If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boing Boing)   CNN on Bill Nye's views about climate change: "just a kooky guy that doesn't know what he's talking about"   (boingboing.net) divider line 120
    More: Asinine, CNN  
•       •       •

6812 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Jul 2012 at 7:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-14 02:02:52 AM
I thought he was the guy with a bachelor's in mechanical engineering?

Kaku seems to be the kooky science guy.
 
2012-07-14 02:03:58 AM

LeftOfLiberal: violentsalvation: LeftOfLiberal: violentsalvation: Jesus f*cking Christ, did any of you even watch the video? She is asking him to respond to what people on the internet call him.

And he actually is a "kooky guy who doesn't know what he's talking about" when he downplays the mismanagement of forests as a partial cause for the fires. Also he say "just two years ago it was wet in Colorado .... and then two years later when forest floor is especially dry". Ok so we are comparing weather and climate between two years as evidence of climate change? Sciency folks on fark would shoot my post full of holes if I did that here. And unfortunately the mismanagement of forests goes back more than 2 years, Bill. The heat and drought conditions just allow the ticking-time-bomb forests to finally explode.

You obviously watched the video so at what point did you stop thinking to keep your confirmation bias? Bill Nye mentioned the wet weather 2 years ago to agree with the point that there is more brush to create fires now. Somehow you heard the opposite? But your not biased, no not at all

I don't disagree with him on global warming, but yeah, for what I mentioned him saying, he does not know what the hell he is talking about regarding forests and forest fires, and he is stupid to use it in his statements about climate change. He is focused on a catalyst and ignoring decades of fuel build up. Of course someone going by the handle LeftOfLiberal is truly thinking objectively and without bias, I'm sure.

Okay, maybe I didn't spell it out plain enough. What Bill Nye was saying is that 2 years ago it was very wet. This wetness led to a large amount of growth in the form of brush. This brush, from 2 years ago is an important part of why this particular dry spell is causing so many fires. His reasoning seems very sound. The fact that you fail to see what he is getting at makes me think you are approaching the problem from another perspective.

Such as...people who want to log use old growth as an excuse to log. When there are fires they say the fires are caused by old growth instead of the more obvious reason of brush. They want to clear cut sections of forest and claim it will prevent forest fires. They are right of course, if you cut down the forest, it won't burn. But I was taught to not cut off my nose to spite my face.


Fark keeps cutting your post off for brevity when I try to quote it, I hope I have fixed it but we'll see.

I'm not talking about big logging interests trying to move in and make a profit while destroying the whole ecosystem. That is obviously a huge concern though, agreed. There are more than two years of growth that are adding to the infernos, and to cite a wet year two years ago as proof of climate change just doesn't work. Unfortunately because of 100 years of fire suppression in the west there are forests filled with not only new bushes five feet tall, but decades of downed dead wood and pine needles up to your knees. And that is a part of it, it is a huge part of it. In my mind it is the biggest contributor to the fires in the mountain west. There was a time when a healthy fire could sweep through and clean up the forest floor and reinvigorate everything, I don't know if that could happen with the current drought and weather conditions, but there are different facets to look at, we can't just pin it all on climate change.
 
2012-07-14 03:14:30 AM

violentsalvation: LeftOfLiberal: violentsalvation: LeftOfLiberal: violentsalvation: Jesus f*cking Christ, did any of you even watch the video? She is asking him to respond to what people on the internet call him.

And he actually is a "kooky guy who doesn't know what he's talking about" when he downplays the mismanagement of forests as a partial cause for the fires. Also he say "just two years ago it was wet in Colorado .... and then two years later when forest floor is especially dry". Ok so we are comparing weather and climate between two years as evidence of climate change? Sciency folks on fark would shoot my post full of holes if I did that here. And unfortunately the mismanagement of forests goes back more than 2 years, Bill. The heat and drought conditions just allow the ticking-time-bomb forests to finally explode.

You obviously watched the video so at what point did you stop thinking to keep your confirmation bias? Bill Nye mentioned the wet weather 2 years ago to agree with the point that there is more brush to create fires now. Somehow you heard the opposite? But your not biased, no not at all

I don't disagree with him on global warming, but yeah, for what I mentioned him saying, he does not know what the hell he is talking about regarding forests and forest fires, and he is stupid to use it in his statements about climate change. He is focused on a catalyst and ignoring decades of fuel build up. Of course someone going by the handle LeftOfLiberal is truly thinking objectively and without bias, I'm sure.

Okay, maybe I didn't spell it out plain enough. What Bill Nye was saying is that 2 years ago it was very wet. This wetness led to a large amount of growth in the form of brush. This brush, from 2 years ago is an important part of why this particular dry spell is causing so many fires. His reasoning seems very sound. The fact that you fail to see what he is getting at makes me think you are approaching the problem from another perspective.

Such as...pe ...


I think they're both issues. The "decades of downed dead wood and pine needles up to your knees" are likely the reason that the fires are so out of control. But, at least in California, the number of fires is way up this year, which is likely more due to the heat and climate, as those things are more rapidly changing than decades old tinder. It's hard to assign the "more of a problem" label, because the former increases the chances that a fire spreads while the latter increases the chances a fire starts in a place it can spread.
 
2012-07-14 03:16:09 AM

Sherman Potter: Don't call me son, Alex. I'm older than your Dad, I suspect, and a damned shot smarter--I would have worn a condom.


I read your reply 572 times, and it still feels as fresh and inspiring as the first time. You managed to directly address my concerns. You've given me lots to think about. I only wish that all Farkers were as erudite as you.
 
2012-07-14 04:16:10 AM
I met Bill Nye once. He's pretty down to earth guy in person and a lot more mellow than I thought he would be.

I wanted to ask him if he had beef with Beakman.

//He has huge hands.
 
2012-07-14 06:13:00 AM
I saw that interview. Carol Costello is as dumb as you get. I can't even stand watching the station when she's on (not like CNN has anything worth watching nowadays).
 
2012-07-14 06:29:45 AM

malaktaus: There just isn't enough news to keep at it 24 hours a day, so it's inevitable that they'll have filler, "pundits" like Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, who may have some success in the short term but who will drive many viewers away from your entire network in disgust.


Try on the CBC's 24-hour news channel. They have good reporters who ask good questions and who don't accept bullsh*t answers. They keep asking till they get an actual answer, not a soundbite.

Plus a bunch of good hour-long documentary shows that are actually "investigative" -- "The Passionate Eye" and "The Fifth Estate" being two particularly good ones.

Every single Canadian government since the CBC's inception has hated them and said they're biased against them, which says to me that they're doing something right.

/not a paid advertisement
//but now that I reread it it sure does read like one ;p
 
2012-07-14 08:22:41 AM

RockofAges: Wow. A BS in ME. Don't meet those every day or anything.

/Thanks for the enlightenment


From Cornell? Unless you live there, I would wager you don't. Also, Carl Sagan was one of his professors. Also also he's really good at getting kids to be interested and understand science.
 
2012-07-14 09:39:28 AM

davidphogan: One question I never see raised in these threads is how much might climate change be attributed to all the nukes we set off from 1945 on? I mean, dozens of nuclear tests a year for a few decades seems like it could add up to something...


Nah, that's why we get cancer.
 
2012-07-14 10:26:39 AM

FloydA: I'm really glad he raised the point that both "sides" are not equal. When one side of a debate is completely full of s**t, there is really no need to treat them equally, and journalists do us a disservice when they try to balance opposing viewpoints.

Climate change denialists are as bad as creationists and flat earthers in that respect. Their claims are simply false, and trying to find a middle ground between true and false leaves us too close to false.


No because you can't say with 100% certainty that we are causing it, especially when you can point to geological evidence of higher CO2 levels millions of years ago. A lot of geologists are now thinking axis shift is a more likely cause for climates changing in certain areas, like the fact that northern Africa had massive lakes and most of the desert was flooded most years.

Climate change is accepted, saying man is causing it is not 100% yet and you can read actual scientific evidence to back it up. As of right now there is no way to prove God exists or that we were created by the movie Prometheus.
 
2012-07-14 10:32:18 AM

Fart_Machine: Greenbeanx: Are other planets exhibiting signs of warming to? Not just our Earth?

Yeah, about that...


Its ironic you post this since the earths axis is only slightly off and it goes through a shift every 7-8k years according to core samples geologists have studied from around the world. Yet the real issue is that nobody wants to think climate change could be anything other than a little ant who has been in this planet a very short time. Its very arrogant if you stop to think about it.
 
2012-07-14 01:03:10 PM

jakomo002: Every single Canadian government since the CBC's inception has hated them and said they're biased against them, which says to me that they're doing something right.


CBC has great news...

But Evan Solomon is extremely biased. Durring the election when the liberals ate the big one he was almost in tears.

Solomon I find terribly liberal. Hes fast to demonize the conservatives and handjobs the liberals every chance he gets.

Suzanna Marchand is the best. Shes funny and she calls bullshiat when she sees it. Its pretty amusing to watch people roll back on their heels because she doesnt put up with their bush beating and gloss.

Plus her and that nice weather lady like makeing pot jokes.
 
2012-07-14 01:39:31 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: davidphogan: One question I never see raised in these threads is how much might climate change be attributed to all the nukes we set off from 1945 on? I mean, dozens of nuclear tests a year for a few decades seems like it could add up to something...

While the energy released from a nuke is exciting, it's small in the grand scheme of things:

"A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20x1013 watts and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes."


Dozens? You're off by 2 orders of magnitude... a fact I learned just the other day. I think the number is something like 2,000+ nuclear detonations of some kind or another.
 
2012-07-14 02:27:38 PM
How have I never noticed Nye's lisp?
 
2012-07-14 02:43:13 PM

davidphogan: One question I never see raised in these threads is how much might climate change be attributed to all the nukes we set off from 1945 on? I mean, dozens of nuclear tests a year for a few decades seems like it could add up to something...


If it does, we're all farked(fun starts about 1:45)
 
2012-07-14 03:08:58 PM
I wonder what the High-Fivin' White Guys are up to these days?
 
2012-07-14 03:46:49 PM

steamingpile: FloydA: I'm really glad he raised the point that both "sides" are not equal. When one side of a debate is completely full of s**t, there is really no need to treat them equally, and journalists do us a disservice when they try to balance opposing viewpoints.

Climate change denialists are as bad as creationists and flat earthers in that respect. Their claims are simply false, and trying to find a middle ground between true and false leaves us too close to false.

No because you can't say with 100% certainty that we are causing it, especially when you can point to geological evidence of higher CO2 levels millions of years ago. A lot of geologists are now thinking axis shift is a more likely cause for climates changing in certain areas, like the fact that northern Africa had massive lakes and most of the desert was flooded most years.

Climate change is accepted, saying man is causing it is not 100% yet and you can read actual scientific evidence to back it up. As of right now there is no way to prove God exists or that we were created by the movie Prometheus.


Hi! Thanks for displaying that you have no idea what you're talking about. Next, perhaps, you should go post in an evolution thread. You'd only really have to change a few words of that drivel.
 
2012-07-14 04:43:46 PM

Optimal_Illusion: I wonder what the High-Fivin' White Guys are up to these days?


I think one of them is the station manager for KONG, and one of them stars on Community and hosts Talk Soup.
 
2012-07-15 12:10:48 AM

steamingpile: saying man is causing it is not 100% yet


Science never gets to 100% confidence. It only gets to "most probable of the conjectured descriptions".
 
2012-07-15 03:34:17 PM

maxheck: FloydA

I'm really glad he raised the point that both "sides" are not equal. When one side of a debate is completely full of s**t, there is really no need to treat them equally, and journalists do us a disservice when they try to balance opposing viewpoints.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov


The whole article is something to read, and just a tad discouraging to realize what was being talked about... in 1980.
 
Displayed 20 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report