• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you bracing youself to hear a lecture on global warming? [W:228]

Bill Nye is not a scientist. He's an actor, and entertainer like any other. His opinion on global warming is irrelevant. Also, I don't 'brace' myself for any kind of lecture, I avoid the lecture altogether.

Funny if you read his bio you see he is in fact a scientist and helped design a sundail for the Mars Rover. (If you want to denigrate a man so far more educated than yourself you need to step up your game- say things like he isn't a climatologist)

No doubt many will 'avoid' the lecture, though to be honest there is no lecture. The 'lecture' crap comes from those who don't want to believe so they simply don't. (They did go out of their collective way to be aghast that someone would dare mention global warming after yet another deadly Oklahoma tornado- we get deadly tornadoes every year- but quite tickled with themselves to carry on their own brand of 'humor' over GW... :roll:
 
IF it can be documented then it is one out of the entire group. One-offs prove nothing except anything is possible, however it in no way means someone else can expect a similar story.

It is like saying because one lottery winner bought only one ticket you can expect to do the same and win.

ah..got it. any evidence that goes against your position is irrelevent and is to be written off. thanks for clearing that up
 
Funny if you read his bio you see he is in fact a scientist and helped design a sundail for the Mars Rover. (If you want to denigrate a man so far more educated than yourself you need to step up your game- say things like he isn't a climatologist)

No doubt many will 'avoid' the lecture, though to be honest there is no lecture. The 'lecture' crap comes from those who don't want to believe so they simply don't. (They did go out of their collective way to be aghast that someone would dare mention global warming after yet another deadly Oklahoma tornado- we get deadly tornadoes every year- but quite tickled with themselves to carry on their own brand of 'humor' over GW... :roll:
Please, I'm as much a 'scientist' as Bill Nye as I have an applied sciences degree. The only credential Bill Nye has to being a scientist is the media calling him a scientist. He's no more a scientist then the actors of Star Trek are real space explorers. He's an entertainer and has long since belonged to the global warming hoax crowed, nothing more.

I'm not aware of any humor over George Washington (if that's who you mean by "GW"...you weren't clear on that either) or of anyone making fun of tornadoes in Oklahoma, so whatever.

Man-Made Global Warming is a hoax, endorsing it automatically removes any credibility you may have otherwise had. So it doesn't matter who you are, what credentials you have, or what if any actual reserch you've don or lab you belong to (which Bill Nye does not), the instant you endorse Man-Made Global Warming you're a loon.

Bill Nye had a really good kid's show. It's a shame he's dragging his name through the mud today. His franchise should sue him.
 
Last edited:
Please, I'm as much a 'scientist' as Bill Nye as I have an applied sciences degree. He's an entertainer, nothing more.

I'm not aware of any humor over George Washington (if that's who you mean by "GW"...you weren't clear on that either) or of anyone making fun of tornadoes in Oklahoma, so whatever.

Man-Made Global Warming is a hoax, endorsing it automatically removes any credibility you may have otherwise had. So it doesn't matter who you are, what credentials you have, or what if any actual reserch you've don or lab you belong to (which Bill Nye does not), the instant you endorse Man-Made Global Warming you're a loon.

same here. I have degrees in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. I helped design some of the equipment in the M93 Fox

M93 Fox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Nobody has ever proven that the earth is getting warmer to me. So why should I believe it.

That could, perhaps, be due to you not wanting to find out the answer.

Is the Earth actually getting warmer? - Curiosity
Now no one can deny that the world is getting warmer | Observer editorial | Comment is free | The Observer
Global warming: the Earth is getting warmer, study finds - Telegraph
`Unmistakable' Evidence Shows World Getting Warmer, NOAA Says - Bloomberg

I don't think we are impacting the globe as much as people say, not near as much. So no I still don't care.

Odd, because last estimates say humans are 90% likely the acceleratory cause.

You bring God into this, that is funny because if the works ends it will be because he wanted it to, he is God come on.

You say that, but do you have evidence for this? Could it be, it will end because he can't do anything to stop it? He certainly doesn't try and stop (or even diffuse) other disasters. :shrug:
 
That could, perhaps, be due to you not wanting to find out the answer.

Is the Earth actually getting warmer? - Curiosity
Now no one can deny that the world is getting warmer | Observer editorial | Comment is free | The Observer
Global warming: the Earth is getting warmer, study finds - Telegraph
`Unmistakable' Evidence Shows World Getting Warmer, NOAA Says - Bloomberg



Odd, because last estimates say humans are 90% likely the acceleratory cause.



You say that, but do you have evidence for this? Could it be, it will end because he can't do anything to stop it? He certainly doesn't try and stop (or even diffuse) other disasters. :shrug:

I can produce many editorials on both sides. I want to see peer reviewed journals. Not opinion pieces by tree huggers.
 
I don't see you producing any scientific scholarly journals.

Haven't needed too, but there s a wealth if them to choose from. You should do a search and you'd see this rather clearly.
 
Haven't needed too, but there s a wealth if them to choose from. You should do a search and you'd see this rather clearly.

No, you are trying to prove something to me so prove it. If not you are chicken little. back up your nonsense with things that aren't nonsense.
 
No, you are trying to prove something to me so prove it. If not you are chicken little. back up your nonsense with things that aren't nonsense.

Weak on your part, and too easy for me:


How Does Today’s Warming Compare to Past Climate Change?

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.


Why Do Scientists Think Current Warming Isn’t Natural?

In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes unrelated to human activity. These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.

Global Warming : Feature Articles



Burning coal, melting glaciers: Greenhouse gases emitted by plants in cities trap heat (top); rushing water from a melting glacier adds to rising sea level
NEW HAVEN: A January 27 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by a group of 16 scientists, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” contained many of the standard criticisms of climate skeptics in a succinct statement. The essay argued that the globe is not warming and delaying policies to slow climate change for 50 years will have no serious consequences.
At a time when we need to clarify public confusion about the science and economics of climate change, the 16 scientists have muddied the waters. Here, I describe some of their mistakes.
Their first claim is that the planet is not warming. More precisely, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-warming-real-has-consequences-part-i

Abstract
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the surface and the atmosphere with significant implications for rainfall, retreat of glaciers and sea ice, sea level, among other factors. About 30 years ago, it was recognized that the increase in tropospheric ozone from air pollution (NOx, CO and others) is an important greenhouse forcing term. In addition, the recognition of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on stratospheric ozone and its climate effects linked chemistry and climate strongly. What is less recognized, however, is a comparably major global problem dealing with air pollution. Until about ten years ago, air pollution was thought to be just an urban or a local problem. But new data have revealed that air pollution is transported across continents and ocean basins due to fast long-range transport, resulting in trans-oceanic and trans-continental plumes of atmospheric brown clouds (ABCs) containing sub micron size particles, i.e., aerosols. ABCs intercept sunlight by absorbing as well as reflecting it, both of which lead to a large surface dimming. The dimming effect is enhanced further because aerosols may nucleate more cloud droplets, which makes the clouds reflect more solar radiation. The dimming has a surface cooling effect and decreases evaporation of moisture from the surface, thus slows down the hydrological cycle. On the other hand, absorption of solar radiation by black carbon and some organics increase atmospheric heating and tend to amplify greenhouse warming of the atmosphere.

ScienceDirect.com - Atmospheric Environment - Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives

Just a few from the top. But they are plentiful and an economist in the bunch. Science.
 
Don't act as if you had to educate me. Anyway, I figured as much regarding your stance.

I didn't act as though I had to educate you. You posted crap and opinion then you posted science, you should have posted the last thing first making this nonsense even more of a waste of time.
 
Weak on your part, and too easy for me:


How Does Today’s Warming Compare to Past Climate Change?

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.


Why Do Scientists Think Current Warming Isn’t Natural?

In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes unrelated to human activity. These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.

Global Warming : Feature Articles



Burning coal, melting glaciers: Greenhouse gases emitted by plants in cities trap heat (top); rushing water from a melting glacier adds to rising sea level
NEW HAVEN: A January 27 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by a group of 16 scientists, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” contained many of the standard criticisms of climate skeptics in a succinct statement. The essay argued that the globe is not warming and delaying policies to slow climate change for 50 years will have no serious consequences.
At a time when we need to clarify public confusion about the science and economics of climate change, the 16 scientists have muddied the waters. Here, I describe some of their mistakes.
Their first claim is that the planet is not warming. More precisely, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”

Global Warming Is Real And Has Consequences

Abstract
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the surface and the atmosphere with significant implications for rainfall, retreat of glaciers and sea ice, sea level, among other factors. About 30 years ago, it was recognized that the increase in tropospheric ozone from air pollution (NOx, CO and others) is an important greenhouse forcing term. In addition, the recognition of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on stratospheric ozone and its climate effects linked chemistry and climate strongly. What is less recognized, however, is a comparably major global problem dealing with air pollution. Until about ten years ago, air pollution was thought to be just an urban or a local problem. But new data have revealed that air pollution is transported across continents and ocean basins due to fast long-range transport, resulting in trans-oceanic and trans-continental plumes of atmospheric brown clouds (ABCs) containing sub micron size particles, i.e., aerosols. ABCs intercept sunlight by absorbing as well as reflecting it, both of which lead to a large surface dimming. The dimming effect is enhanced further because aerosols may nucleate more cloud droplets, which makes the clouds reflect more solar radiation. The dimming has a surface cooling effect and decreases evaporation of moisture from the surface, thus slows down the hydrological cycle. On the other hand, absorption of solar radiation by black carbon and some organics increase atmospheric heating and tend to amplify greenhouse warming of the atmosphere.

ScienceDirect.com - Atmospheric Environment - Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives

Just a few from the top. But they are plentiful and an economist in the bunch. Science.

More chicken little crap.
 
I didn't act as though I had to educate you. You posted crap and opinion then you posted science, you should have posted the last thing first making this nonsense even more of a waste of time.

I mean, it is a debate site. Generally, people debate to discover truths. You, OTOH, do not care. So why even debate?
 

Screen-shot-2012-05-24-at-3.28.41-PM-300x260.png


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/24/489430/the-self-inflicted-downfall-of-heartland-institute/
 
I mean, it is a debate site. Generally, people debate to discover truths. You, OTOH, do not care. So why even debate?

That's kind of an ironic question coming from someone who has repeatedly boasted that he likes to piss off religious people as much as possible.
 
So weird that they'd interview a scientist about the scientific reasons for a weather disaster, isn't it? And weird that a scientist might have the answer, even if it's one that, essentially because they can't stand regulating big businesses, one of our major political parties doesn't want to hear.

And on the other hand, I can't remember the last time that the other political party attributed an act of weather that's caused any damage to being just that, weather. We can't have caused all the tornados, can we? Or did we only cause the ones that make the news?
 
Wow, it must be global warming, because they've never had twisters in that part of the world before. Especially in the middle of tornado alley. Why, back in the 1800's when the Wizard of Oz was written, they didn't even know what a twister was. The guy dreamed up the story out of nowhere.



Way to go Bill Nye the Science Guy. Keep educating us.
 
That is how its done.

I still don't care.

So the fact that the military is actively planning for this, at the same time shipping companies are planning for the day when the Arctic will be ice free means nothing to you? Both groups are no nonsense and they both appear to be taking global warming very seriously.
 
Back
Top Bottom