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.

(The New York Times)   Bill Nye, the "please stop being science denying idiot" guy   (nytimes.com) divider line 494
    More: Hero, Big Man on Campus, age of the earth, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Inhofe  
•       •       •

25733 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:17 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-18 12:12:17 PM

Carn: Ant: Alonjar: Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.

Sometimes asking "Why?" is nonsensical. Just because you can place a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it's a valid question.

What is the sound of the color blue?

Well, you could convert the colors to wavelengths, then map those to frequencies, and then that question does make sense.  But you make a good point.


Or if you have synethesia.
 
2013-06-18 12:13:59 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Sybarite: vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.


It's really about the viewers and listeners. You can make a lot of people believe just about anything if it's repeated loudly and frequently enough with no voice to gainsay it. His fight isn't aimed at the hardcore fundamentalists who take the bible literally and use it to armor themselves against any evidence or at the the distressingly small percentage of Americans who are highly scientifically literate. He's aiming for that big, mushy bit in the middle where a calm voice with facts behind it can actually make a difference.


The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.


The thing about reality is that no matter what you call it, it's still real. You can call the empirical data nonsense all you want, but the reality is that what you're doing is exactly what Mr. Nye is talking about... you namecall... if you don't think AGW is real, test the hypothesis... come back with stat analytics, a data-set and process that is open to peer review, and subject it to testing. As a statistician, I can say with great certainty that there is a *chance* you are right, and I accept that chance, so I look forward to you providing us with a substantive way to prove or disprove your theory.
 
2013-06-18 12:14:19 PM

Skywolf the Scribbler: BetterMetalSnake: Bill Nye played a big role in developing my love of science. Because of his show I became curious about science, began to read more and ended up stumbling into Carl Sagan. I never turned back. Thanks, Science Guy.

Skywolf the Scribbler:

I  am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

And I just need to point out that you might not know what intelligence is. While the definitive definition is still under debate (cognitive psychology is a hoot), none of the viable options look anything like what you typed out. It's fine to have a lay-definition of a concept, but you should probably know a lay definition won't get much traction on Fark.

I have an eidetic memory and a grasp of logic which may indicate that I have more complex than average neural interconnections. Regardless, I have to make the decision to open a new tab and review how electricity works, and to read back through books on quantum physics, to maintain a working knowledge of those and other subjects.


Man, I really don't want to get into a personal tiff here, but I feel compelled to respond. You've been factually incorrect twice now. I don't know you, but I am 99.999% confident that you don't have an eidetic memory. This is not just because cognitive science has had a very tough time finding evidence of this type of thing, nor is it because most people claiming to have this ability have been found to NOT actually have it. It has more to do with the fact that you don't seem to know what an eidetic memory is. If you had perfect recall of an image, you would not need to review it again, as you claim you do. Someone with an eidetic memory would simply "read" the image again from memory.

So, if I am out of line and being a complete douchenzzle, please accept my apologies. But I have a ton of training in psychology and it really bothers me when someone  gets it wrong in the context of correcting someone.

/Damn, internet fights. Even when you win, you lose.
 
2013-06-18 12:14:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: cameroncrazy1984: StaleCoffee: But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

Sex is the only time that 1 + 1 = 3.

This is only true for exceptionally large values of 1.

I was wondering when someone would point that out.


I would have been quicker but I had a meeting ;)
 
2013-06-18 12:14:53 PM

steamingpile: Copper Spork: It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.

Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


What happened millions of years ago really isn't relevant to what is happening right now in terms of how humans are altering the planet.
 
2013-06-18 12:16:26 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Carn: Ant: Alonjar: Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.

Sometimes asking "Why?" is nonsensical. Just because you can place a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it's a valid question.

What is the sound of the color blue?

Well, you could convert the colors to wavelengths, then map those to frequencies, and then that question does make sense.  But you make a good point.

Or if you have synethesia.


you could also study the cultural connotations attached to colors and music.
 
2013-06-18 12:16:50 PM

mainstreet62: THE GREAT NAME: mainstreet62: THE GREAT NAME: All the chicken-little stuff comes from a few corrupt high-ranking scientists (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones), the IPCC (a political organisation which does no science) the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, excited journalists and greedy politicians.

plonk

Show me some science that the IPCC did.

Tons of it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_repor ts .shtml#.UcCA0JwuIXE


You idiot, that's a summary page of their reports. Their reports cite other people's work - IPCC don't do any themselves. The reports are merely summaries (and hopelessly biassed ones at that).
 
2013-06-18 12:17:09 PM

Albert911emt: steamingpile: Copper Spork: It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.

Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.

What happened millions of years ago really isn't relevant to what is happening right now in terms of how humans are altering the planet.


Further-this idea that small things are incapable of doing great harm is absurd.
 
2013-06-18 12:18:12 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
But he noted that "if there's more heat driving the storm, then there's going to be more tornadoes," and added that the question "is worth investigating."

Hey Bill...maybe you should educate yourself on this whole tornado thing.

Oh wait...what's that? Oh, the rationale and scientific data mean nothing to you, and you are just using it as a political football to make yourself more famous? Carry on then.


Name calling is nice, understanding that heat drives convective air currents that cause more severe storms, that generate tornadic activity resultant of localized airflow and topographic differences is better.

Heat driving convective air parcels into storms isn't political, no matter how much you want it to be.

More heat= more water vapor in the air+ more convection= more severe storms= more tornadic activity overall, more precipitation overall (though not necessarily in any one particular region)

These things are true, regardless of whether you believe in them or not.
 
2013-06-18 12:18:33 PM

Carn: cameroncrazy1984: Carn: cameroncrazy1984: StaleCoffee: But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

Sex is the only time that 1 + 1 = 3.

This is only true for exceptionally large values of 1.

I was wondering when someone would point that out.

I would have been quicker but I had a meeting ;)


I have meetings all afternoon. They are the bane of my existence. Luckily I'm taking a vacation after today.
 
2013-06-18 12:20:12 PM

Copper Spork: It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.


Skepticism is healthy, even of published materials... but rejecting them without testing they hypothetical rationale for your skepticism is stupidity, not science.
 
2013-06-18 12:20:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: cameroncrazy1984: Carn: cameroncrazy1984: StaleCoffee: But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

Sex is the only time that 1 + 1 = 3.

This is only true for exceptionally large values of 1.

I was wondering when someone would point that out.

I would have been quicker but I had a meeting ;)

I have meetings all afternoon. They are the bane of my existence. Luckily I'm taking a vacation after today.


I have more this afternoon as well.  I have to wait til next week for my vacation so come on Friday hurrrry uuuuuuuuup.
 
2013-06-18 12:22:38 PM

THE GREAT NAME: (and hopelessly biassed ones at that).


[citation needed]
 
2013-06-18 12:24:20 PM

Carn: I have more this afternoon as well.  I have to wait til next week for my vacation so come on Friday hurrrry uuuuuuuuup.


Ugh, I feel you. Good luck!
 
2013-06-18 12:28:40 PM
Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!
 
2013-06-18 12:29:05 PM
There is no such thing as "global warming skepticism."  The word "skepticism" means that you believe the evidence is incomplete.  If you deny global warming, then you have already summarily dismissed the preponderance of evidence (14,000 peer reviewed studies.)  At this point, your point of view is not based in evidence.  It's dogma, it's merely "belief".

And the AGW question is simply a tactic to move the goalposts.  Remember, the oil companies funding the "controversy" have known about GW for decades.  Want proof?  Exxon is ALREADY exploring in the newly-opened areas of the north sea.  Think about that.  They already have the technology to conduct deep-sea exploration in the arctic that should have taken them decades to develop.  Bu they've clearly been preparing for the loss of arctic sea ice since the 70s.  Despite their public denials, they knew what was coming.

So, they keep on going with their stall tactics, a concerted effort to wring a few more years' worth of profits out of an industry that has become obsolete.  It's taken straight out of the tobacco playbook:  first they deny the plainly observable phenomenon, then they quibble about the details of the cause, all the while wringing just a few more months worth of paychecks out of their dead industry.  Once denial of AGW becomes no longer viable, look to the denial industry to start in with "but...but...how do we know the primary cause is carbon", and then "how do we know for sure the increased carbon is actually caused by burning of fossil fuels?"  These questions are not meant to convince anyone; the askers already know the answers.  They are merely meant to slow our progress towards eliminating what we all know to be the cause.
 
2013-06-18 12:30:36 PM
Just for fun, count how many times words like, "surpirsed" "baffled" and "shocked to discover" appear in the science section of whatever news you read.

Per Mr. Nye...
People on TV are the most honest. Science is not corrputed by business interestes, and Bill Nye is not an idiot paid amounts beyond his contribution to society.
 
2013-06-18 12:31:24 PM

occamswrist: Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!




Yeah that website is no way biased and full of shiat.
 
2013-06-18 12:33:49 PM

occamswrist: wattsupwiththat


Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute (a, surprise, member of ALEC) to spread climate change FUD. He is not a credible source on the subject.
 
2013-06-18 12:36:10 PM
God screwed up. Letting humans live on this planet was a huge mistake. Maybe next time he'll give the slime mold entities or the lizard people a chance at living on this planet responsibly.
 
2013-06-18 12:38:34 PM

Albert911emt: God screwed up. Letting humans live on this planet was a huge mistake. Maybe next time he'll give the slime mold entities or the lizard people a chance at living on this planet responsibly.


Naa,  humans are great.  All my friends are human.

/self-hating human?
 
2013-06-18 12:38:50 PM

Raharu: occamswrist: Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!



Yeah that website is no way biased and full of shiat.


I agree!

We already have a consensus by curve fitting the temperature rise (from 1979 to 2000) to CO2 levels and since we all agree on it we can now quote the total number of scientific papers that have"consensused" the number. For science!!!!
 
2013-06-18 12:41:35 PM

occamswrist: Raharu: occamswrist: Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!

Yeah that website is no way biased and full of shiat.

I agree!

We already have a consensus by curve fitting the temperature rise (from 1979 to 2000) to CO2 levels and since we all agree on it we can now quote the total number of scientific papers that have"consensused" the number. For science!!!!


Are you completely retarded, or just partially?
 
2013-06-18 12:42:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: occamswrist: Raharu: occamswrist: Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!

Yeah that website is no way biased and full of shiat.

I agree!

We already have a consensus by curve fitting the temperature rise (from 1979 to 2000) to CO2 levels and since we all agree on it we can now quote the total number of scientific papers that have"consensused" the number. For science!!!!

Are you completely retarded, or just partially?


Zing!
 
2013-06-18 12:43:14 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: namegoeshere: I have a secret nerd crush on Bill Nye.

Oops


bestofthe80s.files.wordpress.com
You might even say he blinded him with science.  Like poetry in motion.
 
2013-06-18 12:43:14 PM

Jorn the Younger: mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 324x400]


I preferred Mr Wizard

[boingboing.net image 410x287]


Mr Wizard was a dick
 
2013-06-18 12:43:52 PM

occamswrist: Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!


Particularly when you put the elevated CO2 jar in the fridge to throw off the results.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Lab experiments demonstrate this. Chemistry confirms.
 
2013-06-18 12:45:09 PM

Eapoe6: Just for fun, count how many times words like, "surpirsed" "baffled" and "shocked to discover" appear in the science section of whatever news you read.


In all fairness, that's a reflection of the state of for-profit media more so than science.

When you combine shareholder-driven cost pressures that make proper science reporting an unaffordable luxury with a bias towards pithy headlines, you get a study saying "compound X associated with lower risk of Y disease" reported as "ZOMG! CHOCOLATE IS GOOD FOR YOU!!!1!"
 
2013-06-18 12:45:49 PM

occamswrist: cameroncrazy1984: occamswrist: Raharu: occamswrist: Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!

Yeah that website is no way biased and full of shiat.

I agree!

We already have a consensus by curve fitting the temperature rise (from 1979 to 2000) to CO2 levels and since we all agree on it we can now quote the total number of scientific papers that have"consensused" the number. For science!!!!

Are you completely retarded, or just partially?

Zing!


Yep! That is a pretty good zing for someone who believes in debunked talking points because they confirm their already-held beliefs, rather than understanding science.
 
2013-06-18 12:47:28 PM
ffs, who knew fark had so many people who dropped out before they even got to high-school chemistry?
 
2013-06-18 12:48:09 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: GilRuiz1: PC LOAD LETTER: "why" is continual punting down the road. It's a useless question. "How" is the only relevant thing to ask, as "why" will always be met with more "why" each time

How do you know that "why" has no answer?  Isn't it possible that perhaps there is an answer to "why," but we just haven't discovered it yet?

Because even if God were real and everything about religion was true, there is no possible avenue for anything to answer why existence exists.



For the sake of argument, let's leave God and religion and the supernatural out of this.  Let's just stick to the purely naturalistic.

What is it about nature or science or reality that leads you to believe we will never discover a "why"?  Is it because an answer to "why" cannot be discovered by empirical investigations of the material world?  If a "why" did exist, what would it look like, and how come it can't be scientifically arrived at?

I ask because you seem certain not only that we can't discover the answer, but that it can never be discovered by anyone ever.  I'm curious as to what makes you think so.
 
2013-06-18 12:48:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: chimp_ninja: joeshill: In science, it's generally considered a good thing to continually come up with ways one might disprove a theory, until one can no longer come up with a way to disprove (falsify) a theory or model. In which case, it might be somewhat possible to accept a theory or model as an adequate description of how a process works.

In practice, this is done by examining the accumulated evidence from professional studies.  Guess what they say about climate change?

Of those 13,950 articles how many said that man is the primary cause of global warming?


More than you can count.  Well, more than YOU can count, anyway.
 
2013-06-18 12:49:53 PM

meanmutton: steamingpile: Mad Scientist: Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?

Aerospace engineer, actually.

Yes, so he's not a doctor.......this guy is a big phoney!!!!

You're confusing him with this guy:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 800x450]

This guy is The Doctor, not a doctor.


Who?
 
2013-06-18 12:49:55 PM

Eapoe6: Just for fun, count how many times words like, "surpirsed" "baffled" and "shocked to discover" appear in the science section of whatever news you read.

Per Mr. Nye...
People on TV are the most honest. Science is not corrputed by business interestes, and Bill Nye is not an idiot paid amounts beyond his contribution to society.


Read science, not science news... you'll only very rarely see words like that appear in scientific literature, dissertations, and published pieces in actual journals. What you are describing is not a corruption of science, but a corruption of reporting.
 
2013-06-18 12:52:29 PM
I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is someone in this thread that doesn't think math is science.
 
2013-06-18 12:55:57 PM

Eapoe6: Just for fun, count how many times words like, "surpirsed" "baffled" and "shocked to discover" appear in the science section of whatever news you read.

Per Mr. Nye...
People on TV are the most honest. Science is not corrputed by business interestes, and Bill Nye is not an idiot paid amounts beyond his contribution to society.


http://theamericanscholar.org/flacking-for-big-pharma/#.UcCOzncm3MI
Just because they appear to use the scientific method does not mean it can't be corrupted. Peer reviews and other methods placed in research are to try to keep the corruption out or at least to a minimum, where it can be eliminated later through the sheer number of peers proving it incorrect. However, science can be manipulated for other purposes if enough money is involved and how the situation is handled. Science is not a holy grail that cannot be sullied, only a better tool to get to some truths, and all tools can be misused if not used with integrity.
 
2013-06-18 12:56:27 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: occamswrist: Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!

Particularly when you put the elevated CO2 jar in the fridge to throw off the results.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Lab experiments demonstrate this. Chemistry confirms.


Holy fark the point was that Bill Nye's experiment sucked and he had to Photoshop the results but you ignore that to accuse watts of cooling down one of the jars? fark is wrong with you? The length you go to defend a scienceologist.

Climatology is more complicated than CO2 in a jar. Don't defend the indefensible.
 
2013-06-18 12:57:02 PM

megarian: I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is someone in this thread that doesn't think math is science.


math is hard.
 
2013-06-18 12:58:07 PM

Carn: megarian: I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is someone in this thread that doesn't think math is science.

math is hard.


Let's go to the mall.
 
2013-06-18 12:58:27 PM

udhq: Eapoe6: Just for fun, count how many times words like, "surpirsed" "baffled" and "shocked to discover" appear in the science section of whatever news you read.

In all fairness, that's a reflection of the state of for-profit media more so than science.

When you combine shareholder-driven cost pressures that make proper science reporting an unaffordable luxury with a bias towards pithy headlines, you get a study saying "compound X associated with lower risk of Y disease" reported as "ZOMG! CHOCOLATE IS GOOD FOR YOU!!!1!"


Extrapolate that same motivation into Peer Reviewed Journals and overpaid Academics. Lot's of things are supressed, so the established academics are not laughed out of their jobs.  The con of man is an ego thing coupled with a desire to enjot co-eds.
 
2013-06-18 12:59:10 PM

udhq: Carn: megarian: I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is someone in this thread that doesn't think math is science.

math is hard.

Let's go to the mall.


omg shoes!
 
2013-06-18 01:01:31 PM

TV's Vinnie: It's sad that in this day and age, with six American flags on the Moon, we still have a sizable population in this country that actually believes that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

[2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com image 800x684]


with just a curb bit no less!  I'd have used a double bridle, myself.
 
2013-06-18 01:02:01 PM

megarian: What_do_you_want_now: wjllope: Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?

[oneworkingmusician.com image 600x600]

+10 Internets for you

/"Birth of the Cool" is still better, though

Meh. biatches Brew.


Didn't do it for me, but I prefer the very lonely noir style of his earleir work over his movement into the new age stuff.

Helps me get in the mood when I'm diagnosin' bad PC's

/And the error came full stop like a screaming tolder spying a piece of unattended candy
//"Looks like you've got an error. Error 404, not found."
 
2013-06-18 01:02:54 PM

vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.


It's better than continuing to vote them into public office.
 
2013-06-18 01:03:59 PM

megarian: udhq: Carn: megarian: I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is someone in this thread that doesn't think math is science.

math is hard.

Let's go to the mall.

omg shoes!


I'm going to Mars to escape climate ravaged earth and I'm taking with me:

shoes
beer
 
2013-06-18 01:05:54 PM

occamswrist: Holy fark the point was that Bill Nye's experiment sucked and he had to Photoshop the results


And that point is wrong.
 
2013-06-18 01:07:41 PM

Gunny Highway: I have been on Fark and while and done some exhaustive research on this subject, I can confidently say this thread will change no minds and will suck real hard.


I have a PhD, am a scientist, worked with Don Herbert a buncha years ago, and agree completely on the suckiness of this thread... so I'm getting a kick... yadda yadda.
 
2013-06-18 01:07:56 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: occamswrist: Bill Bye is so good at science he didn't even have to Photoshop his experiment showing increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fa il-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail- a t-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Oh fark he did Photoshop it.

When you run his experiment, the jar with elevated levels of CO2 has a lower temperature than the jar with ambient air. For science!!!

Particularly when you put the elevated CO2 jar in the fridge to throw off the results.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Lab experiments demonstrate this. Chemistry confirms.


What is CO2's specific heat as compared to O2, N2, and water vapor?  The experiment was dumb.  CO2 cools quicker than 'air' because it has a lower thermal capacity (i.e., specific heat).  So, of course the jar of CO2 is going to get cooler quicker than the other jar.  However, the question then becomes, what makes CO2 a 'greenhouse gas'...its specific heat (which is lower than air), or some other property such as reflectivity?
 
2013-06-18 01:10:06 PM

Eapoe6: Extrapolate that same motivation into Peer Reviewed Journals and overpaid Academics. Lot's of things are supressed, so the established academics are not laughed out of their jobs. The con of man is an ego thing coupled with a desire to enjot co-eds.


Ummm, no.  There's no comparison between the two.  The economics--with the corresponding biases--are completely different.

Also, the phrase "overpaid Academic" indicates that you are speaking beyond your expertise here.  Try and think of another profession that requires a decade's worth of education for a 5 figure salary.  It's ok, I'll wait.

I'll give you this, our system of academic publishing in country needs to be reformed, but it's not the "academic" part that's broken.
 
2013-06-18 01:11:02 PM
i like the guy earlier that basically said "i don't like Bill Nye because Jesus" and gave a long winded explanation about how Bill should give Jesus a chance.

Because that right there is science - giving Jesus a chance.
 
Displayed 50 of 494 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report