Bill Nye Loses The Plot

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Bill Nye the not-really-Science Guy was on Tucker Carlson tonight. Tucker tried time after time to get Nye to say how much of the change was due to humans … and time after time, Nye refused to say what his opinion was.

So Tucker got him to agree that the climate has always been changing.

Then, in response to the question as to “what the climate would be like if humans weren’t involved right now”, Bill Nye said (according to my own transcription):

NYE: “The climate would be like it was in 1750. And the economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today because the climate is changing. The use of pesticides in the Midwest would not be increasing because the pests are showing up sooner and staying around longer. The forests in Wyoming would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change. That’s how the world would be different if it were not for humans”.

Oh, my goodness. Isn’t that touching? Nye refuses to say how much of the change in temperature is due to humans … but at the same time he claims that if there weren’t humans, that the climate would have stopped changing in 1750. Without humans, he says, we would have a climate which was forever the same …

… and people actually believe this guy? Tucker Carlson was scathing:

CARLSON: You’re not even a scientist, you’re an engineer … So much of this you don’t know, you pretend that you know, and you gotta believe people who ask you questions.

Another escapade in the world of pseudo-science. Anyhow, after writing this I found a YouTube video of the interview—check it out, it’s good for a laugh.

Regards to all,

w.

PS—When you comment PLEASE QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING, so we can all be clear about your subject.

Advertisements

326 thoughts on “Bill Nye Loses The Plot

      • If Carlson had educated himself a bit more (perhaps by watching wattsupwiththat) then the most obvious shut down would have been to present the computer prognostication versus satellite data and historical sea level graphs. But knowing Nye, he would have fallen back on: “Oh no no no, it’s the satellite and sea level data that need to be adjusted to fit the computer predictions.”

      • That’s why Billy Nye the children entertainer guy doesn’t do these when there is an actual scientist present.

      • ‘That’s why Billy Nye the children entertainer guy doesn’t do these when there is an actual scientist present.’

        Hell, you don’t even need a scientist – Marc Morano made him look like a stuttering idiot.

    • .
      Hey, at least Bill Nye is honest enough to admit he doesn’t give a damn about our children’s future when he says, “This extreme doubt about climate change is affecting MY quality of life..”

      BUT THE OTHER LEFTEROIDS REPEATEDLY TELL US WE ARE DESTROYING OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE BY CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING & YET THIS QUESTION GOES UNASKED:

      If our kid’s future means so much, how do they justify robbing future generations by spending us into $20T in debt? In Reagan’s day our debt was 30% of our GDP. Today, our debt is at 104%, PROVING it’s not about our kids’ future, it’s just a scam to redistribute wealth & destroy our economy & our country!

      The Manchurian Candidate nearly doubled US debt during his term & what do we have to show for it?
      Every one of these catagories has worsened:
      1. Poverty
      2. Education
      3. Health Care
      4. Cybersecurity
      5. Race Relations
      6. Foreign Relations
      7. Global Terrorist Threat
      8. U.S. Workforce Participation
      9. Trust in Government and Media

      Tenets of Climate Religion:
      1) Global Warming
      2) It’s due to mankind
      3) It’s going to be catastrophic
      4) The US can do something about it.

      • The Truth? Warming is GOOD for the planet. More CO2 is GOOD for plant life.
        We have had more CO2 present in the atmosphere in earlier eras,
        before industry. We’ve experienced almost no additional
        warming since 1998, even though atmospheric CO2
        has continued to increase in it.

      • Thousands of Climate Scientists around the globe disagree with the “official” conlusions. Many in the US dare not speak for fear their funding be withdrawn. Cover-ups and corruption abounds, from ‘Climategate’ at East Anglia to the current refusal by NOAA, under subpoena, to provide docs concerning GW studies! Perhaps it’s National Security Secrets they’re guarding!

        Leftists are craftsmen with the English language. They know how to communicate. They understand how words impact the mind. Eg. once, Liberals were known briefly as “pro-abortion.” They decided that sounded too harsh, and for PR purposes, they changed their advocacy name to “pro-choice.” Their position on abortion didn’t change, just the name.

        This has been their MO for decades. They use words to manipulate the public into forming the desired opinions. They’re not illegal immigrants, they’re Dreamers.

        Obamacare won’t cause medical bills to skyrocket, it’s called the ‘Affordable Care Act.’

        What do you think of when you here the word “carbon?’ I think of that dirty, black underside to carbon paper. That’s why they dropped the “Dioxide” from the “Carbon Dioxide,” so that it would sound more hideous. we’re talking about a gas that makes up approx .04% (or 400 parts per million) of our atmosphere.

        The very same substance that all the flowers in the world need in order to live. And all the trees in the world, all the crops, grasses, and every other type of vegetation. We exhale it, they inhale it, then exhale oxygen that we inhale.

      • I sure as shootin’ would NOT want to be living in the Little Ice Age (ca. 1750). Nye just certified himself as a completely ignorant poltroon.

      • I agree that man-made global warming is exaggerated. The rest of your treatise about the good old days is also exaggerated.

    • I must have been watching a different interview, I saw a rude, smug loudmouth shouting Bill down while dismissing his simple answer to his simple question thereby providing a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance.

      • I thought I heard Nye respond at one point that 100% of climate change was man made. Of course when one defines climate change as man made climate change then 100% of man made climate change is man made. Of course nobody can come up with our real contribution but 100 % of man made climate change is man made. He also slipped up and claimed we would be in another ice age if it wasn’t for our contribution to climate change. If he is right about that, then I am sure glad we are contributing. I love the climate we have had for the past 20 years so I hope we keep contributing enough to avoid that ice age. If the climate and CO2 level were like it was in 1750 a bunch of people would be going hungry.

      • Hey WTF! “I saw a rude, smug loudmouth shouting Bill down”

        Well, yeah, actually that is true.

        On the other hand, Nye is still an idiot. So how did scientific discourse come to this? My observation is that discussion of CAGW has devolved to rudeness and shouting because the alarmists have forced it to be that way. It was not sceptics who began using shouting and rudeness as weapons. For decades, sceptics politely asked for REAL scientific discussion on the subject. The response from the alarmists was that “the science is settled!”, claims that sceptics were “deniers” and the equivalent to antisemitic purveyors of genocide, threats against scientists who spoke out with questions, and even talk of charging sceptics with war crimes. The alarmists are the ones who equated scientific discussion with war crimes.

        You wanted a war — you got it. Quit whining.

      • Apparently you watched a different interview. I saw a smug, complacent, ignorant clown in a bow tie posing as an expert on climate change, who could not answer a simple question about what amount humans were contributing to climate change. It was embarrassing to watch. I feel sorry for Nye.

    • Mr. Nye;
      “It ain’t what you know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so” -Mark Twain

      • Thousands of Climate Scientists around the globe disagree with the “official” conlusions. Many in the US dare not speak for fear their funding be withdrawn. Cover-ups and corruption abounds, from ‘Climategate’ at East Anglia to the current refusal by NOAA, under subpoena, to provide docs concerning GW studies! Perhaps it’s National Security Secrets they’re guarding!

        Leftists are craftsmen with the English language. They know how to communicate. They understand how words impact the mind. Eg. once, Liberals were known briefly as “pro-abortion.” They decided that sounded too harsh, and for PR purposes, they changed their advocacy name to “pro-choice.” Their position on abortion didn’t change, just the name.

        This has been their MO for decades. They use words to manipulate the public into forming the desired opinions. They’re not illegal immigrants, they’re Dreamers.

        Obamacare won’t cause medical bills to skyrocket, it’s called the ‘Affordable Care Act.’

        What do you think of when you here the word “carbon?’ I think of that dirty, black underside to carbon paper. That’s why they dropped the “Dioxide” from the “Carbon Dioxide,” so that it would sound more hideous. we’re talking about a gas that makes up approx .04% (or 400 parts per million) of our atmosphere.

        The very same substance that all the flowers in the world need in order to live. And all the trees in the world, all the crops, grasses, and every other type of vegetation. We exhale it, they inhale it, then exhale oxygen that we inhale.

      • Jim Mayer……..finally, someone that understands how the liberal left uses words, its effect, and how much smarter they are to organize and execute.
        Yes, people within their org, they do make mistakes.

    • Without humans, he says, we would have a climate which was forever the same …

      cliamte change DEENYER !

      Bill Nye the Séance LIE.

      • And…here is an example of where and what Mr. Nye was at and was doing back in the 1990’s. He started as bit-part cast member of a local Seattle comedy-skit show called ‘Almost Live!’, that aired IIRC Saturday evenings either before or after the nationally-syndicated program Saturday Night Live (Local Western Washingtonians such as Janice may recall…my kids were small back then, and I usually did not catch the show as an as-aired performance). A kitschy cameo piece on ‘Almost Live!’, that eventually morphed into a Public Broadcasting System (PBS) kids’ show – where he finally made it into the greater USA public eye. PBS is also where he developed his ‘legitimacy’ with at least youngsters – and parents. I would think his PBS program is where he is remembered as a legitimate “Science-type’ guy. A clip of some of his ‘work’ back then:

        So, a comedy troupe actor, come PBS ‘Science’ program star, and eventually developing (devolving?) into one of the spokesmen for the Warminista cabal.

        What a Curriculum Vitae, I say.

        Food submitted for thought,

        MCR

      • That footage of Bill trying to crush the drum is so like the climate propaganda. the experiment doesn’t show what you said it would, so you have to fiddle with the results……..

      • “Whatever Bill does, Don’t do that at home!”
        That’s an adage worth more than its weight in CO2 credits.

  1. I believe it is impossible to know what the climate (in any particular location; there is no global climate) would be right now without humans. What I know is that 1750 would not exist as “1750” and right now would not be 2017 without humans.

    • Climate Science has never ever defined what the ideal climate is. The most glaring of their long streak of inconsistencies….the one which their precious “change” is founded.

    • I think Tucker nailed the central question – which you are touching on – but only came close to getting it out with full impact. His question was this: how can you say humans have caused a (CO2-driven) deviation from normal climate variation, without a scientific baseline of what that climate variation would look like minus the claimed deviating influence? Nye couldn’t answer it, and neither can any other “CO2 global warming” advocate. That means the claim of human-caused, CO2-driven climate change is scientifically baseless.

  2. 1750 was still the Little Ice Age. So Nye believes humans are responsible for the end of the Little Ice Age? What does he think caused it, or the Dark Age cold spell? He also seems to be denying the Mann et al hockey stick graph, by the way.

    • I hear the Little Ice Age ended ~1860 as warming pulled us into a period of time where plants would grow where they otherwise hadn’t for some time.

      Apparently B. Nye would like to live in an Ice Age and use his questionable engineering skills to survive.

      I wish him luck although I strongly suspect he’d fail.

      • We are still in an ice age, just the abnormal part of the ice age with less ice.

        As an engineer I can say I am nor impressed with Nye’s engineering accomplishments.

        And Rocky you are welcome. My engineering skills at power plants helped you not live in a cave on cold winter nights.

  3. Anthony did a wonderful job a showing how Bill Nye faked a high school science experiment. I would like to see him have to account for that on national news.

    • I had a real problem with this statement by Nye
      “The forests in Wyoming would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change”
      I would point to just one study that explains the Mountain Pine Beetle problems ( and BTW there are many different beetles in our forests that attack all species of trees) It is largely cyclical and caused by aging old tress that weaken and get attacked, forest fires used to then regenerate the next stand of trees , largely every 100 years. It has been mostly human fire control methods that have broken the cycle of natural regeneration
      Nye please read this: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/63

  4. Nice dodge, Mr.Nye. “The climate would be like it was in 1750” And how was that, now? Please, Mr. Science Guy, define that climate. Not by how it WASN’T, but by how it WAS. Let’s face it, you scowling manteufel, you don’t have a CLUE what that “ideal climate” is. Not even the best climate scientist IN THE WORLD (Whomever that is) can define that ideal climate state. No UNFCCC hack can, either (she defines it as a time where capitalism isn’t). The IPCC cannot. Theirs is a balancing act between the “Summary for Policymakers” and the agonizing convolutions of uncertainty in their AR’s.

    Nice little deflection, Bill. But now that the Holdrens and Obamas of the world are sidelined, your support network for blowhard intellectualism is crumbling, and you sir, will appear as an arse from now on. Your selfie-taking days are over.

  5. Weren’t the French passing laws in the 12/13th century to ban English wine. You know, wine made with English grown grapes…

    • They tried that trick with Australian wine. When it didn’t work they tried a different tack – Buying up the Australian competition and vinyards.

      • The Australians bought some French ones too, in Pays D’Oc. This was done because the Romans valued wine from there above all else in their empire, but the French used it for cheap wine in large quantities.

  6. More than anything that interview is an example of an interviewee who is so stupid and ill informed that he does not know he is stupid and ill informed.

    It is always interesting to see how quickly alarmists fall apart when asked to present the “science” they claim is settled.

    A simple test is to ask an alarmist to pick any place there is a weather station, ask them to describe the climate now and the climate 30 years ago. In all the times I have asked it I have never received an answer. It’s as though children just don’t know what the word climate means.

    • “…is so stupid and ill informed that he does not know he is stupid and ill informed.”
      My thoughts exactly, Forrest Gardener. What an excruciating dill.
      But pity the poor chap. Consistent with your diagnosis, Nye’s seems to be an acute case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, “…a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately.

    • Being stupid and being dead are similar in that someone who is dead don’t know they are dead and someone who is stupid….well do I need to continue?

  7. “The forests in Wyoming would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change.”

    Not so. This is my area of expertise. It’s true that warmer weather will help the beetles, but not that much. The big reason for the beetle epidemic is that the trees are old. Young, vigorous trees push invading beetles out with sap flow but old, decadent trees have a much slower metabolism and can’t do that. We’ve been way to effective in fighting forest fires for the last 100 plus years, and the forests are much older than they used to be.

      • (My original comment here disappeared…)

        AP: Pretty much everything he didn’t claim was wrong. He hasn’t a clearly thought out idea in his head.

      • Harry,
        Nye is an engineer and therefore has the mental capacity to follow scientific arguments. Can Nye afford to think clearly about the things he said? He makes a great deal of money from his publicly advocacy of those claims.
        Had Bill Nye explored each of his claims, he would have found himself on the wrong side of the truth. What a dilemma! His growing anger as Tucker Carlson pushed the conversation towards the truth spoke volumes.
        At some point in past, Nye chose agenda over truth.

      • Apparently, Nye assumed he could mau-mau Tucker Carlson with his “scientificness”, just like the big boys (Mann, etc) claim to do.

        Wrong assumption (even against a somewhat weak Carlson).

        Nye needs to return to the back of the warmest pack and stick to tasks for which he is qualified (e.g.: emptying & cleaning chamber pots).

        Yea, I apologize to WUWT readers for the ad hominem, but “Science Guy” offers little else than his naivete.

    • I’ve also read that because of fire fighting, the forests haven’t been thinned as they usually are. The result is more trees fighting for the same resources, so all trees are more stressed, making them more vulnerable to the beetle.

    • Exactly. The claim is made that the pine beetles took off because of the lack of extreme cold. However, near the “icebox of the nation”. Frasier ,Colorado there is massive beetle kill. South into New Mexico and Arizona where it is warmer, similar forests are in much better condition.

      • Apparently Nye, lacking experience with mountain pine beetles, didn’t know the larvae produced an natural antifreeze (glycerol) that protects them to 30 F below zero. So, cold winters don’t slow them much. (An extreme early freeze can slow them down a bit because the beetles only start producing glycerol at the first sign of cool weather.)

    • Thank you Art, I think the biggest environmental problem in North America is forest heath issues associated with too much wood in semi-arid forest.

      Engineering solutions include using waste wood for energy. Beatle killed lodge pole pine make beautiful log homes.

      This is followed by control burns which rejuvenates the forest floor without creating a hard pan.

    • “The forests in Wyoming would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change.”

      Well, that is a testable statement. Here’s temp data from Grand Teton Forest in Wyoming from 1910-now

      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=480140&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2014.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=TMEANRAW&minyear=1896&maxyear=2014

      Looking at data rather than just guessing as Nye does, I see the mean temp INCREASED 3 degrees between 1910-1940 BEFORE we added much CO2. Then as we emitted MORE CO2, the temps DECREASED 3-4 degrees for 30 years! Currently the temperature is no different than at many points in the last 100 years.

      Dear Bill Nye, you are losing because thanks to the internet, Joes like me can verify your statements with real data in 2 minutes. Nothing makes people more upset than being lied to.

      PS When I compare observation to a hypothesis, that is what actual science looks like Mr Nye.

      • I wonder if this Hollywood professor realizes how easily the “unwashed” common sense crowd can recognise his spin and check his facts?
        I was reminded of Dr Happer’s words “glassy eyed and chanting”.

    • “We’ve been way to effective in fighting forest fires for the last 100 plus years, and the forests are much older than they used to be.”

      Yep. That, and the hippies don’t want us to do ANYTHING that isn’t “natural” to a forest.

    • “The big reason for the beetle epidemic is that the trees are old”.

      Outside (South east) of Prtince George BC is an area of about 100 squre miles of what were once vigorous young 25-30 year old pines (I talked to the guys who planted them). The devastation from those beetles was incredible. Nothing left but dead sticks and some random young fir poking its way up through the snow.

      The beetles ate young and old. They may have at one time preferred the old ones, but it sure seems they have acquired a taste for the young.

      “They” also said that pine bettles would never go for the lodgepole pine of the northern boreal forest. Tell that to the guys fighting the invasion of the beetles in northern Alberta.

      Perhaps the beetles adapted… perhaps they evolved… but please do not leave the impression that they would have been happy only eating southern Wyoming geriatrics

    • “The forests in Wyoming would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change”. According to Nye. I made a similar comment up thread a few minutes ago.

      Read this one and there are a few more regarding BC http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/63 Confirmed by this study,
      Great point Art.

    • IIRC, low rainfall some years back (when the beetles invaded) made it hard for the trees to create enough sap to overwhelm them.

  8. The real alarm with the “science guy; Isn’t he paraded at many K-12 schools in “science” videos? No wonder our public schools are falling behind globally. The man is a blight on society! His grey matter is obviously infected and is infecting the unsuspecting students.

      • Exactly. My family now knows that whenever Billy Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or David Suzuki appear on TV – I have to fight my gag reflex.

      • When my son was in high school, I had to have a discussion with his “science” teacher about my son’s skepticism. It wasn’t as polite as I had hoped it would be…

    • Yes, many years ago, when I was teaching science, I ordered a video that Bill Nye had produced and had to send it back with a scathing letter describing how Bill Nye had gotten the science concept presented exactly backward. I knew from that moment to keep away from anything in which this dolt was involved. He doesn’t know his backside orifice from a hole in the earth.

  9. Bill Nye is the Pee Wee Herman of CAGW cause. This video is kind of like Pee Wee Herman squeezing his bicycle horn for skeptics to get our of his way. What a nerdy clown!

  10. This guy is a scientist ? He says settled science and yet he cannot answer presise scientific questions. Pffft….another charlatan.

      • The Fake News MSM represented Nye as a scientist, Forrest. You’ve heard of the long-running program “Bill Nye the Science Guy”, right?

      • Your explanation, Alan, is like slapping the license plate frame for a Corvette onto a Volkswagen Bug and claiming it’s a performance car.

        I didn’t see demonstrable engineering or scientific skills come out of Bill Nye last night; instead, he was condescending, nasty, divisive, and brought up inane talking points to avoid basic questions from Tucker.

        I seriously doubt you watched the interview.

        Science is defined as the total of physics, chemistry, biology, geology and astronomy. It makes use of mathematics in observations and experiments.

        Engineering, on the other hand, applies the principles of engineering, physics, design, construction, maintenance, and many other disciplines depending on the specialization (mechanical, civil, structural, genetic, electrical, and so forth).

        You’d be surprised how little “science” is involved in most engineering degrees, Alan.

        And you’d be surprised how little “engineering” is involved in most science degrees.

        How do I know? I have a BS and MS in geology and a BS and ME in mining engineering. Most of the mining engineers I worked with (and these were very bright people) could care less about the scientific aspects of their world.

        Conversely, the scientists I’ve worked with (also bright people) couldn’t build a proper bag in which to put their samples.

        I’ve read a lot of comments here that maintain that science = engineering but I disagree. While they both work with similar aspects of the world, their viewpoints come from different perspectives and objectives.

        Which brings me back to Bill Nye: He’s such a terrible engineer and such a lame excuse for a scientist I would never take his opinion about global warming; it’s just more alarmist trivia masquerading as truth.

        He’s sold his integrity for money and popularity and can be considered dangerous.

      • @RockyRoad-
        Please see my earlier post, here:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/27/bill-nye-loses-the-plot/#comment-2438797

        As to your response to me… You are correct about Nye’s response.
        However, your assertions about engineers not having a science background are flawed. When I took all that chemistry and studied physics of the atom and so forth, I thought that it was a fairly detailed look at science. All engineers have the same background.
        Most, if not all of them, will do as I did and have enough math background to intuit solutions to problems beyond their training and to be able to see how explanations for everything boil down to the physics.
        That’s the science background of Bill Nye and as I stated in the given link, Nye has made his choice.

      • Alan, one of the interesting things about the way the hard sciences have been taught for the last forty or fifty years is how much time is spent communicating established knowledge and how little time is spent developing an understanding of the scientific method

      • Ps to RockyRoad:
        Apparently, you took my reply to Forrest Gardener as some sort of endorsement of Bill Nye.
        Instead, it was an indictment. Bill Nye should know better.
        By his statements and actions in the interview, it is apparent to me that he does know better, yet chose the path of the paid propagandist.

      • @Rocky

        Most of the mining engineers I worked with (and these were very bright people) could care less about the scientific aspects of their world.

        While mining engineers may be mostly concerned with digging holes in the ground, they should still have learned all about geology in their education. They should still have enough knowledge to be skeptical of a doomsday theory based on dubious geology. If they do not, they are technicians, not engineers.

        As a mechanical engineer, Nye should have a solid footing in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, measurement, error analysis, and other concepts relevant to climate science. He’s chosen to ignore science in favour of his own celebrity. That makes him one bad apple. Doesn’t spoil the whole bunch.

      • Interesting Rob. My qualifications in thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and so on were all taught as mathematics subjects. Perhaps that’s how Nye missed out on any real understanding of science.

      • @Forrest

        Nye doesn’t understand science because your thermo and fluids courses were offered by the math department instead of engineering?

        There must be a joke in there, but I don’t get it.

      • Fair enough, Forrest. I wish I learned more pure science too. However, I think you’re over complicating the scientific method. It takes very little time to teach. It’s little more than the assumption that our universe has physical laws, and when combined with observation and critical thinking, the notion that we can improve upon what we know and disprove falsehoods we thought we knew. Critical thinking is ultimately what it’s all about, and I don’t believe that can be taught.

        Anytime we smell bullshit and follow it up with research we’re practicing part of it. An astute second year mechanical engineering student would look at the confidence range for climate sensitivity and smell something wrong. It spans nearly half an order of magnitude and inspires no confidence.

        Nye has the right tools in terms of education, it’s either intelligence or integrity that he lacks.

      • Rob, the principles of the scientific method can be conveyed in a half hour. The first problem is that it takes much longer to learn. For example graduate students with good supervisors learn it the hard way when they write papers and theses. Undergrads and school students have no reason to learn the principles because science teaching focuses so heavily on passing on established science.

        I don’t think Nye would recognise the scientific method if it bit him on the backside. It doesn’t make good children’s television which is his specialty.

      • You’re right. Students are allowed to coast for fart too long, as they do, not contributing to the body of science until they get to grad school. I say grade schoolers should be required to submit theses if they expect to progress beyond kindergarten. Putting the cart before the horse means giving the kids a leg up.

  11. “The climate would be like it was in 1750.” ?? So he wants Humanity to be permanently living in the “Little Ice Age” ? …N.U.T.S. !!

  12. Engineers are fairly good at sifting technical (scientific even) evidence.

    The advantage engineers have is that there are consequences for being wrong.

    The trouble with climate science is that there are no consequences for being wrong. Well except for economic and environmental consequences. But those are diffuse (relatively).

  13. I apologise on behalf of engineers. If its any consolation, I’ve always thought mechanical engineering degrees lacked a certain something.

    • @AP: Please. such ad hominin deflections weaken your own otherwise brilliant life’s trajectory. (see what I did there?). Notice to twitter: I’m no fan of the Bee Nee either, but not because he is a graduate mechanical engineer.

  14. W
    Tucker Carlson was right to back Bill Nye against the wall but Tucker made a mistake in using the term “engineer” in a derogatory manner as if Engineering is somehow inferior to Science. Engineers are trained academically just as intensively or even more so than scientists but with a different focus. Scientists observe the world and attempt to model it. Engineers start with those scientific models to build something useful. If a scientist gets the model wrong it is simply embarrassing. If an engineer gets it wrong, people get hurt. The difference in attitude concerning the real world is stark. Engineers always begin a project with the assumption that the starting models are at best +/- 50% accurate or probably worse. Most engineers would naturally be skeptical of any claim to a 98% consensus. I find that formally trained scientists give the benefit of the doubt to any paper if it has been published, the old peer review thing. Most engineers I know just shake their heads at mere mention of the climate controversy.

    • I’m an engineer, and I didn’t take offense or feel belittled. Unless you’re a “climate engineer” (Note to self: The Next Big Thing!) you’re never going to be asked or expected to shed light on global climate. But as an engineer, I’m perfectly capable of applying the sniff test to the CAGW hoax, and to spot the obvious failures of climate models.

      • An engineer: someone who does precise calculations to multiple decimal places based on empirical guesswork using suspect data collected by people with questionable knowledge while under the influence of … and then applies a nice round safety factor based on …

        (or any one of the many variations thereof)

        My wife and my best friend’s wife used to post shared engineering jokes on the refrigerator for us as they perceived them to be closer to the truth than we would have liked to admit.

        I think Bill Nye missed out on the engineering appreciation of humour. On the other hand, watching him …

    • I might add that a number of engineers have spent a good deal of their careers in research and development and have more than a few published papers in scientific journals… the line between “engineer” and “scientist” is a blurry one.

  15. Carlson wasn’t well equipped to debunk Nye’s propaganda.

    ============
    Nye @ 7:06: “uh,, people who plan to run ski resorts would still be able to do it in Europe
    ============

    Tell us, Bill, how many ski resorts have closed down in Europe due to lack of snow?
    Are snowfalls now just a thing of the past, as reported in the Independent UK in 2000?
    Or are heavy snowfalls and colder winters now a sign of global warming, as reported in the Independent UK, October 2014?

    When climate Scientologists advance two or more contradictory narratives, how do we know which one to believe?

    * * * * * * * * * *
    Climate change threat to alpine ski resorts
    By Graham Tibbetts
    Telegraph UK, 21 May 2008
    […]
    In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records.
    I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.
    * * * * * * * * * *

    The Alps have best snow conditions ‘in a generation’
    Heavy storms this week mean that skiers will enjoy records amounts of snow in Alpine resorts this Christmas.
    By Peter Hardy
    Telegraph UK, 19 Dec 2008
    * * * * * * * * * *

    • The Alps have best snow conditions ‘in a generation’

      The Alps sure didn’t have the best snow and ice conditions during the Roman Warm Period.

      And the historically recorded facts substantiate that claim simply because, ta dah …….

      Hannibal lucked out when he decided to march his army and herd of elephants across the Alps to attack the Romans in 218 BC because there surely could not have been many glaciers or heavy snowpack blocking his route since documented history proves he accomplished that feat.

      Read more @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal's_Crossing_of_the_Alps

  16. Yes’ and those dinosaurs would not be extinct either, it was us pesky little humans that caused their demise!

  17. It’s appalling that the interviewer clearly knew more than then bogus “science guy”

    And when I look at the Central England Temperature record I see plenty of change. As this correlates well with global temperature, it is therefore a good proxy for global temperature. AND CET shows absolutely no unusual change in the modern period.

    • Look at the rapid warming between about 1700 and 1730.

      Such a rate of warming and change would have modern ‘climate scientists’ having a fit.

      What manmade event led to that rapid and significant warming?

      Until we can explain our past climate, there is no prospect of properly assessing how climate might in the future change.

      • Richard: That warming from 1700-30 is extremely similar to the late 20thC arming. It would have been a good trick to have shown Nye just that 1700-30 rise (without dates) and get him to comment on it. He would probably think it was the 20thC warming and start putting it all down to FF and GW. I’d pay to see the ‘reveal’.

      • Notice the volcanic eruptions in 1739 and 2010 affecting following years temperature, but also that the temperature was already falling during previous 3-4 years. So what might be the reason war this almost identical behaviour?
        It coud well be the tectonics of the far North Atlantic (NAT), as the spectral composition coincidence of the tectonic data and the CET is far to close to be a accidental

      • I have only eyeballed it, but it appears to me that the warming between 1700 to 1730 is faster than the warming of the late 20th Century.

        The temperature (smoothed) appears to have risen from about 8.25 to 9.75 degC in just 30 years, This is a rise of 1.5 degC in just 30 years, or about (if extrapolated on a linear basis as is the want of ‘climate science’) 5degC per Century!!

        By contrast, the late 20th Century warming shows warming of a little over 1 degC in about the same 30 year period.

        Perhaps more remarkable is that within the 1700 to 1730 warming, 1 degC of this warming took place in about the first 15 years, so again on a crazy extrapolation basis, as is the want of ‘climate scientist’ that is a rate of more than 6degC per Century!!

        CET has no doubt been compromised by UHI and land change such that the 20th Century record is not as pristine as the earlier 18th Century data.

        The point is that there is much (natural) variation, and we have seen similar many times before today. there is nothing remarkable about the late 20th Century.

  18. Nye: 1750: No More Ice Ages. Check out 1790s to 1850s “Bill”.
    We are approx half way through an oscillating 42000 year cycle. Approx 21000 yrs for science guys a la Nye. The entry point to the cycle would have been about the time that Woolly Mammoths were becoming extinct during the Great Thaw. Mankind traversed ice bound seas and eventually ended up in Bronze Age – when populations began unprecedented growth. Come on Bill – we have peaked out for a couple of thousand years at the “warm period” and will next be on the down-slope approaching the next Big Ice Age (10000 years or so before it gets really desperate. The signs are already there since cooling, overall has already started. Science Guys for Guy Fawkes [At least one way to keep warm].

    • Why do many people mess up on the words,ICE AGE ending and starting?

      We are currently in a INTER GLACIAL time frame,while we are in the long running 2.6 million Ice Age epoch.

      Glaciation = Advancing snow and Ice fields,Cold. Last around 70,000-90,000 years.

      Inter Glacial = Declining snow and Ice fields,Warm. Last around 12,000-18,000 years.

      • Sunsettommy,
        I believe Prof Nye meant that quite literally. If it were true, that would indeed be good news, huh?

  19. He says that without humans, the climate today would be like it was in 1750. But there was global warming between 1750 to 1800 as we emerged from the Little Ice Age. There was little human activity which could account for that. So why would today’s climate by like 1750 rather than 1800?

  20. AP shouldn’t apologise on behalf of any type of engineers, one twit seizing on a chance to become a minor TV personality hardly invalidates a profession that has done so much good for humanity. Hell, even railway engineers have nothing to apologise for despite Pauchudri’ s appalling record.
    The real damage Nye has done is in telling nonsense to so many people who have no chance to get the truth about How complex climate studies are and how great the uncertainties. ( I am not an engineer by the way).

  21. Bill Nye is not a climate scientist so according to the alarmists he does not have the expertise of offer an opinon regarding climate.

    • Obviously, psychologists (Cook, Lewandowsky) and economists and professors of “issues of climate justice” (Torcello) can be climate scientists. Actually, pretty much anybody who doesn’t understand science (and a few who do should; e.g.: Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes) appear to be readily accepted as “climate scientists”.

      A few of these guys actually would like to jail people who dare question their opinions. Since there are (as yet) no consequences for teaching these nut-ball opinions to 18-22 year-old students (aka: our kids), soon or later, it’s highly likely someone is actually going to to follow through and attempt to do it.

      • Very few who actually claim to be climate scientists have the formal educational backgoound in climate propoganda to actually be certified climate scientists Many alarmists, instead of arguing the science will argue that one is not a climate scientist and what one is saying goes against the sceintific consensus. I myself would like to use AGW as another reason to conserve on the use of fossil fuels but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes to defend. When I went to school they did not have the climate change propoganda they force on students today. Instead I have to rely on basic mathematics, chemistry, and physics. I am sorry that I do not belive in the magical powers of CO2. For me that fact that there is no real evidence that the radiant greenhouse effect, that the AGW conjecture is based upon, exists anywhere in the solar system, tends ot make me believe that the AGW conjecture is just some form of sceince fiction. Science in not a democracy so a “scientific consensus” is meaningless and because sceintists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture the consensus does not really exist.

  22. So from 1750 onwards we selfishly changed the climate with our evil ways. Must have been all that horse manure. Honestly, what a prat.

      • A person experiences cognitive dissonance only when he actually believes two irreconcilable things at the same time. Lying is a different thing.

  23. Nye’s hysteria about the rate of change went unchallenged by Tucker.

    ====
    “The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), and although the date cannot be known exactly, it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years. ”
    http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml
    ====

    I confronted the alarmists at The Conversation with that example when they were spouting rubbish about the “unprecedented” contemporary rate of change. Then I said,
    “And you’re all freaking out about a paltry ~0.8 C…over 100 years!”

    I would have thrown the same point at Nye.

    • Absolutely. Nye was grasping for examples, while Carlson could have simply asked him what caused the mile-thick ice that was over New England to disappear, and the ocean to rise 400 feet. Perhaps Native Americans’ use of fire pits was the catalyst.

    • Even that alleged 0.8 degrees C is bogus. In uncooked books, using raw, real and reliable data, earth has barely warmed since 1918. It warmed until the 1940s, then cooled dramatically until the late ’70s (leading to renewed ice age worries), warmed slightly for about two decades, and since then has stayed about the same or cooled, but for two super El Nino spikes in 1997-98 and 2015-16.

  24. You know the really sad part? Some people think Nye actually won that ‘debate’!
    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/im-open-minded-youre-not-tucker-carlson-melts-down-after-bill-nye-schools-him-on-climate-change/

    “The evidence for climate change is overwhelming,” Nye told an open-mouthed Carlson. “So we’re looking for an explanation for why you guys are having so much trouble with this.”

    “I think most people are open to the idea of climate change,” Carlson parried. “The core question, from what I can determine, is why the change?”

    Calrlson attempted to get Nye to establish a “degree” to which climate change can be linked to human activity, with Nye backing him up and explaining some basics.

    “So the word ‘degree’ is a word that you chose,” Nye patiently explained. “But the speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans. Instead of happening on time scales of millions of years, or let’s say, 15,000 years, it’s happening on a time scale of decades. And now years.”

    • Bill Nye says: “But the speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans.”

      Nye presumes to know the speed of climate change, and implies he can measure an increase, and that that increase is caused by humans. Nye couldn’t prove any of this if his life depended on it.

      Bill Nye says: “Instead of happening on time scales of millions of years, or let’s say, 15,000 years, it’s happening on a time scale of decades. And now years.”

      “It” is happening. So climate change took millions of years to change at one time, and then took 15,000 years to change at a later date (wonder how that change came about without humans), and now it only takes years for the climate to change. There is no scientific basis for any of these claims.

      This is why the climate change alarmists chose to use “climate change” rather than “global warming” to describe this phenomenon. That way, as Bill Nye does, they can claim that any change in the weather anywhere on Earth is a change caused by humans, and since the climate is always changing, they have plenty of opportunities to make these claims. They can’t prove any of this, but they can sure make the claim, and they do. Propaganda, pure and simple. Very expensive propaganda.

      The good news is they are about to have their comeuppance. Their “science is settled” narrative is about to become undone. Bill Nye on Tucker’s show was just the beginning.

      Bill Nye was a weak promoter of CAGW. Tucker should have him back and bring in Marc Marano too, and let them have a nice little discussion. Morano will discuss, and Nye will obfuscate.

    • The Piltdown Mann’s straight shaft on his Crook’t Stick. This is the Big Lie.

      Bill Nye and so many other alarmists have repeated this so often that many of them believe it. It’s what they know that ain’t so.
      =================

  25. I know that 1750 in England is supposed to sound cold, but it always surprises me how relatively stable the climate can be over shorter periods. Willis wrote an article with some interesting charts a while back (the words were OK too, Willis) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/ and one of these was a Central England Chart going back further than the standard one https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/central-england-temperature-plus-minima1.jpg?w=840 Correct me if I’m wrong, but that average temperature in 1750 does not indicate a small, ice-bound island.

    These narratives are interesting too http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1750_1799.htm It sounds as though in the early part of the period it was the winds and rain which were more interesting than anomalous temperatures.

    • There were some warm years during the LIA, in between the solar minima and volcanic eruptions. In Manley’s reconstruction of monthly mean CET (1698-1952), January 1740 was the coldest (volcanic effect) and 1916 the warmest:

      https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qj53manley.pdf

      The Maunder Minimum was the most frigid, but the other three minima–Wolf, Spörer and Dalton–also produced cold decades. Some place the Wolf Minimum (1280-1350) toward the end of the Medieval WP than in the LIA.

  26. So the entire case for ‘catastrophic’ agw now comes down to Midwest pests and beetles in trees? Is that it?

  27. So if it weren’t for humans the climate would have been both put on hold from 1750 AND we would be in another ice age by now. Given that, in his ignorance, he meant another glacial, I don’t see how 1750 was a glacial period. Still … he did say the science was settled on this. LOL

  28. Oh dear, what an embarrassment the Fake Science Guy is.

    Roman vineyards in Britain: stratigraphic and palynological data from Wollaston in the Nene Valley, England

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/roman-vineyards-in-britain-stratigraphic-and-palynological-data-from-wollaston-in-the-nene-valley-england/5FC9D857BAF6B948DAA7DF390889AB71

    Incidentally, someone should tell Nye that 1750 was not the best year to cherry pick…

    In 1715 the village of Le Pre-du-Bar vanished under a glacier caused landslide. The glacial high tide in the Alps came around 1750 and gradually the glaciers began their retreat, much to the relief of the people who lived there.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/glacial-advance-during-the-little-ice-age/

    It really was a cringeworthy onterview.

  29. Vines were grown, and wine was produced, in southern England in the 14th century. Also malaria was a problem in the wet fenlands during this period.

  30. “You’re not even a scientist, you’re an engineer” – what the **** does Carlson mean by that?

    Don’t dismiss engineers Carlson, many engineers are sceptics because they realise how ridiculous the concept of ‘global’ temperature is, they realise the implications of the noise (massive daily, regional, seasonal temperature swings) compared the tiny (fractions of a degree per decade) ‘signal’ being sought by climate ‘scientists’. Engineers live in reality, scientists, particularly climate scientists, seem to live in fantasy. I’d put my safety & my future prosperity in the hands of engineers any day rather than scientists based on many idiotic ones I have worked with over the years.

    Nye is clearly not an effective engineer, engineering is a fact based endeavour, that’s why planes fly and bridges stay up (usually).

    • Well put. An engineer IS a scientist. That Nye isn’t practicing as one despite formal training is a good thing. Just like Al Gore not preaching despite attending divinity school or Bill Clinton being disbarred for perjury.

      The Peter Principle applied.

    • yes but I think Carlson was trying to do to Nye what the warmists would do to any skeptic engineer … “you are not a climate scientist” …

    • jaffa68

      Stop getting all huffy about Carlson pointing out that Nye is an engineer, not a scientist. He was applying a reasonable taxonomy, not being insulting.

      In point of fact, having a BS in science (e.g.: physics, chemistry) DOES NOT MAKE YOU A TRAINED SCIENTIST – the discipline certainly requires graduate degrees. Having a BS in engineering (any kind) is a different discipline, but certainly does not short circuit the path to “trained scientist”.

      This conversation conflating “knowing about the scientific method” (which most STEM educations supply in the freshman year) with actually being a scientist. That’s like saying because I can take my own blood pressure, you’d want me as your cardiovascular surgeon.

  31. Of course, in typical warmist fashion when losing an argument that you can’t support because you have no facts to back it, bring out the old ‘what about the children?’ BS.

    So this is an individual who believes living with hunger, disease and poverty as a result of decreased global temperature is somehow better than rising by less than a couple of degrees to where it was a few hundred years before 1750. I really don’t think he the right person to lecture anyone on cognitive dissonance and irrational beliefs.

    And it amazes me, amazes, that someone who is supposed to be intelligent can fail so miserably to understand that climate is a chaotic system and has repeatedly changed, quite often rapidly since the end of that same ice age he constantly pointed to. That is based on evidence, and not a computer model. But then models only go up, which seems to be this belief. He just ignores the (historically repeated) drop in temperatures that allowed for a rebounding rise in the first place. Which would have happened after 1750 regardless of the industrial age or not, as it had done before

    Complete tosser, and an aggressive one at that. But he is a useful idiot, and the more idiotic he is the more he is ignored. He doesn’t discuss, and he really doesn’t argue. He just makes statements, and then claims that everyone is wrong to disagree with him because they are irrational. He doesn’t listen to anyone or their point because he thinks he is above everyone else and their ability to process information, after all, he is ‘the Science Guy’.

    • DDP

      People like Nye get in this game because it allows them to claim they are part of saving the world (leads to fame, fortune, respect and authority). I have to think that once on “the team”, even these useful idiots see the shabby process & thin evidence, and have doubts about the underlying premise.

      However, once you have positioned yourself as savior of humanity and begin to exert real power over millions of people (e.g.: extracting billions in taxes to remediate warming; publicly discussing jailing doubters), the vast majority of acolytes will never back off – this much power is absolutely intoxicating, regardless if it’s founded on pure crap.

  32. NYE: “The climate would be like it was in 1750. And the economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today
    >/blockquote>

    So, is this a bad thing?
    Or is he admitting that humans have changed the climate for the better?

  33. Please notice at 4:54 in the video above that we — apparently — have prevented another ice age. It makes me feel all tingly and powerful.

    I think we all deserve a raise, or at least a large hot fudge sundae.

    In the meantime, I’m not selling my winter coat.

  34. Just looking quickly for vineyards in Britain in the Eighteenth century. Here are two quotes from within 50 years of 1750:

    ‘Oct. 18th 1765. I went to see Mr. Roger’s vineyard, at Parson’s Green, all of Burgundy grapes, and seemingly all perfectly ripe. I did not see a green half-ripe grape in all this great quantity. He does not expect to make less than fourteen hogsheads of wine. The branches and fruit are remarkably large, and the vines very strong.'”

    and from the 1790s

    Epsom is an extremely pleasant well-built town, surrounded with good land, pretty fields, and plenty of trees, without being an incumbrance. Here I spent two or three days in the most agreeable manner, at the house of the Rev. J. BOUCHER, rector of this place. The elegant house, gardens, and pleasure grounds occupied by this gentleman, are his own property, and are planned with a degree of taste and neatness, not often equalled: his collection of plants is large, and curious; and besides all the common sorts of fruit, there is scarcely a wall which does not support the spreading vine, covered with clusters of grapes.

  35. Bill Nye, the lying science guy, is not even a good engineer. He is a political hack pretending to be an educator who became a performer pretending to be a scientist. The idea that *anyone* knows what the climate would be like without humans is a laugh. And since wine grew in Britain before 1750, how dare he claim that is a bad thing. And pine bark beetles are more likely due to the stress caused trees by the over crowding due to fire fighting strategies that prevents too many fires. Good for Tucker Carlson.

  36. I’m missing something and I think Carlson missed it as well.

    If Nye doesn’t know how much of ‘climate change’ is due to human influence, how can he logically claim that, without human influence, the climate would be just as it was in 1750? Isn’t that a ‘back door’ claim that ALL ‘climate change’ since 1750 is due to human influence and human influence alone? It’s an absurd claim to begin with.

    Would have loved to see Carlson point that out.

    • Carlson has to do BG research on a variety of topics. Better would have been, IMO, to have a skeptical expert reply to Bill (de)Nye the Bow-Tied Boob.

      But Carlson could have done enough research or been briefed by staff that climate underwent drastic changes before and after AD 1750 without any help from humans. It warmed more rapidly and for longer coming out of the Maunder Minimum depths of the LIA (the early 18th century warming, c. 1690 to 1740) than it has since 1977, when the postwar cooling ended.

      Most of the warming since the end of the LIA c. 1850 also happened before CO2 took off after WWII (with no warming effect for at least 32 years).

      And do we have a Neanderthal industrial age to thank for the Eemian Interglacial, much warmer and longer lasting than our present Holocene to date?

    • I believe Carlson’s point about Nye being an engineer was that AGW types
      usually argue that you have no right to speak on the subject if you are not
      a scientist of the type which they approve.

      BTW, didn’t the Romans leave England ~400 AD because they could no
      longer grow wine grapes?

      • That and all the Germanic, Iranian and other barbarians invading more important parts of the empire like Gaul, Italy, Hispania, Africa and the Balkans.

        Not that withdrawing from Britannia in AD 410 did much good. The Visigoths sacked Rome in August of that very year. The Vandals in 455 and Ostrogoths in 546 finished the job. By then Germanic raiders had occupied eastern and southern Britain, while Picts (from Scotland) and Scots (from Ireland) ravaged its north and west. Worse was yet to come for the remains of the empire, in the form of Norse and Muslim invaders. These weren’t climate refugees but climate opportunists.

        However, at least some vineyards survived in the Mediterranean region.

      • The Romans withdrew from Britain several times, typically when the legions stationed there were needed elsewhere. They would then return when the crisis was over. Circa. 400 AD was when they departed for good.

  37. Bill Nye showed incredible hubris by agreeing to talk with Tucker Carlson. Does he not realize that some people might actually be hostile to him? Does he not give credit to the idea that some of those people will be highly competent? Apparently not.

    One of the reasons that alarmists refuse to debate with skeptics is that the alarmists usually lose. Bill Nye may have missed that little detail.

  38. Of course 1 billion people would be starving and our forests would be much smaller and less dense worldwide without the extra co2. In addition of course if we had not burned all that co2 since 1750 most of us would be dead or not born because civilization as we know it would be nonexistent.

    In addition of course none of what he said would be true because co2 isn’t the reason the world warmed from 1750. It was recovering from the LIA.

  39. It is the diagnosis of this former SF medic that Bill Nye is suffering from Cerebrovascular ischemia of the global form probably resulting from wearing his bowtie too tight for so many years. It is irreversible and as long as the guy keeps wearing his bowtie too tight he will increasingly sound like peewee Herman discussing climate or any other science.

  40. Tucker cannot be an expert on everything, so please hold your fire. Remember, he is a layman, but he is fearless and smart as a whip.

    He excels on calling idiots and deranged Leftists out on their inconsistencies and BS.

    It was sooooooo much fun to watch him laugh at, and ridicule this fool.

    Can anyone here imagine that airhead MeGYN Kelly even approach his level of intelligence and doggedness?  I don’t think so.  He is absolutely *destroying” her in comparable ratings.

    I watch him and Lou Dobbs every night. They are only two shows on Faux News that are worth anything at all.

  41. Mr. Nye must be a ‘Social Engineer’ or a Surface Engineer (floor polishing etc.) he clearly missed out on Thermodynamics.

    • >>
      . . . he clearly missed out on Thermodynamics.
      <<

      While getting my EE degree, all engineers were required to take thermodynamics. The required class was only offered by the ME department. I guess ME Nye missed that class.

      Jim

    • I knew a fellow grad student in mechanical engineering who thought it possible to split water using electrical current generated by burning the produced hydrogen AND harnessing useful work as a by product. How? Adding acid to the water would increase hydrogen concentration, in his limited chemistry background. Mind you, hydrogen ion (hydronium) concentration isn’t molecular hydrogen but he wouldn’t learn.

      Yes, he passed undergrad thermo somehow…

      • tks asybot! I stand corrected. Viticulture is the science of growing the plant, viniculture the art of squeezing and fermenting its fruit.

      • Sorry I am late answering but I wasn’t trying to be picky there is another term Oenology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oenology, but heck I just grew the plants until I went to school and learned a lot about Terroir, microclimates irrigation and the list goes on. Although the basics look simple it is a wonderfully complex science. When I first started in 1972 we were at the low end of the totem pole by the time I left the field in 2006 the vineyard manager was as important as the wine maker and unless the two of you could not work together not much good happened. ( the payscale went way up thank god.)

  42. Willis, did you see that in response to Tucker’s question on what the climate would be like without humans, Nye kept delaying and evading until he had a chance to stair at his phone. My guess is that someone texted him the wine-grape answer. He read the answer from his phone.

  43. Should make all engineers cringe. Nye doesn’t even know we’re IN and Ice Age and the last glaciation occured about 12,000 years ago.

      • Unfortunately, the term “ice age” doesn’t have a well defined meaning. We are in an interglacial during an ice age. Whether that age began 2.6 million years ago or 34 Ma is debatable. IMO the Cenozoic Ice House began with the Oligocene formation of Antarctic ice sheets 34 Ma, while the Pleistocene glaciations or Ice Age began c. 2.6 Ma, with the spread of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.

        It was too warm and the continents weren’t in the right places for a true Mesozoic Ice House, but the Paleozoic suffered two, the short but deep Ordovician/Silurian (despite CO2 eleven times higher than now) and lengthy Carboniferous-Permian (~360 to 260 Ma). The Proterozoic Eon (2500 to 541 Ma) was hit by Snowball Earth Ice Houses worse than anything in our present Phanerozic Eon (541 Ma et seq).

  44. “If Nye doesn’t know how much of ‘climate change’ is due to human influence, how can he logically claim that, without human influence, the climate would be just as it was in 1750? ”

    Logic? We don’t need no steenking logic.

    • Yes GP. His head might have exploded if he realised what he was actually saying. But then again he just looked sheepish when reminded of his words about jailing people (after denying it at first).

      As Bugs Bunny would say, what a maroon!

  45. Re: “CARLSON: You’re not even a scientist, you’re an engineer…”

    Carlson has confused the use of science with its definition. The practice of science is the application of the Scientific Method as a tool, for research. But one need not be doing scientific research to be a scientist. A scientist is merely someone who has the education and training which should enable him to do science. That includes engineers.

    E.g., a chemist who analyzes blood samples in a hospital is not doing research, but he’s still a scientist. Likewise, a mechanical engineer, like Bill Nye, who makes his living producing television entertainment, is still a scientist.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/engineering
    engineering. n. 1 The branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures. …

    The reason that “Bachelor of Science” degrees are awarded by engineering colleges is that engineering is applied science.

    My first degree was a “Bachelor of Science” in the field of “Systems Science,” and it was awarded by a “Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science.”

    Bill Nye has only a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and works as a children’s television entertainer. But he nevertheless has a profile on famousscientists.org, and is known far and wide as “the science guy.” He is a scientist — just not a very good one.

    • What’s the cutoff when being “not a very good one” precludes Nye from the designation of “scientist”, regardless of his paper-mill equivalent degree in whatever he was awarded.

      It’s a stretch to apply either the term “scientist” or “engineer” after that demonstrably embarrassing interview.

    • daveburton,

      Nye may be a scientist, but I have tremendous difficulty with any scientist, alleged or otherwise, who states “the science is settled”. I found Nye to be arrogant, impolite and hostile, practically from the beginning of the interview with Tucker Carlson. His behavior was typical of one that I have observed in others who support the idea that humans are responsible for warming. No data nor strong, defensible arguments were presented, though there was a feeble attempt by appealing to the “hockey stick” graphic in which people like Nye allege that the temperature is rising at a faster rate now than ever before. How in the hell does anyone know what the rate of temperature increase was, say during the Quaternary Era when most polar ice retreated. In giving credit to the Broadway show “Fiddler on the Roof” I’ll answer that question: “I don’t know!”

    • To be a scientist, you have to practice the scientific method. Having a BS (!) degree does not a scientist make.

      Nye is a lying clown, not a scientist.

      • To be a scientist, you have to practice the scientific method.

        Gluteus, I agree. But I’m sick of the argument “you’re not a climate scientist, so shut up.”
        Because there are many scientists like for example Willis, who maybe don’t have the degree but know more and are better scientists than those of the 97% Kabbalah.

      • Bill Nye holds a degree in Mech. Eng. from Cornell. (There – that embarrassment is out of the bag.) I have a degree in Engineering Physics from Cornell, and taught there (EE) as a lecturer for 30 years. Once an engineering graduate gets a job, his/her training (actual coursework) will get you by for about six weeks! Your employer does not expect you were taught anything directly useful to them, except hopefully, the basics of analytic thinking and engineering intuition. Some do – some don’t. Nye seems to have been “update free” and found a soft niche where he thinks he gets away with it!

  46. Forget human CO2 emissions affecting Climate.
    We need to go back to the first step:
    How are human CO2 emissions affecting the total CO2 in the atmosphere?
    This is still very poorly understood.

  47. Let me get this straight, according to Nye, if it weren’t for human activity the climate would not have changed in the last 260 plus years? (We would still have 1750’s climate)

    Now that is the words of a “climate change denier” if I ever heard them.

    Further, if the “science is settled”, then why wouldn’t Nye give a more scientific explanation of how and how much the various “human activities” each affect the climate?

    • JohnWho

      Some on this thread have noted that Nye got angrier as the interview went on…I watched it with & without sound – Nye looked like a cornered animal who was hoping to just get out alive.

  48. Bill Nye the UNscientific guy ignores the context that climate has always changed naturally asserting:

    And the economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today because the climate is changing.

    That source of “general” knowledge summarized (without ref)

    The Romans introduced wine making to England, and even tried to grow grapes as far north as Lincolnshire. Winemaking continued at least down to the time of the Normans with over 40 vineyards in England mentioned in the Domesday Book, although much of what was being produced was for making communion wine for the Eucharist.

    To be quantitative: Roman vineyards in Britain: Stratigraphic and palynological data from Wollaston in the Nene Valley, England Brown, A G; Meadows, I; Turner, S D; Mattingly, D J. Antiquity; Cambridge75.290 (Dec 2001): 745-757.

  49. “… you’re an engineer.”

    Gee, and that’s a rebuke? After the wonders created all around us, electronic rev., space age… . There is no such thing as a rocket scientist… er that would be engineer! Indeed the climate system is best understood as an engine. So Tucker where do you get your chops in climate science?

    OK, that’s out of the way. Bill Nye is doubly a fool because he IS a mechanical engineer and central to the work of a good one is a thorough theoretical and practical working grasp of thermodynamics, which is apparently not the strong suit of most of the scientists in the global warming industry who stumble badly when dealing with the enthalpy elephant in their midst.

    • Not to second guess Tucker, but I believe a more insightful reply would have been, “One of your defenses of the climate consensus is that many critics are not specifically climate scientists. You are a journalist/entertainer and non-practicing engineer. Why should anyone take you seriously?”

    • Also ad hominen and appeal to authority attacks are the hallmark of the Climate Change Brigade.
      IMHO, better to just stick to the facts.

  50. I am Canadian, I live North of the 49th parallel, and I am a huge fan of global warming. I didn’t like the weather in the 60s and 70s. I hated freezing my nuts off trying to boost cars when it was -45 and windy. I love being able to put my boat back in the water in April. I just wish that we could release more CO2 and keep it going. Damn you, Milankovich!

  51. there is ofcourse a much better “hypothesis” to explain climate variability and thats the sun.

    then there is Galactic Cosmic Rays which might be VERY influential and seem to vary a lot in intensity as we travel around the milky way (rotate every 50K years, just like the timespan of an iceage)

    • A galactic year is more like 250 Million years. That’s the time taken for the Sun to go round the Milky way once. We pass through several spiral arms( thought to be standing shock waves) in a Galactic year where star creation is at a maximum. The cosmic ray intensity goes up as we approach the spiral arms. That could be a reason for Ice Ages, times when we get Ice formation at the poles in Milankovitch cycles.

    • The Romans maybe did not occupy the Tweed Valley long enough to justify planting vines, but its south-facing slopes might well have produced viable wine grape crops in the first to fourth centuries:

  52. Bill Nye, like many of the ‘experts’ who float around the mediasphere, would be out of a job if there wasn’t some crisis to promote. He, like many others, has built a career on it. Therefore, he will never capitulate or back down from his position.

  53. Nye said the rate of change was the giveaway to AGW being a human-caused problem, implying that natural climate change only occurred over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Even I know of recent and clearly identifiable 30 cycles of warming and cooling. (See all through climate data since c1850 when accurate records were kept) That shoots his ‘rate of warming’ claim stone cold dead right there.

  54. Bill Nye – the stingy guy.

    If vineyards were good enough for Roman Britain, why can’t modern Britain have them too?

    To date the research has identified the remains of seven Romano-British vineyards – four in Northamptonshire, one in Cambridgeshire, one in Lincolnshire and one in Buckinghamshire.

    Independent, 17 yrs ago.

  55. >> Nye refuses to say how much of the change in temperature is due to humans … but at the same time he claims that if there weren’t humans, that the climate would have stopped changing in 1750. Without humans, he says, we would have a climate which was forever the same …<<

    Not sure this is a fair restatement of his position. He agreed that climate is always changing, only that natural climate change happens very slowly. I think the point he was trying to make is that the rate of change is happening faster today due to human activities. He thinks the climate should look more like it did in 1750 because natural climate change happens very slowly. I'm not sure he is correct that all natural climate change happens slowly. But I think that is the point he was trying to make.

    What I found interesting in that exchange is that he completely avoided talking about the Medieval Warm Period of about 1000 years ago when paleo studies suggest it was probably about as warm as it is today, and the Little Ice Age that ended a couple of hundred years ago when it was considerably cooler than during the MWP. He did not acknowledge those naturally occurring events which happened over a faster time period than he seems to think is possible naturally.

    • The Modern Warming has not yet equaled the hottest intervals of the Medieval WP, but it still has centuries to run, thank God.

    • When they claim change is at an excessive rate, they are comparing changes in short term averages (5 years or so) with changes in long term averages (50-100 years or more). Statistics, when properly quantified can show a truth, but it’s just as easy to improperly apply statistical methods to support a lie. Another example of broken statistical analysis is Hansen/Lebedeff homogenization which requires a normal distribution of sites and globally constant trends, neither of which are true.

  56. They sure don’t like it when you pin them down rather than leave them with their generalised doomsaying.

  57. So, according to Nye if we eliminate the human production of all CO2 then global temperatures will go back to what it was in 1750, Then we will have less crops, and all of the associated problems that existed back during the Little Ice Age, like the Irish Potato famine, etc.

    • Was it a more favorable climate that got the Industrial Revolution going, or was it’s man’s CO2 emissions arising from the Industrial Revolution that led to a more favorable climate?

  58. Nye is a huckster who sells books and shows. He is not a scientist. Whenever he doesn’t know the answer to something he just shrugs and says “Its a mystery.” Go away Bill Nye.

  59. The True Climate Deniers are those who deny climate change–after 1750–can be natural.

    In their view, “proved” by “science”, climate changed radically, often rapidly, over the past four billion years and finally struck a perfect balance in 1750. Climate could now remain unchanged forever, if not for evil humans.

  60. I’ve always thought the biggest problem with Fox News is they invite leftists on many shows, where they are allowed to lecture us, sometimes unwilling to stop talking, lie, and usually evade questions from the host.

    Leftists are extremely irritating — they know how to lecture others, but have no idea what a real debate is.

    I give Tucker Carlson credit for trying the hardest of any host on Fox News to make leftist guests answer his usually simple questions, but find these “debates” annoying to watch.

    So I stopped watching Tucker.

    I wish there was a news show that calmly reported what happened in the past day (or week) without bias.

    PBS has a “calm” news program, but has a huge left-wing bias I want to avoid.

    The loud “debates” on Fox News shows, where questions are routinely ignored, and media ridiculous fascination with making predictions, rather than just reporting reality (“news”), forces me online, and away from TV news.

    • “Leftists are extremely irritating — they know how to lecture others, but have no idea what a real debate is. ”
      I think they do know what a debate is and avoid it at all cost because the logical side of their brains subconsciously knows how weak emotional arguments are when stacked up against the logical arguments used against them. Whether you lean left or right (or are an alarmist or a skeptic) seems to depend on how your brain resolves conflicts between emotion and logic. And of course, the alarmist crowd hypes up emotional triggers using guilt and predictions of doom and gloom. This also seems to be why the left gets far more angry then the right when they don’t get their way.

  61. It struck me that Nye’s last rant (after being dismissed by the commentator) against the current paradigm in this country says volumes about his agenda-driven “scientific” motivations.

    • Yes, his rants were telling. I don’t judge people by the positions they take, just how they support them. Ad hominem attacks, failing to answer difficult questions, appealing to authority and endlessly spewing talking points are not legitimate ways to support any position.

    • He’s probably been to Jackson….

      “we got caught in global warming. Hotter than a pepper sprout. We’ve been talking about Jackson ever since the fire went out. (with apologies to Johnny Cash and June Carter).

      • You may be right. Harrison Ford and many other celebrities have lived or wed or vacationed there. I guess I didn’t think of the pine beetles being so bad there—the Medicine Bow forest is the one I think of for massive damage. Yeah, Jackson. :)

  62. “Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer, so he has a firm background in science.”

    Engineers are ethically required to not represent an expertise they do not have. My BSME 1975 science background did not prepare me to understand more than the basics science of climate change.

    Based my extensive experience, we can not measure temperature over time with enough accuracy to identify human effects. The confidence interval is greater than the contribution of humans. In scientific terms, we do not know.

    As a Level III, ASME test engineer, I have had to explain to mangers that I can not run a test to show that heat heat exchangers to remove decay heat have not become degraded because of instrument accuracy. Furthermore the NRC does not require it.

    Why? Because we routinely demonstrate performance when shutting down from 100% power and cooling down to start refueling in 24 hours. It is not a problem.

    Alarmists worry that a slow, small change in climate will keep us from producing power. Done it at nuke plants from -40 F to 117 F.

    Been there, done that but I did not get a T-shirt for just doing my job.

  63. Engineers are applied scientists.

    They are held to much higher standards of understanding hypotheses than a lot of scientists – given the number of papers which can not be replicated.

    Engineers cannot just homogenise out uncooperative data. They sometimes go to jail for getting it wrong.

  64. 65 million people, primarily in urban areas with failing schools
    ….are OK with people going back on their word, deleting 33,000 public records,
    ….lying that “the video” caused the death of several people the person was responsible for.
    “The buck doesn’t stop here! (but in my pocket)” is their chant.

    so, what did you expect?

  65. Alastair wrote
    >> Whenever you ask them just what is this lost Nirvana we’re supposed to pine for…what is their ideal temperature, CO2 level, etc. They can never answer that one properly.

    It’s the same when you ask a big-government leftie what the tax rate should be for the wealthy – how much is enough? They cannot answer.

  66. Whoa “your not even a scientist, you are an engineer”. Engineers are scientists. I am in particular an R&D mechanical engineer. You know postulating theories, setting up and running experiments to test those theories, analysing the results and repeat until we come up with something to design like this little device I am writing on know. You know “scientific method”. So fu Carlson

    • >>you are an engineer
      I’m an EE and didn’t like that comment either – in fact, I’d say engineers are at least as (if not more) likely to be skeptical as any scientist.

  67. Bill Nye is an outsourced, former court jester making his way from one student activity fee to another at universities. At least he is not in competition with Hillary for those funds at present.

  68. Looking up Bill’s wiki is hilarious. He is actually a member of the “Committee for Skeptical Inquiry” and has honorary doctor of science degrees from just about everywhere. I think those degrees have been doctored :-) I really wonder about the engineer part. He is in over his head I feel.

    • He is a paid actor by the establishment that is designed to make us feel guilty not to solve anything.

  69. Interesting that climate science has now come down to: Do you have children?. Why do we have to feel bad that we are humans that don’t want to buy solar panels and have electric cars. Is that all there is to climate science is guilt?

  70. I watched it what joke. Billy went all lewandowski. Too bad Tucker didn’t know that 1750 was deep in the Little Ice Age with the Thames freezing every year for the Frost festival. Or the Potomac freezing solid. He also seems to have taken on the latest leftist arguing style which is to never stop talking and talk over the host spewing gibberish

  71. For those who slightly disparage Carlson for missing opportunities to crush Nye, it helps to understand his modus operandi;
    1) find a single fatal flaw in the liberal’s argument;
    2) hammer the liberal with a logical question(s) about the flaw;
    3) do not get distracted by other arguments, keep coming back to the fatal flaw.

    I did not expect Carlson to have, or try to present, all of the fatal flaws of CAGW – there are too many. He stuck to one fatal flaw which reduced Nye to a babbler. I was classic Carlson and delicious to watch.

    Carlson wins every time. Because the flaw is fatal, the interviewee can never answer it and ends up babbling or attacking the opponent or interviewer personally. In the public’s eyes, this is unacceptable and the interviewee loses. The object of the interviewer is not to convince his/her supporters, but to demonstrate to the 80% of the audience who are neutral on the subject that the interviewee is an idiot . On a Sunday talk show, I debated an anti-nuclear idiot and I did exactly what Carlson does: used one fatal flaw and hammered the point throughout the debate. As we left the studio, the idiot was literally yelling at the person who arranged to have him on the show. I just smiled knowing that he knew I had won the debate.

  72. They should televise a duel between Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson spouting “facts” and the winner being the one with the least amount of errors. Both these nitwits are routinely caught talking out their backsides.

    • The all-time best televised duel was between Nye and Lindzen on Larry King in 2007, in my view. It’s a hoot.

      I thought Nye only attended university (mech. eng.) for two years. Also my understanding is that he got into this science gig career through a children’s science show as an entertainer.

  73. For those slightly disparaging Tucker Carlson for missing opportunities to crush Nye, it helps to understand Carlson’s modus operandi:
    1) Pick a single fatal flaw in the liberal’s arguments;
    2) Ask logical questions about the flaw;
    3) Do not get distracted by other arguments and always bring the discussion back to the single flaw.

    I do not expect Carlson to have, or present, all of the fatal flaws of CAGW – there are too many. The liberal will dance, duck, or babble on about a non-sequitur to avoid answering the fatal flaw questions. Carlson followed the above modus operandi with Nye and it left Nye dancing, ducking and babbling. Nye lost the debate and it was delicious. It takes discipline to stay on point when the opponent will try to find the hot button that will take you off of point. Tucker is good at staying on point.

    Most of us here already think Nye is an idiot. However, put yourself in the shoes of others who have no investment in the CAGW religion – probably 80% of the population. Who do you think they saw as the winner in the Carlson/Nye debate? If I was a neutral observer, I could not have made heads nor tails of Nye’s arguments and would have deemed him the loser. Carlson did not have to prove the anti-CAGW views, but the CAGW side won because Nye looked like such an idiot. Basic Debate Club stuff.

    • It is alarming that a PhD professor in physics apparently does not understand that power and energy are different things and that energy is the time-integral of power. No wonder so many got it wrong.

      Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe a theory or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a substantial cause of global warming.

      Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

      CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through Dec, 2016) increased since 2001 by 34.1 ppmv (an amount equal to 38.1% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; Dec, 2016, 405.25 ppmv).

      The average global temperature trend since 2001 is essentially flat (the recent El Niño has been in steep downtrend since Feb. 2016).

      That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase 1800-2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 34.1 ppmv additional CO2 increase did not cause a significant uptrend in the average global temperatures after 2001.

    • Griff is still in hiding from his hits on Dr Curry & Dr Crockford.

      Probably won’t make another substantive visit until there’s another woman to attack…

  74. “…The forests in Wyoming would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change…”

    Bill, Bill Bill. The beetle is largely gone around here. Came through in a dry period a decade ago, when trees allowed to grow to unsustainable density became drought stressed. The forests still have a lot of visible dead trees, but the remaining trees look pretty healthy, and new ones are sprouted and growing. This completes a cycle begun in the 1970s after the last big beetle kill in our area, and will complete once again in perhaps year 2060 unless we alter forest management practices.

  75. So Bill Nye, How much of the change in global warming since the ice age is due to human activity?

    Tucker asked you ONE question. One. You had no answer. Ohhh you said quite a bit. But you didn’t answer that central, unanswerable question. You said 100%. You said something about sea level rise, leaks in the administration, something about Tucker Carlson’s 4 kids but you didn’t actually say what the accepted fraction of global warming is attributed to human activity.

    You dry gulped several times, and tried to answer the question you wanted to answer rather that the question Carlson asked.

    So there is no agreement is there. There is no conclusion to the debate.

    • The obvious implication of his verbiage is that 100% of climate change since 1750 is man-made.

      This is obviously false on its face. As is his suggestion that natural climate change occurs only on the scale of tens of thousands or millions of years.

      The definition of climate is the average of weather over 30 years. Climate change for the past 30 years and the 30 before that and the 30 before that and the 30 before that and the 30 before that, etc, is not in the least bit unprecedented. Climate change in the interval of rapid CO2 growth is no different from during the cooling and warming phases of the Holocene before that interval.

      Whatever evidence Nye imagines for a human fingerprint since 1750 doesn’t exist.

  76. I don’t like “You’re not even a scientist, you’re an engineer ” dis .
    Often engineers have a more immediate hands on quantitative interactions with the phenomena .

    Bill Nye is willfully stupid not because he’s an engineer but in spite of it .

    • Well said Bob –

      I once suggested (tongue in cheek) to an acquaintance that engineers should run the world and she replied, “Engineers don’t really know anything – they just know how to make things work.” I guess I am still missing the insult.

      Further to the point, engineers can much more easily spot something technical that really does not have a chance of working. Superior BS detectors.

  77. Sounds like mankind has saved itself from starvation but may have to move up from the beach a few feet according to Nye. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

  78. Bill Nye thinks it is a bad thing that they can grow grapes in Britain, which they could incidentally during Roman times.

  79. Mr Carlson’s show is like progressive flypaper.
    They just can’t resist the urge to go there, but they get stuck every time.

  80. Title “Bill Nye loses the plot.”
    Years ago Johnny Weissmuller played Tarzan in several jungle movies, then was a victim of dementia?
    One evening in the nursing home, he leaped from a stairwell to swing on a chandelier, from which he fell to the floor, hardly injured.
    The newspaper headline was “Tarzan loses his grip. ”

    Younger readers should know of an adhesive in a tube named “Tarzan’s Grip – the stuff that sticks”, which became corrupted by common use “Grab a grip of Tarzan’s Tube, the stick that stuffs.”

    Parallel thoughts to Bill Nye.
    Geoff.

  81. 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/

  82. I don’t believe he was suggesting that the climate would stop changing, but rather than it would have remained cooler. Or maybe the climate would have continued to change, such as by getting cooler. There is of course no scientific basis for this fancy. The IPCC asserts that human impacts on climate are only realistically measurable after 1950. So, like most no thing cranks, he pulled this claim out of his nether regions of course.

  83. “”Nye blurted out “100 percent” followed by: “If that’s the number you want.””
    This clearly demonstrates the current practice in climate science.

  84. Tucker Carlson did what he does beautifully, he allowed a fool to open his mouth and remove all doubt.
    I look forward to his next,”interviewee”.
    As for the failure of Tucker to ask concise and cutting “Climate Science” questions… Not necessary.
    The subject is too big and too convoluted to tackle on TV, being a political quasi-religious ideology, far better to allow Bill Nye to show the viewers by his own words and actions.
    The end is nye,these are the end times for the Cult of Calamitous Climate.
    Either they be ridiculed evermore or they produce a more coherent spokesman to answer what Bill could not.
    Ball is in their court, well played Tucker Carlson.

    • I doubt that a “coherent spokesman” for the CAGW ruse will ever emerge. Anyone with any kind of legitimate scientific background knows that there are too many extraneous variables and too many unanswered questions to ever attempt to become such a spokesman, let alone debate the theory. Sure, people like Mann and Gore have tried, but they avoid debate like the plague, because they have nothing but the theory and computer models to fall back upon.

  85. “And the economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today because the climate is changing.”

    Not true – and we have the evidence (not required, I know, in climate ‘science’) to prove it.

    Grape vines and vineyards were recorded in the Doomsday Book in Southern England in the 12th Century. Archaeological evidence suggest the Romans introduced grape vines to Britannica during the Roman occupation.

    So growing grapes for wine and wine making in England has been going on for at least a thousand years ‘despite’ climate change, as a matter of record… possibly longer.

    Also GM has produced vines that can grow in cooler climates.

  86. This is all nonsense about CO2. It has no effect on the atmosphere and I prove it with a simple demo-experiment you can buy on Amazon.com for $0.99 The facts are very simple:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It would have to be increased by a factor of 2500 to be considered “significant” or “notable.” To give it the great power claimed is a crime against physical science.

    CO2 absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. Pushing panic about any effect CO2 could have is clearly a fraud.

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat physically. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and retain energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact. Only liquids and solids have molecules in contact.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Michael Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, the longest ever.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government tax more money for them and enjoy being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer. We have an inexpensive demo-experiment “CO2 Is Innocent,” 99 cents at Amazon.com, showing CO2 has no effect on IR heat absorption up to 10,000 ppm and then it cools the atmosphere by driving water vapor out as it is seven times the IR absorber/heater as CO2.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

Comments are closed.