Bill Nye Science Guy eats Climate Change denier for lunch (video)

Bill Nye Science Guy debates angry conservative climate change denier guy Marc Morano on CNN (this was last month, but still worth watching).

bill-nye

Nye is his usual peaceful self. The conservative guy is kind of a loudmouth bully right out of the gate. I suspect it’s something in the food.

As Nye notes, Morano’s facts are from another planet.  He argues a lot like a religious right nut, in fact.  Talking very fast and making sure he “quotes” a lot of “facts” from a lot of seemingly prestigious institutions.  The problem, as Nye points out, is that the guys “facts” simply aren’t true.  But, like the religious right, he manages (hopes to, at least) confuse less-informed viewers into thinking maybe he’s right, since he has some many quotable “facts.”


(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Google+. John Aravosis is the editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown (1989); and worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, and as a stringer for the Economist. Frequent TV pundit: O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline & Reliable Sources. Bio, .

Share This Post

  • brainwav93

    John must not have seen the same clip I just did.On what planet would Nye be considered to have come out ahead in that discussion? Certainly not ours.

  • Ryan

    Essentially Bill’s argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ It’s kinda hard to argue..

  • PluviAL

    Must be a different Planet Earth than the one I live on. Amazon is in danger of becoming a savanna, 15,000 PPM CO2 is a world where humans can not live in the interior of the continent if at all. Science News this month has an article about the fact that severe storms are concretely more severe and common. And, no, the rate of change humanity is causing is comparable to the severest geological catastrophes. It took life millions of years to reestablish rich biodiversity after such catastrophes. Birds and a few reptiles are all that is left of the dinosaurs. Our species may be just as expendable, but I don’t have to like it.
    My life’s work is to make a better world, not to give up. I choose not to hide behind a lot of misinformation.

  • jeff

    Lol. What facts did Nye report? The earth hasn’t warmed for 16 straight years despite co2 levels rising. The theory of global warming has been disproved. It’s hilarious watching people still hang on to it. Nye sounded like an out of touch gypsy on the subject. Morano shredded him with facts and logic. Nye should go back to making paper mache volcanoes on PBS. He was pathetic.

  • Butch1

    You “own me?” (Have it your way, Jeff.)

  • jeff

    The climate has actually changed much more violently in the past than it does at present. Geologically speaking, our climate is in an unprecedented stable state. Co2 levels have been as high at 15,000 ppm in the past. Co2 has no causal relationship on global temperature. That’s been proven. Co2 lags temperature by 200-800 years. So temperature actually drives Co2 levels. Our climate is currently Co2 impoverished at only 380ppm. Hopefully, we can double co2 concentrations so we can get some real greening of the planet. Current satellite data shows since 1979 that our planet has ‘greened’ by 20% because of increases in atmospheric co2 concentrations. The amazon rain forest is growing at unprecedented rates and the Sahara desert is shrinking. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and forest fires are at historic lows. All extreme weather is at historic lows.Over the last century our global temperature has changed by less than .5 degrees celsius. When you think about how stable that is, it is really quite extraordinary. You need to do your homework Plu. You have a lot of catching up to do on the subject. I’m shocked at how naive you are. You are the one that really needs to check your facts.

  • jeff

    I knew you would be back to emit more co2 you hypocrite. Lol. I own you kermit.

  • jeff

    Lol. your pissed because Morano clown-stomped Nye. It’s hiliarious. I own you almost as much as Morano owns Nye.

  • Butch1

    When you are losing or winning something, there must be a game or a contest happening. Your language suggests that you are competing. You continually use this language so, yes, you are in a contest and I am saying you are. You ARE taking it personally or you wouldn’t be spending so much time defending yourself.

    These two “guys” were asked their opinions on the subject; it is you who has framed it into a debate, Jeff. You seem to like arguments, fights, etc. You like winners and losers. I can tell by your language. I mention you are insecure and you are not intelligent enough to respond other than tell me “You sound as though you have insecurity problems.” Really?
    Now where did I hear that before? Oh yes, this is what I said to you in the previous comment:

    ” You sound as though you have insecurity problems. I would stop projecting your insecurities on to me; You only reveal your own weaknesses.” Does it now sound familiar?

    I feel like I am hearing an echo of myself. And at the end you go for your favorite punch: ” . . . the sign of a loser.” Like that is going to actually hurt me. All you are doing, Jeff is projecting again, your own weaknesses at other people. It is YOU, Jeff who is the loser. You will continue throughout your miserable life calling others what you actually are. There really isn’t any reason to continue interacting with you, Jeff. Nothing will come of this and frankly, you are offering nothing new to this conversation that I haven’t heard you say to me before. I would welcome a new insult over these boring and rather tedious old ones.

    Have a good life; I can only hope others pay attention to what the oil barons are doing to this planet and help clearer minds block them from destroying it in spite of what you may think. Eventually, you may see the light and will walk quietly away and pretend you were with us all along. You’ll see. You may disagree now, most know-it-all’s are loud and obnoxious and talk over those who really know like Morano did to Nye. The truth will come out in the end and the blow-hard’s always end up with egg on their red faces.

    Buh-bye.

    ( Try and not be vulgar. )

  • keirmeister

    You brought up Al Gore again. Sweet christ on a biscuit.

    “You talk a good game but in the end you still enjoy the comforts of fossil fuels.”

    No duh. That’s not the point, but I think you already know that. What you are doing is setting up extreme conditions that, if your opponent doesn’t follow, you can then accuse him of failure/hypocrisy. Sorry, that kind of rhetorical game doesn’t work with me…and it only serves to prove the utter shallowness of whatever argument you’re trying to convey.

    “By responding to this I’ll know that you are still enjoying the benefits of fossil fuels and, thus still a hypocrite.”

    I responded. In order for it to be hypocrisy, you have to show where I’ve advocated not using any fossil fuels whatsoever.

  • jeff

    I’m not taking it personally. And who said anything about a contest> The facts are that neither of them are climate scientists. And it doesn’t bother me that Nye wants to talk about it either.Anybody can. The point is that these two guys agreed to debate a topic. CNN had them square off and debate global warming. They both agreed to it. Now, if you disagree with Morano’s argument and wanna dispute his point of view fine. To say that Morano’s argument didn’t count because of what type of degree or background he has is a weak argument and the sign of a loser.

  • jeff

    You are being punked… by Al Gore. If life was so great pre-industrial then why aren’t you practicing what you preach. Go Amish. Live without electricity and running water. But you won’t. You talk a good game but in the end you still enjoy the comforts of fossil fuels. This very moment you reap the benefits of electricity from the coal industry and you stay warm right now thanks to natural gas. You get around from point A to point B thanks to the oil industry. So until you give up all these comforts that you denounce, you’re just a hypocrite.
    Tell me how life was better pre-industrial? Was life better when infant mortality rates were 80%? When the average life span was 34? when, before modern medicine, disease was rampant? small pox, measles, malaria, TB, polio, diptheria, tetanus?
    Yes it’s a known fact that fossil fuels are still the greatest liberator in the history of mankind. It’s hilarious when people like you romanticize about going back to being hunter/gatherers but you don’t have the stones to do it. because deep down in your heart you know living like that sucked and no one would go back. If you wanna prove me wrong take the first step.
    You are a walking contradiction. By responding to this I’ll know that you are still enjoying the benefits of fossil fuels and, thus still a hypocrite. Go Amish. You’ll still be wrong about global warming but at least you won’t be a hypocrite.

  • Butch1

    I didn’t realize I was in a contest with you and that you were competing to win something. My, but you must be needy for the attention.

    Again, you like putting ideas and assumptions into my mouth to fit your argument. I have told you already that to compare Morano’s education to Nye’s is ridiculous. They both have studied in to different areas and I certainly am not dismissing his education unlike you are doing about Nye teaching children science on TV. At least he is working in his field of expertise whereas Mr. Morano’s field of political science is another area of study he has momentarily abandoned to lobby for the oil companies. He is NOT a scientist. I can comfortably dismiss him as that. He doesn’t have the credentials of one; Nye does. You cannot argue that point. Morano is in the wrong field just as Nye would be trying to argue in a political science debate. That is my point, Jeff. Try not to take this so personally and make this such a winning/losing contest. You sound as though you have insecurity problems. I would stop projecting your insecurities on to me; You only reveal your own weaknesses.

  • PluviAL

    Dude your are not so wrong; Nye had all the facts, Morano had all the false, but good sounding talking points. But you are right, the title has it backwards. You are also right, and the liberals will throw tomatoes at both of us for saying it, but there is plenty of room for everybody.
    Pluvinergy shows how the earth could easily accommodate 20 billion people and be a more verdant planet at the same time. Both sides refuse reality. The conservatives deny science and so do the liberals. The liberals refuse to see that Fossil fuels are our best energy source, and in fact,are irreplaceable now or in the future for certain functions: like (air) flight, (space flight, which includes intercontinental flight, can be accomplished with Hydrogen via inter-space flight paths). Still, we must curtail fossil fuel use by 90% or more to attain atmospheric balance and to save the precious fossil fuels for future feedstock.

  • PluviAL

    Jeff, you are buying the disinformation machine’s nonsense; The climate has never changed as it is now. And, atmospheric CO2 has never jumped as it has now. We are in for a very nasty climate ride. These monster tornadoes, hurricanes, and cold snaps, are only the beginning. And Yes, we can do something about it. The US has already reduced it’s carbon footprint substantially. We could do a heck of a lot more. In fact, Pluvinergy can give us complete climate control within a few decades. We can control it for cooling the planet or warming it by the process of satisfying our very energy and water needs. So, check your facts before you call people names, either regular folks, or important states persons. Denying the reality vociferously does not change the facts.

  • PluviAL

    ASCEND: Ascending Selection of Critique for Extension of Normative Development. It’s a correction of Quillian’s OFD: Open Forum Democracy. Pluvinergy chapter 13 discusses it a little bit, but it is a valid way to construct discourse on merit not wrath.

  • keirmeister

    Wow. Congratulations, you have just written the DUMBEST thing I’ve seen in awhile. Seriously, I read that a few times, and I can’t tell if you’re serious, or if I’m being punk’d.

    If the latter, then well done! If the former…then…WOW.

    I mean, seriously….logically, humans were doing quite fine on good ol’ planet Earth WAY before the modern industrial era. So, like, what in the hell are you talking about?!? Fossil fuels turn a “dangerous climate” and make it “safer” for us? What exactly did Earth look like before the 1800s in your mind? Mustafar?

    **looking for the hidden camera**

    Update: Wait! Also, by your logic, you’re saying mankind CAN change the climate! So you just contradicted yourself! Jeez!

  • jeff

    It’s always the sign of a poor loser to say the other guys argument didn’t ‘count’ because he wasn’t qualified enough. Clearly, the producers at CNN thought that Morano was qualified enough to sit him at the other end of the debate table. Any objective judge of that debate would award Morano the victory. He made the stronger argument. After moderated debates, you think the losing team makes a case by claiming the other sides argument shouldn’t count based on credentials? Talk about crying. CNN put 2 people up against eachother in a debate. Morano was the clear victor. To cry about unfairness or say that the other guys comments didn’t count is really pathetic. Write to the producers of CNN and tell them it didn’t count and wasn’t fair. Maybe they will have you screen the guests and leave the decisions about credentials up to you. Then, we can have a ‘real’ debate, right?

    It’s funny that instead of attempting to argue Morano’s logic you resort to attacking his character. Ad hom attacks are the immediate sign of defeat.

  • Butch1

    Don’t put words in my mouth and start playing the victim, Jeff. You are now changing the subject and creating a Strawman argument. It won’t work.

    You are comparing apples to oranges, Jeff when it comes to degrees. It is obvious we are going to disagree on which person actually is the expert on this subject; the man with the actual science degrees or the one who is the lobbyist. I will stick with the man with the hard science degrees.

  • jeff

    Lol- so you’re the authority on who is allowed to debate who? Can me and you have a debate on something? Are you the credentials police? Anyone can debate any topic they want. Anyone that asks a question and is willing to do an experiment and then observe the results qualifies. What a joke for you to dismiss Morano’s credentials simply because he trounced Nye. Nye’s background was working for Boeing on airplanes, then working for Disney/PBS hosting a show for children. Anyone that can read a book has the right to debate any topic they want. Nye lost. So you’re mad. How childish.

  • Butch1

    You’ve got to be kidding me to think that just because a “Political Science” degree has the word “science” in it that it means he knows anything about science he could hold a scientific conversation with a real scientist such as Bill Nye and that makes him an expert in the hard sciences, then you had better go back to school yourself and learn to differentiate the differences between hard science and soft science courses, Unbelievable. You are treading in deep water and starting to drown. Best stop; you’re taking on water.

    You’ve been buying into the TV gig Nye has done too much and dismiss his own knowledge. Why don’t you look him up as well.

  • jeff

    Nye is no more a climate scientist than Morano so get that out of your head. Morano has been a climate researcher for the US Senate for over 10 years. He holds a political science degree from Georgetown University. Nye does grade school experiments on tv. He is not and never has been a climate scientist. Neither of them are. So I’d say they are on a level playing field to debate eachother. And it’s embarrassing to listen to you try and condemn someone like Marc Morano, a climate realist of being in the pocket of big oil, when environmental groups like the Sierra Club accepted $26 million from natural gas alone. Follow the money on both sides. You will be surprised by what you find. I encourage you to keep an open mind and actually objectively research the subject. Like I said, you will be surprised by what you find. I used to believe in agw too. It seemed plausible. Then I read some peer-reviewed journals by real climate scientists that contradicted the theory. Scientists who reported the truth regardless of the consequences of those findings ending their funding. I enjoy nature just as much as anyone. I’m not in the pay of big oil. And I’m not some rich capitalist with ulterior motives.Trying to dismiss anyone that doesn’t believe in global warming as being in the pay of oil companies is absurd.

  • jeff

    Lol. The fact is fossil fuels take a dangerous climate and make it safer for humans. (not the other way around) So, wrap your head around that for starters. That’s what is allowing all of us to sit here on our computers and have this debate. If you dispute that go sit outside right now and see how long you last without the comforts of fossil fuels. my guess is that you won’t be outside very long, if you even go outside. It’s cold out. Fossil fuels are the greatest liberator in the history of mankind. They are THE only reason we are living the wonderful lifestyles we all enjoy, including every single person here on this message board. You clearly haven’t studied the science behind the, now, debunked ‘theory’ of CAGW.

  • Butch1

    I will not admit to nonsense. Bill Nye was being polite. How can one try and debate an obnoxiously loud, interrupting, rude person who hogs the time and then when Nye finally has a chance to speak interrupts him and talks over him? Nye’s arguments are based on scientific fact whilst the other fellow is based on hyperbole. Nye is an actual scientist and Mornao is not even in the scientific field. He is a lobbyist who has been paid to perform. There is a big difference; Nye knows what he’s talking about whilst they other fellow has been paid to parrot what someone has told him to say. He’s no scientist and hasn’t even had the classes in that area of study. How could you possibly compare them?

  • keirmeister

    What I see in you is #1 a defeatist (which is sad), #2 someone without a basic understanding of how SCIENCE works, and #3 excuses.

    You don’t seem to understand how an ecosystem works and how man-made pollution can affect it. OK fine. But you also don’t seem to realize that we can both simulate these things, test, and measure them. Again, SCIENCE.

    Humans, since the second they walked the earth, have died for a number of reasons; yet we have also found ways to fight illnesses and live longer…technology in its purest sense of the word.

    Mankind has even created ecosystem variations (something that has happened naturally as well) by introducing foreign species. Climate change is similar, just on a different scale. But you ignore ALL of that and simply say we’re screwed, so why bother!

    How arrogant to think that human beings could ever do something…like fly, land on the moon, or create a powerful electronic device the size of a deck of cards. All it takes is a sense of will – and often times a little push from governments working together. THAT’s what you really have a problem with; yet you cloak it in defeatist rhetoric that really only betrays a pathetic inability to grasp the world around you.

    Enjoy that. And get the hell out of the way of people who are trying to lead.

  • jeff

    The fact is that the green machine pushing the global warming hoax is the real hucksters collecting hundreds of Billions in funding to push this farce. Compare that with think-tanks like CFACT that are funded with a couple million dollars. It’s clear that the skeptics are the Davids and the Greens are the Goliaths in this fight. You wanna make the argument about funding? Than research it on both sides. Follow the money. From government funding, green enterprises and even fossil fuel companies the Green movement has a distinct advantage when it comes to funding. The Sierra Club alone took $24 million in bribes from natural gas. Look it up.

  • jeff

    Lol. you mean censorship? Silence anyone that doesn’t agree with you? That’s a real good approach. What’s the title going to be, “Socialism 2.0″?

  • jeff

    I’d say Marc Morano did a pretty good job considering it was 2 against 1 and the host wasn’t even neutral. Just admit that Nye got owned. That was obvious to anyone watching. Morano shredded Nye with facts and logic. Nye was out of his depth and completely over-matched. Nye should stick to doing science experiments for 1st graders.

  • jeff

    The fact is that our grand children will look back at this time in history with a smile and feel bad for our generation that anyone believed in this global warming hoax and that we wasted so much time and resources on a problem that never existed. The same way we look back at the ’70′s and the scare of the day was global cooling. Just like every big media scare, global warming, will prove to fizzle out. We were all supposed to be doomed from mad cow disease, killer bees, power lines, acid rain, the ozone layer disappearing, global cooling, aids, etc. In EVERY single case the media hyped up these fears. Guess what? we’re still here. Guess what? In 100 years we’re still going to be here. Global warming is no different. It’s just the latest political tool used to push an agenda through a state of fear. 15 years from now it will be something else. People like you liberalman will be regarded as the fool, or tool.
    Book it.

  • jeff

    The climate has always changed violently and always will. Do YOU not see it? There is nothing man can do to stop the climate from changing. Nothing. That’s a fact. Even if every human on the planet disappeared this very second the climate would go on changing just as abruptly as it did with us here. Just as abruptly as it changed before humans came along, and will continue to change just as abruptly after were gone. Do YOU not see it? Any person that believes weather patterns and climate can be altered or controlled by legislation and/or political treaties is extremely ignorant as well as extremely arrogant.

  • jeff

    CNN is well known to be sympathetic to the CAGW cause. If you really think CNN edited the debate to make Nye look bad, you’re an idiot. The host even made pathetic attempts to assist Nye, who was being systematically dismantled by Morano. Morano won, armed with facts and common sense. Nye sounded like an out of touch gypsy that couldn’t even grasp the topic.

  • keirmeister

    I think this is a good and fair article that addresses the whole “Al Gore Hypocrisy”:

    http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy.htm

    Read the whole thing to understand why your attention on Gore is both misdirection and irrelevant. You see, I recognize the arguing style at play: disagree with a conclusion by attacking one of its champions – instead of addressing the actual conclusion itself.

    The issue of climate change exists far outside of Al Gore; and we are experiencing this change in real-time. Do you not see it?

  • dude your so wrong

    Dude Nye sucked, he got proved wrong on every point, Nyes own data was going against him. you really need to actualy see it. Oh and joeburns, if you had the same population density as new york city you could the population of the entire planet into the state of utah. theres plenty of room left on the planet. and plenty of resources to sustain it

  • jeff

    We point to Al Gore because he is a good example of the utter hypocrisy of the CAGW religion. As the self proclaimed chieftan on global warming he tells the world that we need to start emitting less carbon while he flies around the world in private jets and owns 5+ mansions. He personally emits more co2 annually than an entire average suburb yet he expects us to cut our emissions further while he continually emits 1,000x more than the average US citizen. If you can’t see the hypocrisy in that than you are an idiot. If he really thought co2 emissions were catastrophic he should be the first to stop emitting them.

  • jeff

    LOL! Nye eats Morano for lunch? Did the OP even watch the video? Nye sounds befuddled and clueless on the topic. Morano literally shredded Nye. That is indisputable. Morano won a lop-sided victory armed with facts and common sense.

  • MJL

    You really have this problem with reading comprehension and having a proper over the table discussion, do you?

  • bpollen

    The only zealot here is you. (and it’s ideOlogy, not ideAlogy) To claim that people are hypocrites because they won’t give up FOOD is asinine at best. What would be your next point? Unless you are willing to quit exhaling CO2, global warming is a hoax? Calling people Alarmists and hypocrites and zealots probably vents a lot of spleen, but doesn’t in any way support your position. Does anybody else’s position become stronger when they call you a dumbass? I know you have had to deal with that situation, so did it bolster their arguments when they resorted to name calling (no matter how appropriate that name may be?)

    If you have facts to support your rants, bring ‘em on.

  • Slartibartfast

    Androgenic Global Warming has already been definitively disproven. See weatherbell.com. Also, see Aristotle on the weather in January in Athens during the Golden Age of Greek Theatre. It will have to be 10° warmer, today, in order to equal the average temperatures of the time. Archeometeorology combined with Occam’s razor will deliver accurate climate answers – just not the politics.

  • JoeBurns

    The OP should link to a YouTube other than “NewsBusters.” While it may seem amusing to use a clip that the RWNJs posted because they think that it serves their arguments, you shouldn’t use material from a dishonest source. A video editor by trade, I noticed an underhanded technique employed here: at 7:48, just as Bill Nye is going to rebut, the audio goes abruptly out of sync. This is a known technique used in Agit-Prop to undermine a speakers credibility, making him or her seem “out of it.” This is a CNN clip, and you can doubtless find a copy not tampered with by RW intermediaries.

    Sadly, the bluster and frequent citations of “Facts” (deploy chaff!!) will be effective in confusing uninformed/disengaged viewers. Morano is well aware of how effective he can be even while alienating those who know better. Bill Nye is good, but refuses to pick up the pace to fit the format, and so leaves some challenges unanswered. The social dynamic works for Nye if you believe in civility, but for Morano if you gravitate to the “Alpha.” Less than a wash in our world, sadly.

    As to living in the forest: there will be no forest if the remaining 6.9 Billion people remain on course (that’s with 100 million of us crowding into that forest- BTW: do we trespass on private land or pubic parks to do this?). Individual lifestyle changes are not significant factors in bending the curve on emissions. Nope, no two ways about it: we’re comin’ for your freedom!!111!!!!

    Of course, you really want us to give up all our worldly possessions not to help us get square with our principles, but rather to remove us from the game. If each “libtard GWA” goes back to *GAiA* after her epiphany, that one less in the fight. Maybe you should offer a free chicken to every one of us who slinks off to the woods- I hear the Kochs can afford a few chickens.

    I for one will be staying. John McCain was once challenged on campaign finance that he was part of the corrupt system and he said “Sure.” You don’t come to a gunfight with a knife, and you don’t fight climate change by avoiding contact with the system doing the damage. Only a concerted inside/outside long tem/short term game has any hope of success. The best use of fossil fuel is to further its obsolescence. We’ll be burning it in the cause of justice as we tack against the wind. If any among us were so weak-willed as to abandon the fight due to some troll crying “hypocrite,” they’ve no business in this fight. Things are going to get much harder. There’s never been a kitchen this hot.

  • olandp

    Tell me, do you get paid by the post or by the individual comment, or are you salaried?

  • MFehrens

    Funny how all of you AGW believers have so many excuses not to follow through with your own agenda. You’ll turn and run as soon as the fire is put to your feet. I don’t have to go on. All of your true hypocritical colours are shining loud and clear. You hate the evil fossil fuels and want them driven from our lives, but you’re not willing to give them up yourself. Shine the light on you and see what happens every time.

  • http://www.newmillgay.com/ The_Fixer

    Oh, I’ve read your comments and you’re simply a ridiculous troll. It’s simply not possible to completely remove all fossil fuels from our lives at this point, and you know that. You’re setting up a rhetorical trap designed to do nothing but harass people.

    Bye.

  • MFehrens

    No. You’re putting your own spin on it. The AGW crowd wants to try to control something it should stay out of. I’m saying leave Mother Nature alone. She’s done just fine on her own all this time, she’ll continue to do just fine long after the last pair of human feet mark this earth.

  • MFehrens

    Either you really believe your hype, or you don’t. Actions speak louder than words. And none of you AGW zealots practice what you preach.

  • keirmeister

    Don’t look now, but you JUST MADE THE POINT of people who say much of our climate change is man made.

    Congratulations! Welcome to the light.

  • keirmeister

    If that’s what you took from my comment, that’s more a reflection on you than me. You’re also trying to argue in extremes, which is both ineffective and telling.

    Why not poison your body, eat unhealthy, and get fat? What does it matter? You’re going to die anyway, right?

  • MFehrens

    You would make Ghandi proud. A hypocrite full of excuses.

  • milli2

    Completely misguided response. No one is suggesting that we go back to caveman days. We need technology, we rely on technology, but we can be smarter about how it is produced and what effect it has on the environment – which we basically don’t give a shit about right now. Also, it takes more than one person giving up oil-driven resources, etc to make change – it takes a united effort by government, industry, and consumers to do anything effective. What this change needs is responsible leadership, not babyish cries from the “skeptics” who just want to bury their heads in the sand and deny the situation entirely.

  • MFehrens

    Here’s some homework for you. Think of all of the things that man has done to interfere with the natural cycles and workings of this planet and how badly he messed things up by doing so.
    If we would butt our arrogant selves out of the process and just let Mother Nature take care of things naturally the way she always has, things would be fine. In our supreme attitude of self-importance and omnipotence, we think we can control everything. We can’t. We just make a huge mess that needs further cleaning up.

  • MFehrens

    ROFLOL…..oh yes. There we go. Another “true” motive behind the AGW belief system. No one is preventing you from giving up every single thing you own. What a hypocrite. You could very easily dump everything, walk to the nearest massive forest system and spend the rest of your days living happily in the knowledge that you made the extreme sacrifice for your beliefs.
    But you use Exxon and ME!!!! as your excuse for not doing so. Ghandi would be so proud.

  • MFehrens

    Ah, so your true motives shine through, from the start of your comment to the very end.
    The Alarmists want everyone to live according to how they want them to live, but aren’t willing to really make any true sacrifices themselves. Recycling, fuel-efficiency, biking, etc. doesn’t really do much. To make a massive difference, if all alarmists gave up everything they owned, there might be a dent. But not one of you are willing to take that drastic step, which really makes you a monumental hypocrite. You can colour that statement any way you want, but it’s absolutely 100% true.

  • keirmeister

    Here’s some homework:

    Think of all of the scientific discoveries we’ve made that have stopped (or mitigated) natural things from occurring.

    I’ll start you off: medicine.

    This conservative position you speak of is simply an excuse to avoid responsibility.

  • olandp

    I would if I could, unfortunately Exxon/Mobile and it’s mindless asshole followers, like you, do everything in your power to make that impossible.

  • keirmeister

    What you’re trying to do is a rhetorical trap that, in reality, is pointless. You label people alarmists and then criticize them for not living like hermits. Then you present a “challenge” as if those who don’t accept it are full of bunk.

    Besides, there are many people (even whole countries) trying to make a difference by recycling their trash, buying fuel-efficient vehicles, installing solar panels, biking more, building wind-farms, etc. So who are you really criticizing?

    But real change requires real efforts from those who hold the levers of power. Scientists are not particularly powerful people – definitely way less powerful than corporate CEOs.

  • MFehrens

    No, conservatives don’t say, “Nothing”. What the true climate realists are saying is that we should learn to adapt rather than wasting money and resources trying to stop something that is natural.

  • keirmeister

    You’re confusing the point. But it’s irrelevant at any rate. But I find it funny that you take the “is it man-made or not” stance.

    I happen to believe humans have exacerbated things, but in the end, who cares? The real question is, what can we do to fix it? Conservatives say “Nothing!” so let’s keep raping the planet. Taking the greed out of such a position, isn’t that a rather pathetically helpless outlook?

  • MFehrens

    Excuses. I’m not talking about saving money or budgeting. If you alarmists truly believe what you’re spouting, you’d be setting an example for everyone to follow.
    A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. Now who amongst all of you fear-mongers is going to take the first step and renounce absolutely every single thing you own, use and eat?

  • keirmeister

    Again, seriously, what has Al Gore got to do with the possibility of our planet going through some extreme climate changes? Your childish obsession with Gore appears to blind you to any other possibility.

    As for ditching a computer….let me explain why your examples suck:

    Say I want to save to buy a house. I need $150,000. If I cut my personal expenses to the bare minimum, I can save $200/month towards the house. While I’m saving money, home prices are increasing. So at $200/month savings, it would take my family 62 years (I’m simplifying…no interest, etc.). At this rate, I might never save enough to reach the rising price.

    But if my wife pitches in and we both get new jobs and save more, we may be able to afford the house sooner. The sooner we can buy the house, the cheaper it will be.

    In other words, it takes EVERYBODY to help, and the sooner we do it, the easier it will be.

  • MFehrens

    Of course the climate is changing. It has never NOT changed. No one is saying that there is no climate change. That’s just another way that the alarmists try to switch things up to make their side look better. We all know the climate has changed since we started off as a molten ball of lava. We’ve gone through many ice ages (the last one had a mile of ice on top of where my house is right now).
    The issue is whether the current change is just part of the natural cycle or man-made.

  • keirmeister

    Um…no. To believe that, you would have to think Al Gore is the one doing all of the research. Gore is simply a vocal proponent and activist of pro-environmental policies.

    If you understand the scientific method, and respect the work of scientific endeavors (and the discipline it involves), there is no objective reason to doubt the scientific consensus – at least to such an extent where ideology trumps evidence (something Conservatives are particularly good at).

    Healthy skepticism? Of course! That is integral to scientific discovery. But at some point, you end up with enough data/evidence to make an informed decision. My problem is that many of the skeptical scientists are linked to organizations with an interest in making sure the real scientific consensus gets muddled. That is an explicit bias which, from a purely logical perspective, should not carry much weight.

    But taking ALL of this out of the equation, I believe my own eyes. I’m old enough to see a definite change in weather patterns in my lifetime. It’s anecdotal, to be sure…but it also lends some personal evidence to what the climate scientists are saying.

  • MFehrens

    So same question to you. I take it that you’re posting from an internet café and the rest of your time you spend living naked in a forest, eating only dead leaves and you have no modern conveniences of any kind whatsoever that is brought to you thanks to fossil fuels.
    Oh wait. You ride a bike. Guess you already fail the hypocrite test.

  • MFehrens

    So I take it that you’re posting from an internet café? And that the rest of your time, you live naked in the forest, eating dead leaves with absolutely no modern conveniences or food of any type? Am I right?

  • MFehrens

    The exact same situation could be used as an example of why so many people have fallen prostrate before the altar of Al Gore.

  • MFehrens

    Start practicing what you’re preaching. Otherwise, you’re just another in a long line of fear-mongering hypocrites who want to tell the rest of the world how they should live, but you’re not willing to sacrifice anything in your life. And that would be everything in your life, because there’s not one single thing that you touch each day that isn’t there because of fossil fuels.

  • MFehrens

    So start practicing what you preach. Ditch your computer, all tech gadgets, including cell phone, your vehicle (no matter what kind), any and all items in your life that you have because of fossil fuel (that would be EVERYTHING) and go live naked in a forest some where. You alarmist hypocrites yell a good game but you aren’t willing to give up all of the comforts that fossil fuels have given you.

  • MFehrens

    So let’s start seeing all of you zealots start practicing your idealogy. Otherwise you’re just fear-mongering hypocrites.

  • MFehrens

    As soon as I see all of the Climate Alarmists and Chicken Littles LIVING according to their espoused rhetoric, I might start believing the hype. But I don’t see all of the alarmists ditching their computers, cell phones, vehicles (of any type), heating, electricity, food, clothing, etc and going to live naked in the forest eating nothing but dried leaves.
    If all of their hysteria was real and they really really really believed it, then they would take extreme active measures to help the planet. Until then, this is just green hypocrisy paying lip-service at the altar of Al Gore.

  • cinorjer

    Anyone who is capable of blinding themselves to the overwhelming evidence that global warming is happening right now and that it’s the result of human activity is incapable of logical reasoning. Anyone incapable of understanding the difference between long term global climate and local weather is a fool. Anyone incapable of understanding that individual events over time make a pattern that can be used to predict trends is simply not worth trying to educate. Good day, sir.

  • Valewood

    Gee, I would think you’d be happy to know that your side was wrong and that there was no catastrophic climate change. Wouldn’t you think that would be a good thing? But then what on earth would you have to be terrified about every day when you get up? And what could you use to scare little children with?

    So what would YOU think is the perfect climate for the planet? At what point should the earth just decide to stop changing it’s climate and stay at the level that YOU decide is the right one for all species on earth? What if the planet decides that the earth needs to be 2 degrees warmer for optimum health of most of the species?

    Such arrogance to expect the entire planet to cater just to the human species.

  • UFIA

    All lose if your side wins.

  • UFIA

    Astroturfing sockpuppet comments exclusively in disagreement.
    I hope you get paid for your efforts.

  • PluviAL

    Ouch! I agree, and I think what you say is true, but does it advance understanding? I know it does not, but communication is the answer. I think a methodology to neutralize angry radio and TV is the solution. That is my next book now that I have published Pluvinergy.

  • milli2

    By the way, I did do several google searches for photos from the Arctic from the 1950′s. Found absolutely nothing. What kind of key words did you find these photos with? I actually did find one – It was a submarine in 1958, but the navy personnel on board were skating on the ice around the sub, so that doesn’t exactly prove your theory.

  • milli2

    No reading comprehension problem at all. This is your quote. “As for ice free summers in the Arctic, again, a simple Google search
    will show you actual photographs taken in the 50′s of ships and
    submarines in an ice-free Arctic”.
    You are claiming that a simple google search will show me that the arctic was ice free in the 1950′s. Where did I misread? You didn’t say “part” of the Arctic, you said “Arctic”. I don’t think pictures that show a few miles at most are good enough proof of an ice free Arctic. I, in turn, point you to the fact that new shipping routes that haven’t been available for centuries are now opening up, as well as new oil exploration, but you choose not to respond to that. Do you think shipping and oil companies are lying? That they are erroneously claiming that these places were never open before this century?

  • PluviAL

    If it was a political debate It seems Morano trounced Nye. Of course it is a scientific issue, so for those who are familiar with the issue, Morano spoke nonsense. But, Joe-public is not a scientist. Conversely, scientists are not by nature more rational, just more disciplined. They can not accept new arguments any better than the general public. Pluvinergy can support a growing world population, and make a more verdant world at the same time. Yet environmentalists, who supposedly hale from a more rational perspective are the first to shoot it down.
    Yes we need to solve the problem, but environmentalists deny the problem, how can they solve it? The problem is supporting civilization as it is and as it will be over the next century. It is not how to shut down population growth and the only viable energy system that we have; fossil fuels.

  • http://www.newmillgay.com/ The_Fixer

    Yup, it really isn’t an argument as much as it is an incitement. He’s not worth any more effort. It’s like bouncing a Superball off of a brick wall.

  • Valewood

    You really have trouble with reading comprehension don’t you? You keep misquoting me over and over again. And yet you want us to think you can understand the complexities of the earth’s atmosphere and what might affect it. Right.

  • milli2

    Then don’t bring photographs as evidence up if they essentially mean nothing! Also, If the summers in the Arctic were ice-free in recent history, why are the oil companies and countries only NOW salivating and claiming drilling rights to the newly exposed area? It would have all been long claimed by now. Also, why are new shipping lines being opened up only now – or older routes that are open for LONGER stretches of time during the year – which saves an incredible amount of time for ships – and not years ago if the Arctic were ice free long ago? Did oil companies and ships avoid them out of laziness?

  • Valewood

    Where did I say “just ignore that”? I said, “NOT JUST photographs”. You are the one who pointed to an ‘ice free summer in the Arctic’ as one of the proofs of your theory and I was just pointing out that the Arctic has been ice free in the summer plenty of times before this.

  • milli2

    Talk about “moving the goal posts”. You’re the one who brought up photographs as evidence supporting your argument, not me. All of a sudden, you’re like “oh, just ignore that”? Besides, you’re arguing against yourself because NO ONE is claiming that the Arctic doesn’t melt every summer, or has melted in the past – ALL we are saying is that the Arctic is melting more and more each summer now – at at alarmingly fast rate. That’s it. Please bang that into your brain before you start arguing nonsense.

  • Drew2u

    Oh, that thing is completely a troll, which is why I’m not playing it’s game. One just has to click on its name and read its past comments to see what kind of world the creature lives in.
    As for dehumanizing the commenter, well it does a good job of doing that itself.

  • http://www.newmillgay.com/ The_Fixer

    Timbo is a self-admitted troll. See my comment exchange with him further up where he says that it’s fun to come to “libturd” sites to argue.

    You’re right, it’s like arguing with a dining room table, except that this is a dining room table with the unique ability to get enjoyment from the argument.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    I disagree with that decision by the mods. I think every dumb thing you wrote should stay up here.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Thought so.

    Next I wholly expect you to tell me you used “awaiting” correctly, and that it means nothing that 99 out of 100 dictionaries and writing style guides disagree with you.

  • Timbo

    A brain is a terrible thing to waste Mr Meister.

  • Timbo

    You will be awaiting a long time, would not want to bore you with facts. Your pie proves what?

  • Timbo

    So my comment about the tobacco companies being robbed by the liberals with their sin taxes and Mayor Loonberg and his soda ban gets my comment deleted…….hmmmm Cant handle the truth you little libbies?

  • Thom Allen

    Nice try, Bimbo, NOT.

  • Bruce Morgan Williams

    In order to be a denier you have to believe that the CIA, DOD, NASA, NOAA, Exxon (yes, Exxon), BP, Lloyds of London, Munich RE, and every major scientific body in the world are all in a vast left wing conspiracy.

  • G0f0rIt

    V: Blogs like these get pretty hopeless when folks tacitly admit they don’t understand the word “scientific”, don’t you think?
    And yes, I am not sorry for rubbing in that ‘don’t you think’.

  • Liberalmann

    To all the Climate Change deniers, do this; write a letter to your descendants espousing your asinine viewpoints. Sprinkle it heavily with Fox News talking points. Use ‘algore’ as often as you like. Put it in a safe place like the family bible or behind the confederate flag hanging in your kitchen.

    I’m betting future generations with regard you as the family fool. Or tool.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Here’s a pie chart if it makes it easier.

  • Drew2u

    Oh yeah, I forgot about that step, but it’s part of “Those sources are fake!”

    addendum: You: “Those sources are fake/political/etc. Don’t you have any facts from REAL sources?”

  • Timbo

    What you don’t have are facts, just admit it.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Go find a peer-reviewed paper in a major scientific journal that says that either the earth is not warming or human activity is not a significant contributing factor. Those journals represent the consensus of scientific opinion. If a climate scientist’s analysis can’t convince their knowledgable peers they have no right foisting it on laypeople.

    I’ll await your link.

  • Timbo

    That’s the problem wit debating global warming alarmists- they are always armed with a blizzard of theories, rumors and opinions, none having a shred of factual evidence like- “nearly every scientist who studies global climate professionally agrees……..” Source please? Nyes style is to focus on simple theories, but as seen here, simple theories are all they have, no facts.

  • Timbo

    All I have personally noticed is the tobacco companies are being ROBBED of LARGE amounts of money by the libturds, all in the name of the “we know whats best for you” crowd and their sin taxes. Mayor Loonberg and his soda ban also is a shining example of liberal lunacy.

  • Timbo

    Im just guessing, did you get this information from Goober on Andy of Mayberry?

  • Timbo

    Liberals have been known to have selective memories, now it appears that they also have selective hearing also, when truth is told they hear just silence.

  • Timbo

    Argument invalid due to opinion, theory and conjecture and non factual information.

  • Timbo

    I would hardly call it venom but I think its great you ride your bike to work, by the way, I saw the spelling mistake after I posted and didn’t bother to edit since I didn’t think Id be dealing with the spelling police. More than happy to stir up trouble on a libturd site though, good day.

  • Butch1

    The bigmouth hogged the show and talked over Bill Nye and ran out the clock. That is how they control debate. They are rude and will not let the polite person get a word in edgewise.

  • http://www.newmillgay.com/ The_Fixer

    Grow up and present a reasonable point of view supported by facts.

  • http://www.newmillgay.com/ The_Fixer

    I do, Asswipe. A round trip of 40 miles, in fact. Of course, I can’t do it in the middle of Winter, but I do it when the weather permits.

    Now you can STFU. Use the time you normally use spouting off to learn how to spell the word Hypocrite.

    How does it feel to have some of your own venom spit back at you?

  • peter whitehead

    could be they are unable to find any evidence, so shouting is all they got left

  • Timbo

    Here is the results of a recent scientific study, the overpopulation of liberal loons all breathing is dramatically increasing the cO2 levels, something drastic must be done now to rid the planet of liberals!

  • Timbo

    Al Gore is a Moron and so are you global warming alarmists, if you really want to help, start riding your bicycle to work hypocrits. Until then, STFU!

  • Valewood

    Not JUST photographs. The climate has been changing since the beginning. It warms up. It cools down. No amount of money thrown at the climate, causing many people to be plunged into poverty through increased fees and taxes is going to change that. It’s just going to make the rich richer and the middle class and poor, poorer.

  • Aldis Bernsteins

    Doesn’t mean it advanced and retreated in the last century… as far as I understand,glaciers arent smooth on the top…there are cracks,crevices and deep faults caused by it slowly moving…. “The area was the scene of fighting between Italian and Austro-Hungarian troops in World War I” ( http://history4everyone.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/well-preserved-wwi-soldier-skeleton-found-in-italian-glacier/)
    So it is very probable that during some battles where boms and artillery shells were dropping left right and center on this glacier and this soldier died because of exactly something like that (well they think he may have stepped on a mine as bits of him were missing)… now since WW1 and now there has been an awful lot of snow which would have covered him up after and since that fateful day …and now that the glaciers are melting faster it has come to light…this does nothing to disprove Global Warming .
    If you believe photgraphs though,maybe compare photographs of glaciers in the Himalaya’s back in the 1900 compared to now…

  • Aldis Bernsteins

    I have watched so many of these “debate” videoe’s, not just on climate change but a variety of subjects . What I have concluded from them all is that the person that typicaly talks the loudest and spouts so many “Facts” and “Truths” (yes people, please note the capitals…), not letting the other person involved in the debate to even respond in any possible way to any of their presented Truth and Facts ,is definitely the one to IGNORE TOTALLY!!!! I am basically stunned that these people don’t understand about the Gulf Stream and how it plays such an important part in Global weather patterns….How drops in Ocean temperatures due to polar ice melting will affect that..Change the Ocean temperatures enough and we start killing off organisms that live there that also absorb huge amounts of CO2….The world cannot be looked at in isolated instances it is all linked together,
    Ignorant nay sayer’s will be the death of us all..(and they really don’t know the meaning of the word debate.)

  • Rachel McAuley

    սոtіl­&nbspі­&nbsplօօked­&nbspаt­&nbsptհe­&nbspreсeірt­&nbspfօսr­&nbsp$4535, ­&nbspі­&nbspdіdոt­&nbspbelіeve­&nbsptհаt­&nbspmy­&nbspsіster­&nbspwօz ­&nbsptrսly­&nbspbrіոgіոg­&nbspհօme­&nbspmօոey­&nbspраrt­&nbsptіme­&nbsp օո­&nbsptհere­&nbspсօmрսtаr..­&nbsptհere­&nbspmօms­&nbspbest­&nbspfreոd ­&nbspհаs­&nbspdօոe­&nbsptհіs­&nbsp4­&nbspօոly­&nbspаbօսt­&nbsp8­&nbsp mօոtհs­&nbspаոd­&nbspjսst­&nbspոօw­&nbspreраyed­&nbsptհe­&nbsplօаոs ­&nbspօո­&nbsptհere­&nbspсօttаge­&nbspаոd­&nbspbօսgհt­&nbspа­&nbsptօр ­&nbspօf­&nbsptհe­&nbsprаոge­&nbspMаzdа.­&nbsptհіs­&nbspіs­&nbspwհere ­&nbspі­&nbspweոt,…&nbspWW&#x57&#46Googleprojects2014activityreceiptget&#x2E&#113&#114&#46&#x6E&#x65&#x74&#47&#109&#x4Bl&#x6A/

    ❉❉❉❉ ❉❉❉❉❉ ❉⿗❉❉❉ ❉❉❉❉❉⾑❉And if one thinks that a whole lot of CO2 is good for whatever one could look at Venus. Not even machines can survive on Venus.

  • Valewood

    Keep moving those goal posts. It’s the only way your side can win.

  • Valewood

    What kind of scientific study do I need when all you have to do is a simple Google search to read about all of the different types of severe weather that have happened in the last 100 years? 200 years? 1,000 years? Much better to believe in computer models and predictions that have been proven wrong time after time than to believe your lyin’ eyes when you see pictures that show this type of weather has happened before.
    News headline from today … Frozen corpses of WWI soldiers have been found in Italy after a glacier retreated. Hmmmm. That would mean that the glacier wasn’t there a hundred years ago. So it advanced AND retreated in the past century. Yet the AGW crowd only focusses on the retreat. Never a mention of when some of those glaciers may have advanced.

  • LanceThruster

    Go “Science Guy!”

  • olandp

    No, it’s not.

  • olandp

    Why bother, you are immune to facts and logic.

  • milli2

    You’re failing to understand that people AREN’T just referencing one storm or one cold snap as indicative of climate change – they’re just mentioning the latest odd storm pattern or extremes in temperature as one more occurrence ON TOP of all the previous weird occurrences. Yes, when people are in the middle of a storm/heat wave, etc. they will talk about it to excess, but it doesn’t mean they’re using JUST that one storm as an example of climate change. Please try to wrap your head around that.

  • G0f0rIt

    V, people should at least be permitted to tell the truth, which is what Nye did.

  • G0f0rIt

    V, there was not one word in your text that was pointing to any kind of scientific study. Nada.

  • milli2

    Photographs? You’re basing your theory of Arctic ice melt on what can be captured within a camera lens? That’s like claiming that all of America looks like Arizona because that’s where you snapped a few pictures one year. Yes, Arctic ice melt occurs every summer – duh, its SUMMER, but its the extent and speed of the ice melt now that is alarming. As for Sandy, there were a lot of variables that made that storm unusual – warmer ocean (means more rainfall among other things), unusual jet stream, etc. I don’t believe that anyone thinks we can “stop” it at this point. No one is going to stop using oil tomorrow, yes, even the “AGW” side is realistic. But to not take into consideration that there is a very powerful corporate interest in keeping oil consumption as it is frankly ignorant. The oil companies hold far more power than some Al Gore character. Why CAN’T we switch to greener and more safe and efficient technology? (Answer: because it takes money out of oil companies pockets). For you to not even acknowledge that is a huge blind spot. And as for adapting to a changing climate no matter what its cause, I’m afraid there’s a powerful lobby even against that. Its illegal in the state of North Carolina to make laws based on climate change science. Talk about blind. You’re in with a crowd that doesn’t even want to acknowledge that it exists even if its a natural occurrence.

  • Valewood

    No response to the rest of my LONG post. Mmmmhmm. Just go on the attack, but don’t address the issues that I raised.

  • Valewood

    That is a perfectly valid example. Morgan and Nye use a local weather event as their proof that global warming is happening. But Morano can’t use the example of the medieval mini-ice age which didn’t happen just for a few days but over the span of several years.

  • olandp

    “We’re supposed to be the smartest species to ever walk the planet, but
    we don’t act like it when we think that we’re able to control
    everything.”

    We are, but we have people like you pulling down the collective IQ.

  • olandp

    Really? Is that the best you’ve got? That example does not rise to the “moving the goal posts” charge that you made. Still waiting for a VALID example.

  • http://americablog.com magster

    These “debates” just enable the liars. Piers did a good job moderating, but to even host the debate is where the problem lies. Just have Nye on to report demonstrable facts. You know, ….. news!

  • Valewood

    I gave the example up above. When Morano mentions the little ice age, he gets told that was just something that “happened in Europe, not globally”. Yet both Nye and Morgan both refer to the warm temps on the east coast of the States as proof of global warming.

  • Valewood

    But the AGW side does it all the time. All the time. There was supposed to be an increase in hurricanes. How many CAT3 or higher hurricanes have hit the States since Katrina?
    It used to be that a storm was a storm. Now if it’s not a hurricane it’s a “super” storm. Storms like Sandy have hit the east coast before, including New York and New Jersey.
    Al Gore talks about the ‘thousand year’ storm that hit Tennessee a couple of years ago. Yet a simple Google search shows that there were all sorts of similar and in a couple of cases, far more devastating storms in the early 1900′s than the one he was talking about.
    As for ice free summers in the Arctic, again, a simple Google search will show you actual photographs taken in the 50′s of ships and submarines in an ice-free Arctic.
    Climate changes now, just like it always has. Instead of trying to “stop” it, we should learn to adapt or go the way of other species that didn’t do so in the past. Instead of wasting billions or trillions of dollars on something that can’t be done, why not put that money towards adapting to this changing world that we live in.
    We’re supposed to be the smartest species to ever walk the planet, but we don’t act like it when we think that we’re able to control everything.

  • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

    When do you speed-talk and yell and say things like, “BottomLine!BottomLine!”? When you’re selling snake oil. Yowza, yowza, step right up.

  • olandp

    Example please.

  • Badgerite

    It didn’t seem to me that Bill Nye got a word in edgewise but It is preposterous, just preposterous to contend that massive amounts of CO2 in the environment will have no affect. It will have to have an effect. That is the way the natural world works.
    Morano’s argument seems to be that you cannot prove that it will be a BAD effect. And that is simply not true. It already is shown that the resulting acid build up in the oceans will have long term consequences for the life in the oceans. What’s more, and it is something that no one seemed to mention, fossil fuels are FINITE. They will run out. Some experts are saying that the global supply has already peaked even with new methods of extraction. Therefore, at some point, (and one would have to argue sooner is better than later) alternative sources of energy will NEED to be developed just to maintain our current way of life, saying nothing of our future way of life. It is simply undeniable that environmental damage is being done by the massive amounts of fossil fuels being used to provide energy world wide. Why do that when you can develop other clean and self sustaining sources of energy that do not pollute and theses are sources that will HAVE to be developed at some point since fossil fuel energy is FINITE? And the answer is that certain financial interests have invested heavily in fossil fuel production of energy and have dollar signs obstructing their vision.
    And if one thinks that a whole lot of CO2 is good for whatever one could look at Venus. Not even machines can survive on Venus.

  • milli2

    Looking stuff up on the internet ISN’T a reliable method of doing research. Have you gone to a university library and actually READ peer-reviewed journal articles, instead of just pulling whatever cherry-picked crap that climate deniers throw up online?

  • sevenbowie

    Bill Nye is a scientist. Morano is a whore bought and paid for by polluters. I’ll take the scientist’s opinion thankyouverymuch.

    Climate Denial Playbook: Marc Morano’s History of Bullying Scientists

    If you’ve even heard of Marc Morano, you probably watched him angrily attacking a climate scientist, journalist or Al Gore on Fox News or on his blog Climate Depot, a project of the Donors Trust and oil industry-funded CFACT. Morano is so agitated in his climate denial that he once advocated that climate scientists be “publicly flogged.”

    Originally a producer for the Rush Limbaugh Show, Morano ascended (descended?) to the position of Communications Director for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Denial), where he helped his boss to abuse the power of the Senate hearings process to attack climate science and promote conspiracy theories. Inhofe and Morano were corrected and debunked endlessly, but facts have proven no obstacle to Morano’s crusade against science confirming the role of fossil fuel pollution in driving global warming.

    (snip)

    Morano’s current organization, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), has received over $4.1 million in funds from the shadowy Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012, according to Greenpeace’s updated report, Dealing In Doubt.

    http://crooksandliars.com/desmogblog/climate-denial-playbook-marc-moranos-hi

  • Guest

    Bill Bye is a scientist. Morano is a whore bought and paid for by polluters. I’ll take the scientist’s opinion thankyouverymuch.

    Climate Denial Playbook: Marc Morano’s History of Bullying Scientists

    If you’ve even heard of Marc Morano, you probably watched him angrily attacking a climate scientist, journalist or Al Gore on Fox News or on his blog Climate Depot, a project of the Donors Trust and oil industry-funded CFACT. Morano is so agitated in his climate denial that he once advocated that climate scientists be “publicly flogged.”

    Originally a producer for the Rush Limbaugh Show, Morano ascended (descended?) to the position of Communications Director for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Denial), where he helped his boss to abuse the power of the Senate hearings process to attack climate science and promote conspiracy theories. Inhofe and Morano were corrected and debunked endlessly, but facts have proven no obstacle to Morano’s crusade against science confirming the role of fossil fuel pollution in driving global warming.

    (snip)

    Morano’s current organization, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), has received over $4.1 million in funds from the shadowy Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012, according to Greenpeace’s updated report, Dealing In Doubt.

    http://crooksandliars.com/desmogblog/climate-denial-playbook-marc-moranos-hi

  • milli2

    and completely ignoring them is the technique of the right.

  • milli2

    No one is pointing to “one” weather event as proof of climate change. One little rain storm or two inches of snow in New York in December doesn’t or shouldn’t make headlines. Its the cumulative number of EXTREME events – like record cold in the US, record heat in Australia, off-the-charts number of tornadoes in the Midwest during the “off-season”, “super” storms in areas that usually don’t have them, ice-free summers in the Arctic, that people are pointing out. In your opinion, at what point ARE we allowed to be “concerned”?

  • Valewood

    Moving the goal posts all over the field is the debating technique of the left side.

  • Valewood

    What I see in typical climate alarmist fashion, is Bill Nye moving the goal posts all over the field trying to keep Marc Morano from scoring a point. When Morano mentions the Medieval mini-ice age, he gets jumped on for that being a local issue, not a global one.
    Yet how many times is it mentioned that the east coast of the U.S. is having warm temps? What’s the difference?
    Same thing with the recent polar vortex. We’ve been inundated for years by the alarmists that every thunderstorm, raindrop, dry spell, heat wave, flood, etc is proof of global warming. Yet when the other side points to the polar vortex, the alarmists start raving about how a single weather event is not proof of anything.
    Totally indicative of the mentality of the alarmist side. No one is denying climate change. That is just a red herring thrown out by the alarmist side to try to discredit anyone who dares to challenge the theory.

  • caphillprof

    I think you can trace it to Reagan.

  • therling

    Why is it that so many right wing commentators come across as bar room bullies who interrupt you before you can reply to them, and who think that shouting it louder makes it more true?

  • keirmeister

    When I was in grade school, our teacher asked a question that no one knew the answer to. She called on me, and I provided the answer with as much certainty and authority as I could muster.

    “Does anyone else in the class agree with him?” my teacher asked.

    One by one, hands started going up. The class assumed I was correct.

    “That’s a shame,” said my teacher. “Because he’s dead wrong.”

    “Yep, I have no idea, actually,” I said.

    The teacher asked around the class, “why did you agree with him then?” The answers were pretty typical:

    “He sounded like he knew what he was talking about.”
    “He said it with confidence.”
    “His explanation seemed to make sense.”

    And so on. The teacher turned to me and said that although my answer was horribly wrong, I got points for swaying others to it. She then noted that such an ability is both good and dangerous.

    Those words have always stuck with me. But it’s interesting to think that the only difference between the children of my class back then and adults today…is simply age.

    If you understand this, then you will understand what is wrong with your statement.

  • Drew2u

    It’s quite the funny myopic view of “We haven’t had a major hurricane in a while” when in the Pacific there was a triple-threat in October including the largest(?) hurricane on record forming.
    A few years ago I found it fascinating that Russia was burning because the rain it normally got was diverted to Pakistan where that country experience the worst flooding in its history.

  • olandp

    If you can not baffle them with brilliance, befuddle them with bullshit.

    The debating technique of the right wing.

  • mirror

    I have come to the conclusion that it is the influence of the energy industry and that they are trying to extract and sell as much fossil fuel as possible before the crisis becomes overwhelming and a response unavoidable, no matter how greedy, crazy, or stupid the decision makers are. This has also led me to believe that the Democratic party is indeed wholly and unquestioningly in their pocket, because they do absolutely nothing in response to the undeniable crisis.

  • Drew2u

    We could, but it won’t change your mind. This is how it always goes down:

    You: Give me the facts that were wrong!
    Us: *Lists them*
    You: Those sound fishy, what are the sources?
    Us: *Lists them* (usually accredited sources by the scientific fields of relevance)
    You: Those people have political motives, they can’t be trusted – unlike my sources which have no political motives whatsoever.
    Us: Okay, we’ll bite, can you list them?
    You: *lists a bunch of research and studies by the fossil fuel industry or conservative think tanks*

    At which point it just devolves into a “noU!” battle of accusation of politicking results. You get to feel smart because you’re bull-headed and we just get a headache rehashing everything over again and have to deal with a closed-mind.

    So, thank you, but your other comments on this thread don’t show a willingness to learn, just to yell past one-another and feel like something was accomplished. Especially since one of your previous comments was:
    “I’m just loving watching liberals hate on Russians for the first time in 50 years. I have a feeling that if they said, “but we should take all of their money and give it to the poor before we put them in the ovens” they would drop dead with internal conflict.”

    To paraphrase a great man: “Arguing with you would be like arguing with a dining room table, I simply have no interest.”

  • HeartlandLiberal

    Related to this, two items from the recent Polar Vortex dustup. Al Roker absolutely owned Rush Limpbaugh on Rush’s claim the term was just made up a couple weeks ago. A little research turns up the term as early as 1913 in scientific literature, and was probably introduced several years before that. And of course global warming heated the northern Pacific, thus pushing the jet stream north, disrupting the polar vortex, and causing a sudden massive surge of cold air across Canada and the US. Our relatives pipes down in Alabama froze, dude. Of course for many of them that proves no global warming. Sigh.

    Then today I read about the research ship trapped in the Antarctic ice. Of course the denial crowd were crowing and pointing at that as more proof of their refudiation of global warming. Well, it turns out the glacier that drains about a quarter of the land mass of Antarctica, the Pine Island Glacier, has accelerated melting so fast the runoff is diluting the ocean around the periphery of the continent, which lets the water freeze easier, because of the lower salinity.

    But then, sadly, when have you lately observed any of the closed minds on the right and the religious fundamentalists respond to simple, scientific factual data?

    Their entire worldview is tied up in faith in their interpretation of a religious book. And for them, that is the end of the argument.

  • SL Abrin

    If there exists a scientist who denies mankind-assisted over-heating of the planet, why isn’t that person showing up for the debate? Why does an educated professional have to endure the rantings of a political/corporate operative? I suppose any voice of reason, even when constantly interrupted with bullshit, is better than none at all.

    There are two types of denial:
    a. Not happening
    b. Happening, but not the fault of big, giant corporations. (Nothing is ever their fault.)

  • HML

    The first idea was to trade carbon.It’s been real profitable for the people running the scheme, so far it hasn’t reduced carbon.

  • benb

    Pointless exchange. The only science Marc Morano has ever come close to studying is Political Science and if he knew anything about that, he wouldn’t have to whore himself for yet another conservative billionaire.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    No I think that’s upcoming. I hope it’s on Pay Per View, I’d definitely buy it. He’s debating the founder of the Creation Museum in Kentucky (Ohio?) on the guy’s home turf. SCIENCE IS COMING TO TOWN.. GET READY TO RRUUUUMMMMMBLLLLLLEEEEE

    (just kidding, it’s barely a fair fight, let alone a battle royale. It’ll be just like the “debate” above — Nye sticking to simple truths, the other guy throwing all sorts of fake stats about “irreducible complexity” and the lack of transitional species and whatever else he can come up with.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    lol. That’s the problem with debating climate change deniers — they are always armed with a blizzard of “statistics” that make them sound more authoritative than the other guy. Morano mentioned a peer-reviewed study in Science (I think), but skipped over the fact that there are pretty much no other peer-reviewed studies that support his arguments. Nearly every scientist who studies global climate professionally agrees that the planet is heating up and that we play a significant part.

    Nye’s style is to focus on simple truths, but as seen here, simple truths are the enemy of climate change deniers and their flurry of disinformation.

  • emjayay

    Yeah, it was sweet reasonable knowledgable bow tie guy a vs. corpulent speedyelling belligerent blowhard guy.

  • emjayay

    I think you have the names backwards, or something.

  • http://www.newmillgay.com/ The_Fixer

    Exactly.

    It’s a simple fact: the earth is our dinner plate. To put it crudely, you don’t take a shit on your dinner plate. That’s what we’ve been doing for quite some time now, and we’re paying the price. Not only with respect to climate change, but with regard to pollution of our drinking water, the air that we breath and our ability to farm to get the food we need to sustain ourselves.

    Climate change is undeniable. The correlation between higher CO2 levels and a warming atmosphere has been documented. While correlation is not always causation, we know through real science that rising levels of CO2 has the effect of changing the climate significantly.

    We also know that human activity – positive or negative – can and does</em have a global effect. We had a sizable hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica caused by the presence of large amounts of CFC gasses in the atmosphere. When we transitioned away from them, the hole began to repair itself.

    It's been my experience that every time one of these loudmouths comes on TV spouting facts, one has to suspect that everything they say is at least a half-truth, and usually an outright misrepresentation of data (if indeed it is real data to start with.

    Generally speaking, the louder the mouth, the more you should suspect them of being full of crap.

  • Monoceros Forth

    …and, I’m really only interested in you as an example of a psychological phenomenon to be honest. I don’t imagine for a second that you have anything worthwhile to say about chemistry or anything else, nor that you particularly care to learn.

  • Tillyosu

    Brilliant. We’ve established that burning fossil fuels is increasing carbon in the atmosphere. And?

  • Monoceros Forth

    Yeah. It really is like creationism. You could drag a creationist before a crowd and point out how stupid all of his ideas are from top to bottom and it wouldn’t matter because, by his rules, all he needs to do to win is quote the plain Word of God. The climate-change deniers don’t have God on their side, exactly, so they fall back on reverently citing one of the few right-wing pet Ph.D.s who have made quite a comfortable career for themselves being the professional “sceptics”. Will Happer has already been mentioned in hushed tones, for example.

  • Monoceros Forth

    That’s more or less it. Plants accumulate carbon-12 in a certain ratio with respect to carbon-13, a ratio different from that of the atmosphere in general because there’s a slight isotope effect in the action of biological processes that favors uptake of carbon-12. Simply burning plant matter, however, releases all of the carbon in it in just the same isotope ratio in which it was accumulated. Hence a gradual lowering of the overall ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere is a telling indicator. Such a decline has been found in multiple sources of carbon that accumulate slowly over time and can thus be used to track long-term changes in the composition of the atmosphere, most notably the wood of long-lived trees and the calcium carbonate skeletons of long-lived corals. Both sources reveal such a decline that has accelerated sharply over the last 150 years or so.

  • Wildeye

    I rest my case. Thanks for playing.

  • Drew2u

    You’re talking about that which has been in the carbon cycle and is a part of if beforehand and that which has left the carbon cycle, in the form of liquid or solid state, correct?

  • Drew2u

    Oh no, what if we stopped polluting and made the Earth a better place for nothing!

  • Drew2u

    It’s part of the anti-intellectual movement that was given legs during the Bush administration, propped up by FOX and war propaganda & nationalism.
    I’m sure there’s also a: “Science = $$ = (Liberal) Rich People” element to it, as well.

    As for religion v. science in this case, well I already talked about anti-intellectualism.

  • pappyvet

    The only way nutjobs like Morano can claim victory is by not allowing any debate in the debate. And if on occasion someone is adept at fighting back and defending themselves,the wingnut becomes shocked at how rude they are and it gets edited and played repeatedly on Faux News. S.O.P. for the rightwing.

  • Tillyosu

    Could you point out which facts cited by Morano were wrong? Just for my own edification…

  • Tillyosu

    Yea, Bill Nye is a scientist in the same way that George Clooney is an M.D. It’d be interesting to see him have an actual debate with an actual scientist like Will Happer.

  • Monoceros Forth

    Tell me then, since you know more than I do, about the difference in the isotopic ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in carbon dioxide produced by combustion of plant matter (including fossil fuels) versus that produced by biological action (e.g. respiration.)

  • pogden297

    My guess is you couldn’t begin to answer even the most basic questions about AGW. For example, how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to man-made activities? Of course this isn’t a fair question as you could look it up. But still it would be good for you to look it up and actually learn something about an issue you appear to know little if anything about.

  • pogden297

    But, Tillyosu, Nye is a SCIENTIST and all SCIENTISTS agree that man is causing dangerous global warming. (Of course h that’s not true, not even remotely.) You notice that lay people who support this theory do not have any actual knowledge of the issue;, their response is to always point to (the non-existent) consensus of the scientists. Lay people on the other side always have a lot more knowledge about the issue of global warming and can argue the issue in detail. There is no historical data that suggests the theory is true. It’s all based on computer modeling by feeding select data into a computer to get a certain politically-correct result.

  • Monoceros Forth

    I guess the real question is why denial of anthropogenic climate change has become such a religiously held principle. You can point to all manner of forces that have strengthened the deniers’ cause; certainly money has a good deal to do with it but that’s not the whole story. Consider the analogous situation with tobacco, where opposition to smoking laws is similarly propped up by lots of industry cash: yes, there’s been a little success in getting people emotionally worked up about the evils of smoking laws, painting them as inimical to personal freedom, but the same level of fervor just isn’t there. It’s not like right-wing pundits are screaming about how tobacco is actually good for you and there’s some massive conspiracy among doctors and biologists to hide that truth and destroy America and all the rest of it.

  • Monoceros Forth

    Yeah. It’s like that “debate” Nye’s planning with a creationist (or has that already happened?) Both sides get to walk away feeling they’ve won but the real winner is the insidious principle of false equivalence. It plays into the right-wing “teach the controversy!” cry.

  • Nell Reece

    Notice how these deniers are so like the GOP, won’t let anyone else get a word in edgewise, bullies, actually?

  • cole3244

    turn back to fox that’s more your speed, slow & ignorant!

  • cole3244

    good guys maybe but smart guys never finish last, thank you bill nye!

  • Tillyosu

    Umm I watched this whole clip and I don’t understand how this could even be called a debate. Morano clearly came armed with facts, and Nye with hyperbolic rhetoric. Even with flailing assists from Morgan he was utterly unconvincing.

  • Drew2u

    So is Piers Morgan’s producers going to issue corrections that denialist spewed?

  • Indigo

    Debate? There’s no debate there outside the overheated imagination of the producer of that show.
    Resolve: The Earth is flat.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    That’s how Gish Gallops work, and while I could not make myself watch the entire clip, it’s beyond any doubt that was Morano’s intended ‘debate’ strategy.

  • Wildeye

    Giving deniers equal time with actual scientists gives the false impression to the public that there is actually any scientific debate about Anthropogenic Global Warming when there really isn’t; this kind of reporting plays right into the hands of the Heartland Institute and their ilk’s FUD campaign. Until deniers come up with an alternate theory to explain the climate data, there is no debate about the science of AGW. Reporting on the science of AGW should not be approached the same way as a debate about the policy implications of AGW.

  • pappyvet

    Morano is giving the nutjobs false facts in an almost religious tone. It has become political for a reason.

  • 2patricius2

    Too much time was given to Morano (moron -o) and not enough time to Bill Nye.

  • RepubAnon

    A real leader of the “beatings will continue until morale improves” phenotype – just like Chris Christie.

  • cs

    what a hostile, unpleasant, and wrong human being

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS