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 Raw Story)   Bill Nye is a 'science bully', according to Crossfire co-host S.E. Cupp. Insert obligatory Isaac Asimov quote about ignorance here   (rawstory.com) divider line 185
    More: Dumbass, S.E. Cupp, Isaac Asimov, global warming, S.E., Cupp, NCA, native peoples, indigenous land rights  
•       •       •

4284 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 May 2014 at 3:06 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-07 12:17:50 AM  
www.bigfishink.com
 
2014-05-07 12:22:56 AM  
I'd rather insert my wang into SE Cupp and fark her unstupid ...
 
2014-05-07 12:31:08 AM  
I know.  Sciency types are so mean with their facts and evidence hammering down your truthiness that comes from the gut.
 
2014-05-07 12:39:23 AM  
"Hey, if you keep smoking those cigarettes, there's a good chance you will die a slow painful death"

"Stop bullying me with your scare tactics!!!"
 
2014-05-07 12:44:36 AM  
S.E. Cupp has nice tits.
 
2014-05-07 12:55:51 AM  

HawgWild: I'd rather insert my wang into SE Cupp and fark her unstupid ...


no matter how many times i read her name, I am not convinced it's real.  it has to be a porn name.
 
2014-05-07 01:13:21 AM  
C-Cup needs to die a horrible, slow death
 
2014-05-07 01:48:27 AM  
Equal time for both sides and Galileo and Science is just a theory and global warming is just a plot by the UN to transfer wealth away from the US because reasons.
 
2014-05-07 03:12:58 AM  
www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-05-07 03:13:17 AM  
Nah, I'd rather make fun of her being named after a drinking cup for infants.
 
2014-05-07 03:19:39 AM  
I know Fark's got a thing for the slutty librarian look, but this chick is more mannish than Ann Coulter.
 
2014-05-07 03:21:09 AM  

ManateeGag: no matter how many times i read her name, I am not convinced it's real.  it has to be a porn name.


You're thinking of her former cohort from MSNBC's "The Cycle", Krystal Ball.
 
2014-05-07 03:28:51 AM  
"Isn't it a problem when science guys attempt to bully other people?" Cupp asked Nye, before coming to the aid of Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris.

why are we asking an economists opinion on global warming again?
 
2014-05-07 03:42:54 AM  
Since we all know she's pretty much a place intelligence goes to die, I declare a Cupp pic thread. Because god knows she's trying to pull a Mrs. Robinson with those legs...

www.mrconservative.com
 
2014-05-07 03:43:54 AM  
How dare anyone suggest that scientists are somehow better equipped to provide informed and expert views regarding scientific matters than partisan political hacks. Shocking. Bring my fainting couch and a copy of today's Daily Mail.
 
2014-05-07 03:44:55 AM  

Iczer: Since we all know she's pretty much a place intelligence goes to die, I declare a Cupp pic thread. Because god knows she's trying to pull a Mrs. Robinson with those legs...


Fake glasses too
 
2014-05-07 03:47:53 AM  

log_jammin: "Isn't it a problem when science guys attempt to bully other people?" Cupp asked Nye, before coming to the aid of Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris.

why are we asking an economists opinion on global warming again?


Doesn't matter.  The only people who have a pass to bully others are ignorant blowhards who don't know how tides work.
 
2014-05-07 03:56:09 AM  

Farker Soze: log_jammin: "Isn't it a problem when science guys attempt to bully other people?" Cupp asked Nye, before coming to the aid of Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris.

why are we asking an economists opinion on global warming again?

Doesn't matter.  The only people who have a pass to bully others are ignorant blowhards who don't know how tides work.


I can't explain that
 
2014-05-07 04:05:58 AM  
Not this shiat again.

Stories like this just make me wish the world would just burn already.
 
2014-05-07 04:20:42 AM  
Really? Going after the affable Science Guy and not that smug son of a biatch Fark-darling Tyson?
 
2014-05-07 04:24:51 AM  
It would be a lot easier to convince skeptics if only some climate-change models accurately predicted future climate behavior. Or if we had reliable data going back farther than what amounts to a gnat's breath of the planet's existence. Or if the biggest drivers weren't politicians asking for money. Leaving the science aside, do you really want a War on Climate? The previous "Wars on <concept>" have only brought us more of whatever we're supposedly fighting. War on Poverty = more poverty. War on Illiteracy = more illiteracy. War on Drugs = more drugs. I think the best thing people who believe in climate change can do is get the government to fight a war against cheap alternative energy and sustainable living. That way we'll end up with more cheap energy and sustainable living.
 
2014-05-07 04:25:42 AM  
Because we all know those paid "experts" they parade onstage at  Fox know so much more than thousands of climate scientists all over the planet.
 
2014-05-07 04:28:33 AM  

SevenizGud: I know, right. I mean, Nye was so mean when he showed how much global warming there has been over the last 15+ years. You know, all factsy and stuff.


Have you been picking cherries all your life?
 
2014-05-07 04:41:06 AM  

SevenizGud: JasonOfOrillia: I know.  Sciency types are so mean with their facts and evidence hammering down your truthiness that comes from the gut.

I know, right. I mean, Nye was so mean when he showed how much global warming there has been over the last 15+ years. You know, all factsy and stuff.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Oh wait....


you post that stupid farking graphic every time and ever time it gets debunked. why do you feel like you have to lie to support your belief?
 
2014-05-07 04:42:44 AM  

untaken_name: It would be a lot easier to convince skeptics


you're not a skeptic. you're anti science.
 
2014-05-07 04:51:54 AM  

JohnnyC: SevenizGud: I know, right. I mean, Nye was so mean when he showed how much global warming there has been over the last 15+ years. You know, all factsy and stuff.

Have you been picking cherries all your life?


proper trends - so which trend are we talking about again?
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-07 04:55:27 AM  

namatad: JohnnyC: SevenizGud: I know, right. I mean, Nye was so mean when he showed how much global warming there has been over the last 15+ years. You know, all factsy and stuff.

Have you been picking cherries all your life?

proper trends - so which trend are we talking about again?
[img.fark.net image 850x811]


could you post a link to the study where that graph originated?
 
2014-05-07 04:56:48 AM  
GET IT OVER WITH ALREADY FFS GODS DAMN

oliveventures.com.sg
 
2014-05-07 05:01:19 AM  
He wa pretty abusive to his son, Daniel.
 
2014-05-07 05:06:50 AM  

log_jammin: namatad: JohnnyC: SevenizGud: I know, right. I mean, Nye was so mean when he showed how much global warming there has been over the last 15+ years. You know, all factsy and stuff.

Have you been picking cherries all your life?

proper trends - so which trend are we talking about again?
[img.fark.net image 850x811]

could you post a link to the study where that graph originated?


shudder
I wish .... I dont remember where I found it originally.
DAMMIT, so much for keeping my sources footnoted.


http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf
page/slide 5
* data from GISP2 ice cores ....
Basically it is a plot of the most recent delta18O measured in the ice cores.
Keep in mind, that the rest of the PDF is insane rambling.
The only reason that I like that chart is:
1) it is "raw" data from ice cores (two mile time machine is required, AWESOME reading)
2) it shows that EVERYONE in this debate has been cherry picking time periods of IMPORTANCE
3) it shows the many lies you can make by drawing different lines, which is AWESOMENESS

It drives me crazy when people use such absurd time periods to meet their agenda.

I am not sure if I will be happy or sad to live long enough to see whose predictions pan out to what level of accuracy.
 
2014-05-07 05:15:22 AM  
Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris. says "Not all the scientists," and that's enough for idiots and corporate assholes to believe.That's all it takes, as far an a Heritage Foundation shill is concerned.
Not even pretending to know what they're talking about, just saying you have to vote on science.
And even when an overwhelming majority says yes,'not everybody agrees' is okay.

Facts. How do they work?
 
2014-05-07 05:20:15 AM  

red5ish: Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris. says "Not all the scientists," and that's enough for idiots and corporate assholes to believe.That's all it takes, as far an a Heritage Foundation shill is concerned.
Not even pretending to know what they're talking about, just saying you have to vote on science.
And even when an overwhelming majority says yes,'not everybody agrees' is okay.

Facts. How do they work?


Except that history is FILLED with science, that was COMPLETELY and TOTALLY accepted but ALL of the scientists, and was still wrong.

NOT arguing that this is the case here. Ocean is warmer and more acidic (the co2 alone would probably account for that). Those are facts. Fark the temperature. 

But science has NEVER had anything to do with the number of scientists or lay people believe something.  Pisses the crap out of me that the scientists used that argument and it is being used against them.  FFS, I was so embarrassed when the APA members VOTED on whether cold fusion is real or not.

FFS, you do not vote on science. You repeat the damn experiment. Over and over, until you get consensus on the results. and then refine the results. and then and then and then.

But voting? nope
 
2014-05-07 05:22:18 AM  

red5ish: Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris. says "Not all the scientists," and that's enough for idiots and corporate assholes to believe.That's all it takes, as far an a Heritage Foundation shill is concerned.
Not even pretending to know what they're talking about, just saying you have to vote on science.
And even when an overwhelming majority says yes,'not everybody agrees' is okay.

Facts. How do they work?


I've met him on a few occasions... calling him an economist is overly generous... he's a failing politician who hopes that by calling himself an economist, he can ingratiate himself with politicians who are more successful than he is.
 
2014-05-07 05:24:27 AM  

teto85: [www.bigfishink.com image 720x540]


I don't trust that quote.

That's not Issac Asimov. He hasn't got weird sideburns.
 
2014-05-07 05:34:51 AM  
A science bully?

"Stop refuting yourself! Stop refuting yourself! Stop refuting yourself!"
 
2014-05-07 06:11:31 AM  
using his professional experience as a tool with which to intimidate global warming skeptics.

I don't think that making a valid claim of professional authority really counts as intimidation, that's pretty much just Ethos and it's an entirely normal part of debates.  If you can't deal with it maybe you should avoid, y'know, having a job that's highly dependent on rhetoric like being the face for a propaganda organization?

// Pathos has its place, too, but only to convince the audience of the relevance/importance of the argument, not to actually win the argument once attention has been gained.  That was most of Gore's problem when speaking on the issue-- no ethos, little to no logos, a bunch of shiat about fluffy polar bears having to swim to school uphill both ways that was very sad but didn't actually support his contention.
 
2014-05-07 06:14:36 AM  

namatad: Except that history is FILLED with science, that was COMPLETELY and TOTALLY accepted but ALL of the scientists, and was still wrong.


Like what, exactly?

// Not that there aren't a couple relatively minor examples that are reasonably valid, but given your post I'll bet that anything you can come up with is incorrect in an entertainingly stupid fashion.
 
2014-05-07 06:35:04 AM  

namatad: 2) it shows that EVERYONE in this debate has been cherry picking time periods of IMPORTANCE


+1

namatad: FFS, you do not vote on science. You repeat the damn experiment. Over and over, until you get consensus on the results. and then refine the results. and then and then and then.

But voting? nope


+Eleventy

I'm fine with AGW theory in general, but some of the specific arguments put forth are wonky(at best).
/and that's not to say the deniers are somehow better
//but I'll always get classed as a denier troll, because I dare question internet alarmist crazy
 
2014-05-07 06:35:33 AM  

JudgeItoBox: I know Fark's got a thing for the slutty librarian look, but this chick is more mannish than Ann Coulter.


And still finds a way to be 10X more attractive, equal stupidity notwithstanding.
 
2014-05-07 06:37:25 AM  

untaken_name: It would be a lot easier to convince skeptics if only some climate-change models accurately predicted future climate behavior. Or if we had reliable data going back farther than what amounts to a gnat's breath of the planet's existence. Or if the biggest drivers weren't politicians asking for money. Leaving the science aside, do you really want a War on Climate? The previous "Wars on <concept>" have only brought us more of whatever we're supposedly fighting. War on Poverty = more poverty. War on Illiteracy = more illiteracy. War on Drugs = more drugs. I think the best thing people who believe in climate change can do is get the government to fight a war against cheap alternative energy and sustainable living. That way we'll end up with more cheap energy and sustainable living.



So, more climate, then?
 
2014-05-07 06:46:06 AM  
Here's the thing with global warming, if we accept it as real and change things accordingly, what downside is there? Where is the downside to polluting less? Where is the downside to letting the Amazon rainforest grow out? Decreasing pollution and stopping the deforestation of the Amazon are things you should want regardless of global warming, but hey they show up with it as well, so really where's the gain in being against the things that would slow or stop global warming?
 
2014-05-07 06:46:54 AM  

red5ish: Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris. says "Not all the scientists," and that's enough for idiots and corporate assholes to believe.


resources2.news.com.au
 
2014-05-07 06:47:51 AM  
"So I disagree," Nye interjected.

That MONSTER!
 
2014-05-07 06:48:29 AM  
Did he turn to her and say, "Shut up, Sippy Cup, you vapid coont"? No? Then he didn't farking bully you, you vapid coont.

"Isn't it a problem when science guys attempt to bully other people?" Cupp asked Nye, before coming to the aid of Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris.

Yeah, telling somebody they're wrong (when the are) isn't bullying.
 
2014-05-07 06:49:59 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Here's the thing with global warming, if we accept it as real and change things accordingly, what downside is there? Where is the downside to polluting less? Where is the downside to letting the Amazon rainforest grow out? Decreasing pollution and stopping the deforestation of the Amazon are things you should want regardless of global warming, but hey they show up with it as well, so really where's the gain in being against the things that would slow or stop global warming?


Because Jesus. No, really. A lot of the resistance to man-made (or even man-contributed) climate change comes from the religious right. Something about God's perfect plan and how He set the world up to support us perfectly until the End Times. To say that we're throwing a monkey wrench into the works is tantamount to telling them that we can thwart God's plan.
 
2014-05-07 06:52:58 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Here's the thing with global warming, if we accept it as real and change things accordingly, what downside is there? Where is the downside to polluting less? Where is the downside to letting the Amazon rainforest grow out? Decreasing pollution and stopping the deforestation of the Amazon are things you should want regardless of global warming, but hey they show up with it as well, so really where's the gain in being against the things that would slow or stop global warming?


Money.
 
2014-05-07 06:53:47 AM  
It is about money.  Has always been, will always be.  They don't want to spend the money fixing the problem, and will reap great profits when it is too late to fix it.
 
2014-05-07 07:03:07 AM  
Science bully? So this means the meek are inheriting the Earth?
 
2014-05-07 07:10:08 AM  
Of course he's a Science Bully... The Truth hurts, after all.
 
2014-05-07 07:22:44 AM  

SevenizGud: log_jammin: you post that stupid farking graphic every time and ever time it gets debunked.

I am sure the folks at Hadley Centre will be relieved to learn that the last 15 years worth of their, you know, scientific data has been "debunked" by...some dude on the internet.


Oh shut up already. Every single farking time you post those lies it is explained to you exactly how they are lies - with citations and careful clarification by multiple people, I've even seen them quoting you the source data. And yet you still post them over and over.

You are a liar. I don't care if it's intentional or not, if you're a paid shill by some "conservative" group, the end result is that you're an unrepentant liar. You have no honor. Now go threadshiat somewhere else already. No one is buying your bullshiat around here.
 
Displayed 50 of 185 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report