins for real science in climatology.
    Something that didn't make much real press penetration in the US is here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,151...
    Specifically:
    "Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill."

    So, the IPCC and Hadley, using the same theories and similar methods, have a .13 degree C difference between them. That shines a light on their significance. If the IPCC reports their predictions to 0.1 C accuracy, but is off by .13 C, they have systemic error. If Hadley is the culprit, they're reporting two orders of magnitude outside of their error bars.

    This is "settled science"??!?
    Give me a break.

    The Earth and it's weather and climate patterns are a tremendously large chaotic system. The reason that your local weatherman can't report the weather accurately more than a week in advance (unless you live in Arizona, of course) is because of the inherent unpredictability of chaotic systems. Everyone recognizes this and nobody tries to give weather predictions 3-months out. They'd just be rolling the dice and would be discredited and become a laughing stock.

    It is just as ludicrous to say you can predict the climate 50 years out, but with one difference: nobody will be around in 50 years that remembers your prediction. Making enormous policy changes in emergency panic mode to foster the creation of huge, mandatory yet unregulated derivative markets is absurd, insane and totally suspicious.

    And, calling people unpatriotic for saying so is fascist.

    PS: If you want to see the maximum weirdness that's being brought to bear in the war against your independent perception of this issue, see this paper on social simulations of belief levels in different climate scenarios from the Tyndall Center at East Anglia University - http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp... (East Anglia is where the IPCC is.)

    Yes, that's a study designed to figure out how to frame Climate Change/Global Warming to sustain maximum belief levels in AGW, NO MATTER WHAT THE CLIMATE ACTUALLY DOES.
    If you can think of a benign explanation for it, you're far better at lying to yourself than I am, and I do improv comedy.
  • frantaylor
    Again a person who is willing to bet the future of civilization on mathematics that nobody understands.

    And you have no idea what the word "fascist" means.

    Since you are proven to say things that make no sense, one must natually assume that all your text is garbage.
  • Markov
    Many people understand mathematics. You're betting the future of democracy on media hype and the suppression of critical thinking.

    Again,
    "According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

    These climatologists don't agree on the global temperature of the RECENT PAST. Their hindsight isn't even 20/20. Obviously, they don't know how to measure the global temperature to the accuracy that they claim.

    Yet, we are supposed to trust them on what's going to happen in the future? That is absurd.

    I really can't be clearer than this. If you have any scientific background, that one sentence just screams at you.

    The proposed $3 trillion/year mandatory carbon market is not trivial. If that cost were spread equally to all people, it would be $500/year and would quite literally starve about 2 billion people.
    As I pointed out in response to your post below, there's little reason to have faith in the carbon market's intentions.
    There's also quite a poor performance record so far with the Kyoto carbon offsets:
    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/arti...

    "In the name of environmental protection, the World Bank is brokering carbon emission trading arrangements that destroy indigenous farmlands around the world..."
    Read it if you're at all interested in getting behind the big media bullshit and seeing what's really being done in the name of carbon offsets.

    I do know what fascism is, and I usually use Umberto Eco's interesting take as my guide:
    http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt...

    Invocation of patriotism based on someone's willingness to believe one or other point of view lights up several of Eco's 14 points for me. Specifically: 2, 4, 5 & 6.

    It is suppression of non-dogmatic thinking, and it's always a bad sign. Usually, it's a sign that somebody isn't telling the truth.

    The 90% / 10% argument you make below is Eco's point #3.
  • Markov, I agree with your assessment, except for one thing. NO ONE will pay for this, except the U.S. What Copenhagen has taught us, is that the only reason other countries are involved, is because they want US to foot the bill. So that 3 Trillion Dollars, you might as well just divide it up amongst all U.S. residences, since it is US who will foot the bill. That's right, $10,000.00 per person. How will we pay for that? The same way we pay for the rest of the Half Million $ per household public Debt the Government has for each and every household in the U.S. They will attempt to soak the rich, until they simply leave the country, then pile the rest on as Debt.
  • frantaylor
    You are arguing that since there are selfish interests involved, we can just throw science out the window and go with the economic arguments.

    The math is not solved. There are respectable arguments on both sides.

    The simple fact is that we are not sure that your road does not lead to the edge of a steep cliff. There are other roads that we are more certain about. What I am saying is that we take one of those roads instead.
  • Markov
    As long as the road we take isn't Cap and Trade... fine. Prudence is great. Green energy? Cool.

    Financial parasitism given the force of law? Disaster.

    Probably just as bad for most human beings as an ice age or a 10 degree temperature spike: billions starving and endless wars.
  • gordonwagner
    'Global warming' aka 'climate change' is an off-the-shelf economic bubble waiting to happen. Observe that a Rothschild-controlled bank is at the core of the 'carbon credit' scheme. I want no part of this. Climate CHANGES, that's natural. I don't want another South-Sea-economic bubble scam. Enough of that manipulation.
  • frantaylor
    And you are willing to take the words of mathemeticians who don't even understand their own work and cannot explain it to others. You are perfectly happy to bet the future of mankind on what these people say. I say you are a suicidal maniac.
  • frantaylor
    Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is a 90% chance that the MIT guy is correct. That's not unreasonable right?

    So there is a 10% chance that he is WRONG.

    Let's look at the downside if he is wrong: it's the end of civilization and mankind as we know it.

    Are you willing to take that chance? Are you willing to push civilization into a car, knowing there's a 10% chance it will not survive? Are you INSANE?
  • Markov
    You know that the CAP and Trade solution is a giant, unregulated derivatives market, don't you?

    Did you know that the world's largest single carbon user (the US military) is totally exempt from the proposed system?

    Did you know that there's no barrier to companies having conflicts of interest within the carbon market.

    For instance, Goldman Sachs owns 10% of the CCX carbon exchange AND a stake in Blue Source LLC, a company that sells carbon credits, AND Goldman owns APX, a California company that registers carbon offsets.

    So, they are totally set to game the system and drive the price in any direction they want. I'm sure other companies are as well, Goldman is just an easier target for me to find in Google.

    So, the proposed solution is 110% SCAM. Whether or not there's a 10% chance that the Earth is in trouble, there's a 100% chance that we're getting scammed and we're not going to fix it this way.

    Wake up and stop believing what your TV tells you. Follow the money.
  • frantaylor
    Okay so here is your reasoning in a nutshell:

    Insurance companies make money so therefore accidents don't happen.
  • frantaylor
    Tell me if you were Goldman Sachs, would you not do exactly the same thing?

    And tell me again. Insurance companies bet all the time on the weather. Should we punish them for reacting to the market?

    And tell me how the behavior of Goldman Sachs has any correlation with the science of climate change.
  • The difference is that the Insurance companies can't "Game" the weather. The weather is what it is, regardless. The way that these guys set this thing up, they could literally control the flow of Carbon Credits, and which direction the price goes. Up or Down. If they know which way the price is going, they can make money on it going up, or it going down and either way you will be left footing the bill. You really thing this is fair? Also, HOW THE HELL DOES THIS SAVE THE PLANET?????!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • frantaylor
    Goldman Sachs is a puny little nothing on the world stage compared to the oil companies and the mideast oil kingdoms. It is pretty hilarious to see you make the assertion that they can take control of big oil.
  • Markov
    You're putting words in my mouth. I never said Goldman is controling big oil.
    I said Goldman is positioned to game the carbon market.

    A bit about Goldman Sachs:
    Not an insurance company, but an investment bank.

    They posted $13.4 billion in profit last year.

    Contributions to Obama in 2008: $994,795
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?c...

    Contributions to McCain in 2008: $230,095
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?i...

    Notable ex-Goldman employees in government:
    Robert Rubin
    Hank Paulson
    Tim Geithner

    And, as I tried to express in the thread already, they're not the only ones... you can substitute JP Morgan Chase or Citigroup for everywhere you see GS. There are many, many of these barely legal investment banks heavily manipulating our economy, and they would love nothing more than to receive mandatory money from all of us.

    We already know what they'll do with it because we're standing in the economy created by their ideal deregulated financial market.

    Imagine when we give them a $3 trillion dollar a year guarantee. Do you actually think they'll do anything about the environment? No way. They'll just steal the money and cycle a percentage back into corrupting our system. That's all they're good at.

    Seriously, Cap and Trade run by these guys - it's like asking Bernie Madoff to save the world. A guaranteed disaster.
  • frantaylor
    "Follow the money"

    Yes indeed watch those petrodollars as they zoom out of your pocket and right into the hands of the people who run the world.

    The people who control the energy have infinitely more power than those who do not. You are in fantasy land.
  • MrPunch
    Im glad to see the voracious arguing here...

    This is a VERY GOOD sign that the climate change scam is FAILLING!

    Rejoice and fight the CAP and TRADE scheme dreamed up by Al Gore and Ken Lay, fight the fascist "global government" that thankfully fell through at Copenhagen, and remove the "planet guilt" that has been programmed into us to remove our rights as citizens, and make genocide seem "ok"!

    Even if CO2 were a poison(which is preposterous), the elite are responsilble for most of it! In the city of New York, 80% of the CO2 is created by the sky scrapers that represent these very elite!(source from bill clintons website).

    However periods of higher co2 show geater plant life, and there have been much higher temperatures in earths history than now, and also all the planets are experiencing a warming! It is the Sun that is responsible, and there are no conclusive numbers to indicate that it is humans.
  • frantaylor
    You are not sure about any of this and you are willing to take civilization down a path by which it may perish. You are a foolhardy suicidal fool. You would not sacrifice your family on 90% odds but somehow you are fine taking the chance of tossing all of civilization into the fire.

    You can't tell me that you are 100% certain, so you are just a FOOL.
  • Alvaro
    It's not about science. It's about the money (carbon trade markets).
    Beware when science becomes like a religion; it stops being science.
  • frantaylor
    Yes you are right, there are 100000000 times more interests in maintaining the status quo than there are in making positive changes.
  • gabor4u
    We've had global warming since the ice age
    All theory should be up for debate.
  • frantaylor
    Which is precisely why we should proceed with caution. Don't commit to a sucidal legacy, be sure.
  • demliberal
    Yes, and the world was flat to some nay sayers when Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic.
  • tropicgirl
    I'm sorry for the people that are getting censored from Huffpo but I am not surprised. It has turned into a twitter dump with nothing but dumb people saying insignificant things.

    Regarding the science, I personally have to say I am getting sick of the likes of Popular Mechanic and Bill Nye the "science guy" insulting my intelligence. To pick these venues, that cater to children and children's programming and curriculum, to defend lousy and inadequate 911 investigations and climate warming changing, is a little ridiculous to me and I find it offensive.

    Look, the whole climate heating/change thing is going to result in a massive tax to poor countries and poor people. There may be enough proof to consider further study, but not enough to enact massive global taxes, decided by the crooks we have now in the government.

    They should have just gone with the whole thing of POLLUTION. If they could clean up their pollution, on land, sea and in the air, and stop blowing things up underwater and releasing god knows what in the air, I could even go for taxes for that.

    This whole thing uses the environment as an excuse to take money from people and NEVER CLEAN UP THE REAL MESSES THEY HAVE MADE, THAT ARE POISONING PEOPLE AND ANIMALS.

    Its a suspicious joke to me.
  • "Demanding unquestioning acceptance of recent scientific claims as gospel amounts to a forced belief system, and our Constitution actually has an explicit prohibition against religious tests for office,"

    Are you kidding me? Talk about a HUGE logical fallacy. You know what that is?

    Science is NOT a belief system. You cannot compare it with a religion. The fact that science might disprove a religion, is not grounds for calling it a belief system. How many religions actually Test ANYthing in their doctrine?

    There is simply no comparison. Science is a method for finding fact. But once science proves a fact, its not done! Oh no! They then pass it on to other scientists who continue testing and trying to find faults! Can you believe it?

    You see, its about finding truth. Not about believing what you want to believe because you have the right to.

    You don't have to believe in science, but fighting against it because it disagrees with something you believe... Now that's just pointless.

    Beliefs are meant to change and evolve. That's how we go from kids to adults. You don't still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the boogey man do you?

    Adapting your beliefs to the ever increasing expanse of human knowledge is a big part of growing up.

    So please.. stop fighting fact and grow up.
    You'll thank yourself tomorrow.
  • also, rachel maddow is sexy to me. guy, 38, usa.
  • meh, okay. so we have two folks who proclaim to be patriots but at least one of them is full of hot air?

    crap, mark the date and write it on the walls. many times, in door ways and in alleys.

    this will be an important date. maybe one day we can come back and see what they both guessed to be the case.
  • frantaylor
    Alfred P Sloan was the founder of General Motors.

    No kidding that their bought-and-paid-for professors kiss the ass of industry.
  • frantaylor
    "Dr. Richard LIndzen, MIT's Alfred P Sloan Professor in Atmospheric Physics"

    His paycheck comes directly from the people who benefit greatly from his pronouncements.

    You know the old saying, "Don't disagree with the guy who signs your paycheck."
  • jfreeman
    MIT pays his paycheck. Check his bio on Wikipedia or at MIT. He was one of the lead scientists for the IPCC but stopped and went to the Senate to complain in 2001 about the IPCC changing the scientists' results. Guess what? Turns out he was right, wasn't he.
  • frantaylor
    Gimme a break. MIT gets funding straight from these companies. I worked there too. We all knew the drill: be nice to the funders and you will have a job next year.
  • mgrimald
    I just love ya, Bill! Speak out more. You are so down to earth and smart too!
  • chris
    Is this lady stupid or high? Cause she act like a total retard!
  • the pl4gue
    I don't believe in global warming, I think this shit is all natural.

    And Bill says deniers are unpatriotic. What's unpatriotic is his shit videos that my 9th grade science teacher made us suffer through watching.
  • For Americans, "unpatriotic" is kind of like "stupid". If he's calling climate change deniers "stupid", he's right.
  • Howiehardcore
    Bill Nye has a bachelors degree. He's not a PhD but I'd like to pose this question to him anyway: Has man-made CO2 ever been proven to warm the Earth? Meaning, has it ever been proven that CO2, an ineffective greenhouse gas, which accounts for .04% of all greenhouse gases, of which man-made C02 is only 2.75%, prevent IR (infrared radiation) from escaping the Earth's atmosphere enough to cause an increase in the global temperature? A: Nope it hasn't.
  • thx1138
    .
    GOP / CIA CORPORATIST POLITICAL MACHINE PREPARES TO SWIFT BOAT BILL NYE

    -- Mild Mannered Bow Tie Guy (With Degree In Science) To Be Linked With Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandal --

    -- CIA Still Deciding Whether Nye Will Simply Be Unemployable Or Suicided After Public Disgrace --
    .
  • Boson Bison
    REAL Hippie Climate Science::::: Planetary Foot Smell Theory.
    PLANETARY FOOT SMELL THEORY>
    As the acrid scent of our unhygenic feet increases, so man becomes one with nature, and the planet is healed.
  • CommonSenseEnvironmentalist
    Bill Nye has become nothing more than just another "non-credible" political hack with the remark about unpatriotic those who disagree with him. I always thought he had more class than to hook up with that dude, Racial Madcow, but I was wrong. They seem to think they OWN the question and the issue. The shenanigans at Hadley proved it wrong, otherwise they would never have deleted the data in an effort to cover up their scam. Done and done. That must be why over 30,000 PhDs and other credible scientists have joined John Coleman in calling these clowns out. All I have to say to Bill Nye and the other "liars/kool-aid drinkers" is PUT UP OR SHUT THE F#$% UP!"
  • rmwarnick
    Nye didn't express himself very well. The reason he said climate change denial is "unpatriotic" is because the USA is now falling behind the rest of the world in renewable energy technology. We're used to being ahead. For example, China leads in manufacturing solar and wind energy components.
  • CommonSenseEnvironmentalist
    Just another mindless "kool-aid drinker" who Nikita Khruschev(sp) called a "useful idiot". Socrates, in 42 A.D., calls them "a rot that undermines the pillars of the city from the inside". I learned in 7th grade that 95% of our climate influence came from the sun. STILL DOES! The reason older ones challenge this crap is that we know bullshit when we hear it. The younger ones are being indocrinated and brainwashed by a left-wing fascist "education system" (har-har-har) and they ain't got a clue. The exposure at Hadley from a whistleblower is a smoking gun and YOU KNOW IT! All you look now is stupid to the rest of us. FOLKS! It's time to divide the land mass (& see which side needs the other in 15 yrs)
  • MrPunch
    Warming and cooling is natural. There is no evidence linking warming to human activity.

    Just because you can prove a hot or cold year, does not mean anything.

    Typically agriculture does better in hotter years.
  • Not puttin up with your shit!
    Brightness and stupidly are natural. There is no evidence linking moronic simpletons to disease famine and annihilation and crapping in one's nest. Party on.
  • ABC123
    I find AGW theories exceedingly lacking because they haven't predicted future temperatures accurately ever. Their estimates are always psychotic doom and gloom exponential temperature rises that DON'T COME TRUE. The test of a theory is its ability to predict; that's a pretty basic scientific axiom. All they can say is that their models work for past data. The data they MADE THE MODELS FROM. That only proves that they aren't completely incompetent.

    I also find it pretty sad that most people think "cold winter = no global warming" is the extent of the counterargument. Enjoy your echo chamber.
blog comments powered by Disqus