Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    It's not like they are moving to Siberia, oh wait a minute when the revolution comes they get a free vacation to Siberia.

    Dreamers dream and does do, the contempt that liberals have for the people that make their lives possible, you know the deplorables, tells us every thing we need to know about AGW politics.
    As the late great Ronald Reagan said:
    Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense.
    The issue I have with the word Libtard is two fold. The main one is the use of Retard as an insult. This needs to stop and I will neg rep anyone who uses it in any form, publicly or otherwise.

    The second issue is more insidious. Apparently, you have to be a socialist to believe in AGW according to Big Oil. What is worse is that many believe that to be true. The real truth is that those that lean to the right tend to live in the more rural areas and generally (sub)consciously care for the environment far more than any urban Democrat.

    You need to remember that it was a right wing politician, Margaret Thatcher, that made AGW headline news. However, Al Gore was a smart enough politician to hijack the issue. It does not mean the Left really understands the environment at its core, since it evolved from Labour in concentrated urban industrial centers.
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • The second issue is more insidious. Apparently, you have to be a socialist to believe in AGW according to Big Oil. What is worse is that many believe that to be true. The real truth is that those that lean to the right tend to live in the more rural areas and generally (sub)consciously care for the environment far more than any urban Democrat.
      I don't know if "Big Oil" actually says that, but yes, you have to be a socialist to believe that the solution to climate change is found in government mandates, public transit, cars that don't work, high density urban lifestyles, and power sources that are less environmentally friendly in many ways. That sounds like past Socialist solutions to problems of all sorts.

      Also, as George Carlin put it "What environmentalists really want is a clean place to live. Unenlightened self interest doesn't impress me."

      The Left doesn't understand anything that requires, math, science, engineering, actual physical effort, or logical planning.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        I don't know if "Big Oil" actually says that
        They just fund that point of view.
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        , but yes, you have to be a socialist to believe that the solution to climate change is found in government mandates, public transit, cars that don't work, high density urban lifestyles, and power sources that are less environmentally friendly in many ways. That sounds like past Socialist solutions to problems of all sorts.
        Like Trump, socialism is more a symptom than a cure.
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Also, as George Carlin put it "What environmentalists really want is a clean place to live. Unenlightened self interest doesn't impress me."
        You need to read more about George Carlin. He said the planet isn't *****, humans are.
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        The Left doesn't understand anything that requires, math, science, engineering, actual physical effort, or logical planning.
        Wrong. The political Left can be far more callously logical than the political Right. We can compare Hitler and Stalin as an example. Hitler was basically illogical, while Stalin was not.
        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
          You need to read more about George Carlin. He said the planet isn't *****, humans are.


          Pay attention. 2:00 minutes to 2:28. Then after dissing environmentalists he says that.

          Wrong. The political Left can be far more callously logical than the political Right. We can compare Hitler and Stalin as an example. Hitler was basically illogical, while Stalin was not.
          How'd collectivization of farms work out...? As but one example of the illogic of the Left. The Left thinks they can force through use of government and laws people to be altruistic. Never happens, never will. The Left is totally f...k..d. They have been 100% wrong on whatever they try.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            As the late great Ronald Reagan said:
            As with so many subjects, you are either clueless or intentioanlly lying;
            Sagebrush Rebel
            ...
            The fascinating story of how Ronald Reagan, self-proclaimed “sagebrush rebel,” took his revolutionary energy policies to Washington and revitalized the American economy.

            Governor Reagan, with his unbridled faith in American ingenuity, creativity, and know-how and his confidence in the free-enterprise system, believed the United States would “transcend” the Soviet Union. To do so, however, President Reagan had to revive and revitalize an American economy reeling from a double-digit trifecta (unemployment, inflation, and interest rates), and he knew the economy could not grow without reliable sources of energy that America had in abundance.

            The environmental movement was in its ascendancy and had persuaded Congress to enact a series of well-intentioned laws that posed threats of great mischief in the hands of covetous bureaucrats, radical groups, and activist judges. A conservationist and an environmentalist, Ronald Reagan believed in being a good steward. More than anything else, however, he believed in people; specifically, for him, people were part of the ecology as well. That was where the split developed.
            ...
            https://www.conservativebookclub.com...agebrush-rebel

            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            The issue I have with the word Libtard is two fold. The main one is the use of Retard as an insult. This needs to stop and I will neg rep anyone who uses it in any form, publicly or otherwise.
            Or any word that ends in "tard" it would seem. Classic childishness from Left-loonies to dish it but can't take it, to constrain free speech and expression, and display phoney courage

            [QUOTE=Nick the Noodle;3327125]The second issue is more insidious. Apparently, you have to be a socialist to believe in AGW according to Big Oil. What is worse is that many believe that to be true. The real truth is that those that lean to the right tend to live in the more rural areas and generally (sub)consciously care for the environment far more than any urban Democrat.[/url]

            And the key part you fail to grasp is that we rural living conservatives know the value of CO2 to 99% of life and CONSCIUOSLY engage stewardship of the land and the plants living on it to sustain our selves and preserve it for future generations.

            The majority of Pro=ACC/AGW are Democrat/Leftist, mostly urban and thru distortion of data and science seek to reduce barely adequate CO2 levels that:
            1) Will have negligable impact on the natural process of climate flux.
            2) Incurr excessive and expensive disruptions to industry, commerce, and the economy.
            3) Advance a purely political agenda of collectivism/socialism.
            4) Advance an agenda that is harmful to 99+% of life on this planet(Flora) = anti-Life!

            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            You need to remember that it was a right wing politician, Margaret Thatcher, that made AGW headline news.
            As a device to try and break the coal-miners strike!

            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            However, Al Gore was a smart enough politician to hijack the issue. It does not mean the Left really understands the environment at its core, since it evolved from Labour in concentrated urban industrial centers.
            Nor does the Left really care about the environment, or humans, or Life in general. It's all about power and wealth redistribution to them and others flotsam of social deadwood and do-nothings.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • 9 Things You Need To Know About The Climate Change Hoax

              http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9...-aaron-bandler
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                As with so many subjects, you are either clueless or intentioanlly lying;
                Sagebrush Rebel
                ...
                The fascinating story of how Ronald Reagan, self-proclaimed “sagebrush rebel,” took his revolutionary energy policies to Washington and revitalized the American economy.

                Governor Reagan, with his unbridled faith in American ingenuity, creativity, and know-how and his confidence in the free-enterprise system, believed the United States would “transcend” the Soviet Union. To do so, however, President Reagan had to revive and revitalize an American economy reeling from a double-digit trifecta (unemployment, inflation, and interest rates), and he knew the economy could not grow without reliable sources of energy that America had in abundance.

                The environmental movement was in its ascendancy and had persuaded Congress to enact a series of well-intentioned laws that posed threats of great mischief in the hands of covetous bureaucrats, radical groups, and activist judges. A conservationist and an environmentalist, Ronald Reagan believed in being a good steward. More than anything else, however, he believed in people; specifically, for him, people were part of the ecology as well. That was where the split developed.
                ...
                https://www.conservativebookclub.com...agebrush-rebel



                Or any word that ends in "tard" it would seem. Classic childishness from Left-loonies to dish it but can't take it, to constrain free speech and expression, and display phoney courage

                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                The second issue is more insidious. Apparently, you have to be a socialist to believe in AGW according to Big Oil. What is worse is that many believe that to be true. The real truth is that those that lean to the right tend to live in the more rural areas and generally (sub)consciously care for the environment far more than any urban Democrat.[/url]
                And the key part you fail to grasp is that we rural living conservatives know the value of CO2 to 99% of life and CONSCIUOSLY engage stewardship of the land and the plants living on it to sustain our selves and preserve it for future generations.

                The majority of Pro=ACC/AGW are Democrat/Leftist, mostly urban and thru distortion of data and science seek to reduce barely adequate CO2 levels that:
                1) Will have negligable impact on the natural process of climate flux.
                2) Incurr excessive and expensive disruptions to industry, commerce, and the economy.
                3) Advance a purely political agenda of collectivism/socialism.
                4) Advance an agenda that is harmful to 99+% of life on this planet(Flora) = anti-Life!


                As a device to try and break the coal-miners strike!



                Nor does the Left really care about the environment, or humans, or Life in general. It's all about power and wealth redistribution to them and others flotsam of social deadwood and do-nothings.
                Bold is mine, and shows how little you know.

                1. Margaret Thatcher began talking about the environment after she left office. The miners were about a decade earlier.

                2. CO2 helps plant life. Doesn't help us humans. However, we are cutting down the forests that keep us alive? We are committing racial suicide.

                3. The majority of relevant scientists consider man made global warming to be real. Just about every scientists not paid by certain energy corporations states this POV.

                4. If water vapour is diminishing, and it is, why is this major mechanism not lowering global temperatures? Water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, and yet, global warming persists. If the temperature is rising and vapour is falling, another, even more effective heating mechanism is in play.

                5. Our planet is all we have got. If we screw it up, there is no 2nd chance. We are dead. Best not to screw up our future.

                6. I've noticed that every person here who posts that AGW is false does not have children.
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                  Bold is mine, and shows how little you know.

                  1. Margaret Thatcher began talking about the environment after she left office. The miners were about a decade earlier.

                  2. CO2 helps plant life. Doesn't help us humans. However, we are cutting down the forests that keep us alive? We are committing racial suicide.

                  3. The majority of relevant scientists consider man made global warming to be real. Just about every scientists not paid by certain energy corporations states this POV.

                  4. If water vapour is diminishing, and it is, why is this major mechanism not lowering global temperatures? Water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, and yet, global warming persists. If the temperature is rising and vapour is falling, another, even more effective heating mechanism is in play.

                  5. Our planet is all we have got. If we screw it up, there is no 2nd chance. We are dead. Best not to screw up our future.

                  6. I've noticed that every person here who posts that AGW is false does not have children.
                  1. Not per the history I've seen and posted. Environment is a broader range of topic than the narrow and unproven claim of slight CO2 increase being a major cause of ACC/AGW.
                  2. Without plant life we 1% animals are up a creek. Greenhouses often run at 6-800ppm CO2 with no detrimental affect upon humans working in them.
                  3. And if those scientists weren't getting paid by guv'mint to research for ACC/AGW, and just the opposite, they would change their tune. They are engaging in politics, not science.
                  4. Solar output and Earth's orbital track are a couple. Water vapor is still dozens of times the concentration of CO2.
                  5. Which the solutions propossed by the pro-ACC/AGW enviro-nazis will do (make a bigger mess of the environment and human future), especially to the less developed nations that would NOT have the food and energy they need. You'd rather screw the climate towards global cooling and another ice-age?
                  6. Between wife and I we have five children with mates and thirteen grandkids. I don't want idiots like you screwing up the planet and their future.

                  You'll get another rep pip to payback the third one you gave me once I've time to spread some green around to others.
                  Last edited by G David Bock; 14 Feb 17, 14:55. Reason: context and typo corrections.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                    Bold is mine, and shows how little you know.

                    1. Margaret Thatcher began talking about the environment after she left office. The miners were about a decade earlier.

                    2. snipped for brevity
                    Thatcher & Global Warming: From Alarmist to Skeptic
                    EXCERPT:
                    ...
                    True, UK Prime Minister Thatcher was the first and most important international figure to champion the cause of climate alarmism. But the above authors conveniently stop their discussion with her pronouncements in the early 1990s. For possessing an open mind, and coming to see the climate propaganda machine in action, she changed her mind quickly and completely. And the last 20 years gave her little reason to doubt her skepticism.
                    ...
                    What was behind Thatcher’s “conversion experience” to climate alarmism in 1988? Part of the answer was the pressure she received from her advisors John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell, who were in step with the emerging environmental movement. Also, global warming was an issue that provided her with enhanced international prestige.

                    But perhaps most important was her vigorous battle against the nationalized, unionized coal-mining sector, the leadership of which was socialistic at heart and determined to break her reform agenda.

                    The memories of Arthur Scargill of the National Union of Mineworkers using thuggery against strike breakers in the long months of 1984–85, and her preference for nuclear power to generate electricity, undoubtedly made her welcome an environmental issue that would help cut coal down to size.
                    ...
                    Mugged by Reality: Nonalarmism
                    In Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World (2002), Thatcher declared war on “the doomsters’ favorite subject … climate change.”
                    Here is her full reconsideration (pp. 449–50):
                    The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

                    Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

                    Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that “your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.”

                    It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: ‘The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.’

                    And he warns: “Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.”

                    But why pick on the Americans? Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: “There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.” Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

                    The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes….
                    What had changed for Thatcher in less than a decade? First, she found climate science less alarming than before. Secondly, an “ugly … anti-growth, anti-capitalistic, anti-American” political agenda had emerged around the issue. [9] Harking back to her free-market roots, Thatcher forwarded her own version of the precautionary principle: “Government interventions are problematic, so intervene only when the case is fully proven.” [10]
                    ...
                    Thatcher praised the free and open economy as a worthy ideal in stark contrast to Britain’s tradition of democratic socialism. One of her greatest tests was the British coal strike of 1984–85, which was broken after a year. Electricity generation and distribution were privatized in 1990, and the coal industry, which had been nationalized back in 1946, soon followed in the new light of the free market.

                    But in the process, Margaret Thatcher jumped too quickly on the climate issue for short-run gain. The good news is that she quickly and completely corrected herself. She got “mugged by reality,” as they say.

                    And so she is today a disappointment to red-green environmentalists, who preferred socialism to her privatizations. [13] “[H]er enthusiasm for green issues soon evaporated,” stated John Vidal. ”In retirement she had nothing more to say about the environment until her 2002 memoirs, when she rejected Al Gore and what she called his ‘doomist’ predictions.”
                    ...
                    https://www.masterresource.org/clima...st-to-skeptic/

                    So Nick, were you lying or ignorant?

                    Being one of those "red-green environmentalists" I wouldn't be surprised if you gave me another red pip for presenting facts and truth.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      Thatcher & Global Warming: From Alarmist to Skeptic
                      EXCERPT:
                      ...
                      True, UK Prime Minister Thatcher was the first and most important international figure to champion the cause of climate alarmism. But the above authors conveniently stop their discussion with her pronouncements in the early 1990s. For possessing an open mind, and coming to see the climate propaganda machine in action, she changed her mind quickly and completely. And the last 20 years gave her little reason to doubt her skepticism.
                      ...
                      What was behind Thatcher’s “conversion experience” to climate alarmism in 1988? Part of the answer was the pressure she received from her advisors John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell, who were in step with the emerging environmental movement. Also, global warming was an issue that provided her with enhanced international prestige.

                      But perhaps most important was her vigorous battle against the nationalized, unionized coal-mining sector, the leadership of which was socialistic at heart and determined to break her reform agenda.

                      The memories of Arthur Scargill of the National Union of Mineworkers using thuggery against strike breakers in the long months of 1984–85, and her preference for nuclear power to generate electricity, undoubtedly made her welcome an environmental issue that would help cut coal down to size.
                      ...
                      Mugged by Reality: Nonalarmism
                      In Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World (2002), Thatcher declared war on “the doomsters’ favorite subject … climate change.”
                      Here is her full reconsideration (pp. 449–50):
                      The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

                      Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

                      Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that “your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.”

                      It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: ‘The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.’

                      And he warns: “Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.”

                      But why pick on the Americans? Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: “There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.” Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

                      The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes….
                      What had changed for Thatcher in less than a decade? First, she found climate science less alarming than before. Secondly, an “ugly … anti-growth, anti-capitalistic, anti-American” political agenda had emerged around the issue. [9] Harking back to her free-market roots, Thatcher forwarded her own version of the precautionary principle: “Government interventions are problematic, so intervene only when the case is fully proven.” [10]
                      ...
                      Thatcher praised the free and open economy as a worthy ideal in stark contrast to Britain’s tradition of democratic socialism. One of her greatest tests was the British coal strike of 1984–85, which was broken after a year. Electricity generation and distribution were privatized in 1990, and the coal industry, which had been nationalized back in 1946, soon followed in the new light of the free market.

                      But in the process, Margaret Thatcher jumped too quickly on the climate issue for short-run gain. The good news is that she quickly and completely corrected herself. She got “mugged by reality,” as they say.

                      And so she is today a disappointment to red-green environmentalists, who preferred socialism to her privatizations. [13] “[H]er enthusiasm for green issues soon evaporated,” stated John Vidal. ”In retirement she had nothing more to say about the environment until her 2002 memoirs, when she rejected Al Gore and what she called his ‘doomist’ predictions.”
                      ...
                      https://www.masterresource.org/clima...st-to-skeptic/

                      So Nick, were you lying or ignorant?
                      Reality check. 3rd option exists .

                      Did Margaret Thatcher table the environment as important? She took it to the UN, so we can state yes to that one.
                      If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.
                      She took this issue to the UN before this issue was political.
                      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      Being one of those "red-green environmentalists" I wouldn't be surprised if you gave me another red pip for presenting facts and truth.
                      Another quote by that Red-Green Liberal Margaret Thatcher:
                      In November 8, 1989 she told the UN: "While the conventional, political dangers - the threat of global annihilation, the fact of regional war - appear to be receding, we have all recently become aware of another insidious danger. It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself.
                      What you don't like is that I'm a tad right wing (ie right of centre),and firmly believe AGW is real.

                      Certain corporations have paid a huge amount of monies to people to try to politicize this debate. Terminology like Libtard is used to make the Right feel that they have to state AGW is false. Like Margaret Thatcher, I can be right of centre and access the science objectively.

                      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22069768
                      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                      Comment


                      • Remember when China signed that Paris Agreement? That gave the appearance that they would do something about their carbon emissions. Have they? Not that I know of...

                        "While drafting the New Law, there was significant discussion as to whether carbon dioxide pollutants should be treated as taxable pollutants in response to severe air pollution....However, the New Law ultimately does not address carbon dioxide pollution. Instead, the New Law maintains the categories of pollutants set out under the existing discharge fee system as various categories of air pollutants, water pollutants, solid wastes, and industrial noise."
                        https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts...february-2017/

                        As long as they do nothing, I will count the Global Warming/Climate Change Caused By Man to be a scam.
                        {}

                        "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

                        Comment


                        • China is trying to do stuff about their pollution problems, particularly with coal fired plants. They are building more dams that also provide flood control, and open rivers to traffic that weren't navigable before. They also get lots of hydroelectric to replace coal.

                          They know they have a pollution problem and want to fix it for economic reasons.

                          They signed the Paris accords simply because it costs them nothing and they would have done what the accords wanted in any case.

                          The only nations that the Paris accords cripple / hurt, are ones that are already at a point of no economical return on investment for cleaner electric generating plants.

                          One of the big ones on the list for environmentalists in the US was the Navajo generating station in northern Arizona. They wanted it closed because of gorebal warming etc.
                          It is now scheduled to close in about 18 months. The reason? Natural gas is cheaper to use and conversion of the plant would cost too much. Better to build new plants to replace it on natural gas. So, it closed because it was no longer economically viable. SRP, the major stake holder, did it for economic reasons, not environmental ones. That's smart business.

                          Environmentalists are economic idiots.

                          Comment


                          • I would much rather shovel sunshine than snow, but that's just me..
                            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                            Comment


                            • Bill Nye’s Embarrassing Face-off with Tucker Carlson on Climate Change

                              by JULIE KELLY March 1, 2017 4:00 AM

                              It didn’t end well for the ‘Science Guy.’

                              Climate-change alarmists who have been largely unchallenged by the media over the past decade have finally met their match in Fox News host Tucker Carlson. And it ain’t pretty.

                              Since the premiere of his new nighttime show, Carlson has frequently confronted the dogma of man-made global warming, pushing “experts” to cite data and evidence to back up their claims rather than allowing them to repeat well-worn platitudes about a scientific consensus and the planet’s impending doom. In January, Tucker took on California State University professor Joseph Palermo, who wrote, “If President Trump and his cohort believe the science of global warming is bogus, then they shouldn’t be allowed to use the science of the Internet for their Twitter accounts” based on the commonly accepted factoid that “98 percent of all scientists” believe the climate is changing because of human activity. When Carlson repeatedly asked Palermo to give the source of that figure, which Carlson correctly said was unknowable, the professor couldn’t do it. Climate fail.

                              But it was Carlson’s takedown of Bill Nye the Science Guy, a television personality and celebrity climate promoter, that exposes the intellectual chicanery behind this crusade. During an interview on Carlson’s show on February 27, Nye goofily claimed that people who question claims about global warming suffer from cognitive dissonance: “We in the science community are looking for information why climate change deniers, or extreme skeptics, do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” Nye went on to say that denial is denial, the evidence is overwhelming, and the question of whether humans are causing climate change is “not an open question, it’s a settled question.”

                              Now usually when these charges are made by someone who purports to possess expertise in climate science (Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering), the interviewer acquiesces, immediately surrendering the debate to the climate activist. But Carlson wouldn’t back down: “To what degree is climate change caused by human activity? . . . Is it 100 percent, is it 74.3 percent? If it’s settled science, please tell us to what degree human activity is responsible.”

                              Nye started to get uncomfortable, well aware he had no certain answer to this so-called settled question, since climate scientists cannot agree how much human activity contributes to climate change.

                              [...]

                              This is when Nye went off the rails, refusing to specify the degree to which people cause climate change and instead blaming us for the speed that climate change is happening: “Instead of happening at time scales of millions of years or let’s say 15,000 years, it’s happening on a time scale of decades and now years.” Or, you know, whatever. He went on to tell Carlson humans are “100 percent” responsible for the rate of climate change and it’s happening catastrophically fast. This spun him into a really weird (and unscientific) spot where he started lamenting the fact that global warming has caused us to avoid another Ice Age — perhaps unaware that most people would consider freezing to death a horrible fate — and told Carlson another Ice Age “ain’t gonna happen because of you and me.” Yay CO2!

                              [...]

                              Then right before my eyes, Nye turned into my old college political-science professor, who — no matter what the subject was at the time — would end his lecture by ranting about the Vietnam War. Nye babbled about the weather back in 1750, grape growers in Europe, pesticides in the Midwest, and something about pine-bark beetles in Wyoming. (This is another common tactic of climate alarmists, they talk over you while throwing out unverifiable factoids that make them sound informed when they’re usually just making stuff up.)

                              While it’s easy to dismiss Nye’s interview as a kooky one-off appearance from an unprepared celebrity scientist, he sadly represents the lack of integrity by most climate-change pushers. They move goalposts, manufacture facts, resist honest debate, and resort to smear tactics when confronted with specific questions they cannot answer. As Carlson said to Nye, “You really don’t know, and you bully people who ask questions.” Good thing Carlson is there to bully back for once.

                              Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...climate-change


                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                Reality check. 3rd option exists .
                                You're right, I forgot to include delusional.

                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                Did Margaret Thatcher table the environment as important? She took it to the UN, so we can state yes to that one.
                                "the environment" broad subject and concept it is, was "on the table" decades before Thatcher "took it to the UN". BTW, "environment" covers a wide range of subjects/issues and the yet to be proven case for ACC/AGW is just one subset.

                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                She took this issue to the UN before this issue was political.
                                It's been "political" ever since the "Red(socislaist/communist)" faction of the "Greens(enviro-nazis)" made it such back in the 1960's in this country.

                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                Another quote by that Red-Green Liberal Margaret Thatcher:
                                If you are trying to say that Thatcher was a "socialist/communist(Red)" than you are more delusional than I thought.

                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                What you don't like is that I'm a tad right wing (ie right of centre),and firmly believe AGW is real.
                                More Delusion on your part. Your words, positions, and actions (passing out red pips to those you don't agree with) are classic Left of center, you are flaming Left-wing with your anti-corporate, anti-West, and anti-life(flora) positions and actions.

                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                Certain corporations have paid a huge amount of monies to people to try to politicize this debate. ...
                                "This debate" was politicized from the start, just look at all the organizations supporting this scam and con-job.

                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                ...Terminology like Libtard is used to make the Right feel that they have to state AGW is false. ...
                                Terminology has nothing to do with it, from the Right's perspective. The "science" is shoddy and driven by political agendas of the Left, using "environment" and ACC/AGW as a canard to advance their anti-West, anti-Liberty, and anti-Free Enterprise goals.

                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                ... Like Margaret Thatcher, I can be right of centre and access the science objectively.
                                As pointed out, you are not "right of centre", and you are not accessing the "science" objectively, rather you present incorrect data and assumptions as "science" and are operating from an emotional motivation.

                                As pointed out repeatedly, 99+% of life on this planet; Flora~green plants, need a minimum of 300 ppm(dry) CO2 to sustain themselves and 400ppm(dry) is barely over that threshhold. Agendas to reduce emmissions of CO2 threatens the sustaining of 99% of life on this planet and we 1% animals(&humans) will suffer if the Flora is negatively impacted. You and your fellow pro-ACC/AGW advocates are anti-life and an enemy to this planet.

                                http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22069768[/QUOTE]
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X