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

[alienlovechild 75]

Democrat, republican, whatever. Every day we do a little bit more to really f**k up the earth.

Not exactly correct as air pollution was far worse decades ago.

"The United Kingdom suffered its worst air pollution event when the December 4 Great Smog of 1952 formed over London. In six days more than 4,000 died, and 8,000 more died within the following months.[citation needed] An accidental leak of anthrax spores from a biological warfare laboratory in the former USSR in 1979 near Sverdlovsk is believed to have been the cause of hundreds of civilian deaths.[citation needed] The worst single incident of air pollution to occur in the United States of America occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania in late October, 1948, when 20 people died and over 7,000 were injured."

The effects of these laws have been very positive. In the United States between 1970 and 2006, citizens enjoyed the following reductions in annual pollution emissions:[46]

carbon monoxide emissions fell from 197 million tons to 89 million tons

nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons

sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million tons

particulate emissions fell by 80%

lead emissions fell by more than 98%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

As usual, all things are climate change, or global warming. Oh well, at least we aren't being called "racists" this time.

No snow = global warming. Too much snow = global warming. Many hurricanes = gloabl warming. No hurricanes = global warming.

And we all know the solution to global warming is more government and more taxes.

[Ban Hammer 12,886]

And we all know the solution to global warming is more government and more taxes.

[Susita 175]

Let's keep telling ourselves that it's getting better as we eat our take out wrapped in paper and plastic and toss it out the window of our car cause we're too lazy to find a garbage can.

Seriously, we know a hell of a lot more today than we knew way back when but people are just lazier. We have a recycling program here on Long Island and I'm like the only house on the block that puts out the recycling. Everyone else just puts it in their regular trash.

Just because we got better one way shouldn't mean we can put our feet up and eff up the earth in other ways, and then complain about politicians when it's got a lot to do with ordinary people just being freakin lazy. Just my opinion

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A lot of good can be done for our environment if instead of sitting here making a partisan debate about it, people actually do something.

Democrat, republican, whatever. Every day we do a little bit more to really f**k up the earth.

Yeah! send your kids out to play on all that global warming white stuff out there!

[Susita 175]

Yeah! send your kids out to play on all that global warming white stuff out there!

back in '95 we had huge snowstorms doubling what we had this year. So maybe it's a just a lil' bit of global warming

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Let's keep telling ourselves that it's getting better as we eat our take out wrapped in paper and plastic and toss it out the window of our car cause we're too lazy to find a garbage can.

Seriously, we know a hell of a lot more today than we knew way back when but people are just lazier. We have a recycling program here on Long Island and I'm like the only house on the block that puts out the recycling. Everyone else just puts it in their regular trash.

Just because we got better one way shouldn't mean we can put our feet up and eff up the earth in other ways, and then complain about politicians when it's got a lot to do with ordinary people just being freakin lazy. Just my opinion

Poeple have always been lazy, that is why capitalism works and socialism doesn't. People are basically lazy and only stand up from their @ss when they are motivated...most often by cash. Our local recycling program was doing quite well, until it did too well. We could avoid the cost of trash removal by recycling. we had to pay $4 per bag to dump trash by attaching stickers to our trash bags. There was a LOT less trash bags and a LOT more recycle bins out there on Monday morning. THEN there was TOO much recycling and the price the county got for recycled goods dropped, they decided that we had to pay $2 per recycle bin! The recycle bins disappeared and the trash bags increased. Take away the incentive and no one will do it.

This is why I say that when we develop a better way to provide energy than, say, oil...we will. There will not need to be any government tax breaks, subsidies, etc. No one had to give you subsidy to dump your vinyl records and buy CDs. No one has to subsidize HDTV. Microsoft never asked for a government tax credit for using its operating system. In fact, all these stupid government attempts just deter the real solution by subisdizing and giving life to things that should die a natural, quick and humane death...ethanol, for example, which is just a way for some politicians to get a few votes in the corn belt.

have faith, be patient and allow the natural, capitalist system to work. We do not do anything the way we did 100 years ago and we will not do anything in 100 years the way we do now, probably little the way we do now in 50 years, development happens much faster with improved technology.

back in '95 we had huge snowstorms doubling what we had this year. So maybe it's a just a lil' bit of global warming

Winter isn't over yet.

[lostinblue 1,989]

As usual, all things are climate change, or global warming. Oh well, at least we aren't being called "racists" this time.

No snow = global warming. Too much snow = global warming. Many hurricanes = gloabl warming. No hurricanes = global warming.

And we all know the solution to global warming is more government and more taxes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/...scientists.html

Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists

Britain may be in the grip of the coldest winter for 30 years and grappling with up to a foot of snow in some places but the extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming, claim scientists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/s...ast-724017.html

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

[웃 910]

As usual, all things are climate change, or global warming. Oh well, at least we aren't being called "racists" this time.

No snow = global warming. Too much snow = global warming. Many hurricanes = gloabl warming. No hurricanes = global warming.

And we all know the solution to global warming is more government and more taxes.

Dead frozen iguanas in Florida = global warming too!!!

-Vqq9XUZhJ4

Edited February 18, 2010 by Lord Infamous

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Bill Nye beats John Galt (Richard) when comes to science knowledge, hands down. My left nut has been wagered.

I doubt he could place reactor plant feed water online, let alone light off a coolant turbine generator. He's a TV noob.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I doubt he could place reactor plant feed water online, let alone light off a coolant turbine generator. He's a TV noob.

I'll give you that but how do you look in bow tie?

Seriously, he ain't no johnny-come-lately...

He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University's Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, where one of his professors was Carl Sagan,^[4] and graduated with a bachelor's degree in 1977.^[5] Nye began his career in Seattle at Boeing at which point, among other things, he starred in training films and developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor still used in the 747. Later, he worked as a consultant and in the aeronautics industry. Nye told the St. Petersburg Times in 1999 that he applied to be a NASA astronaut every few years but was always rejected.^[6]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#cite_note-5}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

[mRx 16]

While I'm sure Bill Nye knows more about science than me, I'm still unsure as to whether causal evidence exists to prove that man-made emissions cause GW. There is undoubtedly a correlation between the two, but that alone doesn't prove causation.

If a meticulously-followed controlled experiment proved a causal relation, then surely the debate would be settled. However, if such evidence existed, then man-made GW wouldn't be disputed at all!

Just as no sane person questions the causal relationship between BAC and motor-skill impairment; this has been proven through controlled experiments, the results of which formed hypotheses, which were then rigourously tested by other scientists, if such evidence existed for the relationship between human action and global temperature, then there'd be nothing to dispute.

Again, I'm no climatologist, but I do know that correlation doesn't mean causation.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'll give you that but how do you look in bow tie?

Seriously, he ain't no johnny-come-lately...

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#cite_note-5}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

Just a BA? And we have to take him seriously, although Carl Sagan was one of my favorites. I got nothing against the guy, but he is an amateur scientist at best. Good enough to teach High School Science, but not much more.

ETA: A mechanical engineer could only design HVAC systems or operate a slide rule, especially back in 1977.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Steve,

Why are you so fixated with fake global warming?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While I'm sure Bill Nye knows more about science than me, I'm still unsure as to whether causal evidence exists to prove that man-made emissions cause GW. There is undoubtedly a correlation between the two, but that alone doesn't prove causation.

If a meticulously-followed controlled experiment proved a causal relation, then surely the debate would be settled. However, if such evidence existed, then man-made GW wouldn't be disputed at all!

Just as no sane person questions the causal relationship between BAC and motor-skill impairment; this has been proven through controlled experiments, the results of which formed hypotheses, which were then rigourously tested by other scientists, if such evidence existed for the relationship between human action and global temperature, then there'd be nothing to dispute.

Again, I'm no climatologist, but I do know that correlation doesn't mean causation.

Hey Matt.

If you can believe that science can reasonably measure the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the years and that level has been steadily increasing over the last half century and science can also reasonably measure the amount of CO2 emitted from automobiles and industry, is it not also reasonable to conclude that such emissions are having a significant impact on the earth's climate? That cuts to the heart of the theory of Global Warming. Take any other evidence and that alone makes a compelling argument...unless of course one dismisses that science can possibly measure atmospheric CO2 levels.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Galt's gallstones