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

9743 reads

There are 45 Comments

David R. Brumbelow's picture

I strongly doubt man-made global warming / climate change, except in fairly limited ways.  Why? 

1.  As a kid in school I was taught global cooling by the same type experts. 

2.  Experts can be wrong for multiple reasons. 

Quick example, look up Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis; an amazing story.  He saved a lot of lives before the experts destroyed him. 

3.  Climate goes in cycles. 

4.  The global warming / climate change experts are almost never held accountable, or asked the hard questions. 

5.  A meteorologist said he cannot accurately predict the weather for the next two weeks, much less for the next hundred years. 

And I could go on. 

Why not just deal with pollution on an honest basis, rather than ginning up a crisis? 

From my view, two great sources of information about Climate Change: 

http://cornwallalliance.org/

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/159403...

Roy W. Spencer is a former senior NASA climatologist. 

David R. Brumbelow

Bert Perry's picture

One way of phrasing the matter is that there is no amount of supposed expertise that can rescue bad logic or bad data.  Garbage in, garbage out, and one does not need to understand every nuance of a branch of knowledge to comment on it.  If it was required, then nobody in that area could comment, since research on this scale is generally done by teams with varying expertise, just like engineering projects in companies.  One expert sets up the experiment, another does the measurement tools, another does the statistical analysis, etc..

And really, Greg's assertion that the invocation of the rules of logic is like a "corrupt" game official calling fouls to keep a game close is just nonsense, especially when it comes to the variants of genetic fallacies.  They are not like disputable holding or pass interference calls, but rather more like flagrant fouls punished by 15 yards and loss of down, and then expulsion from the game.  If the flag is not thrown on these, the game quickly becomes a brawl.

To wit, the insults we've seen flying on this very thread, generally not grounded in fact.  It reminds me (again) of one of Mike Royko's best columns (IMO at least), where he notes that a lot of what is said online would never be said in a bar or a coffee shop, because a very real fight would break out.

Another way of phrasing this is that if the supposed "experts" are using garbage logic or data--something that is very clear from the hundreds/thousands of newspaper and magazine articles I've read on the subject in the past 20 years or so--then maybe we ought to question whether these guys are really that expert, or whether their position is an example of "Rabbit's Thesis."

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

One way of phrasing the matter is that there is no amount of supposed expertise that can rescue bad logic or bad data.  Garbage in, garbage out, and one does not need to understand every nuance of a branch of knowledge to comment on it.  If it was required, then nobody in that area could comment, since research on this scale is generally done by teams with varying expertise, just like engineering projects in companies.  One expert sets up the experiment, another does the measurement tools, another does the statistical analysis, etc..

And really, Greg's assertion that the invocation of the rules of logic is like a "corrupt" game official calling fouls to keep a game close is just nonsense, especially when it comes to the variants of genetic fallacies.  They are not like disputable holding or pass interference calls, but rather more like flagrant fouls punished by 15 yards and loss of down, and then expulsion from the game.  If the flag is not thrown on these, the game quickly becomes a brawl.

To wit, the insults we've seen flying on this very thread, generally not grounded in fact.  It reminds me (again) of one of Mike Royko's best columns (IMO at least), where he notes that a lot of what is said online would never be said in a bar or a coffee shop, because a very real fight would break out.

Another way of phrasing this is that if the supposed "experts" are using garbage logic or data--something that is very clear from the hundreds/thousands of newspaper and magazine articles I've read on the subject in the past 20 years or so--then maybe we ought to question whether these guys are really that expert, or whether their position is an example of "Rabbit's Thesis."

Bert, here is another way of putting it. If there is going to be a real debate on climate warming, it requires more than just not breaking rules of logic. It requires knowledge and expertise of the subject (of which you have neither in any substantial way). My point here is that I am going to discard your attempts to explain away global warming because in fact, you know a tiny amount of the data and very little about how to interpret it and yes, will give more credence to those that actually do know something of what they are talking about. If you don't get why I am not going to accept your dismissal of climate change when you are not qualified to speak on the issue, I really can't help you. You are too steeped in your worldview to even see the problem. 

So you go ahead and read your "hundreds/thousands of newspaper and magazine articles." Regardless, you are not qualified to speak dogmatically on this. Nor are you qualified to proclaim the true experts are actually non-experts. Sorry to be blunt but that is the way it is. 

Bert Perry's picture

...you're speaking pretty dogmatically for someone with no expertise, Greg.   Pot meet kettle?

Seriously, you're living proof of what I just noted.  Lacking a valid response to my argument, you're insulting me, and you've insulted others in this thread, too.  Like I said, when we ignore the rules of logic, we end up with a brawl, and we hence infer that these rules are part of logic, and of Scripture, for a reason.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

...you're speaking pretty dogmatically for someone with no expertise, Greg.   Pot meet kettle?

Seriously, you're living proof of what I just noted.  Lacking a valid response to my argument, you're insulting me, and you've insulted others in this thread, too.  Like I said, when we ignore the rules of logic, we end up with a brawl, and we hence infer that these rules are part of logic, and of Scripture, for a reason.

No insult intended. It all comes down to this: you think that people that read magazines and newspapers about climate science can go to toe to toe with climate scientists. I don't. Same for music, theology, business and pretty much all the other areas you consider yourself an expert in.

 

Ron Bean's picture

When Bill Nye says, "Those of US in the scientific community" I am amused.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Bert Perry's picture

Here is a great example of the "expertise" of the IPCC; a photoshopped "flooded house" used as an illustration in a report from 2008.  But of course, if someone doesn't have a Ph.D. in climatology, one is absolutely not qualified to go "toe to toe" with the experts, is he?  Certainly he's not qualified to remember hot summer days and wonder if climate monitoring stations over pavement and near heat sources might be rigging the data.  When the flawed stations are removed from the sample, the overall warming trend is drastically reduced.

It was not for no reason that Deming said "In God we Trust; all others must provide data."  It is my hope and prayer that the climatological community learns this before they are utterly discredited, and they're getting pretty close already.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Here is a great example of the "expertise" of the IPCC; a photoshopped "flooded house" used as an illustration in a report from 2008.  But of course, if someone doesn't have a Ph.D. in climatology, one is absolutely not qualified to go "toe to toe" with the experts, is he?  Certainly he's not qualified to remember hot summer days and wonder if climate monitoring stations over pavement and near heat sources might be rigging the data.  When the flawed stations are removed from the sample, the overall warming trend is drastically reduced.

It was not for no reason that Deming said "In God we Trust; all others must provide data."  It is my hope and prayer that the climatological community learns this before they are utterly discredited, and they're getting pretty close already.

Right, so it never occurred to the climate scientists what you have pointed out about pavement and heat sources. You really need to give these people a call and help them. Maybe after you help the Family Christian bookstores recover from bankruptcy since you understand their situation better than they do too.

And you do this all after just reading magazines and newspaper articles. Imagine how effective you might be if you actually saw the data or maybe even helped create the data...

 

Greg Long's picture

GregH wrote:
In regards to your continual argumentation about experts and authority, I would just say that you are just being consistent about who you are. You really do believe that armed with a few facts, your opinions are just as valuable as someone who is immersed in the subject.
At least Bert tries to bring in a few facts, a few resources, a few papers, a few web sites into the discussion. You, you just appeal to the experts and majority opinion, as well as attack those who disagree with you on this thread, without presenting any actual data or evidence whatsoever.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Bert Perry's picture

GregH wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Here is a great example of the "expertise" of the IPCC; a photoshopped "flooded house" used as an illustration in a report from 2008.  But of course, if someone doesn't have a Ph.D. in climatology, one is absolutely not qualified to go "toe to toe" with the experts, is he?  Certainly he's not qualified to remember hot summer days and wonder if climate monitoring stations over pavement and near heat sources might be rigging the data.  When the flawed stations are removed from the sample, the overall warming trend is drastically reduced.

It was not for no reason that Deming said "In God we Trust; all others must provide data."  It is my hope and prayer that the climatological community learns this before they are utterly discredited, and they're getting pretty close already.

 

Right, so it never occurred to the climate scientists what you have pointed out about pavement and heat sources. You really need to give these people a call and help them. Maybe after you help the Family Christian bookstores recover from bankruptcy since you understand their situation better than they do too.

And you do this all after just reading magazines and newspaper articles. Imagine how effective you might be if you actually saw the data or maybe even helped create the data...

Greg, if you actually would bother to read the references--people actually interested in getting to the truth do that--you would have learned that climatologists with the IPCC were indeed consulted for the Fox article, and that Anthony Watts responded by plotting the original IPCC data, the "corrected" data, and the data from climate stations that were correctly stationed.  The end result is that the "corrections" do not match the trends shown by the properly situated climate monitoring stations, which in turn replies that the "corrections" are incorrect--much smaller than the magnitude of the difference between poorly situated stations and properly situated.

It's worth noting as well that I have personally performed peer review of papers, and I have also personally created and evaluated numerical models of physical phenomena, even publishing a few of them.  Creating these models is, ahem, part of my job, and when models do not work, they are either modified or abandoned.  They are based on some of the same heat flow models used by climatologists, just on a different scale and with different materials.  Changing constants, more or less.  I know from experience what happens when the incoming data are bad--the results are as well.

Put mildly, exactly what you intend to achieve by suggesting engineers don't know how to analyze data is beyond me.  I might as well suggest concert pianists can't play a scale with equal logic and authority.

But to the topic, it is very telling to me that NOAA and the IPCC are not "raising Hell" over the improperly situated climate stations (they're not that expensive to replace), that the mismatch between models and measured data does not lead to a degree of humility on their part, and that bad actors (East Anglia, Michael Mann) in the brotherhood are not given the bum's rush.

Here are a couple of authorities, by the way, on your favorite tool of illogic:

Carl Sagan:  One of the great commandments of science is "Mistrust arguments from authority."  Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong.  Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

Leonardo da Vinci:  Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.

Again, how many disasters of science--caloric, luminiferous aether, Aristotelian physics, geocentric astronomy, modern climatology, and more--need to happen before we hold scientists to the principle so well stated by Sagan, da Vinci, and Deming?  And for that matter, Greg, if you truly believe that ordinary people cannot go "toe to toe" with experts and discuss these matters, I plead with you to cancel your voter registration so you cannot possibly vote or stand on a jury.   Don't inflict your willful ignorance on your neighbors.

Another good picture of the perils of "appeal to authority" and groupthink; Hans Christian Anderson's The Emperor's New Clothes.  Think about it a moment; every authority in the kingdom said he looked great.  The little boy is coming for the IPCC in the same way he came for Family Christian bookstores.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Mark_Smith's picture

None of them are the "big guns", but they are "experts" in the field. I have asked them this simple question, and they never answer. FYI all climate models are based off of measuring the temperature of the earth in the past. I ask them, if you were wrong about the temperature in say 1000 AD, how would you know? No response.

That to me is the major problem with using future climate models to claim catastrophic climate change. based on human activity

Bert Perry's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

None of them are the "big guns", but they are "experts" in the field. I have asked them this simple question, and they never answer. FYI all climate models are based off of measuring the temperature of the earth in the past. I ask them, if you were wrong about the temperature in say 1000 AD, how would you know? No response.

That to me is the major problem with using future climate models to claim catastrophic climate change. based on human activity

Mark, if you're at all being fair to your acquaintances, and I have no reason to believe you're not, what you have just said is far more damning than anything I have noted.  If indeed someone reading a portion of climatology/etc., journals and contributing to them cannot provide a basic answer to such a question--I know I could, even as a skeptic not working in the field--then what has been confessed is that some portion of climatologists know "their corner" of the field and nothing else.  And if that is widespread--to be fair I'm pretty sure Mark's sample is not thousands of climatologists--that would explain a lot of what many here are noting out of the IPCC.  

To draw a comparison,  AIG and CRI have noted a number of bad arguments for Biblical creation, and they keep lists of them to help their constituents going back for decades.  Doesn't mean that they're perfect, but it does mean they keep their eye on the ball (to a degree) and admit when they--or their competition--screw up.  It's a hallmark of real science.

(for reference, the answer to Mark's question is that we have a number of measurements that we believe correlate to global temperatures at various times, and in the year 1000, we would have written histories, oxygen isotope measurements from ice cores, tree ring measurements, and more which would tend to indicate a certain range of temperatures is likely....and then you admit that there are certain assumptions for all of these)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Pages