# Bernie Sanders / Bill Nye Climate Presentation

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Bernie Sanders and Bill Nye have given a joint presentation on climate. In my opinion their presentation more than anything demonstrates how out of touch they are with ordinary people.

Some Highlights:

• Bill Nye wants to convince President Trump renewables make economic sense.
• Bill Nye thinks Fox News Anchors “know better” about climate change – he thinks prominent skeptics are lying about their true position on climate change.
• “If we can get these people to look at it more closely, they’ll be on the side of renewables.”
• If we ignore climate, we’ll build seawalls – the developing world doesn’t have the resources to build seawalls.
• “When the ocean comes in, they’re just going to leave. They’re going to default on their mortgages, and there’s going to be all this copper and infrastructure just sitting there”.
• Climate change is causing terrorism – “a lot of the problems in the middle east are displaced young men who don’t want to work the family farm anymore, because the family farm isn’t doing so well anymore, so they go to the cities, can’t find jobs, and get involved in terrorism”.
• Wants “deniers” to think about “cognitive dissonance”.
• “Instead of accepting the client is changing, you’re denying the evidence, and denying the authorities”
• “Deniers” are suffering from the “backfire effect” – apparently when we hear a nasty rattle from the car engine we ignore it, because we think everything will be fine.
• “Its not just that the world has too many people, we’re not using our resources as well as we could.”
• Sanders: “Give me some examples of the fossil fuel industry, in maintaining this thing is not real”.
• Bill Nye doesn’t answer the question, talks about how big the Canadian Tar Sands mining industry is.
• Bill Nye thinks oil majors will get even richer if they invest in renewables.
• “If you put in double or triple glazing, you will save a lot of money, for free”
• Nye talking about how he drives a Chevy Bolt – wants to electrify all ground transportation. Chevy Bolt is affordable, because it only costs $40,000 • Nye talking about how every roof should be covered in solar panels – “its not that hard to create a grid which can accept that energy”. • Nye thinks some engineer should just create a better battery. “Its not that hard”. • Once the [wind] turbine is up, its free, in a sense. • Thinks exhaust from coal plants kills more birds than wind turbines. “We can solve this problem”. • “Distributing electricity is like a mobile phone – as you drive, your call is handed from tower to tower.” • Sanders: What are the technologies of the future? “I don’t know what the next innovation is going to be”. • “Solar panels will become cheaper by not wasting as much silicon” • “In 30 years we could be 100% renewable. The thing about nuclear plants … people don’t want it around” • Nye is hoping the discovery of life on another world will unite humanity – hopes space exploration will restore faith in scientists • Some stuff about the danger of an impact from an Asteroid, and a need to find a way to protect the world from such threats, that I actually agree with. • Nye thinks renewables will improve quality of life worldwide, and help to prevent terrorism. Why do I think Nye and Sanders (who as far as I can recall didn’t challenge Nye on anything) are out of touch? The answer is the ridiculous comments they made that all people need to do is come up with$40,000 to buy an electric car, and whatever it costs (likely 10s of thousands) to double glaze their homes, to make the world a better place.

Everyone can afford that, right?

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
February 27, 2017 7:21 pm

Will Rogers observed, “It’s not ignorance that is the problem, but that so much of what we know just ain’t so.”
Adding to the “33C without an atmosphere” that is completely wrong is the case of Venus.

Venus, we are told, has an atmosphere that is almost pure carbon dioxide and an extremely high surface temperature, 750 K, and this is allegedly due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE. But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!”

Well, this is what else it could be.

Venus is half the distance to the sun so its solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2.

The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to earths at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 2.5 more blankets on your bed. RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U A dT.

The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.024 W/m-K so it takes twice the dT to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.

Put the higher irradiance, thickness and conductivity all together: 1.84 * 2.5 * 1.64 = 7.54.

So, Q = U A dT suggests that the Venusian dT would be 7.54 times greater than that of earth, no S-B BB RGHE hocus pocus need apply.

Howard Barlow
February 27, 2017 7:41 pm

Why is Venus so hot?
PV=nRT
Temperature is proportional to Pressure.
The atmospheric pressure of Venus is 90 times that of Earth. That is the reason Venus is so hot.

February 27, 2017 8:53 pm

“PV=nRT”

Yes, but more precisely, the ‘surface’ of Venus in direct equilibrium with the Sun is not the solid surface below, but a virtual surface comprised of the cloud tops. Once the cloud tops reach an equilibrium temperature, the surface below follows based on the PVT profile of the atmosphere between this surface and the solid surface. This is just like the solid surface of Earth below the oceans, which are at about 0C owing to the density/temperature profile of the water ocean. Clearly the solid surface of Earth beneath the deep oceans is not in direct equilibrium with the Sun either.

Venus is a case of runaway clouds, not any kind of runaway GHG effect and it’s dense CO2 atmosphere acts more like an ocean than an atmosphere. In fact, the mass of the CO2 atmosphere is the same order of magnitude as the mass of Earth’s oceans.

4 Eyes
February 27, 2017 9:24 pm

Wrong, very wrong. I suggest you re-educate yourself.

hanelyp
February 27, 2017 9:36 pm

4 Eyes, get thee to a physics class.

Darrell Demick (home)
February 27, 2017 11:19 pm

Howard Barlow = 100% correct. The First Law of Thermodynamics overwhelms everything else.

4 Eyes = I agree 100% with NOT you, but hanelyp. Remember the saying which starts with, “It is best to remain silent” ….

Well, that and yes, I suggest you re-educate yourself and get thee to a Thermodynamics class.

I can fix a lot of things, but I cannot fix “stupid”.

Darrell Demick (home)
February 27, 2017 11:20 pm

co2isnotevil = +1. Always like your posts, keep ’em coming!

Samuel C Cogar
February 28, 2017 5:51 am

Why is Venus so hot?

Half the problem surely has to include the fact that ……

Venus rotates clockwise in retrograde rotation once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation of any planet.

MarkW
February 28, 2017 7:00 am

You increase pressure, and temperature goes up. Then, if nothing else happens, the temperature radiates to space. Unless there is something to prevent that energy from escaping to space, eventually the temperature will drop down to whatever can be supported by the incoming radiation from the sun.

Alan McIntire
February 28, 2017 7:38 am

I read an article on Mesozoic life which speculated that earth’s atmosphere was about 20% more dense than it is now, increasing the greenhouse effect. I was familiar with that
PV = nRT formula, and started to figure the additional greenhouse effect. I couldn’t DO it. n and R are constants, but
P would be 1.2, but volume could be 0.83333….. leaving T the same as before, or V could remain at 1, increasing absolute temperatures by 20%, or volume could also be 1.2, increasing temperatures by 44%, or because of increased atmospheric pressure, volume could decrease to 0.5,,, decreasing temperatures by 40%. There are 2 unknowns in that formula, and knowing only one of them doesn’t give enough information for a reasonable solution.

February 28, 2017 3:19 pm

And that pressure profile is maintained by — is in equilibrium with — the gravitational energy decrease as one descends . That total energy is what is must be in equilibrium with the radiant energy impinging on the planet .

Chimp
February 27, 2017 7:45 pm

The atmosphere of Mars is also about 96% CO2, like Venus’. But Mars is frigid, more so than just from reduced irradiance. The main difference is its less dense atmosphere.

LarryD
February 27, 2017 10:29 pm

Worth noting, is that the adiabatic lapse rates for Venus (10.4) and Earth (9.8). So where is this huge greenhouse effect? It comes from the different thickness of the atmospheres, Venus has a surface pressure of ~92 bar, and doesn’t get down to Earth’s surface pressure until about 49.5 km altitude.

kendo2016
February 28, 2017 7:35 am

Where is the evidence that the atmosphere of venus is 92 times that of earth.That would make it to be about 1350pounds per square inch .(14.7 psi on earth at stp).yet the weight ,or density of CO2is only about 1.67 x that of air .ok,so the atmosphere extends 2.5 x higher.there fore a higher ‘column ‘of this air .Assuming we increase the altitude by 2.5,&the weight of atmosphere by 1.67, this seems to me to give a figure of 14.7x 1.67 x 2.5 pounds /squ .in.which is 61.3725psi.or 4.175 atmospheres Also the mass ofPLANET venus is about 80 percent of earth ,which must surely reduce its gravitational effect ,which in turn will reduce atmospheric pressure ,&also. the density of a gas is lower at the higher temperatures that are said to occur on venus

ATheoK
February 28, 2017 12:43 pm

“kendo2016 February 28, 2017 at 7:35 am
Where is the evidence”

Where is your calculation for deriving the surface pressure?

Along with your assumptive CO2 density atmospheric ratio of CO2? What did you do?

It looks as if you divided the molecular weight of CO₂ by the molecular weight of N₂ and O₂; added together the ratios and divided by 2. A formula that works for an atmosphere consisting of one molecule each; N₂, O₂, H₂O, Ar, CO₂.

You missed the percentage volumes of Earth’s atmosphere are:
Nitrogen Formula N₂ % Volume 78.08% Mass 28.01
Oxygen Formula O₂ % Volume 20.95% Mass 32.00
Water Formula H₂O % Volume 0 to 4% Mass 18.01
Argon Formula Ar % Volume 0.93% Mass 39.95
Carbon Dioxide Formula CO₂ % Volume 0.04% Mass 44.01
Neon Chem Formula Ne % Volume 0.00% Mass 20.18

Only the atmosphere on Venus is 98% CO₂ @ a molecular weight of 44.01.

Then the surface pressure of that huge column of CO₂ makes for greater density of CO₂ at the surface.

MarkW
February 28, 2017 1:00 pm

Venus has all of it’s oceans in the atmosphere.
Imagine what the pressure of earth’s atmosphere would be if the oceans were to completely evaporate.

February 27, 2017 7:52 pm

At the 1 bar level, the temperature is still quite a bit higher on Venus. Just about exactly what would be expected from the higher solar input.

(A trifle higher than that – but the atmospheric composition at 1 bar on Venus is very different from Earth sea level. Far more aerosols, which retain more of the energy in that band.)

kendo2016
March 1, 2017 12:57 pm

To ,ATheoK,thanykou for your comments .basically ,.by using ‘atmospheres’as a unit .my assumption is that we are comparing the atmosphere of venus to that of earth in those terms . .You ask about my figures .they are all derived from sites on google, about atmosphere or CO2.Yes earths atmosphere is mixed but the overall or combined density of all those gases has been determined at 1.225kg./cubic meter. CO2 is 1.97kg/cu.metre.this is 1.67times that of earth’s air; see wikipedia .You say venus’s atmosphere is 98 percent co2.so . a column of CO2 , of any given height ,would be close to 1.67 times heavier than the same height of earth’s air of the same cross section .?

March 1, 2017 5:08 pm

Pardon me if I am mis-parsing this…

What I am talking about is the point in the atmosphere of Venus where the pressure is the same as at the surface of the Earth (that’s at approximately 50 km above the Venusian surface).

The pressure being the same, means that the mass of the atmosphere above that level is the same in both places.

Now, the composition is very different. The density of the gases above the 50 km line on Venus accomplishes the same pressure with only about 50 more km until you reach effective space – while Earth’s atmosphere requires nearly 100 km.

(The Venusian 1 bar level is just about at the transition between sulfuric acid “haze” and sulfuric acid clouds.)

ATheoK
March 2, 2017 10:48 pm

“kendo2016 March 1, 2017 at 12:57 pm
To ,ATheoK,thanykou for your comments .basically ,.by using ‘atmospheres’as a unit .my assumption is that we are comparing the atmosphere of venus to that of earth in those terms . .You ask about my figures .they are all derived from sites on google, about atmosphere or CO2.Yes earths atmosphere is mixed but the overall or combined density of all those gases has been determined at 1.225kg./cubic meter. CO2 is 1.97kg/cu.metre.this is 1.67times that of earth’s air; see wikipedia .You say venus’s atmosphere is 98 percent co2.so . a column of CO2 , of any given height ,would be close to 1.67 times heavier than the same height of earth’s air of the same cross section .?

My apologies Kendo2016, I missed your response question since it was in a different reply column.

The answer is yes, no, maybe.

The trouble begins with trying to simplify the atmospheric problem to a quick ratio, as in traditional algebra.

Only simplicity fails to represent two thoroughly different atmospheres. It is akin to selecting a moment in time and deciding that all past, present and future are easily represented by that moment in time.

At a specific temperature, at a specific altitude, of a specific Earth’s atmospheric composition; and keeping all parameters equal, your simple ratio holds.

Earth’s atmosphere is relatively mixed, up to approximately 100km (62 miles); above that the atmosphere is more differentiated. A differentiation that continues out through the rest of the atmosphere, 600 plus km (372 plus miles).

A column of atmosphere on Venus is not equal to a column of atmosphere on Earth.

Note the atmospheric molecules on the right:
http://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-large/EarthAtmosphere-2_lg.jpg

Keep in mind that atmospheric density is not a straight line relationship:?w=640
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Writing Observer:
I believe your analysis is correct, but I can not answer the specifics.

talldave2
February 27, 2017 8:06 pm

For a fun exercise, calculate the temperature at the surface of Venus if the atmosphere had the same mass but was composed of 99% argon.

For some bonus fun, calculate the temperature at the surface of Mars if it had its current composition, but the same density at the surface as the Venereal atmosphere.

February 28, 2017 12:33 am

Venereal atmosphere??

venereal
vɪˈnɪərɪəl/

relating to sexual desire or sexual intercourse.
“the venereal act”
relating to venereal disease.
“a steady increase in venereal infection”

ITYM Venusian…:)

talldave2
February 28, 2017 9:29 am

Venusian /vᵻˈnjuːʃən/, Venerean /vᵻˈnɪəriən/, or Venereal may refer to:

Of or relating to the planet Venus

February 27, 2017 8:23 pm

Most heat is transported from planet surfaces by radiation and convection (including convection of latent heat in the case of Earth), not by conduction. The lapse rate in Earth’s atmosphere is about 6.5 degrees K per kilometer on average, or .0065 K per meter. That times .024 W/m-K means about .00016 W/m^2 being transported from Earth’s surface to the top of its troposphere by conduction.

Also, the 750 K surface of Venus radiates about 17,900 W/m^2. Most of that is supplied by downwelling thermal radiation from the effective lower surface of low altitude high pressure CO2 that is not much cooler, and returning to the surface most of the energy that it is getting from the surface.

Rick C PE
February 27, 2017 8:41 pm

Umm, as I recall radiant flux is proportional to the square of the distance. So if Venus is half the distance to the sun relative to earth it would see 4 times the irradiance. That alone would result it Venus being quite a bit warmer.

Rick C PE
February 27, 2017 8:55 pm

Just checked – Venus is 0.723 AU from the sun so it gets (1/(0.723^2) = 1.91) or a bit less than twice the irradiance of earth.

Juan Slayton
February 27, 2017 9:18 pm

You just beat me to it, Rick. Surface area of a sphere is 4(pi)(radius squared). So I would expect a doubling of the radius to quadruple the surface area, and the irradiance of earth to be 4 time that of Venus. But this doesn’t match your checked figure. What am I missing?

Juan Slayton
February 27, 2017 9:22 pm

OK, got that backwards. Should read “…irradiance of Venus to be 4 times that of earth.

richard verney
February 28, 2017 1:39 am

The Albedo of Venus is very different.

Further, Venus rotates very slowly and yet there is all but no diurnal range.

talldave2
February 28, 2017 9:32 am

Sure, but the Venereal surface is also warmer than the Mercurial, and is basically isothermal despite a very slow rotation (i.e. the irradiance only directly affects the equilibrium near the edge of the atmosphere, sort of like our oceans).

talldave2
February 28, 2017 9:39 am

I see richard made the same point above — I think I saw once that the albedo caused the net irradiance to be roughly equal to Earth’s in terms of energy per planetary surface area, but that comparison gets kind of messy because so much of it doesn’t reach the surface anyway.

Keep in mind too the radiative equilibrium has to be a lot different on the day side, yet it barely affects the surface at all (the night isn’t much cooler despite being extremely long). That implies the equilibrium conditions on the day side driven by irradiance are only felt at the top layers of the atmosphere, except on very long time scales.

Bryan A
February 27, 2017 9:31 pm

Well Nick you have definitely proven that you do know S-Q=U A dT (many (climate) scientists, Nye included, don’t know S-Q=U A dT)

Mat
February 27, 2017 9:58 pm

The length of a Venus day is 116d 18h, and that’s with an unstable axes…

richard verney
February 28, 2017 1:41 am

I had not seen your comment before I made a similar point, but I was referring to the Venus night.

Peter Yates
February 27, 2017 10:25 pm

These characteristics of Venus also contribute to its extremely high surface temperatures :
1. Venus (like Mars) does not have a strong magnetic core. Therefore, there aren’t any extensive magnetic fields to help protect the planet (.. not like Earth). Apparently, gases like hydrogen, helium, and oxygen ions, would have been swept away by the solar wind over very long periods of time, leaving the higher-mass molecules like carbon dioxide. (“Venus as a more Earth-like planet”, _Nature_ 450, Nov. 2007.)
2. Venus was left with a very dense atmosphere. It is more than 96% carbon dioxide.
3. The atmosphere’s pressure at the surface is about 92 times more than Earth’s pressure.
4. Venus is considerably closer to the Sun, at about 0.72 of the distance from the Sun to the Earth.
5. The equator rotates at 6.5 km/h or 4 mph. (The Earth’s is about 1,670 km/h or 1,040 mph). Therefore, a Venus day is *very long! Venus takes 243 Earth days to rotate once.
6. Naturally given the above, Venus does not have biomass, or oceans, to absorb some of the CO2, and it does not have a carbon cycle to lock carbon back into the rocks.

Ken Mitchell
February 27, 2017 10:30 pm

G. Harry Stine used to speculate about terraforming Venus with a special strain of blue-green algae. That might still be feasible.

Alan McIntire
February 28, 2017 7:44 am

Venus also has a thick layer of sulfur dioxide clouds. That probably also affects Venerian climate.

talldave2
February 28, 2017 9:53 am

Pretty good, except Venus wasn’t just “left” with a very dense atmosphere, the absence of a carbon cycle had to happen first, and led to carbon accumulation (some believe there were once oceans). Adiabatic heating explains the rest.

Greg
February 27, 2017 11:41 pm

“Venus is half the distance to the sun so its solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense ”

Inverse square law says 4x more intense !

Juan Slayton
February 27, 2017 11:55 pm

Greg,
I tried to make that point just above (9:22 PM), but the numbers didn’t square with Rick’s and I wound up asking what I was missing. Nobody answered, but I belatedly figured it out. Venus is not half the earth’s distance from the sun. Which in fact is what Rick said, but he stated it in AU units and I was not paying attention. Layman’s distances: Venus to sun: 67.2 million miles.
Earth to sun: 92 million miles.

Flyoverbob
February 28, 2017 6:06 am

“Venus is half the distance to the sun so its solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2” I was taught that the power in a radio wave transmission decreases at the square of the distance from the source. It seems to me that the effect on Venus would be at least the square of the effect on earth. Is there something I am missing?

MattS
February 28, 2017 11:01 am

“Is there something I am missing?”

Yes, the fact that the Sun – Venus distance is nearly three quarters, not half the Sun – Earth distance.

ShrNfr
February 28, 2017 6:14 am

Whatever molecular absorption lines may exist are subject to pressure broadening. CO2 on Venus has a much, much greater absorption than CO2 on earth.

Thomas Homer
February 28, 2017 7:39 am

Compare Venus with Mars where each has an atmosphere of 95% CO2.

The warmists’ canard is that the heat trapping capability of the ‘greenhouse gas’ carbon dioxide is logarithmic in that it increases at a decreasing rate. The logarithmic curve continually increases as the percentage of CO2 increases. Since Venus and Mars each have an atmosphere of 95% CO2 then they must be trapping the same amount of heat.

Yet Mars sheds over 200F degrees of heat each night (roughly 12 earth hours) while Venus sheds very little heat when night lasts over 100 earth days. Seems the heat trapping capability is not determined by the percentage of atmospheric CO2 alone.

Are there more terms to the ‘heat trapping is logarithmic’ canard that account for this variance?

MattS
February 28, 2017 11:07 am

What matters for the logarithmic heat trapping, is the total mass of CO2, not it’s percentage of the atmosphere. Both Mars and Venus have roughly the same percentage of CO2, but the mass of their atmospheres is very different.

Venus: 4.8 × 10^20 kg

Mars: 2.5 x 10^16 kg

Venus’s atmosphere is 4 orders of magnitude more massive than Mars’s atmosphere.

Thomas Homer
February 28, 2017 1:55 pm

Matts responds with:
“What matters for the logarithmic heat trapping, is the total mass of CO2, not it’s percentage of the atmosphere.”

Would you like to try again? Total mass is not the answer. That would be dependent upon the size of the planet and how the total mass were distributed. If Jupiter were to have the same total mass of CO2 as Mars, would you expect the same heat trapping capability?

Mars and Earth have relatively the same mass of CO2 distribution, yet Mars sheds 200F degrees each night, ‘trapping’ a significantly different amount of heat.

February 28, 2017 11:38 am

Nicholas Shroeder,
Thanks – but a bit puzzled in your last line to see Brigitte Bardot in there.

Auto

jorgekafkazar
February 27, 2017 7:25 pm

out of touch with reality

Resourceguy
February 28, 2017 6:25 am

for money that is

Ken Mitchell
February 27, 2017 7:26 pm

I’ll give Nye some “cognitive dissonance”; the computer models that are predicting warming and sea level rise DO NOT WORK. Given data from the past, they cannot predict the present.

Really, Bill, even a MechE like yerself ought to know that when the data doesn’t match the model, it’s the MODEL that you throw away, not the DATA.

February 27, 2017 8:55 pm

“Given data from the past, they cannot predict the present.”

Nor when given the data from the present can they hind cast the past.

richard verney
February 28, 2017 1:52 am

The models were tuned circa 2006/2007 based upon the compiled and adjusted temperature data at that time.

However, the temperature of the past, is not today the same as it was. If one looks at the temperature data available in 2006 for the period 1880 to 2005, it is not the same profile as one now gets today, for the period 1880 to 2005, because of the continuous adjustments to past temperatures. So for example, 1998 has been recently cooled to make 2010, and 2016 the warmest years on record. Likewise the 1930s/1940s warm period is getting cooler and cooler.

With every recent adjustment to temperatures, the ‘scientists’ are invalidating the use of the models (not that they have had any use) because they are emphasising that the model is tuned to incorrect data.

Gamecock
February 28, 2017 4:16 am

“the computer models that are predicting warming and sea level rise DO NOT WORK.”

Of course they work. They are designed to predict warming and sea level rise.

February 28, 2017 11:46 am

Gamecock old so
You are right, and nearly cost me a monitor!
But “Of course they work. They are designed to predict warming and sea level rise.” is a very narrow sense of work, as I know you know!

Appreciated.
Auto

February 27, 2017 7:29 pm

Those are just two of the moronic imbeciles who believe in that BS. Edwin Markey, Suzuki, Cullen, Gore, Hansen & Kerry are all buffoons trying to tow this stupidity. It’s disgustingly asinine!

Tom Halla
February 27, 2017 7:34 pm

There was an interview with Bill Nye on Tucker Carlson’s Fox show tonight (Monday). I think Carlson should have been better briefed on the subject of climate change (to ask even more embarrassing questions), but Nye came across as a filibustering fool who could only repeat talking points.

asybot
February 27, 2017 7:44 pm

That wasn’t filibustering. That “interview” ( if you want to call it that) was a show of being purposely being ignorant. Nye was not ever going to answer a question. he might be a “science” guy in the eyes of 5 year olds but to me he is a bold faced liar!

Chris in Australia
February 27, 2017 7:56 pm

Here is the interview.

R. Shearer
February 27, 2017 8:28 pm

Here is my hypothesis, maybe, just maybe, Bill Nye who is not a scientist but who says, “we in science community…” in just a big liar, or maybe just deluded (probably both).

davetherealist
February 27, 2017 8:28 pm

Bill Nye the most retarded guy on TV.

R. Shearer
February 27, 2017 8:37 pm

Sorry for my grammatical errors, I’m just so excited that Nye is saying that the next ice age is not going to happen and I was so looking forward to it.

February 27, 2017 9:58 pm

I laughed all the way through this B. Nye drubbing by Tucker, who had B. Nye tripping all over the mis-information universe. (I can also see why B. Nye doesn’t wear a long tie like President Trump.)

If this is the face of “climate science” or “global warming” or whatever they’re calling it now, we have nothing to fear but stupidity.

Oops… apparently we have a lot to fear.

SC
February 28, 2017 11:43 am

Oh my god… his stupidity and ignorance absolutely screams.

How can his mother let him go on news interviews like this?

February 27, 2017 8:04 pm

I saw it, too. I agree that Carlson could have been more prepared. Nye’s argument for AGW seemed only to be “…..because the warming has occurred so quickly, it must therefore be man caused.” Really ? Well, just how is that so? Nye never could explain. This is the absolute poorest argument that I have ever heard of as a reason for AGW. Carlson was unprepared to counter this poorly thought out argument. BTW , read Alan Carlin’s book, “Environmentalism Gone Mad”. Carlin has degrees in economics and science and retired from the EPA after 39 years of service.

February 27, 2017 10:04 pm

Here’s an example of “quick” as a comparison:

One paleobotanist did a study of the alpine soil profiles in Switzerland and found that the switch from temperate zone pollen to that found in Ice Age conditions took just two years.

Another researcher studied the sediments in several lakes in Great Britain and found that the switch from temperate to an Ice Age assemblage happened in as little as 9 months!

Bill Nye is apparently uneducated about some geological processes.

Alan McIntire
February 28, 2017 8:23 am

If Carlson had been better prepared, he could have responded with something like

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

“As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability. Records of these changes are especially clear in high-resolution ice cores. Ice cores can preserve histories of local climate (snowfall, temperature), regional (wind-blown dust, sea salt, etc.), and broader (trace gases in the air) conditions, on a common time scale, demonstrating synchrony of climate changes over broad regions.”

I suppose the unusual recent climate stability has been the cause for the spread of civilization and the rapid growth of the human population.

Pamela Gray
February 28, 2017 5:37 pm

Nye forgot the IPCC working group report that natural climate change can be very rapid and steep.

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/074.htm

February 27, 2017 8:50 pm

THE END IS NYE !!!

graphicconception
February 28, 2017 5:51 am

🙂

oeman50
February 28, 2017 9:35 am

Good one, Max.

TG
February 27, 2017 7:34 pm

Two peas in a loony tune pod!

Pop Piasa
February 27, 2017 8:47 pm
Joel O’Bryan
February 27, 2017 7:37 pm

An attempt at climate propaganda by Dumber and Even Dumber.

Al French
February 27, 2017 7:37 pm

“It’s not that hated to make a better battery.
Well, Bill, go for it. Make yourself a billionaire while you’re at it.

MarkW
February 28, 2017 1:06 pm

Smarter people than Nye (about 97% of the population) have spent years and millions of other people’s dollars trying to make this better battery.

Roger Dewhurst
February 27, 2017 7:38 pm

“If you put in double or triple glazing, you will save a lot of money, for free” Do these bozos think of the amortization costs of the double or triple glazing? They may be double or triple the cost of the power saved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike Smith
February 27, 2017 7:45 pm

They plan to fix that… by using renewables to drive up the cost of power. Sigh!

Tom Halla
February 27, 2017 7:46 pm

That reminds me of the blonde joke about the contractor trying to collect on a window replacement job, noting that no payments had been made, with the response of “but he salesman said they would pay for themselves!”

February 27, 2017 9:31 pm

Roger: “Triple the cost.” No they aren’t. You are adding a pane of glass (and an air space and isolation barrier) to an expensive frame. About 15% added cost. Save 25% to 30% on heating per year. You must live in a warm climate. I haven’t owned or lived in a house in Canada without double glazed windows for going on 50 years. (I think they only make double/triple glazed up here. Double glazing is the minimum for residential construction.) I am sitting in front of my wood fire looking out my double glazed low e argon filled windows, fir trimmed aluminum clad with double insulated blinds for night as I type having just come in from 15 below C heading for -20 or more tonight. Sure, the tropics don’t need double glazing but it is sure useful up here in the Great White North when it gets to 30 or so below and even the double glazing gets icy at the bottom. (Triple glazing from my heat loss calculations is indeed a waste of money but double glazing and low e has a quick payback especially if you have lots of windows and with the right design you can have solar gain on sunny days.) The US recommends double glazing for all states except Hawaii. So why Bill Nye would be coming up with this at this point seems about 20 years late.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/oee.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pdf/equipment/windows-door-skylights-e-web-version.pdf

Don’t get me wrong, I think Bill Nye is an ixxxt! Embarassed for him. Given he is linked up with Bernie, it is pretty clear that his education didn’t do much for him. Fifth grade thinkers working together.

(Sweden specifies triple glazing.)

With apologies – a hot button I guess. (I also have R65 walls and a heat pump.) Bring on some of that warming. 😉

Wayne Delbeke, typing with frost bitten fingers.

February 28, 2017 12:20 pm

Triple glazing can – also – help with noise reduction, notably on busy urban main roads, with emergency vehicles, and large lorries/trucks on imperfect surfaces.

Auto

Hobbitess
March 2, 2017 6:57 am

If you’re talking new homes, the difference is not that much, but for people in older homes, replacing old windows with double or triple glazed is a sizeable sum — and that’s not even matching sizes, which can kick the price up even higher. (We picked up a beat up old Victorian for a song after the housing bubble popped, and replacing all the curved windows in the two story tower there with modern multi-glazed ones would just about cost more than the house did!) Assuming the older window is in good shape, the home owner would be comparing the price of the new window to spending nothing, or to the cost of a new set of storm windows, meaning it would be well over three times the cost. Forty percent of owner-occupied homes were built before 1970 — and, of course, it is the poor who are mostly in the older homes. I would guess that rentals tend much older yet.

As with Nye’s electric car comment, if we framed laws to force everyone to do what he wants, those who would suffer the most would be the poor who prefer to live in homes. I’ve known people who rented an apartment in an older home and ended up buying the whole thing off the elderly owner; that would not be possible for any of them if the older homes had to be upgraded as Nye suggests.

February 28, 2017 12:38 am

On the scale of things double and triple glazing are not high on the cost benefit curve.

Domestically the most important thing to do is insulate the roof.
After that comes draught proofing, in cold climates.
Then wall insulation, then floor insulation and finally double glazing and upgrading boilers.

LED lighting works. CFLS dont, really

February 28, 2017 10:00 am

Leo – everything you said is true. But if you have a wall with a peak of 13 feet and 40 feet of floor to ceiling windows and another 100+ linear feet of window walls of significant height, good windows are quite important. My house would require a tremendous amount of heat without good windows where I live. I agree with your roof and wall insulation comment – I have 12 inches of fibreglass in the ceiling, 10 inch walls above grade with three types of insulation and well sealed walls and insulated heated floors on two levels and basement walls with 7 inches of styrofoam plus an air gap and foil insulation on the inside below the drywall. Is it worth it? Well, I probably cut a lot less wood than I would have to otherwise and at my age, that is definitely a benefit.

I have some LED lighting and a box of removed CFL’s in the basement that were useless – they don’t even turn on outside when it is cold, horrible WiFi/radio interference with flicker and noise especially during voltage drops.

If you minimize window area in a house, then for sure, window heat loss is a not a big issue. But with lots of windows, windows become both a benefit and a cost – heat loss versus solar gain. Insulating curtains can reduce heat loss and take advantage of solar gain, appropriately located skylights and opening lower level windows can provide natural ventilation and cooling in summer.

Remember the days of big thick floor length draperies in houses? Heat loss control.

MarkW
February 28, 2017 1:07 pm

I called up a local window company and asked them if they would please install some of these free windows that Nye is talking about.
Their reply to me wasn’t very polite.

Daniel Mannix
February 27, 2017 7:45 pm

Good point–If renewables make economic sense they will survive and prosper without subsidies–a level playing field is all that is required–without “social costs” factored in, sustainability runs off the rails

davidmhoffer
February 27, 2017 7:48 pm

Nye is hoping the discovery of life on another world will unite humanity

The only thing that could possibly unite humanity is a common enemy. One wonders what Nye is hoping for.

Pierre DM
February 28, 2017 9:17 am

I think you have nailed the replacement for CAGW. Contact with aliens who have ordered us to unite under income redistribution and socialism. Again faith based with a non disprovable claim, same outcome, open to science adjustments.
Maybe Bill Nye is letting the cat out of the bag.

JohnKnight
February 28, 2017 2:41 pm

Could be the “aliens” warn that they experienced CAGW . .

February 28, 2017 1:24 pm

Is Bill Nye the common enemy?
He wasn’t that much of a Citrullus. Was he??

Auto

Paul Penrose
February 27, 2017 7:48 pm

I always laugh when someone says “It’s not that hard”, but they don’t know the first thing about it. In fact, that’s usually the first sign of their total ignorance on the subject. The only thing more dangerous than an idiot is and idiot that somehow gets famous and starts thinking they are smart. Bill Nye and Bernie Sanders: talk about the blind leading the blind. It boggle the mind. Their combined stupidity can suck all the intelligence out of a room.

February 27, 2017 7:58 pm

Whenever someone says that, I ask them “So when are you going into production?”

So, when are we seeing the “Nye Battery” that will solve all of the problems with “renewables?”

noaaprogrammer
February 27, 2017 9:37 pm

It’s not that hard. All you have to do is build a time-traveling machine; go into the future, and bring back the technology to the present. Calvin & Hobbs were always doing this.

February 28, 2017 12:24 am

Been there, done that.

Sigh, inflation got me. Starbucks had tacked three zeroes on the end of their menu prices – and it was still lousy coffee…

Leonard Lane
February 27, 2017 10:38 pm

Perpetual motion machines are not all that hard either. Just get rid of friction. Bill Nye out to completely understand and believe that statement.

BFL
February 28, 2017 7:29 am

“and it was still lousy coffee…”
Well wait until they hire those 10,000 mostly Muslim refugees, then the taste might improve more to liking:

asybot
February 27, 2017 7:51 pm

During the Tucker “Interview” he just did what they all do: Don’t answer questions, talk over top of the questioner and trying to throw out as many half finished “counter” arguments as he could, He started on SLR didn’t finish his sentence, then there was something about Montane being under water, didn’t finish the sentence. He stumbled over Ice age time spans, talked about England being in a warm period around 1750 AD , didn’t mention the Roman warm period and not a word about the Little Ice Age.
The guy was so far of the map a flat earther would have been proud!.

asybot
February 27, 2017 7:54 pm

Argh Montana and Colorado,( then something about a continental sea oh that could have been anywhere from a thousand to millions of years ago) and on it went. I doubt if I could make sense out of it even if I watched it 5 times.

noaaprogrammer
February 27, 2017 9:43 pm

Back in the days of my grandparents, high schools and colleges had debating classes and teams. Students had to learn how to debate both sides of an issue regardless of which side they believed. The mental capabilities of a few generations back is sadly lacking in the new drive to “Group Think.”

February 27, 2017 10:07 pm

As a geologist I can verify that they were taking absolute nonsense.

Tom Halla
February 27, 2017 8:12 pm

What you described is what I meant by “filibustering”.

TinyCO2
February 27, 2017 8:02 pm

You don’t need to judge their grip on the science when their grasp of renewables and energy saving is so weak. There are many countries well ahead of the US in trying to reduce CO2 and the only effective way is nuclear. Double glazing, solar panels and the rest are like trying to bail out a boat with a teaspoon. How many countries have to fail for people like Nye and Sanders to grasp that it’s really, really difficult and expensive.

February 27, 2017 9:34 pm

“How many countries have to fail for people like Nye and Sanders to grasp that it’s really, really difficult and expensive.”

All of them. That’s the goal.

Darrell Demick (home)
February 27, 2017 11:22 pm

I really wish that you were wrong, planebrad, but, ….. , +1.

David J Wendt
February 27, 2017 10:00 pm

Actually the USA has been much more successful at reducing emissions of CO2 than than the countries of the developed world that enthusiastically embraced the various international agreements to reverse emissions. While the true believer nations pursued wind turbines and solar panels to little avail, the USA was aided by petroprenuers who honed horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies to the point that the price of natural gas went from $13-$15 down to $2-$3, which was more significant than the concerted enmity of the Obaminions in moving NG past coal as the leading fuel for electrical generation in the country. The reduced emissions from burning NG thus allowed the USA to achieve greater reductions than all those virtue signaling yahoos who spent most of their efforts bragging about how “sustainable” it all was.

TinyCO2
February 28, 2017 3:37 am

Not really. The US started from a much higher CO2 output level than many others and while coal to gas looks impressive, it still leaves the US a long way from the targets Nye would impose. In some ways it’s those early falls that encourage countries that serious CO2 reduction is possible. They see Germany even cut back its nuclear but fail to realise that it relies on French Nuclear and foreign coal generation when it runs short. It also uses other’s networks when they have too much renewable power. They look at the UK and forget that the UK now imports many high CO2 products.

Chris Hanley
February 27, 2017 11:00 pm

Bjorn Lomborg has demonstrated that even if all the signatories to the Paris Accord, particularly US EU and China, implemented in full their commitments the effect on the theoretic projected GAT would be unmeasurable and the measures required (theoretically using the IPCC’s own modelling) would be far greater:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/paris-pledges-wishful-thinking-not-optimism-bjorn-lomborg/news-story/e10224e5650be093303b0b2639ae7e38

February 27, 2017 8:04 pm

Umm, when the “visors” come to eat us like cattle, will our vegans protect us?

February 27, 2017 8:05 pm

visitors. Poor comment editing facility.

February 27, 2017 8:07 pm

Severian
February 27, 2017 8:36 pm

Revenge of the nerds…

Mark T
February 27, 2017 9:42 pm

Nerds are typically intelligent.

Bryan A
February 27, 2017 10:20 pm

Say…aren’t those the beanies from Hot Dog on a Stick?

drednicolson
February 28, 2017 1:14 pm

Intelligence, eccentric interests, social awkwardness.

Well, they’re two-out-of-3…

JohnKnight
February 28, 2017 6:51 pm

I think IQ is often overrated as a measure of intelligence . . It’s an indication of potential intelligence, but real world problems don’t often present themselves as multiple choice questions . .

To illustrate, once upon a time I was badly needing a job, while attending school, and a friend was a chemistry major and about to quit a “lab assistant” job at a local company. He said I should apply, but I was a philosophy major and had taken only one college level chemistry class . He said the company hired chem students to do grunt work that required little understanding of actual chemistry, basically an errand boy/clean up lackey . . said his boss mostly just wanted someone who would stay for a couple years, and I could tell him I was changing my major of whatever if he asked about my chem schoolin’ . .

I get called in for an interview, nervous about being asked about chemistry stuff, so I was heartened when the secretary told me they always first gave an IQ test to prospective employees . . Cool, I thought, if I did well on that they might let the lack of chemistry know-how slide . .

So, she slaps down the test and says she’d be back in thirty minutes. I get all serious about the test and come up with a brilliant plan to answer all the questions I am sure about first, then go back to ponder the ones that were tougher. It worked great in that some of the tough ones were easier after I had gotten a better feel for the “game”, and I answered all but a few with total confidence, and still had a few minutes to give those another think . . actually finishing the last one as the door opened . .

She said; “Time’s finished”, and I said; “So am I”, with a smile as I put down the pencil . . And that’s when things went south, so to speak. She looked at me with wide eyes, and said; “Really? No one ever finishes.” . . and my heart sank . . she left me to feel stupid for awhile . .

Sure enough, instead of one potential lower level boss who wanted a reliable helper, I was soon ushered into the big boss’s office where four guys in suits were waiting . . The boss introduces himself and the others, all respectful like, and then (essentially) says; “Well, to tell you the truth we’re kinda wondering why you’re interested in this job. It’s really not what you’d call a challenging position…”

It was a very awkward interview, and I wasn’t the up and coming chemistry hot shot they apparently were hoping for at that point … just a high IQ still unemployed dope ; )

Pop Piasa
February 27, 2017 8:42 pm

Sherman and Peabody!

Bryan A
February 27, 2017 10:22 pm

Or

Bryan A
February 27, 2017 10:28 pm
February 28, 2017 4:31 pm

My sense of propeller hats are in line with this: In the late 1940s, science fiction fanzine artist Ray Nelson (himself still in high school) adopted the use of the propeller beanie as emblematic shorthand for science fiction fandom. This was in self-mockery of the popular image of fans as childish and concerned with ephemera (such as science fiction). … In the 21st century, propeller beanies are rarely seen on the street, and are primarily worn for satirical or comedic purposes.

NOTE: “science fiction”, “satirical”, “comedic” (i.e., clowns)

David C.
February 27, 2017 8:12 pm

Neither of them have any idea what they are talking about.

R. Shearer
February 27, 2017 8:20 pm

It’s not that hard. Why it’s so easy we should do nothing until 2099, then switch everything over to clean, free, green power.

Eric Simpson
February 27, 2017 8:57 pm

Yes. We can party now like it’s 2099!

Jimmy Haigh
February 27, 2017 8:26 pm

Liberals are stupefyingly ignorant.

February 27, 2017 10:03 pm

Lie-berals. There’s a difference.

Eric Simpson
February 27, 2017 8:51 pm

Nye talking about how every roof should be covered in solar panels

Firefighters say that rooftop solar panels can cause roofs to collapse faster during fires.

Rooftop solar panels a fire hazard.

SOLAR PANELS RISKY DURING FIRES: According to Lt. McAllister, the added weight from solar panels could force firefighters to go on the defense, rather than attack a fire from the inside. Limited Access for Vertical Ventilation Firefighters say solar panels limit access to do vertical ventilation, which could impact the time it would take to put out a fire. “When we do vertical ventilation, it’s to reduce the fire and smoke spread throughout the building or structure,” explained McAllister. Electrocution Risk “If we were to throw a ladder to the roof and the ladder would puncture the solar panels,” said McAllister, “that could cause an electrocution to the members who were putting the ladders on the roof.” http://modernfirebehavior.com/solar-panels-risky-during-fires/

Snarling Dolphin
February 27, 2017 8:54 pm

Thanks for the summary Eric. I can no longer suffer such fools.

charles nelson
February 27, 2017 9:00 pm

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Insulating your home and installing double glazing just make it more comfortable and easier to heat or cool. There’s nothing ridiculous about that.

February 27, 2017 9:24 pm

Depending on where, when, and why. It is definitely cheaper at my farm house to cut many more cords of firewood from the woodlots than to replace all the double sided aluminum framed circa 1960s windows (glass on one side, insect screen on the other).. That is why owners, rather than governments, should decide. It is my house, my windows, and my woodlots. And my firewood labor. So Feds, bug off.

February 27, 2017 9:37 pm

If you can afford it, that’s most definitely true. However, that’s the sticking point. Nye thinks everyone has a pile of cash laying around to do such things.

Paul Penrose
February 28, 2017 7:16 am

Charles,
It all depends on your situation. About 10 years ago I started on a long project of improving the energy efficiency of my home. After five years had passed I had managed to replace several of the larger windows and the HVAC system. I had received an estimate to add insulation to the attic (blown in). But then we decided to move, so we stopped that activity. There is no doubt that any further improvements would have been great for the new owners, but there is no way we could have recovered those costs in the few years we expected to remain in that house. And we would not have recovered them at the time of sale either. People just don’t value those kind of improvements enough to justify the cost. Instead we put in new flooring and paint. Buyers value that more than new insulation. In the new house we built, we have energy efficient windows, high R rated walls, plenty of insulation in the attic, heat pump, etc. because we plan on owning it for a long time.

So things like new windows and adding insulation can make sense, but not universally. People like Nye push this stuff like it’s a panacea, and would make it a government mandate if they could. That’s what makes them idiots. Plus he knows about as much about science as my three year old grandson.

Steve Case
February 27, 2017 9:01 pm

The first hobgoblin Nye brought up was sea level. Indeed, the specter of the oceans swallowing up all the coastal cities around world is very scary indeed. And most of the time here on Watts Up With That and other blogs sea level is given very short shrift. Well at least I think so.

Well at least Nye didn’t bring up the Methane is 86 times more potent than CO2 bullshit.

February 27, 2017 9:02 pm

But the left doesn’t seem to accept the free market and instead is always trying to circumvent it. Of course, in the long run, this never works.

JBom
February 27, 2017 9:07 pm

“Act of Desperation.” Their End is “Nye”.

Ha ha

brians356
February 27, 2017 9:13 pm

Uh, Chevy makes a “Bolt”? How about “Volt”.

TonyL
February 27, 2017 10:12 pm

Chevy Bolt, new for 2017.
http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html
Check out the $7,500 tax credit. Your tax dollars at work. TonyL Reply to brians356 February 27, 2017 10:27 pm Hey Everybody: Let’s Have Fun! The new Chevy Bolt is internet enabled, From the Chevy website: myChevrolet Mobile App You can remotely start your vehicle, lock and unlock the doors, even warm up your car while it’s charging — all with the tap of a finger. The available myChevrolet Mobile App™ also lets you monitor charge status at any time, even when you’re not in your vehicle. You can find charging stations, view diagnostic information and set parking reminders from virtually anywhere. It’s just one more example of Bolt EV technology working for you. The word around the Web is that if you sell the car on the used car market, you still have cell phone and internet access to it. The car is smart, but not smart enough to know it has been sold. Best, your access works no matter where the car ends up, anywhere in the country. FUN! Reply to TonyL February 28, 2017 10:03 am So, what’s the estimated MTBH — mean time between hack-attacks? mkelly Reply to brians356 February 28, 2017 7:17 am Better he drive this Bolt. https://www.yamahamotorsports.com/cruiser-touring/models/bolt-r-spec He would enjoy life more. Pamela Gray February 27, 2017 9:16 pm Interesting questions prompted by Nye’s contentions of human delayed ice age, and northern advancing crops. Question: Would we be in an ice age now if it were not for humans? Answer: Uhhhhh…thank you? Question: Would Northern countries not be able to produce wine grapes were it not for humans? Answer: Errrrrr…thank you? Paul Nevins February 27, 2017 9:16 pm So many errors. Nine minutes of bias and lousy scientific method or is it open dishonesty? Bill Nye damages the publics understanding of science and the scientific method every time I hear him. Dead wrong on the historical rate of change but then he isn’t concerned with what the actual evidence says because for him it’s a religion. Funniest part is his projecting cognitive dissonance on others and defining it as exactly the thing he is demonstrating. He describes it as being caused by evidence conflicting with agenda. Reply to Paul Nevins February 27, 2017 11:33 pm ” projecting cognitive dissonance on others and defining it as exactly the thing he is demonstrating” Projection is a classic disinformation / propaganda technique. Accuse others of what you are doing to discredit them in advance of their statements : Poisoning the Well. Paul Nevins Reply to Paul Nevins February 28, 2017 9:37 am Well, it should result in learning. But, for far too many people especially those with strong political agendas it doesn’t result in learning. Instead it results in anger. February 27, 2017 9:18 pm The latest PSMSL tide gauge updates show the US West Coast sea level readings are lower for 2016 than 2015, and that the highest sea level for the West Coast remains 1983, which was about four inches higher than now. All the panic talk about rising sea level doesn’t’t agree with tide gauge observation records world wide. Sea level at San Francisco has risen less than seven inches in 1855, a period of 161 years, and the rate of increase per century is only 4.25 inches. As would be expected, although SF Bay Area scientists and journalists have easy access to the longest tide gauge record in the Western Hemisphere, they ignore it and predict an increase of five feet by 2100. To achieve that increase, the sea level rate of rise would have to suddenly jump to rates not seen since the rapid ice sheet melt that ended the last glacial period over 10,000 years ago. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/10.php Steve Case Reply to majormike1 February 28, 2017 4:55 am BINGO! Yes, claiming that there’s a sea level rise disaster coming to the West is total bullshit, but the news media out there runs a steady drone of what this that and the other community and organization is doing to fight sea level rise. Lazy reporters are spoon fed obvious lies from the purveyors of the fake news (Bullshit) and simply regurgitate it in their stories. Eric Simpson February 27, 2017 9:25 pm With renewables consumers are screwed over, businesses are screwed over, and the taxpayers are screwed over … everybody is screwed over. Plus the environment is screwed over, especially with wind. Renewables are a rare lose lose lose lose. Nobody wins with renewables. It’s complete idiocy. http://3jrjps1t0ztwsakr03fp3bhy.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/b2ap3_large_Screenshot-from-2016-01-17-09303_20160202-215701_1.png richard verney Reply to Eric Simpson February 28, 2017 2:00 am Europe is crippling itself. Crazy.The loss of jobs and higher welfare bills are a real drag on the economies. The reason why Europe has had such difficulty in shrugging off the financial crash and resultant depression is essentially threefold. First, the welfare state is unaffordable, second high energy costs, and third too large a state/public sector coupled with too much government interference and regulation on businesses. The state/public sector does not earn revenue and is simply a parasite on those that do. It needs drastic ally cutting back. Europe badly needs to alter its energy policy and open up fracking. drednicolson Reply to Eric Simpson February 28, 2017 12:51 pm A world where nobody wins seems to be what the progressives ultimately want, because losing hurts peoples’ precious feewings. Tax the successful to buy bread and games for the failures (after quietly skimming off the top to line their own pockets). MarkW Reply to Eric Simpson February 28, 2017 1:04 pm Economics says that to get more of something you subsidize it. To get less of something you tax it. Liberals want to tax work and subsidize laziness. Is it any surprise that socialism always fails? Mike Maguire February 27, 2017 9:31 pm Bill Nye the climate expert…………who didn’t even understand the ideal gas law. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2015/01/bill-nye-drops-ball-on-deflategate.html He uses his tv scientist persona to present extreme political views on climate science…..a realm that he has no understanding of. He has a repertoire of 1,000 convincing soundbites on catastrophic global warming(human caused) climate change that he repeats which give the illusion that he understands this topic. Great actor and communicator. Not so good on authenticity and in some realms, like climate science very bad. ossqss February 27, 2017 9:33 pm talldave2 February 27, 2017 9:45 pm O/T but this paper is interesting, probably already familiar to many here: WAS AGRICULTURE IMPOSSIBLE DURING THE PLEISTOCENE BUT MANDATORY DURING THE HOLOCENE? A CLIMATE CHANGE HYPOTHESIS http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/AgOrigins_2_12_01.pdf Title pretty much says it all. I was told as an undergrad in Anthro that humans didn’t farm because they had never seen anyone do it, but that reasoning always seemed spurious — people are always trying new stuff and hunger is a strong problem-solving motivator. Reply to talldave2 February 27, 2017 10:40 pm This agricultural study is a great paper Thanks for linking it. Chris Hanley February 27, 2017 9:48 pm Professionally bow ties are worn by only gynaecologists and clowns. TonyL February 27, 2017 9:53 pm Bill Nye is absolutely correct in all the issues he presented. I am just not sure exactly what planet he was talking about. It most certainly was not Earth, of course. Also, it could not be any planet in the Orion cluster or any in the Vega system. The rest, I do not know about. Hat Tip to Robert Kernodle: For the great picture of Sanders and Nye with their Interstellar Propulsion Units. RockyRoad Reply to TonyL February 27, 2017 10:10 pm ….notice how both have very thin lips. Is there something about men without lips that reminds of of lizards? TonyL Reply to RockyRoad February 27, 2017 10:33 pm Aha! Reptilians, I should have known. drednicolson Reply to RockyRoad February 28, 2017 1:29 pm Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar might describe them as being “of the lean and hungry look. They think too much; such men are dangerous.” DDP February 27, 2017 10:01 pm Nye talking about how every roof should be covered in solar panels – “its not that hard to create a grid which can accept that energy” . Nye thinks some engineer should just create a better battery. “Its not that hard”. So why haven’t you come up the simple answer to these issues then Bill if it’s so easy to solve them? This claim from a guy who fakes the result of simple experiments destined to fail because he’s doesn’t know how things actually work and can’t work out why they don’t work, and doesn’t care if they work as long as people are dumb enough to believe him. Why people keep giving this professional douchnozzle work escapes me, drednicolson Reply to DDP February 28, 2017 1:32 pm Some peers of mine once referred to this as “Appeal to Just”. Brooks Hurd February 27, 2017 11:21 pm Nye says, that without human influence, wine worthy grapes could not be grown in Britain. Oddly, the Romans did not have any problems growing wine worthy grapes in Britain. To hear Nye talk, it seems as if he believes that the temperature has increased by 5 – 10 degrees since the mid-19th Century. Nye told Tucker Carlson that Man was responsible for 100% of the recent acceleration in warming. Errors in the measurements overwhelm the acceleration that Nye is referencing. It seems to me that Nye is not used to answering questions from people who do not agree with him since he was providing answers which were flimsy at best. Johann Wundersamer February 28, 2017 12:38 am “If we ignore climate, we’ll build seawalls – the developing world doesn’t have the resources to build seawalls.” Is Bernie Sanders sure – who votes for Bernie Sanders / occupy Wallstreet / can afford to follow up: “If you put in double or triple glazing, you will save a lot of money, for free” Nye talking about how he drives a Chevy Bolt – wants to electrify all ground transportation. Chevy Bolt is affordable, because it only costs$40,000

Nye talking about how every roof should be covered in solar panels – “its not that hard to create a grid which can accept that energy”.

And again that wishfull ‘scientific’ thinking:

Nye thinks some engineer should just create a better battery. “Its not that hard”.

marty
February 28, 2017 12:45 am

Mostly nonsense. Only some points in renewable energy. My question is: How can Bill Nye be made convinced that he is wrong?

willhaas
February 28, 2017 12:53 am

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer and not a climate scientist. According to the alarmists he does not have the expertise to make a presentation regarding climate.

Pamela Gray
February 28, 2017 5:55 am

My guess small engine repair?

February 28, 2017 10:28 am

I almost feel sorry for Bill Nye.

Read his Wikipedia file – sad, funny, entertaining and a bit enlightening. The script: Leonardo D as an engineer aspiring to be an actor.

February 28, 2017 10:29 am
Martin A
February 28, 2017 12:54 am

Global warming has caused Bill Nye’s neck to shrink (see the photo). Or his shirt collars to become three sizes too large. There is the proof that climate change is real.

Mike McMillan
February 28, 2017 6:51 am

He’s from whatever planet the climate models accurately represent, so it’s okay.

marianomarini
February 28, 2017 3:06 am

Nye talking about how every roof should be covered in solar panels

I’m not a climate scientist but I wonder if someone as calculate the lost of reflected solar energy due to solar panel absorption?
Reasoning like Nye can we say that we are in danger of freezing?

marty
February 28, 2017 4:30 am

@marianomarini :
> I wonder if someone as calculate the lost of reflected solar energy due to solar panel absorption?<
Perhaps it's a cure for urban heat island effect ? 🙂

co2islife
February 28, 2017 3:45 am

This article highlights a Bill Nye Al Gore Experiment. I wonder if he is still doing it after it was do thoroughly debunked?
Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/climate-science-on-trial-confirmed-mythbusters-busted-practicing-science-sophistry/

co2islife
February 28, 2017 3:47 am

Bill Nye thinks Fox News Anchors “know better” about climate change – he thinks prominent skeptics are lying about their true position on climate change.

Tell that to the Judge:
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 28, 2017 4:53 am

Bill Nye wants to convince President Trump renewables make economic sense.

Trump is not a scientist and Nye is neither an economist nor a businessman. If Nye wants to convince Trump of the case for renewable energy, he will need to supply the kind of numbers a businessman expects to see. I don’t think Nye can do that because so far nobody has without either claiming a high indirect cost for CO2 emissions or projecting a pending crash in fuel production.

If anyone can show renewables are cheaper, we can just skip the effort of convincing people that CO2 is bad. And if someone can do that, they don’t even need to convince President Trump; take the case to any electric utility currently planning to build a new generating plant.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 28, 2017 7:31 am

“Bill Nye wants to convince President Trump renewables make economic sense.”

Great comment Alan. If renewables make economic sense why does any government or politician need convincing? Just build it and make money!

I think this attitude demonstrates just how much these types like Nye and Sanders think of government truly as Mom and Dad who must give their permission and guide every aspect of your life. This renewable argument shows that in fact they can little conceive of any action or aspect of life independent of the state.

Flyoverbob
February 28, 2017 6:21 am

Its the Bernie and Son Show! I was going to make a comparison to Sanford and Son, but the were actually trying for comedy.

James in Perth
February 28, 2017 7:11 am

All I can say is THANK YOU for saving me the time and effort of sorting through their BS!

February 28, 2017 7:15 am

Both Bernie Sanders and Bill Nye are hard-core anti-nuclear power. Hard-core as in immune to reason and, essentially, politically motivated. Hardly surprising they are renewable muppets, but also politically inept. As they say: “if you want to act on man-made climate warming and against nuclear power then you are pro-blackout”.

February 28, 2017 8:03 am

What they are actually out of touch with science. Bill “The Science Guy” Nye thinks science is settled. Nye would be hard-pressed to define science.

vboring
February 28, 2017 8:13 am

$37k (which is what Bolts actually cost) –$7.5k Federal Subsidy – $5k Colorado Subsidy –$9k fuel costs over vehicle life (150k miles, 50mpg, $3/gal gas compared to free electricity provided by many employers) –$4.5k much lower maintenance requirements ($300/yr for 15 years) =$11k. Far and away the cheapest new car you can buy when you include all of the subsidies and side benefits.

Or you can just buy a used Leaf for $6-10k or used Volt for$10-15k.

Forget their CO2 claims. Electric vehicles are just great cars. The only regular maintenance item is the tires.

Roger Knights
February 28, 2017 2:18 pm

” free electricity provided by many employers”

I doubt that many employers do now, or will continue to do if demand for their free electricity grows.

“– $4.5k much lower maintenance requirements ($300/yr for 15 years) = $11k” Not so, if maintenance includes the cost of new batteries. Dan Tauke February 28, 2017 8:13 am Working in the window industry, I know that the payback for Triple glazing is often 2 decades or more depending on what the base case is (double glazing in this case). Technically it has a positive return if your windows last that long, but relative to what else you could invest your money in it is a negative return, so it is very misleading to point people to high efficiency windows. Using opportunity cost it never pays back on a pure cost savings basis. Greens want people to reduce their carbon footprint by reducing their net worth, which is commendable as long as you are truthful about the cost/benefit…….which they aren’t. K. Kilty Reply to Dan Tauke February 28, 2017 10:54 am Good comment. February 28, 2017 8:17 am Cognitive dissonance is when you believe one thing but say another. Skeptics don’t believe and say they don’t (CD is actually most likely seen on the side of proclaimed believers, not skeptics. People who don’t believe are going along because of “consensus” and bullying. Skeptics are the pariahs, not the believers.). There is NO cognitive dissonance in most skepticism. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological defense mechanism. If these two know as much about climate as psychology, that’s a big zero between them. (Their comment on double or triple glazing windows saving money for free indicates neither can do math, either. Or they know the window fairy.) The utter lack of science—comparing wireless to wired as if it were the same. Wind turbines are free once up—guess paying people to fix them and take care of the wind plant is paid for by the wind fairy. Hoping aliens save us. Hobbitess Reply to Sheri March 2, 2017 8:14 am Wikipedia gives my understanding of the term — “In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, when performing an action that contradicts those beliefs, ideas, and values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values.” That said, I think Sheri makes a valid point that, when it comes to global warming, there’s more cognitive dissonance (by her definition and by Wikipedia’s) on the global warmist side. Some people are just going with the crowd on the global warming thing and can easily ignore that cognitive dissonance because it isn’t something they feel passionate about one way or the other (Sheri’s definition). But there also seems to be a lot of people who desperately want to believe, to the point where they can’t stand allowing disagreement. True Believers, unlike the go-with-the-flow crowd, suffer considerable from their cognitive dissonance, and can get very angry when that cognitive dissonance is brought to the surface. Anytime you see one side of an argument doing a “the science is settled/debate should not be allowed” kind of routine, that is the side suffering cognitive dissonance. The side saying, “Science is never really settled; problems should be recognized and grappled with, so skeptics can be a good thing and must be allowed to speak” is the scientific side. That doesn’t mean the scientific side is necessarily correct — what the True Believers embrace may be true for reasons science hasn’t figured out yet — it just means that the bullying side has a lot more people whose belief is unscientific, and who don’t want to admit that fact. What I would like to know is what drives the True Believers here, because it is clearly *not* the science. Paul Ehrlich (“The Population Bomb” may claim he’s doing science and disdain the Biblical prophecies of Hal Lindsey (“The Late Great Planet Earth”), but they’re both coming from the same place, and it’s not science (which is neutral on the subject of the future) or the Bible, either (Lindsey’s form of interpreting those passages was unknown to Christians for nearly 2000 years). Why some people so gleefully embrace Doomsday scenarios is beyond me. Caligula Jones February 28, 2017 8:26 am ““If you put in double or triple glazing, you will save a lot of money, for free” Well, here in Canada we elected a drama teacher who told us that “the deficit will take care of itself”. So, knowing an engineer believes that you can “put in” windows for “free” doesn’t surprise me. Bruce Cobb February 28, 2017 8:35 am Those two bozos are so reality-challenged I’m surprised they can tie their own shoes. oeman50 February 28, 2017 9:34 am I really like it when they say, “Look at all the new jobs the renewables are creating,” as if that is a good thing. Wait a minute, isn’t it better to have the least number of jobs to produce a product than more jobs? Hmmmm….. Resourceguy February 28, 2017 9:34 am Some people work for a living and then there are those who mine student activity fees at universities for a living or a campaign coffer. Retired Kit P February 28, 2017 9:43 am Just watched a outrageous ad for Radon test kits. Sitting here with our new granddaughter watching morning news (caveat, where our son works). She really likes the traffic reports. Apparently she is contributing methane to CAGW. OMG. This ad showed a woman dressed to the nines without a hair out of place, sitting on the floor reading to her attentive well dress children in the living room of their lavish not a thing out of castle. “Radon is the second leading lung cancer killer of non-smokers.” I bring this up because Bennie Sanders came close to being our fear monger in chief. The target audience for fear mongers is rich white women with advance degrees in art history. These people do not have a clue why we elected Trump and not Clinton or Sanders. Our son gets home at 1 am and mom leaves for work at 2 am. They are happy to have jobs. Gone are the jobs where one parent could stay home. Apparently mining coal and making steel are bad things and being a political activists is good. Reading to children is commendable. It is done by sleep deprived, ragged parent, sitting on the floor cluttered with toys. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 Reply to Retired Kit P February 28, 2017 10:07 am Reading to children is commendable. It is done by sleep deprived, ragged parent, sitting on the floor cluttered with toys. Boy does that bring back memories! Many nights I would fall asleep while reading to my younger son. I wouldn’t realize it but he would say “Daddy, you’re talking funny again”. Apparently I babble when I fall asleep while reading … Retired Kit P Reply to Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 February 28, 2017 4:34 pm We would also play board games. In a children’s version we would make the youngest the banker. At a teachers conference in kindergarten, I asked why they were teaching kids to count by fifteens. The teacher replied she was going to ask me that. It is funny how kids learn. The best way to teach about the environment is to take kids out into the environment. Glaciers and volcanoes are wondrous things. It is okay to say we do not know, it just a theory. Resourceguy February 28, 2017 10:36 am “Solar panels will become cheaper by not wasting as much silicon” Now that is the stupidest claim of them all and self promotion at the same time. A lot of solar startup fraud money was siphoned from taxpayers based on this scam, including the one Nye is invested in. It is not silicon material savings that matters in the aftermath of global over supply of silicon ingot and plunging solar panel prices. It is oversupply of all types starting with Chinese oversupply, and plunging ROI and margins currently. Bill Nye is attempting to sidestep the business facts in solar that have been in play for at least four years now and use the same old silicon savings ploy that was used at other failed DOE-funded scam startups years back. Frankly, Nye is using his promotional talking skills to step around the industry facts here and preach to the less educated who don’t know these industry facts. Shame! Resourceguy February 28, 2017 10:39 am Bernie and Nye have great acting skills in their own market niche and facts and fact checking are not part of the act. K. Kilty February 28, 2017 10:45 am I see the PV=nRT cult is back. The ideal gas equation has four variables in it. One cannot state that temperature is proportional to temperature unless one can specify in some way all other factors. The best counter example is that a pressurized cylinder of industrial gas does not remain hot once the gas is put in–it loses heat, its spefic volume decreases and so does its temperature despite it high pressure. In the Venusian atmosphere, which has a very great optical depth, an equilibrium temperature (from equating solar in vs. IR out) is achieved high above the solid surface. The stirring of the atmosphere all the way to the surface as an adiabatic process ($PV^(\gamma)=Constant$) will maintain a very high surface temperature. One cannot use the ideal gas law to explain what temperature a gas will achieve as a function of pressure without another relationship that ties down the specific volume. K. Kilty Reply to K. Kilty February 28, 2017 10:46 am Let’s try that bit of LaTeX again $PV^{\gamma}=Constant$ K. Kilty Reply to K. Kilty February 28, 2017 10:55 am Oh…should be temperature proportional to pressure….stepped all over my own feet. Retired Kit P Reply to K. Kilty February 28, 2017 5:49 pm BZ – well done. I did not know there was a cult. That is funny. Also funny is the suggestion about thermodynamics. Often made by those who did not take the class. Part of being an engineer is know how to apply simple concepts. I made some comments to a test a during startup at a nuke plant. Later I was reviewing the same test on the other division of equipment. I had the same comments (except the results I could not explain were in the opposite direction) so I wanted to find out how my comments were addressed. Found my operations superintend (an electrical engineer) playing cards at lunch. He I said I was wrong and the test passed acceptance criteria. I told him his lead mechanical said there was a problem. He should listen to me because I knew where the BRS (big red switch) was in the control room. Yes, I would get fired for scramming the reactor. Turns out there was a problem. PV=nRT does not directly apply because air is a compressible gas but it is a good approximation. We had to shut down the plant and fix it. The second problem was not fixing the first when first identified. Just for the record, before the plant exceeded 5% the NRC issued a show cause letter and requiring management to listen to people and fix problem. K. Kilty February 28, 2017 10:51 am Bernie and Buffaloing Bill are poster children for why those among the political left ought not be given jobs of very great importance. This also includes the demographic group “Retired Kit P” was speaking of. Stephen Singer February 28, 2017 11:00 am Hay, Mr. Nye if it’s not that hard why haven’t you done it already and make a mint doing it. Fred Reply to Stephen Singer February 28, 2017 11:32 am Well, he has made a mint just by talking about it… February 28, 2017 11:48 am What was the average outside air temperature in the 1750’s Bill? And how precise do you think it is? P.S. Anders Celsius (27 November 1701 – 25 April 1744) was the first to perform and publish careful experiments aiming at the definition of an international temperature scale on scientific grounds. Joel Snider February 28, 2017 12:13 pm Honestly, the support for Bernie Sanders scared me almost as much as people that supported Hillary – because Sander’s a TOTAL idiot – and he was supposed to be – all he was intended as was a foil for Hillary… and she STILL had to cheat to win her own party’s nomination. And the hell of it is, if Sanders had gotten the nomination, he probably could have won. Bryan A February 28, 2017 12:34 pm Renweables can and do work… …in a world where there is no other option …when ALL other options have been exhausted …when doing without isn’t preferable …where Gird is not an option …in a world of fewer than 100,000,000 people …where population density is less than 1 family of 4 per acre (and grid electricity isn’t available) …where you don’t need to drive anywhere greater than 15 miles distant (and return on the same charge) …where you have$60K to spend on a vehicle just to travel 50 miles distant (and return on the same charge)
…when the federal government spends your tax dollars to offset the costliness

February 28, 2017 6:51 pm

Bill Nye knows nothing of Climate Change Science. A Limerick.

The Roman Northamptonshire wine
was good, not excessively fine.
So it just goes to show
that Bill Nye does not know
of Climate Change past, that’s my line.

During the Roman warm period wine grapes were grown almost up to the
Hadrian Wall, The the dark ages came and grapes no longer ripened in
England. During the Medieval Warm Period there was at least one cheese
farm on Greenland “Gaarden under sanden”, abandoned as the glaciers
regrew until the “Little Ice Age”. We are still recovering from the
little ice age. 2016 may have been a warm year, but most years since the
ice age were warmer. See Chart. https://lenbilen.com/2017/02/28/bill-nye-knows-nothing-of-climate-change-science-a-limerick/

Jeff Alberts
February 28, 2017 7:14 pm

“When the ocean comes in, they’re just going to leave. They’re going to default on their mortgages, and there’s going to be all this copper and infrastructure just sitting there”.

You mean, like every coastal civilization that’s ever existed has had to do at one time or another? Meaning we’re just as short-sighted as they were.