Not a member? Sign up now
Bill Nye "The Science Guy" schools Fox host on climate change
By Jeff MillsAugust 30th, 2011, 1:35 pmComments (61)
Bill Nye "The Science Guy," our own twenty-first-century Mr. Wizard whose powers of mentation seem to be connected to his trusty bow tie, returned to the man-caused-climate-change-denying Fox network on Monday, after previously explaining to Happening Now host Jon Scott that no, of course volcanoes on the moon aren't connected to the burning of fossil fuels.
This time, Nye joined Fox Business personality Charles Payne on Freedom Watch to discuss whether Hurricane Irene is "proof" of global warming. Nye thought that word a little strong, and said "evidence" or "result of," sure. As a scientist not used to blindly, stubbornly arguing a position simply on ideological grounds, he explained that "many months" of sophisticated computer modeling would be required to arrive at a more definitive climate picture.
Whether or not wild weather is "the new normal," as a new Newsweek cover story has it, "there's a lot more science behind it than saying it's not," as Nye put it. The Pacific Ocean getting warmer is not a fairy tale, but it might as well be for Payne, whose knowledge of climate change apparently amounts to someone having told him that the world is one degree warmer in the last hundred years.
Then Payne trotted out clips of Al Gore (shocker!) talking about having to "win the conversation" against global-warming skeptics, as rational people have, for the most part, won the conversation against racism. Payne, as a loyal Fox soldier, was predictably trying to obfuscate the issue and make it seem as though Gore was trying to paint climate-change skeptics as racists, which was clearly not the case.
Nye ignored the bizarre, implied race baiting (which should have nothing to do with climate change), explaining in a humorous, roundabout way, encompassing tribal isolationism and dachshund-pitbull sex, why climate change should be acknowledged, making another Fox host look silly in the process. Payne, ironically, said Nye was "confusing the viewers," which is what I thought Payne was doing. Perhaps it's not the best idea for Fox to keep inviting back objective scientists who might refute their propaganda.
Commentarium (61 Comments)
Bill Nye is the science teacher you wish you had in junior high.
all i can say is: BILL BILL BILL! BILL NYE, tha muthafuckin science guy!
"Schooled?" Not my impression at all. Charles was trying to provide an interesting interview, imo, and was succeeding until Bill Nye went off on a tangent about dogs having sex.
Hmm. Only a nerve.com contributor could think that Nye's comments were intelligent. Can you explain to me once again what a "model" is, Bill? It's a computer program?! Really?!?! And these models use "millions and millions of data" - yes, he really said that.
Perhaps Bill should ask his colleagues - note he professes no personal expertise in climate science about their models. The current models - they're big computer programs, you know! - do not accurately reflect physics. The scholarly work isn't out yet but you can read about it in the popular press:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_resu...
We MUST return to a science-based debate about climate change and stop citing concensus as scientific fact. What any number of people believe to be true is only significant if they are correct. Consider what the following intelligensia had to say in 1970 about global cooling:
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population."
Reid Bryson
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
Kenneth Watt
"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."
Lowell Ponte
Nye looks horrible - perhaps he should call Sinead O'Connor and see if she's busy this weekend.
"Datum" is singular. A single item of information. "Data" is the plural. "Millions of data" is 100% legit English. Just wanted to point that out.
Yes, I'm well aware of the forms of the word - had a grad school advisor who was a nazi about the two forms. "Data" is also now accepted as singular by several dictionaries and it pretty much killed him until he decided that the re-definition was a sign of the Apocalypse.
My point was not grammatical, it was scientific. "Millions" was used to imply precision or perhaps accuracy. The problem with climate models is that the wrong data are (see?) are frequently modelled but modeled (While we're at it: British and American spellings) incorrectly. Most recently, the work by CERN cited above but also AQUA provided some interesting data that conflicts with the modeling hypotheses. Some of the simplest models have been the most accurate. The problem with modelling dynamic systems is that when they get too complex, they can be unstable.
""Schooled?" Not my impression at all. Charles was trying to provide an interesting interview, imo, and was succeeding until Bill Nye went off on a tangent about dogs having sex.
Hmm. Only a nerve.com contributor could think that Nye's comments were intelligent. Can you explain to me once again what a "model" is, Bill? It's a computer program?! Really?!?! And these models use "millions and millions of data" - yes, he really said that. "
Interesting of you to demand "science-based debate", yet open your comment with two paragraphs that amount to nothing more than an ad hominem.
"Perhaps Bill should ask his colleagues - note he professes no personal expertise in climate science about their models. The current models - they're big computer programs, you know! - do not accurately reflect physics. The scholarly work isn't out yet but you can read about it in the popular press:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_resu..."
This article does not support your implication that the models climate scientists use are untenably wrong. This article (and the CLOUD experiments themselves) have found issue with aerosol formation in climate models; this is hardly a fatal blow to current theories on climate change, as the current theories do not state that the only factor affecting climate change is cloud condensation via pollutants. Also from the PDF: "it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays on climate". Lastly, making absolute conclusions concerning natural phenomena cannot be done until findings have been peer-reviewed and results replicated.
"We MUST return to a science-based debate about climate change and stop citing concensus as scientific fact."
Perhaps you're not familiar with logic, but stating that the scientific consensus is irrelevant to the validity of a claim because the scientific consensus has been wrong in the past is fallacious. In addition, you've given us no reason to believe these three "experts" represent the historical consensus on climate change, or that they are credible as experts.
Stone, you beat me to the punch on showing how Climate Man was making a logical fallacy. Also, his general argument is greatly weakened by his attempt at criticizing Bill Nye's appearance; it's completely irrelevant to the argument. Furthermore, critiquing another person's grammar in an attempt to weaken their argument is also fallacious. It also is quite funny when you make mistakes in your own post (eg. " ... are (see?) are ...").
Yes, Stone, I realize that the link is a popular press story. More is coming. Hence the replication. Suffice it to say that the PI is confident the data will hold.
And I never said that the CERN data dealt a "fatal blow" to the models. It's a nice straw man argument. What it does show is that the current models are significantly in error. You may decide that a faulty model yields correct results or not, the issue is what a proper model would show.
"Perhaps you're not familiar with logic, but stating that the scientific consensus is irrelevant to the validity of a claim because the scientific consensus has been wrong in the past is fallacious. "
Perhaps I'm familiar, perhaps I'm not. It is undeniable, however, that scientific consensus has been incorrect in the past so citing it now as evidence of global warming is equally specious. And then you incomprehensibly talk about consensus. I'll make it simple for you: Consensus is meaningless on this topic or any other. It's the science that will carry the day, not a show of hands.
So what really gets me is that this 'interesting interview' jumps focus from science to politics, with a guest known specifically as 'the science guy'. Pretty stinking lame of FOX to ruin an entire television channel doing this type of wasted air-time over and over again. They isolate and divide their dwindling audience time and again. Why you would say a 'nerve contributor' would be the only person to find Nye's comments intelligent is beyond many people, I'm sure. They say thinking is a proper course of action. You really should think before you try to coerce people with your ranting.
Climate Man: your blandishment about the instability of dynamic systems given a surfeit of data is... overreaching. In modeling a nonlinear system, sampling-induced divergence becomes rapidly apparent within a few cycles of runtime. As long as the spatial data is within the duration of stability criterion given the time-steps, the model won't reach a nonsensical result from oversampling. It'd be highly unlikely that the scientists who spend entire careers utilizing and analyzing differential models do not consider data-induced distortions in the output of their model. Trying to impress the internet by mentioning some graduate-school experience while spewing some jargon without posting a scholarly position just makes you seem juvenile.
As for ion-induced nucleation (I followed your link), the phenomena has been known for decades. The CERN research simply confirmed it. Confirmation of known phenomena is something that happens a lot in research labs. Nonetheless, clouds cool the earth by reflecting sunlight. The earth has had clouds for at least 4.2 billion years. What does this have to do with emergent phenomena in our climate? In closing, I'm going to ask: do you know the difference between temperature and heat? Which of those two physical quantities does the climate debate center around? If you can answer those two questions correctly and you have a reasonable understanding of basic chemistry (high school level), you will find the solution to the climate debate... apparent.
I
Overreaching? Nah. Note that I made no reference to sampled data or continuous systems modelled from observed data. The systems show nonsense results when run out several hundred years; a short period of time climatologically, but are being used to set policy for much shorter time periods. If they're not accurate over the periods they're designed to model, it's unlikely they're accurate for shorter periods.
I'm glad you're impressed with my grad school reference. I'm less impressed with your undergrad level control systems theory. That may be just me. Come on out and sit through my class. You'll learn something.
Of course, ion-induced nucleation has been known for years - a ridiculous argument given that no one ever indicated otherwise - it's the magnitude that's not properly modelled.
What does reflection of huge amounts of energy have to do with climate? I think I'll just let that one go without comment.
Do I know the difference between temperature and heat? No, that never came up in my education. Why is it important? (<- huge amounts of sarcasm). If you want to have a serious debate, let's rock. If you want to ask vapidly stupid questions, I'll leave you to play with yourself, something I suspect you do far more and better than control systems and thermodynamics.
It's also Bill Nye the Science Guy, the guy who had a kid's television show. So, you can't really be that critical of him.
Also: request to have a discussion about science; make fun of others who disagree and be condescending
Condescension and making fun of others is a requirement on nerve, julian. I see that you partake quite readily.
TLDNR
Bill Nye is pretty awesome. :)
Perhaps, but I was just going to say, usually when you result to being a bit of a jerk it is a sign you are running out of things to say.
But, srsly, I don't have anything against you. Chill out dood.
Condescension can be the result of having nothing to say. Or it can be the result of mud wrestling with pigs - everyone gets muddy and the pig enjoys it.
This is a case of the latter so I'll leave you with a simple, "Adios, bitches."
You totally oversold that video.
Kind of amazing, isn't it? Not even close to what was described.
I will troll for $.
Not like we've never had a major hurricane move up the east coast before.
Historically it's not unusual.
Might want to read up on hurricane Hazel, or Agnes.
Or Floyd, 1999. Geez. Hurricanes are normal weather. That said, Payne is a moron and I really wish they wouldn't let him sit in Judge Andy's chair. He belongs in sports.
Or Hugo...
In 1954 (I think), there were three of them in one season all making landfall on the East Coast. Speaking of the 50s, check this out:
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/
Hard to look at the 50s and 60s and then conclude that global warming is to blame (it's too short and small a sample set in any case).
Bill Nye has a BS in Mechanical engineering from Cornell and he spent the last few years updating Mr. Wizard episodes with stupid sound effects and shaky editing--is he really that much more qualified than the Fox host on climatology?
I am a walking ad hominem.
Let's say that he is equally qualified to speak about this subject: then why did Fox invite somebody with a "BS in Mechanical engineering from Cornell" to speak about climate change?
Good point, Doofus. A BS without signficant experience hardly qualifies anyone to speak as an expert. I'm still mystified by the dogs having sex segue. Bizarre.
Chad - I think he was on TV because that's what he does. I certainly hope that you don't believe that everyone on TV with an opinion is an expert in his/her field.
Um, I would imagine the person invited on the show might have some credentials within the subject he/she is asked to comment on. If Fox is a news station, wouldn't it make more sense to have an expert comment on something than a person chosen at random just because TV is "what he/she does"?
If I were trying to get instructions on how to perform a heart transplant, would it make more sense to talk to a heart surgeon, or a professor of dentistry? Choosing the dentist is the equivalent of asking a person on your show to explain something and then after not liking the explanation that person gives, asserting that he/she was hardly an expert, anyways.
Bill Nye is known internationally as 'The Science Guy', while also being associated with everything science. That alone makes him worth having on the show. You forget that the majority of tv viewers are complete morons and associate science with everything they don't understand. How does water drain down the sink? Let's ask Bill!
Really? You think that everyone asked to talk on cable news is a subject matter expert? Not in my experience. Not be a long shot.
The way I saw it, Fox invited a guy well known for making science simple and accessible to children to explain climate change, but the host found the explanation beyond his comprehension. This I could have predicted in advance.
I saw errors of fact on both sides and generally saw the whole segment as a waste of time.
Fox News is constantly riddled with misinformation and half-truths. It's so shamelessly anti-intellectual it makes almost no effort top conceal it. Watching O'reilly and other Fox "News" hosts interview people who offer a point of view that is diametrically opposed to the channel's unofficial conservative bent is often uncomfortable to watch and embarassing to the interviewee. Many decent people like Bill Nye, who are probably clamoring for some tv exposure, are often humiliated and dismissed and are anyway over-qualified to offer their somewhat-expertise to these morons.
Fox News is a colossal waste of time regardless.
Are you suggesting that other cable news outlets are better? That's not the case, in my experience. It also seems to me that people find the best, most objective reporting on the outlets that match their political views; conservatives prefer Fox and hate MSNBC. Liberals like MSNBC and hate Fox.
One awkward comparison by Al Gore = all models of climate change are null and void
CASE CLOSED EVERYBODY
also, I hope we don't have to go through this again http://www.nerve.com/news/current-events/al-gore-has-had-it-with-climate... (in the comments)
but we probably will
You have to admit, julian, that it was an incredibly bizarre comparison. Mr. Gore is certainly trying to shut down debate on climate science; there's no other reason to make the comparison he did except to demonize those who disagree with him.
I think you missed my point.
Perhaps, julian, but do you agree that his "awkward comparison" was or might have been intended to curtail discussion regarding climate change?
I certainly don't believe that his unfortunate choice of words makes all models invalid. His was a political point, models are a scientific point. Skew lines, so to speak.
Well good, then, we agree. I was using sarcasm earlier to explain that the Fox "news anchor"s use of the al gore comments was curtailing the discussion in the same way that you claim al gore was doing it himself in the interview thing.
Also, I don't know if I would go as far to say it was "curtailing" discussion as most of the discussions that al gore probably faces in terms of climate change aren't scientists debating the reality of the models they are using but rather him talking about broad points in climate change and people going "no, I don't think that is real because of this pseudo-science (or plain made up) reason." So, I think his comparison, while a bit awkward, is accurate in that many climate skeptics are using bad rhetoric/arguments which don't refute the points he makes in the same way racist comments don't refute the idea that everyone should have equal rights as detailed in the bill of rights/constitution.
Unless you wanted more evidence to show how Fox still fails at its attempts to be a journalism institution.
Bill Nye needs add'l communications training. I acknowledge the scientific consensus supporting man-forced climate change, but am continuously disappointed at the media abilities of climate communicators. Nye's analogy about tribes/dog sex made my head explode, and badly discredited him and his arguments. Total fail for those supporting the science, and the viewers will walk away seeing Charles as the reasonable person. I believe Fox intentionally puts on weak advocates of policies/narratives it opposes, and Nye is as weak as they come.
FOX''news'' is sheeple feed.
Gore and Nye were both making the point that concepts which were once widespread but morally or intellectually unsustainable should be challenged whenever they show up. Mock flat-earthers, shun racists, laugh at climate change deniers, guffaw at birthers and tenthers, and so on.
You condensed my tldr into two sentences. Bravo. Also, as far as the dog sex, he was merely pointing out that racism is pointless.
So Bill, are you still beating your girlfriend?
Every one has such a problem with the analogy and keeps calling it a bizarre segue but he was asked about the racism statement, it seems as though he was trying to say it doesn't matter and that it's a moot point. That's what they chose to end with, so that is the last statement people remember.
You know the main thing that all these global warming proponets conveniently "forget" to take into effect: THE SUN. You know, that giant blazing ball of light in the sky that's a mere 93 million miles away, a mere pittance in galactic terms? The star that is RESPONSIBLE for ALL of our light, heat, and LIFE on this planet! Not only that, but the global warming folks take all their data from too small a time period. The earth naturally goes through MANY periods of warming AND cooling. The earth has been here LONG before humans were here, and it will be here LONG after we're gone. We definitely have an effect on it for sure, but I think we give ourselves FAR too much credit and we grossly underestimate the Earth's ability to take care of itself. Not that this is a license to pollute, mind you...
Science is limited by the data set. In the case of climate science, we have a 400,000 year old window of measurable atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. Over this timeframe, CO2 levels have fluctuated, but increased atmospheric CO2 has been shown over this period to be a very good leading indicator of increased temperatures. These are facts that cannot be debated. Can this apparently tightly liked relationship be purely a coincidence? Possibly, but most scientists would draw a different conclusion from the data. Other tough to dispute facts - temperatures are increasing, and the levels of atmospheric CO2 are at levels higher than anything ever observed previously. Does this prove the case for anthropogenic global warming? Based on everything we know, concluding that it is simply a coincidence is simply ignorant.
The earth has ALWAYS had crazy weather. There's just a lot more people now, and more people living in coastal and flood-prone areas! Like New Orleans, for example... what MORON decided it would be a GOOD idea to build a city in a BOWL-SHAPED DEPRESSION, surrounded on THREE SIDES by WATER??? "Naw, this will never flood." All the idiots who CHOOSE to live & stay there get what they deserve.
um
And just where do you propose we build a city, given that the largest navigable river system in the continent spills into the open ocean right about there?
Climate change is solely about CO2. CO2 levels are rising, that is not in dispute. That man has contributed to that is also not in dispute. What that means in terms of temperature or significant weather over time is very much in dispute. Does that mean today is hotter because of it is silly or that we can know how CO2 impacts one hurricane. This is climate change, that takes decades to see the shift. But increased CO2 is real and we will see changes because of it, we just get to argue about what they are.
i'm pretty sure scientists are aware of the sun. Venus is hotter than Mercury thanks to their respective atmospheres.
This entire string of comments makes me lose a little bit more faith in the ability of Americans to think logically. I do see some useful and somewhat informed interjections here and there, but overall; the point of this video missed most of you. Fox is all about conflict. The only thing that keeps them going is ignorance and an abrasive devotion to their "understanding of the issues in debate". This entire interview is a debacle of blind faith vs. logical thought. Science is not exact, but saying something doesn't exist doesn't make you automatically right.
I think Nye's misdirection about racism and dog sex is one of the better befuddlement's that I have ever seen thrown at a Fox Host. I mean, how are you supposed to keep fueling the racist hate fires when your opponent is talking about fundamental nature via dog sex. The host may not have been a racist himself, but bringing it up as a focal point in a conversation about climate change is asinine. And the Host's lack of knowledge on the subject of global warming was disturbingly typical of the Fox News strategy; Throw someone into the ring who knows about the subject, then sic the loud and interrupting "conservative" on them. What a waste of my time to even get involved enough to write this....
Fox News is just a cable TV station, man.
be nigger
be stupid
So, we have Bill Nye 'schooling' FOX hosts.
We have Al Gore yelling 'bullshit' in auditoriums.
We have several politicians using the concept of
the civil rights movement as a platform for 'talking points'
about climate change.
We have James Hansen and Ms. Hannah getting arrested for public
disobedience in D.C. to stop the XL pipeline.
Guess what......
It's not working.
CampusProgress recently wrote about 'winning' the conversation.
How many articles have I read now that suggest to the reader to get informed
in order to talk to a skeptic in order to win.
Just 3 years ago the Goreacle said there was
no need for debate.
What was suppose to be a settled science has turned into a pathetic
cry for help.
"Please believe us. We know whats best for you!"
"Even if we are wrong about Co2, we still have the collective wholes interest at heart."
"Everyone knows the planet is warming."
This type of strategy is known as ad-nauseum.
No matter how often this strategy is used, it will not wear down the skeptic.
Liberal media can continue to print thousands of articles repeating these mantras, but those words are from a failed religion.
Media can lie about polls, or use 'adjusted' polls to support a lie.
Its still a lie.
Scientists can manipulate data, but current peer-reviewed science is proving they are manipulating data.
Every time a eco-freak nutjob says, 'do you have a link to back up your comment', tell them to go do their own research.
We are wasting our time trying to defend our position, while these warmistas are stalling the issue with 'winning' the conversation.
Those of us who deny that Co2 is warming the planet know that there is a bigger threat facing our planet, and that is what we should be focusing on.
They have lost, these ultra-thinkin eco-freak elites.
They just haven't realized it yet.
Those are just a few examples of people doing what you are calling ad-nauseum, actually, two of them were from the same person, Al Gore, which is hardly the case of the entire scientific community.
I'd like to see what peer-reviewed articles you are seeing that directly say scientists are physically manipulating data. Because, from what I've seen is that the science community almost unanimously fully supports the idea that there is global warming and it is caused by humans. But then again, maybe it is just eco-nut jobs that are formulating the greatest conspiracy ever, because "why not?", instead of thousands of scientists extrapolating objective models from the same data as they have always done as a discipline.
Or maybe I'm just an eco-nut when people from different science backgrounds that have doctorates in their fields, have done and are published authors in their field tell me that global warming/climate change is real and provide data for it from multiple sources. But, maybe I'm just being a sheeple because I believe people, who would otherwise have no interest in global warming unless it is going to be a big problem, with years of experience in research and testing. Maybe, I should instead not listen to anything they have to say and instead choose to think they are entirely wrong because why not?
BILL STRAIGHT TELLS HIM
Yes very confusing next time Bill should bring Elmo on with him to better explain it. Fox news brought to you by the letter C and the number 3.
Now you say something