UPDATE: video added below.
Tonight CFACT’s Marc Morano vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy CNN, Piers Morgan
9 PM EST
Marc Morano, Editor in Chief of Climate Depot, takes on Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Piers Morgan show, CNN 9 PM tonight (Tuesday) check your cable TV and satellite listing for Channel numbers
If you haven’t yet seen Marc in action, don’t miss this chance to see him live. Maybe he will ask about this video fiasco Nye did with Al Gore:
Why did they have to fake the experiment in post production if it was “high school science’ and so easy to replicate? Why hasn’t Nye called for this video to be removed from Gore’s website? (Still there over a year later) at http://climaterealityproject.org/video/ very first one top left.
Transcript at Newsbusters here
Nye and Morano fought it out hand to hand. But there was artillery (in the form of graphics) in the theatre, under Morgan’s control, and registered against Morano. Popping up a US map showing a gazillion local temperature records, for example. Uninitiated viewers will remember that map long after they have forgotten any of the dialogue. The only way to counter is to have some artillery of your own. Morano could have demolished the impression of that map, if he had any way to respond with graphics of his own showing long term weather trends.
@D Boehm- It doesn’t take my CV or anyone’s to find the credentials of a public figure. FACT: Marc has a degree in political science
@Kuhnkat The concern here is that Marc has no background in science, regardless of Bill Nye’s.
Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?
Ask a scientist.
Nicole, how about using your own brain to think things through.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Novum Organum:
With regard to authority, it is the greatest weakness to attribute infinite credit to particular authors, and to refuse his own prerogative to time, the author of all authors, and, therefore, of all authority. For, truth is rightly named the daughter of time, not of authority. It is not wonderful, therefore, if the bonds of antiquity, authority, and unanimity, have so enchained the power of man, that he is unable (as if bewitched) to become familiar with things themselves. (aph. 84)
Nicole,
An airhead would of course use worthless ad hominem attacks just like you have been doing. You cannot post any evidence showing that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming, because there is no such empirical evidence. So lacking scientific facts, you do your drive-by ad-hom attacks. It’s all you’ve got. You impress nobody here, you only expose your airhead anti-science.
And FYI, there are plenty of published, peer reviewed scientists who write articles here and who comment here — and who disagree with your emotional, content-free opinion. So get over your hot flashes, and start posting some verifiable facts for a change. If you can.
Nicole: To some degree I agree with your point. But you should be taking your complaint to CNN and Piers Morgan. They’re the ones who chose the participants.
Sigh…
Mark
…..let me guess Nicole, are these the same ‘scientists’ that work in the ‘settled sciences’….you know, where the scientific method is treated as an inconvenience, nothing more? good luck with your carbon footprint & your global warming….um er…oops i guess it’s not warming…hey everybody…the climate!…it can’t change anymore!…stop the change….quick!…somebody….get the ‘scientists’!
Nicole–I DO look to scientists, not politicians or news media. Just reading this site with all the scientists and engineers that frequent this space and post here is an education. And having a degree is NOT the only thing–it’s understanding the issues. At my university, the overwhelming majority of professors spend way too much time spouting off on stuff that is not in their field of expertise. Why should I believe them on climate science?
Nicole says:
December 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm
“Do you people go to your politicians for a medical?”
No, but my doctor doesn’t prescribe chemotherapy for a cold either.
Medical practice uses rigorous testing.
Climate models fail to diagnose anything, and would be rejected by the AMA as a diagnostic tool.
Furthermore, climatologists do not have the credentials to engage in politics or economics, and yet they continue to try.
So what. My engineering PhD is bigger than Bill Nye’s engineering BS. I guess, by your logic, that makes me more right than him, ergo, Bill is wrong. Wow, amazing how easy that was.
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. Splain to me how this works again?
Why? I’d prefer to look at the data myself. The people that appear on interviews are only reciting sound bites. I can judge for myself which of them is correct. Hint: it ain’t Nye.
Mark
Nicole says:
December 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm
@D Boehm- It doesn’t take my CV or anyone’s to find the credentials of a public figure. FACT: Marc has a degree in political science
@Kuhnkat The concern here is that Marc has no background in science, regardless of Bill Nye’s.
Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?
Ask a scientist.
——————————————————————
Fact, I am not a scientist, but I can see the facts as we know them to date and they don’t add up to an alarmist position.
Plain and simple. If you dig a bit, the deficiencies of our understanding of climate becomes very apparent.
The role of “clouds” and “cloud creation” is just one small example.
I don’t think we have any clue as to how the “”Umbrella Principle”” works.on a global scale.
Food for thought, if you will >>>>>>>>>>>
Anthony,,,,,,, the next WUWT-TV interview?
Nicole says:
Then there are these folks:
John Harrison was a self-educated English clockmaker.
Albert Einstein worked at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner.
Isaac Newton practiced the art of alchemy.
There are others, but what is the question?
Roscoe says
Firstly it is absurd to associate physical properties like temperature of hot or cold to something that has no substance at all – a vacuum !
I am amazed people with PhDs can make such ludicrous claims.
———-
Sorry Rosco but that’s not quite right.
Temperature can be defined by the average of the random kinetic energy of the particles within the space in question. For a vacuum those particles are the photons left over from the big bang. Temperature around 4K.
The solar radiation passing through the space is not counted as it is directional- not randomized (aka not thermalised).
That solar radiation will only be manifest as heat after it is absorbed by something.
Wow. Bill Nye against a shouting jerk. Impressive.
You can see about half of the 12 or so minutes here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/05/pmt-science-guy-morano.cnn
I expect a repeat in about 1.5 hours from now.
trafamadore,
Sometimes shouting is necessary. For example, when it’s two against one.
DGH on December 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm
The “Science Guy” tells us that it’s the rate of CO2 increase not the absolute concentration that causes concern about global warming. Huh?
———–
Wild guess here but he could mean that the biosphere has time to adapt via evolution if the time scale was longer.
I would say the bugs are going to be ok cos they can adapt on the 10 to 10k time scale. Big mammals maybe on the 10k to 100k time scale.
I’d say the current rate of change favours the bugs.
I cannot believe the attacks on the poster named Nicole for stating a simple undeniable fact that Marc Morano has no science expertise. Also, I have seen him in action several times and I agree with nightwriter that he is “an aggressive, rude jerk”. That doesn’t mean that what he says about AGW is wrong, I just believe he does skeptics no favors with his debating skills. It is too bad the show did not chose a better spokesman for the skeptics side…but then when does the MSM ever chose the best spokesman?
That’s the effective temperature, which is the average over a unit volume, not the average per unit of the medium, as “temperature” is normally defined (for purposes of determining “cold” and “hot”).
You’re smart enough to know this, which is probably why you said “can be defined” knowing full well there is a difference.
Mark
The pressure-temperature relationship for gases holds for an ADIABATIC gas.
Mark T says: “Sigh…”
Well, it is called the adiabatic gas law, innit, Mark?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node53.html
Rosco says
I consider this proof that to not consider the pressuer – temperature relationship of gases as significant is another area where climate science is wrong.
———
Rosco while I thought your moon temperature argument interesting, if unverifed, this pressure thing is wrong.
The vertical temperature –profile– in an atmosphere is determined by convection, but that profile is —scaled—- by the surface temperature.
If the surface temperature is higher the atmospheric temperature will be higher. For Jupiter there may not be a well defined surface but the core is believed to produce a lot of heat. This could affect the temperature of Jupiter’s atmosphere.
One point that Marc Morano made was that there was no warming for 16 years. Bill Nye did not dispute this, but said that the last two decades were the warmest decades. They were, but when you compare 1923 to 1943 with 1993 to the present, the average for each two decade period goes up from -0.16 to + 0.36. This is an increase of 0.52 over 70 years or 0.74/century. I see nothing to get alarmed about.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1923/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1993/trend
cjames,
The objection was to Nicole’s purely ad hominem comment. She did nothing to refute anything, she simply fell back on the discredited tactic of attacking the man. Therefore, she deserved what she got.
Honest, factual scientific arguments are always welcome at WUWT. Ad-hom attacks, not so much.
Um, yeah, but there’s so much more than “it doesn’t hold” (paraphrased) in our atmosphere.
Mark
@Nicole:
I’ll take a rational explanation of the data from a sound mind over any number of degrees and credentials. When Nye makes a few dozen “stupid rookie” blatant errors of fact and logic per show, it pretty much paints him as “clueless”. So here’s the deal: You listen. You compare their data to the available data. You compare their logical steps to the most logical steps. You note who makes the most obvious errors. And, you look for who makes “argument to authority” logic errors and who makes “argument to the person” logic errors (and all the other things the Warmers do with great regularity). It become pretty clear who thinks clearly (skeptics) and who does not (but parrots talking points well – warmers).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/bill-nye-the-science-fruit-loop/
My ‘rant’ after an earlier Bill Nye on CNN dollop of mindless prattle.