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.

(Big 1059)   CNN host asks Bill Nye (Science Guy) if asteroid heading towards Earth was caused by global warming   (big1059.com) divider line 171
    More: Dumbass, CNN, Earth, Deb Feyerick, weather satellites, CNN anchor, asteroids  
•       •       •

6840 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Feb 2013 at 1:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-11 01:45:55 PM
GOP take notes, this is actually the best way to undermine climate change, steer into the curve.
 
2013-02-11 01:45:57 PM
Surely this is an exagger--- *clicks link* --- Christ...
 
2013-02-11 01:47:16 PM

ilikeracecars: GOP take notes, this is actually the best way to undermine climate change, steer into the curve.


I think they are taking notes - the site linked to by the article is Glenn Beck's "The Blaze". Now I feel dirty for having given them a view.
 
2013-02-11 01:49:24 PM
For some reason, very few news drones I've seen on TV know how to talk to Bill. They all kind of seem to blank out at his nerd clothes and just get derpy.
 
2013-02-11 01:49:33 PM
Global warming is yesterday's news. Behold and fear galaxy warming.
 
2013-02-11 01:50:55 PM
No...but the moran gravity of your face is pulling my fist into a collision course with it.
 
2013-02-11 01:51:53 PM
Hey whatever happened to Rick Sanchez?
 
2013-02-11 01:52:04 PM
Wow....just wow.

I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else
 
2013-02-11 01:55:11 PM

Arkanaut: Hey whatever happened to Rick Sanchez?


Local radio:  http://www.610wiod.com/pages/ricksanchez.html
 
2013-02-11 01:55:51 PM
I notice that the video does not have Nye's reply which I am sure was "no." Nye being head of the Planetary Society and well-informed on climate change.

---------

Of course the deniers will wonder why it still snows if the world is 0.7 degrees warmer.   The warming is not enough prevent precipitation coming down as snow rather than rain.    But the whole word being, on average, 0.7 degrees warmer day in day out will result in more evaporation which will eventually come down as precipitation.  It will also shift weather patterns.
 
2013-02-11 01:56:45 PM

cman: Wow....just wow.

I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else


cue CNN screencap "Space Shuttle Columbia traveling at # times speed of light" jpg
 
2013-02-11 01:57:50 PM
This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression and CNN's "no minimum IQ" requirement for on-air personalities.
 
2013-02-11 01:58:11 PM
She just made a dumb mistake..... She was given the lead-in regarding the blizzard and the Global Warming connection, then they went to commercial, and they threw the meteor story in there too.

She's just a talking head, and they're trained to read the teleprompter, and interject minimal wisdom of their own.   I blame the producer for making it confusing on her dumb ass, more than i blame her.
 
2013-02-11 01:59:48 PM
A better link with Bill's response

That man is a true pro.
 
2013-02-11 02:02:25 PM
yes, but what does this have to do with benghazi!!!
 
2013-02-11 02:02:29 PM
Goddamnit, CNN.
 
2013-02-11 02:03:54 PM
CNN is trying to out-FOX FOX.
 
2013-02-11 02:04:07 PM

T.rex: She just made a dumb mistake..... She was given the lead-in regarding the blizzard and the Global Warming connection, then they went to commercial, and they threw the meteor story in there too.

She's just a talking head, and they're trained to read the teleprompter, and interject minimal wisdom of their own.   I blame the producer for making it confusing on her dumb ass, more than i blame her.


This is the correct answer.
 
2013-02-11 02:04:19 PM
It may be god smiting us for believing the liberal lies about global warming. Disprove that, nerdlinger.
 
2013-02-11 02:08:26 PM

Any Pie Left: For some reason, very few news drones I've seen on TV know how to talk to Bill. They all kind of seem to blank out at his nerd clothes and just get derpy.



This is a particularly egregious example, but I have to admit, nearly anyone is going to look a bit slow when compared to Bill Nye.
 
2013-02-11 02:08:30 PM
Surool


This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression

Because the "C" in CNN stands for "Christian" after all.

// good lord you're an idiot.
 
2013-02-11 02:09:12 PM

Earl of Chives: T.rex: She just made a dumb mistake..... She was given the lead-in regarding the blizzard and the Global Warming connection, then they went to commercial, and they threw the meteor story in there too.

She's just a talking head, and they're trained to read the teleprompter, and interject minimal wisdom of their own.   I blame the producer for making it confusing on her dumb ass, more than i blame her.

This is the correct answer.


We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
It's interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry
 
2013-02-11 02:11:31 PM

OnlyM3: Surool


This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression
Because the "C" in CNN stands for "Christian" after all.

// good lord you're an idiot.


Christiane Amanpour.

It sort-of works.

/Little known fact:  CNN is actually a recursive acronym that stands for "CNN News Network".
 
2013-02-11 02:12:21 PM

cman: Wow....just wow.

I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else


Have you ever watched CNN? It is so far sensationalist it shouldn't be allowed to be called news. Remember, they give Nancy Grace her own TV show
 
2013-02-11 02:12:54 PM
DNRTHISA but it's my understanding for what I read a few days ago that she didn't actually ask that as a question but rather stated it as a possible option.

However she's a farking moron for even positing it as a statement.
And Bill Nye is a hack.
You're welcome.
 
2013-02-11 02:13:12 PM
He should of said fark you and ripped his mic off.
 
2013-02-11 02:13:50 PM

Freudian_slipknot: A better link with Bill's response

That man is a true pro.


He also put the fear of God into me by mentioning that the asteroid will miss us by 15 minutes. That's bloody close.
 
2013-02-11 02:14:22 PM

Earl of Chives: She's just a talking head, and they're trained to read the teleprompter, and interject minimal wisdom of their own.   I blame the producer for making it confusing on her dumb ass, more than i blame her.

This is the correct answer.


Blame?  I credit the producers.  Interviewers like this should be no smarter than half the audience, to make the guests explain things in ways that more people can understand, which keeps their attention.

Imagine if they were all W.F. Buckley level.  It'd be fun for the guests, but most of the audience would surf over to the Springers, judges, and game shows.
 
2013-02-11 02:15:10 PM

cman: Wow....just wow.

I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else


xanadian: CNN is trying to out-FOX FOX.

 
2013-02-11 02:15:43 PM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

At least this CNN fool isn't in Congress.
 
2013-02-11 02:17:53 PM
Seems like she just totally blew the transition, not that she really wanted to know if the meteor was because of global warning.

Then again, since Fark will forever mock anyone who ever makes a mistake on TV, this lady is no exception.
 
2013-02-11 02:18:04 PM

OnlyM3: Surool


This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression
Because the "C" in CNN stands for "Christian" after all.

// good lord you're an idiot.


How does my comment about the stupidity of the question even imply that CNN suppresses science?

// good lord you are an idiot.
 
2013-02-11 02:18:37 PM

DECMATH: Earl of Chives: She's just a talking head, and they're trained to read the teleprompter, and interject minimal wisdom of their own.   I blame the producer for making it confusing on her dumb ass, more than i blame her.

This is the correct answer.

Blame?  I credit the producers.  Interviewers like this should be no smarter than half the audience, to make the guests explain things in ways that more people can understand, which keeps their attention.

Imagine if they were all W.F. Buckley level.  It'd be fun for the guests, but most of the audience would surf over to the Springers, judges, and game shows.


Ok, but there has to be limits. I mean, this is equivalent to asking "If I light a fire, does a baseball thrown by someone a few miles away tend to curve into the flames?"
 
2013-02-11 02:19:49 PM
i.imgur.com

I think the global warming came after.
 
2013-02-11 02:21:24 PM

cman: Wow....just wow.

I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else


It's fascinating, isn't it? It's like watching a car-crash in slow motion with a child in the front seat. You want to turn away, because you're about to watch a disaster. Very visceral, too. I'm talking blood and guts hanging from seatbelts, but, you can't turn away. You're watching this actually happen, and you can't do anything to stop it. It's almost horrifying.
 
2013-02-11 02:21:47 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-11 02:22:47 PM

TheMysteriousStranger: I notice that the video does not have Nye's reply which I am sure was "no." Nye being head of the Planetary Society and well-informed on climate change.

---------

Of course the deniers will wonder why it still snows if the world is 0.7 degrees warmer.   The warming is not enough prevent precipitation coming down as snow rather than rain.    But the whole word being, on average, 0.7 degrees warmer day in day out will result in more evaporation which will eventually come down as precipitation.  It will also shift weather patterns.


These mouth-breathers can barely comprehend that actions have consequences next WEEK, letalone next decade...
 
2013-02-11 02:24:26 PM
I'm disappointed she didn't ask about whether the Mars Rover can roll over to view the astronaut footprints.
 
2013-02-11 02:24:50 PM
Jesus Christ. I've watched the video 3 times now. I'm determined to work the term "meteoric occasion" into a conversation by the end of the week. This is too good.
 
2013-02-11 02:27:47 PM

HotWingConspiracy: It may be god smiting us for believing the liberal lies about global warming. Disprove that, nerdlinger.


Psst, read the memo. It's called "climate change" now, because today's climate is perfect and it must endure unchanged forever, as it always has.
 
2013-02-11 02:30:26 PM

T.rex: She just made a dumb mistake..... She was given the lead-in regarding the blizzard and the Global Warming connection, then they went to commercial, and they threw the meteor story in there too.

She's just a talking head, and they're trained to read the teleprompter, and interject minimal wisdom of their own.   I blame the producer for making it confusing on her dumb ass, more than i blame her.


img.gawkerassets.com

"Go fark yourself Global Warming"
 
2013-02-11 02:34:32 PM

jjorsett: HotWingConspiracy: It may be god smiting us for believing the liberal lies about global warming. Disprove that, nerdlinger.

Psst, read the memo. It's called "climate change" now, because today's climate is perfect and it must endure unchanged forever, as it always has.


Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?
 
2013-02-11 02:36:04 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Jesus Christ. I've watched the video 3 times now. I'm determined to work the term "meteoric occasion" into a conversation by the end of the week. This is too good.


I for one plan on telling my wife to watch out for a meteoric occasion this Thursday.

3. Similar to a meteor in speed, brilliance, or brevity
 
2013-02-11 02:40:56 PM
farm9.staticflickr.com

I don't give two shakes of a dead dog's syphillis-ridden cock! You CANNOT be that stupid! Where's my bowel disruptor?!

/Been re-reading this
//I guess there are no scientists (or high-school graduates) left in CNN's reporter pool
///GAH
 
2013-02-11 02:42:23 PM

Tillmaster: Freudian_slipknot: A better link with Bill's response

That man is a true pro.

He also put the fear of God into me by mentioning that the asteroid will miss us by 15 minutes. That's bloody close.


He won me over when he build that second matter bridge and used it to collapse the first one.  What a mind!
 
2013-02-11 02:53:45 PM
But liberals will still be stupid enough to take it as a distinct possibility.
 
2013-02-11 02:54:50 PM
If CNN had any integrity whatsoever, the reporter would have been fired on the spot for disgracing the network and his profession.
 
2013-02-11 02:55:27 PM
sprott.physics.wisc.edu
 
2013-02-11 02:57:43 PM

T.rex: She just made a dumb mistake..... She was given the lead-in regarding the blizzard and the Global Warming connection, then they went to commercial, and they threw the meteor story in there too.

She's just a talking head, and they're trained to read the teleprompter, and interject minimal wisdom of their own.   I blame the producer for making it confusing on her dumb ass, more than i blame her.


Just following orders I mean teleprompter is no defense
 
2013-02-11 02:58:30 PM
CNN's Deb Feyerick asked Bill Nye 'the science guy' the odd a really stupid question.

FTFY
 
2013-02-11 02:59:05 PM
The question comes from basically Religious/Magical thinking:

Religious: Is this God's punishment or warning to humans for causing global warming?

Magical: Bad things cause bad things.

 1) Global warming is bad.
 2) Being hit by a meteor is bad.
 3) therefore 1 will cause 2.
 
2013-02-11 02:59:21 PM

jehovahs witness protection: ut liberals will still be stupid enough to take it as a distinct possibility.


Not really, no.

Conservatives will think this, though, because they tend to like projecting their own fear/gullibility on to others.

(DUCT TAPE AND SARAN WRAP AND JAYSUS, SAVE US FROM THE TERRORIST GAS ATTACK!)
 
2013-02-11 02:59:55 PM
jaw
floor
 
2013-02-11 03:03:14 PM
Eh, that was actually pretty forgivable.  If you do a lot of public reading or reciting you're going get things garbled on occasion when you try to do something else at the same time.  Ask basically anyone that's ever been in a stage play, mixing together two sets of lines that are adjacent but don't actually go together is very common.
 
2013-02-11 03:05:45 PM
Inertia is a property of matter.

/Got nothing at all.
 
2013-02-11 03:06:17 PM
This would be a lot more newsworthy if Bill Nye had said "yes".

Since he didn't, the skeptics really have to try to focus attention on the person asking the question.
 
2013-02-11 03:06:49 PM

dittybopper: We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
It's interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry



Damn you. That's one of the few songs that, as soon as its mentioned or hinted at, it gets stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

And I don't even like Don Henley.

/The Portal theme is another one
//You now have it stuck in your head too
///"This was a triumph...."
 
2013-02-11 03:06:53 PM

Theory Of Null: He should of said fark you and ripped his mic off.


If only, i have to applaud his restraint.
 
2013-02-11 03:07:58 PM
She needs to go on Millionaire
i305.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-11 03:10:17 PM
But how will we employ the sheeps bladder to stop the Earthquakes? That is what I want to know.
 
2013-02-11 03:13:53 PM

Tillmaster: He also put the fear of God into me by mentioning that the asteroid will miss us by 15 minutes. That's bloody close.


Well, in astronomy terms, yes. But when the Earth is moving at 1100 miles a second (and it's diameter is 8000 miles), not really.

So it'll miss us by about a million miles. Roughly 4x the distance to the moon. We've had lots of close calls before. As it turns out, space is so big that it is actually hard for anything to hit anything else.
 
2013-02-11 03:15:30 PM
lol.

Of course, global warming causes everything.
 
2013-02-11 03:17:40 PM

Ishkur: So it'll miss us by about a million miles. Roughly 4x the distance to the moon. We've had lots of close calls before. As it turns out, space is so big that it is actually hard for anything to hit anything else.


Well, yes, but there's also a lot of stuff flying around out there, which is why things *do* hit other things.
 
2013-02-11 03:18:30 PM
I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was trolling
 
2013-02-11 03:19:25 PM

Ishkur: Tillmaster: He also put the fear of God into me by mentioning that the asteroid will miss us by 15 minutes. That's bloody close.

Well, in astronomy terms, yes. But when the Earth is moving at 1100 miles a second (and it's diameter is 8000 miles), not really.

So it'll miss us by about a million miles. Roughly 4x the distance to the moon. We've had lots of close calls before. As it turns out, space is so big that it is actually hard for anything to hit anything else.


How you explain subby's Mom?  Cuz we've all hit that.
 
2013-02-11 03:19:53 PM

Felgraf: Ishkur: So it'll miss us by about a million miles. Roughly 4x the distance to the moon. We've had lots of close calls before. As it turns out, space is so big that it is actually hard for anything to hit anything else.

Well, yes, but there's also a lot of stuff flying around out there, which is why things *do* hit other things.


Yes, but on geologic time scales.
 
2013-02-11 03:20:40 PM

Arkanaut: Sanchez


www.globalnerdy.com

"I AM NAKED IN MY DRESSIN ROOM HIGH ON CRCK AND PCP PLZ CALL MY AGENT - ricksanchezcnn. "
 
2013-02-11 03:21:36 PM

Ishkur: /The Portal theme is another one
//You now have it stuck in your head too
///"This was a triumph...."


No I don't:  I've never seen it.

I did used to own a Triumph, though.  Spitfire Mk IV.
 
2013-02-11 03:22:28 PM

Ishkur: Tillmaster: He also put the fear of God into me by mentioning that the asteroid will miss us by 15 minutes. That's bloody close.

Well, in astronomy terms, yes. But when the Earth is moving at 1100 miles a second (and it's diameter is 8000 miles), not really.

So it'll miss us by about a million miles. Roughly 4x the distance to the moon. We've had lots of close calls before. As it turns out, space is so big that it is actually hard for anything to hit anything else.


Correction:  The earth is moving about 66,600MPH.  That's 1110 miles per MINUTE.  Or about 18.5 miles a second.  Although some people think it's closer to 30mps.
 
2013-02-11 03:22:50 PM
Bill should have explained with a straight face that it was caused by a black hole passing through the plane of the solar system at nearly right angles.
 
2013-02-11 03:24:21 PM

Felgraf: Well, yes, but there's also a lot of stuff flying around out there, which is why things *do* hit other things.


Yeah, but the solar system has really quieted down over the past billion years and all the heavy bombardment stuff has long gone. It's like... have you ever spilled dry rice all over the carpet, and you vacuum it all up immediately but there are always a few stragglers that you missed, and you'll find them months later?

That's what the solar system is like.
 
2013-02-11 03:25:58 PM

durbnpoisn: Correction: The earth is moving about 66,600MPH. That's 1110 miles per MINUTE. Or about 18.5 miles a second. Although some people think it's closer to 30mps.


Thank you for correcting my ad hoc math. I was too lazy to use google calculator.

That did seem a little fast at first glance.
 
2013-02-11 03:27:04 PM

dittybopper: OnlyM3: Surool


This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression
Because the "C" in CNN stands for "Christian" after all.

// good lord you're an idiot.

Christiane Amanpour.

It sort-of works.

/Little known fact:  CNN is actually a recursive acronym that stands for "CNN News Network".


CNN's not news?
 
2013-02-11 03:33:56 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Bill should have explained with a straight face that it was caused by a black hole passing through the plane of the solar system at nearly right angles.


approves:
img.youtube.com

/of course, the solution is to change the gravitational constant of the Universe
 
2013-02-11 03:37:06 PM

xria: DECMATH: Earl of Chives: She's just a talking head, and they're trained to read the teleprompter, and interject minimal wisdom of their own.   I blame the producer for making it confusing on her dumb ass, more than i blame her.

This is the correct answer.

Blame?  I credit the producers.  Interviewers like this should be no smarter than half the audience, to make the guests explain things in ways that more people can understand, which keeps their attention.

Imagine if they were all W.F. Buckley level.  It'd be fun for the guests, but most of the audience would surf over to the Springers, judges, and game shows.

Ok, but there has to be limits. I mean, this is equivalent to asking "If I light a fire, does a baseball thrown by someone a few miles away tend to curve into the flames?"


Ah, but you see, global warming causes the atmosphere to expand, like a balloon filled with hot air. That results in increased drag on things grazing the upper atmosphere, like the ISS or a close-passing meteor, so yes.  Actually, it's the opposite - global warming is causing the upper atmosphere to contract due to the increase in CO2 concentration, resulting in less drag on satellites. And no, the meteor is too far away for any of this to matter.
 
2013-02-11 03:37:13 PM
www.adventuresinpoortaste.com

CNN: Yeah she works for us.
 
2013-02-11 03:37:22 PM

Ishkur: dittybopper: We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
It's interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry


Damn you. That's one of the few songs that, as soon as its mentioned or hinted at, it gets stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

And I don't even like Don Henley.

/The Portal theme is another one
//You now have it stuck in your head too
///"This was a triumph...."


I can help with that.

Mana Mana.

You're welcome
 
2013-02-11 03:37:58 PM
Damn. Second part of that was supposed to be invisible to see what bites I could catch.
 
2013-02-11 03:40:15 PM

xanadian: CNN is trying to out-FOX FOX.


This creates a balance after Fox used the picture of the same-sex couple on the story about marriage. It helps maintain the news network homostatis.
 
2013-02-11 03:40:43 PM
I did not know about Shuttle Colombia reaching 18x the speed of light.  It's a shame they all died because now we'll never know how they were able to reach and exceed light speed...they took their secret with them.
 
2013-02-11 03:41:20 PM
Space is big.  Really big.  You might think it's a long walk to the store, but it's nothing compared to space.

Bill Bryson summed it up pretty well in A Short History of Nearly Everything.  I will paraphrase, as there is no way I could remember this verbatim.

None of the maps of the solar system you have ever seen are even remotely drawn to scale.  Some images even show the planets casting shadows over each other.  But this is a necessary deceit to get them all to fit on one piece of paper.  It is pretty much impossoble to show the solar system to scale.  Even if you added lots of fold out pages to your book, you couldn't even come close.
If you shrank everything down to where Jupiter was the size of a pea, Pluto would still be 7 miles away, and only about the size of a bacteria.  If you shrank Jupiter even smaller, to the size of a period, Pluto would still be 15 feet away, and about the size of a molecule.  On this scale, Alpha Centuri would be about 10,000 miles away.

I'm sure that's not exact, but it's a pretty good representation.
 
2013-02-11 03:44:59 PM
what did Bill say after he stopped laughing?  or is he still laughing?
 
2013-02-11 03:53:45 PM

durbnpoisn: If you shrank everything down to where Jupiter was the size of a pea, Pluto would still be 7 miles away, and only about the size of a bacteria. If you shrank Jupiter even smaller, to the size of a period, Pluto would still be 15 feet away, and about the size of a molecule. On this scale, Alpha Centuri would be about 10,000 miles away.
I'm sure that's not exact, but it's a pretty good representation.


I actually did something similar in one of my books, using actual scale dimensions:

Let's say the Earth is the size of a marble. Using this marble as a scale dimension, the moon is about the size of a small pea and is orbiting Earth from a foot away. That might not seem like such a great distance until you realize that in 1969 a microscopic grain of sand under its own power left the marble and landed on the pea, stayed there for a few days, and returned safely. That is a very long distance for a grain of sand - too small to be seen with the naked eye - to travel all by itself. Even an inch is an incredible distance at this scale, and that grain of sand traveled over two entire feet of nothingness.

In this model, the sun is a yellow Volkswagon bug, and if it were hovering in the end zone of a football field, our marble Earth would be orbiting it from the opposite end zone. There is another marble - a dirty brown one - around the 30 yard line on Earth's side, and there is a smaller pea around the 40 yard line on the sun's side. But other than, there is nothing else on the field. At least, that would be there all the time.

Let's pretend this football field of the inner solar system is in downtown Manhatten. Mars is an orange seed and is somewhere in the upper deck. Jupiter is a basketball, and it is in the furthest possible parking spot outside the stadium. Saturn is a pogo ball and it's somewhere on the waterfront. Uranus is a honeydew melon hanging out at the Statue of Liberty. Neptune is a blue tennis ball in Central Park somewhere. Pluto is in Newark.

Beyond that we have the Kuiper Belt which is a mass of individual sand particles, none of them bigger than a sesame seed, scattered out beyond New York City, and the Scattered Disk which has additional dust from as far away as Boston. And then there's the hypothesized Oort Cloud, dust in the wind circling a small car in a football stadium in Manhatten, from as far away as, theoretically, Germany (which would be exactly one light-year from our hypothetical sun car).

If you think this sounds like a very crowded and busy solar system, keep in mind that these are all small, comparatively insignificant objects (our blue marble Earth is the sixth largest thing in an area the size of the eastern seaboard) separated by miles and miles of empty, black nothingness. It's like a still ocean in the dead of night with a bunch of little milk carton boats on it, circling barely out of sight from one another. One of them has a lit candle.

The nearest star, Alpha Centauri, can't even be placed anywhere near this scale model solar system. The furthest point we can put anything from our Manhatten football stadium sun car is barely half the distance there - somewhere in the Indian ocean. And there is nothing along the way. No rest stop, no way point, not even a buoy. Did I mention that we are the size of a microscopic grain of sand?
 
2013-02-11 03:57:40 PM

durbnpoisn: Space is big.  Really big.  You might think it's a long walk to the store, but it's nothing compared to space.

Bill Bryson summed it up pretty well in A Short History of Nearly Everything.  I will paraphrase, as there is no way I could remember this verbatim.

None of the maps of the solar system you have ever seen are even remotely drawn to scale.  Some images even show the planets casting shadows over each other.  But this is a necessary deceit to get them all to fit on one piece of paper.  It is pretty much impossoble to show the solar system to scale.  Even if you added lots of fold out pages to your book, you couldn't even come close.
If you shrank everything down to where Jupiter was the size of a pea, Pluto would still be 7 miles away, and only about the size of a bacteria.  If you shrank Jupiter even smaller, to the size of a period, Pluto would still be 15 feet away, and about the size of a molecule.  On this scale, Alpha Centuri would be about 10,000 miles away.

I'm sure that's not exact, but it's a pretty good representation.


Not quite.  Smaller scale ratio than that.  Here comes the Nye:

http://youtu.be/97Ob0xR0Ut8
 
2013-02-11 04:03:05 PM

FloydA: Any Pie Left: For some reason, very few news drones I've seen on TV know how to talk to Bill. They all kind of seem to blank out at his nerd clothes and just get derpy.


This is a particularly egregious example, but I have to admit, nearly anyone is going to look a bit slow when compared to Bill Nye.


Protip: You don't become the host of a kids show if you're particularly good at anything science related.
 
2013-02-11 04:03:29 PM
If this were Facebook, I would have hit "Like" on Ishkur's post.
As it is, you get a "Smart" vote.
 
2013-02-11 04:05:21 PM

Bullseyed: FloydA: Any Pie Left: For some reason, very few news drones I've seen on TV know how to talk to Bill. They all kind of seem to blank out at his nerd clothes and just get derpy.


This is a particularly egregious example, but I have to admit, nearly anyone is going to look a bit slow when compared to Bill Nye.

Protip: You don't become the host of a kids show if you're particularly good at anything science related.



explain, pls.
 
2013-02-11 04:06:12 PM
Wow, talk about a failed story transition. This was equal parts dumb as rocks and slip of the tongue. Good to see Bill Nye didn't just crush her soul because of it.
 
2013-02-11 04:06:13 PM

OnlyM3: Surool


This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression
Because the "C" in CNN stands for "Christian" after all.

// good lord you're an idiot.


Speaking of idiots, here we have idiot OnlyM3 who can't tell parody from actual statements. Libtards claim that Fox gets stuff wrong because Christians hate evolution derpy derp derp. Therefore, Surool said that CNN must also be getting it wrong because they are Christians who hate evolution.
 
2013-02-11 04:17:07 PM
Lets see if we can complete the chain reaction.

Meteor oribit close intersect to earths----->Meteor is in Meteorologist----->Meteorologist does the weather----->Weather is being changed by global warming---->DERPITTY DERP DERP?

She got it wrong...It's obvious that the Meteors are the cause of global warming.  Not the other way around.
 
2013-02-11 04:19:36 PM

Ishkur: Felgraf: Well, yes, but there's also a lot of stuff flying around out there, which is why things *do* hit other things.

Yeah, but the solar system has really quieted down over the past billion years and all the heavy bombardment stuff has long gone. It's like... have you ever spilled dry rice all over the carpet, and you vacuum it all up immediately but there are always a few stragglers that you missed, and you'll find them months later?

That's what the solar system is like.



I read that as "dry ice" and was very confused.
 
2013-02-11 04:25:22 PM

Bullseyed: OnlyM3: Surool:This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression and CNN's "no minimum IQ" requirement for on-air personalities.

Because the "C" in CNN stands for "Christian" after all.

// good lord you're an idiot.

Speaking of idiots, here we have idiot OnlyM3 who can't tell parody from actual statements. Libtards claim that Fox gets stuff wrong because Christians hate evolution derpy derp derp. Therefore, Surool said that CNN must also be getting it wrong because they are Christians who hate evolution.


I'm sorry. I must have some microscopic bit of optimism left in me because Poe's Law keeps biting me on the ass. I jokingly blamed the stupidity of the question on the fact that christians no longer allow the free teaching of science. All other interpretations of my statement are wrong.
 
2013-02-11 05:04:40 PM

Ishkur: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Bill should have explained with a straight face that it was caused by a black hole passing through the plane of the solar system at nearly right angles.

approves:
[img.youtube.com image 480x360]

/of course, the solution is to change the gravitational constant of the Universe


Very funny post.  Eat any good books lately?
 
2013-02-11 05:05:00 PM
Y'know, I used to think there was no way people could be that stupid.

This dunderhead managed to prove me wrong...
 
2013-02-11 05:07:48 PM

ManateeGag: what did Bill say after he stopped laughing?  or is he still laughing?


Everything is true. God's an astronaut,
Oz is over the rainbow and Midian is
where the monsters live.
 
2013-02-11 05:15:03 PM

Surool: This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression


It makes only slightly less sense to blame the Permian mass extinction.  It was a long time ago, get over it.
 
2013-02-11 05:17:11 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Surool: This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression

It makes only slightly less sense to blame the Permian mass extinction.  It was a long time ago, get over it.


Clearly, you missed the last of my posts before commenting.
 
2013-02-11 05:26:03 PM
econewsnetwork.org
Is the Science Guy gonna have to choke a biatch?
 
2013-02-11 05:46:03 PM

Any Pie Left: For some reason, very few news drones I've seen on TV know how to talk to Bill. They all kind of seem to blank out at his nerd clothes and just get derpy.


I've noticed that.  Nye gets more dumbass questions than anyone else for some reason, and I don't really get it.  He's a really bright guy and he's very good at what he does, but he's not some intimidating expert in an obscure field.  I don't know what it is that inspires the extra-hard derping.
 
2013-02-11 05:49:07 PM

Freudian_slipknot:

A better link with Bill's response

That man is a true pro.

Don't forget the Bill Nye faked an experiment with Al Gore...
 
2013-02-11 05:53:08 PM
cman * * Smartest * * Funniest * [ ] Smartest [ ] Funniest 2013-02-11 01:52:04 PM Wow....just wow. I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else
------------------------------------------------

Fox knows they truth, they just purposefully spread lies.

CNN is just idiotic and doesn't know any better.

/Hence why I avoid both of them.
 
2013-02-11 05:53:12 PM

FloydA:

Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?

Ignorance of science and inability to recognize a scam when they see it?
 
2013-02-11 05:54:18 PM
So: who had "under 100 posts"?
 
2013-02-11 05:55:22 PM

GeneralJim: FloydA: Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?
Ignorance of science and inability to recognize a scam when they see it?


That would, indeed, be why people think "skeptics" are stupid.
 
2013-02-11 05:56:31 PM

Jim_Callahan:

Eh, that was actually pretty forgivable.  If you do a lot of public reading or reciting you're going get things garbled on occasion when you try to do something else at the same time.  Ask basically anyone that's ever been in a stage play, mixing together two sets of lines that are adjacent but don't actually go together is very common.

You, sir, are a VERY generous man.
 
2013-02-11 05:57:03 PM

GeneralJim: Freudian_slipknot: A better link with Bill's response

That man is a true pro.
Don't forget the Bill Nye faked an experiment with Al Gore...


Bless your heart....
 
2013-02-11 05:59:00 PM
duh, it was caused by creationists
 
2013-02-11 06:10:03 PM

vygramul:

GeneralJim: FloydA: Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?

Ignorance of science and inability to recognize a scam when they see it?

That would, indeed, be why people think "skeptics" are stupid.

Wow.  Thanks for proving that so quickly.
 
2013-02-11 06:11:19 PM

GeneralJim: vygramul: GeneralJim: FloydA: Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?

Ignorance of science and inability to recognize a scam when they see it?

That would, indeed, be why people think "skeptics" are stupid.
Wow.  Thanks for proving that so quickly.


That wasn't a proof.

Which explains your trouble.
 
2013-02-11 06:29:53 PM

HairBolus: The question comes from basically Religious/Magical thinking:

Religious: Is this God's punishment or warning to humans for causing global warming?

Magical: Bad things cause bad things.

 1) Global warming is bad.
 2) Being hit by a meteor is bad.
 3) therefore 1 will cause 2.


As an anthropology professor, I give you an A.
 
2013-02-11 06:46:51 PM

darwinpolice: Any Pie Left: For some reason, very few news drones I've seen on TV know how to talk to Bill. They all kind of seem to blank out at his nerd clothes and just get derpy.

I've noticed that.  Nye gets more dumbass questions than anyone else for some reason, and I don't really get it.  He's a really bright guy and he's very good at what he does, but he's not some intimidating expert in an obscure field.  I don't know what it is that inspires the extra-hard derping.


It has to be the bow-tie. It must disarm people enough to check their common sense at the door.
 
2013-02-11 06:55:31 PM

GeneralJim: Don't forget the Bill Nye faked an experiment with Al Gore...


i272.photobucket.com

So therefore AGW is not happening and Sarah Palin is automatically President.
 
2013-02-11 07:31:31 PM
img14.imageshack.us

Farkin' asteroids... you can't explain it.
 
2013-02-11 07:36:52 PM
Sheesh. Bill should've said, "...um, no, it's caused because too many of us touch ourselves at night."
 
2013-02-11 07:39:15 PM

OnlyM3: Surool


This question is a direct result of christian scientific suppression
Because the "C" in CNN stands for "Christian" after all.

// good lord you're an idiot.


I thought it stood for celebrity
 
2013-02-11 07:40:25 PM

Ishkur: So it'll miss us by about a million miles. Roughly 4x the distance to the moon. We've had lots of close calls before. As it turns out, space is so big that it is actually hard for anything to hit anything else.


No. Something is wrong with your math, because look at any other source and you'll see that it will approach within about 17,000 miles. As in, closer than our geostationary satellites and only 7% of the distance from Earth to the Moon.
 
2013-02-11 08:03:48 PM
It was caused by Republicans, wasn't it?
 
2013-02-11 08:12:21 PM
Jeez, global warming doesn't cause asteroids to veer near Earth, it just increases the likelihood and frequency, duh.
 
2013-02-11 08:20:20 PM
Asteroids? Global Warming? Everyone knows its caused by pirates!

benfry.com
 
2013-02-11 08:50:43 PM
Nye was on MSNBC and fielded a question about why the NE blizzard tracked so similarly to superstorm Sandy.  He completely, utterly flubbed it, to the point where I'm really doubting if he knows anything at all about atmospheric science.
 
2013-02-11 09:57:58 PM
Not amused
home.comcast.net
 
2013-02-11 10:00:14 PM
What global warming?


img441.imageshack.us

Cue the derptards to come in and tell us that in spite of 12 years of declining temperatures, the long-term trend is still positive, and temperature is CERTAIN to rise...you just watch...and trust us.
 
2013-02-11 10:09:24 PM

SevenizGud: What global warming?

[img441.imageshack.us image 798x558]

Cue the derptards to come in and tell us that in spite of 12 years of declining temperatures, the long-term trend is still positive, and temperature is CERTAIN to rise...you just watch...and trust us.


www.skepticalscience.net

Or, for the longer version, you're  lying - you haven't cherry-picked 12 years but instead just short of that  since 12 years even shows the opposite of what you wish.

We know you already acknowledge the problem inherent in making inferences from such a short period of time relative to short-term variability, so we might as well skip ahead:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic] Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes? [/socratic] Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.


So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation. I urge you once again to stand by your own words instead of hiding from them like a dishonest coward. Every time you ignore the fact that you are already aware of the problem with what you post, you're proving yourself to be more of a liar, and a coward, if not an irrational zealot.
 
2013-02-11 10:09:55 PM

SevenizGud: What global warming?

[img441.imageshack.us image 798x558]

Cue the derptards to come in and tell us that in spite of 12 years of declining temperatures, the long-term trend is still positive, and temperature is CERTAIN to rise...you just watch...and trust us.


Ok, look, you see the format of your graph?  We don't even have to dig into the sources to know it's crap.  People who care about data know how to put this stuff together, and this person clearly didn't.
 
2013-02-11 10:11:46 PM
Doesn't global warming reduce the density of the thermosphere and exosphere? If there was an extremely close pass (but more than 500km) by a near-earth object, whose trajectory might have been altered by interfacing with the outermost atmosphere, then air density variables could affect the outcome. Global warming could be a factor in an asteroid's subsequent orbits.
 
2013-02-11 10:14:01 PM

vygramul:

GeneralJim: vygramul: GeneralJim: FloydA: Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid? Ignorance of science and inability to recognize a scam when they see it? That would, indeed, be why people think "skeptics" are stupid.

Wow.  Thanks for proving that so quickly.

That wasn't a proof. Which explains your trouble.

True -- the technical term is "example."  Which explains YOUR little problem.

 
2013-02-11 10:24:25 PM

Ishkur:

GeneralJim: Don't forget [that] Bill Nye faked an experiment with Al Gore...

[i272.photobucket.com image 640x480]

So therefore AGW is not happening and Sarah Palin is automatically President.

  Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you?  It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work.  Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.
 
2013-02-11 10:25:03 PM

GeneralJim: vygramul:GeneralJim: vygramul: GeneralJim: FloydA: Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid? Ignorance of science and inability to recognize a scam when they see it? That would, indeed, be why people think "skeptics" are stupid. Wow.  Thanks for proving that so quickly.That wasn't a proof. Which explains your trouble.True -- the technical term is "example."  Which explains YOUR little problem.


I see.  I get it right, you get it wrong, and you conclude I have the problem.  Given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", you will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if you buy kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love you any more." This you call "using science". Every thinking person calls it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.
 
2013-02-11 10:25:46 PM

GeneralJim: Ishkur: GeneralJim: Don't forget [that] Bill Nye faked an experiment with Al Gore...

[i272.photobucket.com image 640x480]

So therefore AGW is not happening and Sarah Palin is automatically President.
  Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you?  It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work.  Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.


I'm sure you can tell us exactly WHY CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
 
2013-02-11 10:29:23 PM

vygramul:

I see. I get it right, you get it wrong, and you conclude I have the problem. Given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", you will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if you buy kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love you any more." This you call "using science". Every thinking person calls it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.

Oh, I gets it.  Youse is one o them 'tards what peer-reviews his jokes.  Have fun with that.  And you're irritated?  So, you have EMOTIONAL problems, too.   Gee, sorry to hear that.
 
2013-02-11 10:32:36 PM

From today's Washington Post (!):


Like all good Washington Post-ers, Jason Samenow the paper's Chief Meteorologist was watching MSNBC on Saturday and happened upon guest Bill Nye-The Science Guy explaining all about the recent east coast blizzard. Apparently Nye got almost everything wrong and Mr. Samenow's review was

To educate viewers on the science of the recent mega-blizzard that socked New England, MSNBC's Craig Melvin brought onto his program noted "science guy" Bill Nye .What followed was the one of the most flawed discussions of meteorology I've ever seen on a national network. In likening the blizzard and hurricane Sandy, Nye implies both storms originated off the coast from Africa, which is wrong.Sandy formed in the Caribbean (not from an African wave) and the blizzard formed off the Mid-Atlantic coast (from the merger of two North American disturbances). Nye then draws an absurd comparison between East Coast storms and West Coast storms in an attempt to equate them. "If you live on the West Coast ... that same type of storm is called a Sou'wester," Nye says. "If you go to the sailboat store you can get a Nor'easter hat in New England but it's a Sou'wester hat in Seattle."Big problem: storms typically hit Seattle from the west not from the south. They don't form off the Pacific coast of Los Angeles or San Francisco and charge northward. In my entire life, (until watching Nye's comments) I had never heard the term "Sou'wester" used in reference to a West Coast storm (a google search reveals there is an apartment complex and a lodge with such a name in the region - but I couldn't find a meteorological reference).There is a good meteorological reason for the lack of "Sou'westers": Whereas the warm Gulf Stream current creates a zone of temperature contrast that allows storms to form along the East Coast and move northward, there's no equivalent current in the Pacific to steer storms up the West Coast. I challenge a reader to find a "Sou'wester hat" for sale... Nye then makes a convoluted comment about spin in different parts of the storm that serves as a non-sensical transition into a discussion of climate change.
Yeah Nye is a partisan hack and has been for years.
 
2013-02-11 10:33:15 PM

GeneralJim: vygramul: I see. I get it right, you get it wrong, and you conclude I have the problem. Given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", you will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if you buy kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love you any more." This you call "using science". Every thinking person calls it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.
Oh, I gets it.  Youse is one o them 'tards what peer-reviews his jokes.  Have fun with that.  And you're irritated?  So, you have EMOTIONAL problems, too.   Gee, sorry to hear that.


Why is GeneralJim's IQ 34? The world wonders.
 
2013-02-11 10:34:09 PM

GeneralJim: Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you? It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work. Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.


You know how I can tell you didn't read the entire WUWT post?
 
2013-02-11 10:35:07 PM

vygramul:

I'm sure you can tell us exactly WHY CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Yep, I could -- and I have, when explaining to Monkey Boy how his idea of ...  you know, I don't remember exactly HOW he screwed it up, but it was pretty funny, what with him and all of his copypasta from the skepticalscience blog.  I think I remember that he said it would insulate, and keep heat in the lower atmosphere so it wouldn't bleed off into space... Anyway, as part of explaining why he had it wrong, I went through the whole thing.  You can Google it if you want to learn how it works.
 
2013-02-11 10:36:34 PM

GeneralJim: vygramul: I'm sure you can tell us exactly WHY CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Yep, I could -- and I have, when explaining to Monkey Boy how his idea of ...  you know, I don't remember exactly HOW he screwed it up, but it was pretty funny, what with him and all of his copypasta from the skepticalscience blog.  I think I remember that he said it would insulate, and keep heat in the lower atmosphere so it wouldn't bleed off into space... Anyway, as part of explaining why he had it wrong, I went through the whole thing.  You can Google it if you want to learn how it works.


No thanks, I already know how it works and don't need to read the wrong answer you provided.
 
2013-02-11 10:39:52 PM

Ishkur:

GeneralJim: Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you? It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work. Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.

You know how I can tell you didn't read the entire WUWT post?

You know how I know you're full of shiat?  I did read it.  And, you're saying the atmosphere is opaque to UV, like glass is?  Really?  Did you eat paint chips as a kid?
 
2013-02-11 10:41:29 PM

vygramul:

No thanks, I already know how it works and don't need to read the wrong answer you provided.

Well, then, I'm sure you wouldn't mind correcting it, and pointing out what I said wrong....
 
2013-02-11 10:48:47 PM

GeneralJim: You know how I know you're full of shiat? I did read it.


Well then you read Bill Nye's reply, right?

GeneralJim: And, you're saying the atmosphere is opaque to UV, like glass is?


Do you even know what opaque means?
 
2013-02-11 10:52:17 PM

GeneralJim: Ishkur: GeneralJim: Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you? It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work. Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.

You know how I can tell you didn't read the entire WUWT post?
You know how I know you're full of shiat?  I did read it.  And, you're saying the atmosphere is opaque to UV, like glass is?  Really?  Did you eat paint chips as a kid?



Heh. You're proving Ishkur right here. Part of the problem that Watts describes was the the lamps were infrared, not UV (or visible light). In addition, contrary to your claim, glass (unless it's specifically coated) is relatively  transparent to UV. The experiment in question is the kind of simple one done in 1st year physical geography labs or even at a high-school level, and it works, if done properly.
 
2013-02-11 10:59:02 PM

GeneralJim: vygramul: No thanks, I already know how it works and don't need to read the wrong answer you provided.
Well, then, I'm sure you wouldn't mind correcting it, and pointing out what I said wrong....


If you want your work checked, you have to bring it to me, not ask me to go hunt it down for you.
 
2013-02-11 11:04:41 PM

GeneralJim:

And, you're saying the atmosphere is opaque to UV IR, like glass is?

Whoops.  My bad.
 
2013-02-11 11:04:57 PM

theurge14: I think the global warming came after.


I've been meaning to read that. Is it any good?
 
2013-02-11 11:18:27 PM

GeneralJim: GeneralJim: And, you're saying the atmosphere is opaque to UV IR, like glass is?
Whoops.  My bad.


That makes more sense. Now with that out of the way, the atmosphere is largely opaque to IR, with the exception of certain wavelengths (window bands). Keep in mind that air in a jar doesn't have all the components that make up the atmosphere in situ.
 
2013-02-11 11:48:48 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-12 03:21:37 AM
[image.jpg]

You know the one. The stick figure raises his hand, thinks again, then just leaves without a word.

Yeah. That one.
 
2013-02-12 05:10:45 AM
Global warming causes meteors? Not so much. Large meteors entering the atmosphere at 30,000 mph will cause significant global warming though.
 
2013-02-12 07:55:54 AM
Sounds like the weathergirl was fed a segue for another story and had to link it back to what they were originally talking about.  Granted, she's still as dumb as a screen door on a submarine, but there is an explanation for that.

What there ISN'T an explanation for is how Bill Nye keeps his cool and hasn't embarked on a Lewis Black style rant on these raving loons and mouthbreathers who think that a virgin getting knocked up with a spectral baby isn't a myth but that global warming is.  My guess: some REALLY good drugs.
 
2013-02-12 01:20:14 PM

TheMysteriousStranger: I notice that the video does not have Nye's reply which I am sure was "no." Nye being head of the Planetary Society and well-informed on climate change.

---------

Of course the deniers will wonder why it still snows if the world is 0.7 degrees warmer.   The warming is not enough prevent precipitation coming down as snow rather than rain.    But the whole word being, on average, 0.7 degrees warmer day in day out will result in more evaporation which will eventually come down as precipitation.  It will also shift weather patterns.




Invading Canadian-barbarian hordes?
 
2013-02-12 01:21:34 PM

machoprogrammer: cman: Wow....just wow.

I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else

Have you ever watched CNN? It is so far sensationalist it shouldn't be allowed to be called news. Remember, they give Nancy Grace her own TV show


I remember...
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-02-12 01:24:03 PM

FloydA: jjorsett: HotWingConspiracy: It may be god smiting us for believing the liberal lies about global warming. Disprove that, nerdlinger.

Psst, read the memo. It's called "climate change" now, because today's climate is perfect and it must endure unchanged forever, as it always has.

Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?


Do you know why so many people that insult climate-skeptics don't know the technical details of climate study?
 
2013-02-12 01:49:42 PM

StoPPeRmobile: FloydA: jjorsett: HotWingConspiracy: It may be god smiting us for believing the liberal lies about global warming. Disprove that, nerdlinger.

Psst, read the memo. It's called "climate change" now, because today's climate is perfect and it must endure unchanged forever, as it always has.

Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?

Do you know why so many people that insult climate-skeptics don't know the technical details of climate study?


Do you know why so many people are skeptical of thinking that climate insults are studying the change of stupid because of technical climate?

anyways whatever FloydA said, I totally agree with THIS THIS ^^
 
2013-02-12 02:03:45 PM

StoPPeRmobile: FloydA: jjorsett: HotWingConspiracy: It may be god smiting us for believing the liberal lies about global warming. Disprove that, nerdlinger.

Psst, read the memo. It's called "climate change" now, because today's climate is perfect and it must endure unchanged forever, as it always has.

Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid?

Do you know why so many people that insult climate-skeptics don't know the technical details of climate study?


Actually, the vast majority of people on both sides of MOST issues are taking their positions mostly on faith and trust in their sources.  Even Lindzen, the guy responsible for triggering all this skepticism, the voice that objected to the original IPCC report and brought the issue to the fore would get hounded for being an idiot by "skeptics" based on his current positions:  1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 2) CO2 causes warming, 3) We are responsible for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, 4) the planet is warming.  These are Lindzen's positions.  Where he departs is that he says the planet's negative feedback will fix it.

But "skeptics" are stuck in the original uncertainty: "CO2 has fark-all to do with planetary temperature."  "There has been NO warming."  "It's the sun."  "It's natural cycles."  "It ain't us."  These are, in fact, frustratingly contradictory.  "Skeptics" in media go from "There's no warming" to "It's not us" BACK to "There's no warming" all the time.
 
2013-02-12 02:18:41 PM

vygramul: "There's no warming"


www.woodfortrees.org
 
2013-02-12 02:23:33 PM

DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Case in point.
 
2013-02-12 02:28:35 PM

vygramul: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Case in point.


Do you deny that all of the global temperature data sets show no trend for the last 15 to 16 years?
 
2013-02-12 02:53:43 PM

DesertDemonWY: vygramul: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Case in point.

Do you deny that all of the global temperature data sets show no trend for the last 15 to 16 years?



I'll deny that, especially since the graph you yourself present contradicts what you've claimed - most of the (cherry-picked) periods shown span much less than that.

However, I don't think you'll find many people who will deny that one is able to cherry-pick a relatively short period of time and show a flat or negative trend. What matters is what kind of inferences you can make from from such a limited scale. If you wish to simply state that over that particular period of time there was no warming, that's fine - trying to make inferences over more than that period of time, however, has the potential to be misleading. Or, if you need this idea portrayed visually:

www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-02-12 03:04:04 PM
Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

There is a greenhouse effect

There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

Nothing above is controversial among serious climate scientists.
 
2013-02-12 03:23:00 PM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Case in point.

Do you deny that all of the global temperature data sets show no trend for the last 15 to 16 years?


I'll deny that, especially since the graph you yourself present contradicts what you've claimed - most of the (cherry-picked) periods shown span much less than that.

However, I don't think you'll find many people who will deny that one is able to cherry-pick a relatively short period of time and show a flat or negative trend. What matters is what kind of inferences you can make from from such a limited scale. If you wish to simply state that over that particular period of time there was no warming, that's fine - trying to make inferences over more than that period of time, however, has the potential to be misleading. Or, if you need this idea portrayed visually:

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]


You know how I know SkS can't even keep it's own bullshiat straight?
 
2013-02-12 03:31:34 PM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: DesertDemonWY: vygramul: "There's no warming"

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Case in point.

Do you deny that all of the global temperature data sets show no trend for the last 15 to 16 years?


I'll deny that, especially since the graph you yourself present contradicts what you've claimed - most of the (cherry-picked) periods shown span much less than that.

However, I don't think you'll find many people who will deny that one is able to cherry-pick a relatively short period of time and show a flat or negative trend. What matters is what kind of inferences you can make from from such a limited scale. If you wish to simply state that over that particular period of time there was no warming, that's fine - trying to make inferences over more than that period of time, however, has the potential to be misleading. Or, if you need this idea portrayed visually:

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

You know how I know SkS can't even keep it's own bullshiat straight?



There's different versions of that graphic. The one you linked to uses BEST data. The one I posted uses HadCRUT4.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with what I posted. The claim you made is still false, and the inferences you wish to make from it is most likely misleading. You're still more than welcome to address that if you wish (or if you can).
 
2013-02-12 04:41:24 PM

vygramul:

Actually, the vast majority of people on both sides of MOST issues are taking their positions mostly on faith and trust in their sources. Even Lindzen, the guy responsible for triggering all this skepticism, the voice that objected to the original IPCC report and brought the issue to the fore would get hounded for being an idiot by "skeptics" based on his current positions: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 2) CO2 causes warming, 3) We are responsible for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, 4) the planet is warming. These are Lindzen's positions. Where he departs is that he says the planet's negative feedback will fix it.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, knows what he is talking about.  He's also exactly right, as I see it.  He has also adjusted his expectations as new studies come in.

I note a couple of points:  First, when discussing the physics of the atmosphere, perhaps it is best to listen to an atmospheric physicist, if you insist upon an authority figure.  Climatologists often are folks who study past climate and its effects, and would only coincidentally know the physics of the atmosphere.   And, second, as new information comes in, it is appropriate, and utterly scientific, to adjust one's ideas and beliefs to accommodate the newly discovered facts.
 
2013-02-12 04:54:16 PM

vygramul:

Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

There is a greenhouse effect

There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

Nothing above is controversial among serious climate scientists.

True.  None of that is controversial, as I see it.  You DID leave out a couple of other facts of some importance, however....


BEFORE the industrial revolution, the climate was warming at, and still IS warming at, approximately 0.76 K/ century.


Using your numbers, the last century and a half has seen a slight SLOWDOWN in ongoing warming.


The immense positive feedback for carbon dioxide's warming required by the AGW hypothesis is not there.  Feedback appears to be large, but is negative.   That means that the 1.1 K of warming per doubling of carbon dioxide is a fixed upper limit, and the resultant warming, including negative feedback, should be less than 0.5 K per doubling.


That means that the "panic and surrender power to us now to save the planet" part of AGW is pointless and counterproductive.

 
2013-02-12 11:38:06 PM
Right out of the gate the green text thread shiatter is wrong.  Going back 8k years before the industrial revolution, the world was cooling. Since the rest of his post just above this one relies on his fallacious premise, it can be ignored and we can all point and laugh.

www.globalwarmingart.com

Image from here, includes citations to primary literature:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Varia ti ons_Rev_png

Only bothering to respond to his latest round of idiocy because I have a bit of insomnia, and this one was easy.  Also in case anyone thought he had something resembling a valid point for once.
 
2013-02-13 08:06:24 AM

Zafler:

Right out of the gate the green text thread shiatter is wrong.  Going back 8k years before the industrial revolution, the world was cooling. Since the rest of his post just above this one relies on his fallacious premise, it can be ignored and we can all point and laugh.

Nice ignorance....  But, you're a good sport, right?  You won't mind that the laughter is at YOU, will you?  Here's what I said: "BEFORE the industrial revolution, the climate was warming at, and still IS warming at, approximately 0.76 K/ century."  And it this is precisely correct.  The warming started at the end of the little ice age, around A.D. 1700.  The idea that I was talking about the last 8,000 appeared only in your head, with some of the other voices.  What I am saying is that the current slow warming trend started around 1700, before the industrial revolution, and continues to today.

But, since you brought up the last 8000 years, let's discuss that time frame...  If you draw a trend line over the last 8000 years, we are COOLING...  the last 350 years of warming is just a blip on that scale, and a correction for the intense cooling of the little ice age.  We are in a brief interglacial period, the temperature of which peaked early on, and has been falling off since then.  Before long, geologically speaking, we'll be back in a major glaciation, colloquially an "ice age," and there isn't a lot we can do about it.  IF ONLY carbon dioxide level changes were as significant to the global temperature as warmers cry about, perhaps we could avoid starting the next ice age for a while.  As it is, unless we can get huge space mirrors in place to direct more sunlight our way, we're pretty well doomed to another ice age.  And THAT, unlike even ten degrees of warming, will well and truly suck. (And it looks like YOU are the one shiatting on the thread, cupcake.)

 
2013-02-13 08:23:59 AM
Ok, last 2k tears.  Please not that at no point of any of the reconstructions does temperature exceed our current level of warmth, and was, in fact, still  cooling prior to the start of the industrial revolution.  But hey, he wouldn't be the green text thread shiatter if he didn't lie.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Image courtesy of NOAA
 
2013-02-13 11:00:00 AM

cman: Wow....just wow.

I expect this thing from Fox but not from anyone else


I fully expect this level of stupidity from every talking head on every major news program.  Not sure why you would give creedence to anyone who's entire skill set consists of "being attractive" and "can read off a teleprompter".

Perhaps you are confusing Fox's propensity to lie with all modern newscaster's general lack of intelligence.
 
2013-02-13 11:11:33 AM

give me doughnuts: Ishkur: Felgraf: Well, yes, but there's also a lot of stuff flying around out there, which is why things *do* hit other things.

Yeah, but the solar system has really quieted down over the past billion years and all the heavy bombardment stuff has long gone. It's like... have you ever spilled dry rice all over the carpet, and you vacuum it all up immediately but there are always a few stragglers that you missed, and you'll find them months later?

That's what the solar system is like.


I read that as "dry ice" and was very confused.


Glad I wasn't the only one...
 
2013-02-13 06:14:12 PM

Hueg_Redd: ilikeracecars: GOP take notes, this is actually the best way to undermine climate change, steer into the curve.

I think they are taking notes - the site linked to by the article is Glenn Beck's "The Blaze". Now I feel dirty for having given them a view.


I just gave them 10 more in your honor.
 
2013-02-14 07:36:23 AM

Zafler:

Ok, last 2k tears.  Please not that at no point of any of the reconstructions does temperature exceed our current level of warmth, and was, in fact, still  cooling prior to the start of the industrial revolution.  But hey, he wouldn't be the green text thread shiatter if he didn't lie.

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 615x283]

Image courtesy of NOAA

That looks suspiciously like the Michael Mann graph -- you know, the one he got caught cheating on....   It must be heavily weighted on tree ring width, which is an astonishingly bad proxy for temperature.  In fact, tree rings are also proxies for rainfall and increasing carbon dioxide.  In other words, tree rings can't distinguish between temperature, rainfall, and rising carbon dioxide.  Screw that -- we don't need them as temperature proxies at all.  Here's what the raw data from 14 studies, taken directly from the primary research, and involving NO tree rings, looks like when averaged.  No chance for "value added" re-arrangement of the data...

junksciencearchive.com

 
2013-02-14 12:42:16 PM

GeneralJim: That looks suspiciously like the Michael Mann graph -- you know, the one he got caught cheating on that turned out to be right after all....   It must be heavily weighted on tree ring width, which is an astonishingly bad proxy for temperature.  In fact, tree rings are also proxies for rainfall and increasing carbon dioxide.  In other words, tree rings can't distinguish between temperature, rainfall, and rising carbon dioxide.  Screw that -- we don't need them as temperature proxies at all.  Here's what the raw data from 14 studies, taken directly from the primary research, and involving NO tree rings, looks like when averaged.  No chance for "value added" re-arrangement of the data...

 
2013-02-14 12:53:00 PM

GeneralJim: Zafler:

Ok, last 2k tears.  Please not that at no point of any of the reconstructions does temperature exceed our current level of warmth, and was, in fact, still  cooling prior to the start of the industrial revolution.  But hey, he wouldn't be the green text thread shiatter if he didn't lie.

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 615x283]

Image courtesy of NOAA

That looks suspiciously like the Michael Mann graph -


If you actually look at the graph, a variety of reconstructions are plotted. Instead of relying (apparently exclusively) on your suspicions, actually examine the evidence.


GeneralJim: - you know, the one he got caught cheating on....


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com, and given your previous record on this point, most likely false.


GeneralJim: It must be heavily weighted on tree ring width, which is an astonishingly bad proxy for temperature.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com, again, keeping in mind that suspicions really aren't good enough, and also keeping in mind that multiple reconstructions are portrayed.


GeneralJim: In fact, tree rings are also proxies for rainfall and increasing carbon dioxide.  In other words, tree rings can't distinguish between temperature, rainfall, and rising carbon dioxide.  Screw that -- we don't need them as temperature proxies at all.  Here's what the raw data from 14 studies, taken directly from the primary research, and involving NO tree rings


An unnecessary lie on your part, and one that I've corrected from you at least a few times. From Loehle 2007 itself:

The series used were: [...] China composite (Yang et al., 2002) which does use tree ring width for two out of the eight series that are averaged to get the composite


GeneralJim: looks like when averaged.


...using data that Loehle himself had to later correct and without the instrumental record.


GeneralJim: No chance for "value added" re-arrangement of the data...


...and with no chance of meaningful inferences for the period after 1935. Here is what it actually looks like when you use the corrected data set and include the instrumental record to cover the time after 1935 (when Loehle's data ends).

i48.tinypic.com
Although not labelled in the graph, the light pink line there is the 95% CI for Loehle 2008.
 
2013-02-14 01:00:46 PM
Damnhippyfreak: i48.tinypic.com

Forgot to mention the important part: MBH 1999 in Zafler's graph is Mann 1999 in the graph above. Now that they're actually plotted on a common baseline, we can actually make comparisons instead of just "suspicions". Since you don't explicitly make any, GeneralJim, at least this will allow you to do so.
 
Displayed 171 of 171 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report