Recommended Posts

Bill Nye the Silence Guy

I thought of putting this in science, but being jailed for thought control is more about politics and propaganda.

Bill Nye now wants to jail people he deems Climate Change deniers.

Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics
Nick Gillespie
Apr. 15, 2016
Hit & Run Blog
Reason

Gillespie said:

Bill Nye, called "The Science Guy" after the kids' show he hosted for PBS back in the 1990s, is up for jailing people who question climate change.

Asked about environmental activist Robert Kennedy's assertion that climate skeptics should be tried as war criminals, the TV personality mused, "We’ll see what happens."

In a discussion of the case being brought by various state attorneys general against ExxonMobil—an action that has led to subpoenas of free-market think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)—Nye had this to say:

"As a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen... So I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this....That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good."

He thinks intimidating scientific inquiry with jail time is good if it disagrees with his views.

That's why he's now "The Silence Guy." He wants to silence his opponents not with reason and arguments, but with the police.

I have to disagree with Sarah Palin on one point recently.

Palin: Bill Nye ‘as much a scientist as I am’
By Timothy Cama
04/14/16
The Hill

Cama said:

Sarah Palin tore into Bill Nye’s scientific qualifications on Thursday, saying he has no authority to say climate-change skeptics are wrong.

Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, said the man known for his show "Bill Nye the Science Guy" is using his position of authority to harm children by teaching them that climate change is real and man-made.

“Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am,” Palin said at a Capitol Hill event held to roll out a film that aims to discredit climate scientists. “He’s a kids’ show actor; he’s not a scientist."

Well, according to Bill Nye's Wikipedia entry, he is more than a kid's show actor, at least to some extent.

He's an actual scientist. 

He invented a sundial.

:)

Seriously...

You can't make this shit up.

:) 

Calling Bill Nye a scientist is more of a sinecure-like honor from the scientists and government climate cartel because of his propaganda. Calling his sundial a scientific discovery is like letting one of the Kardashians conduct a few bars of a Beethoven Symphony in Carnegie Hall and calling her a conductor... 

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bill Nye the Silence Guy

I thought of putting this in science, but being jailed for thought control is more about politics and propaganda.

Bill Nye now wants to jail people he deems Climate Change deniers.

Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics
Nick Gillespie
Apr. 15, 2016
Hit & Run Blog
Reason

He thinks intimidating scientific inquiry with jail time is good if it disagrees with his views.

That's why he's now "The Silence Guy." He wants to silence his opponents not with reason and arguments, but with the police.

I have to disagree with Sarah Palin on one point recently.

Palin: Bill Nye ‘as much a scientist as I am’
By Timothy Cama
04/14/16
The Hill

Well, according to Bill Nye's Wikipedia entry, he is more than a kid's show actor, at least to some extent.

He's an actual scientist. 

He invented a sundial.

:)

Seriously...

You can't make this shit up.

:) 

Calling Bill Nye a scientist is more of a sinecure-like honor from the scientists and government climate cartel because of his propaganda. Calling his sundial a scientific discovery is like letting one of the Kardashians conduct a few bars of a Beethoven Symphony in Carnegie Hall and calling her a conductor... 

:) 

Michael

Shame on Nye!  He has lost is perspective....  He is chanelling Trifkin Lysenko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there is more beneath the iceberg, and I do have submarine abilities, but I cannot think of a way to spin the Nye implications. I have nothing against  the guy, but should mention a prejudice -- I view him as a little bit PeeWee Herman, a little bit Mister Rogers, and a little bit of nostalgia. 

Does anyone remember the local television shows that had clowns? Our 'local' American station in Seattle had J P Patches. Up here on Commie TV we had the even more creepy Mr Dressup, and the quite creepy indeed Gentle Giant.  And somewhere on the commie side of the border there was no equivalent to Bill Nye, the creepy lab-coat guy.

Okay, prejudices unveiled. I can work on that. 

But Bill, could you say anything more stupid, and more likely to become fodder in Climate Change Hoopla? Why even utter an opinion ... ?

If the good ship WSS Mariner finds anything beneath the water-line, I will report back.  

Edited by william.scherk
Erratum -- the commie TV show from way back was of course the "Friendly" Giant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

Here's a little bit more beneath the iceberg.

Granted, it isn't from Nye, but I think it represents how committed to truth reporters are in the climate change debate. You find this kind of crap on both sides, but sometimes you gotta just look and blink and wonder what passes for thought in the heads of those who are true believers in the progressive religion.

‘Liberal’ website published fabricated story on Bill Nye and refuses to remove it
by Dan Arel
April 14, 2016 
Patheos

I could quote it, but there are tweet images and I don't want to fiddle with formatting. So I'll just lay out the story in my own words.

1. Sarah Palin is involved in a movie called Climate Hustle attacking corrupt scientists in the climate change debate. It features criticism of Bill Nye.

2. Someone tried to use the "trading up the chain" publicity technique and seeded a false story about Sarah to get a free ride on the media hype about the movie's release. They claimed Sarah agreed to a public debate with Bill Nye about climate change (see here for one of the seed stories).

3. Up the chain it went and this fabricated news started getting serious media attention from more credible media outlets (and I use the word "credible" when talking about the media with a lot of misgiving--"more famous" or "more traditional" media outlets is probably more accurate). The problem? Bill Nye knew nothing about such a debate. Neither did Sarah Palin.

4. Then a writer named Brittany Cassell at the progressive site, Bipartisan Report, featured an article claiming Sarah Palin chickened out of the debate with Bill Nye (see here).

5. Cassell got lambasted on Twitter, so she came right out and said she made the whole story up. You can read about that and see the tweets at the article above. And Cassell called one of the people who asked for her source a "dumb bitch" who doesn't understand "freedom of speech." :) 

6. Now Cassell is claiming she was taken out of context, that the thing was clickbait, yada yada yada. But the Internet is not a forgiving place when your words can be read "in context."

Tsk tsk tsk...

If you are interested in reading further about this, just follow the links I provided and they give you more links.

Man are there a lot of fishies swimming around the lower part of the iceberg.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is he targeting climate change skeptics?  Skepticism is a philosophy, it may be impractical to apply it to climate change but imprisoning skeptics isn't a tactic with a good track record.

 

Why not imprison intelligent design advocates?  They go beyond skepticism, not only are they skeptical of evolution they create nonsensical narratives which place religion above science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brits do the sex scandals, we do the money.

When we work together it's called "Lend-Lease" and World War II.

--Brant

"If you don't know these things, you aren't educated."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2016 at 10:28 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 6. Now Cassell is claiming she was taken out of context, that the thing was clickbait, yada yada yada. But the Internet is not a forgiving place when your words can be read "in context."

Tsk tsk tsk...

 

Is she from Europe?  If she is, she apparently has the right to be forgotten.  John Oliver helps to explain:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

Why is he targeting climate change skeptics?  Skepticism is a philosophy, it may be impractical to apply it to climate change but imprisoning skeptics isn't a tactic with a good track record.

 

Why not imprison intelligent design advocates?  They go beyond skepticism, not only are they skeptical of evolution they create nonsensical narratives which place religion above science.

Robin R: Skepticism is ~also~ a philosophy, but that's not the skepticism of those who question AGW. Theirs is instead the methodology, e.g. "a healthy skepticism". [1. a skeptical attitude: doubt as to the truth of something 2. (philosophy) the theory that certain knowledge is impossible]. Streets apart. Ironically, it's largely the AGWers who are often dismissive of man's knowledge and his mind's efficacy, who should also be named "skeptics" (philosophical type) by we "skeptics" (methodological).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

Robin R: Skepticism is ~also~ a philosophy, but that's not the skepticism of those who question AGW. Theirs is instead the methodology, e.g. "a healthy skepticism". [1. a skeptical attitude: doubt as to the truth of something 2. (philosophy) the theory that certain knowledge is impossible]. Streets apart. Ironically, it's largely the AGWers who are often dismissive of man's knowledge and his mind's efficacy, who should also be named "skeptics" (philosophical type) by we "skeptics" (methodological).

 

In my experience the AGW people are somewhat informed of actual scientific claims made by people who have PhDs.  I don't doubt that there's a level of complexity to the research that they've done that I would have to work hard to understand.  My skepticism is more due to this 'climate science' being a relatively new field of study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

RR,

Money and power.

Two of the oldest motivations in human affairs.

I don't know if sex is involved, but it wouldn't surprise me.

:)

Michael

 

Haha, my high school science teacher said he met Bill Nye and he told me that Bill Nye told him a 'dirty joke'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobinReborn said:

 

In my experience the AGW people are somewhat informed of actual scientific claims made by people who have PhDs.  I don't doubt that there's a level of complexity to the research that they've done that I would have to work hard to understand.  My skepticism is more due to this 'climate science' being a relatively new field of study.

The is real climate science based on non-equilibrium thermodynamics.   And there are models.  There are hundres of models (in the form of computer program). The IPCC gets aggregate number by running many of the models  and averaging their output. 

I have been learning thermodynamics for about a year now.  I can tell you non-equilibrium thermodynamics is mathematically complex  and relies  on the statistical behavior of large aggregates of molecules.  When I say large, believe it.  One mole of carbon atoms weighs 12 grams.  In a mole of carbon atoms there are about 6 x 10^23  molecules.  One of the central principles is that for all gases,  a mole weight (that varies from gas to gas) contains the same number of molecules.  This number is called Avagadro's Number after the scientist who postulated that all molar quantities of gas  contain the same number of molecules.   Given such large numbers of itty bitty components it is impossible to apply the basic force laws so a statistic approach is necessary. 

Thermodynamics is the soundest of all the physical science and its basis are the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  The first law says energy is conserved (this applies to processes where there is no conversion of mass ot energy, as would occur in nuclear fission or nuclear fusion).  The second law says heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer body.  This ultimately leads to the conclusion that entropy can only increase and can only remain the same for purely reversible processes.  In the real world all transformations of energy are irreversible so entropy always increase.

The main consequence is that one cannot completely convert energy to work.

The thermodynamic analysis of the earth's atmosphere and oceans is so complex and mathematically intractable which is why computer models  are used.

One of the basic results from Boltzmann's theories is the Stephan-Boltzmann law which says a black-body will radiate as much energy as it absorbs and the rate of radiation is proportional to the 4th power of the absolute temperature of the black-body.  All massive bodies that receive electromagnetic radiation behave approximately like black-bodies. This law guarantees the the earth will not become Venus.  There is an equilibrium temperature  at which the earth radiates as much heat as it absorbs from the Sun.  

 

The atmosphere slows down the re-radiation of heat so the earth is about 15 degrees (Celsius) warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere around it. It is this slowdown of re-radiation that is the basis for some of the dire predictions made by the AGW people.  They claim that the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere  will causes the equilibrium temperature to go up as much as 20 degrees (Celsius).  This is nonsense.   The earth's oceans have a cooling effect so the temperature increase won't be more that 2 to 3 degrees  (Celsius). The real argument is whether the equilibrium temperature of the earth is radically affected by increasing the CO2 composition of the atmosphere fomr about 280 ppm  to 400 ppm. ppm means parts per million.  Climate sensitivity to CO2, methane and water vapor is what all of the arguments ate about.  The IPCC extremists rig all their models to weight the effects of atmospheric CO2 more heavily than it should be weighed.  Which is why the IPCC sponsored models always "run hot" compared to actual temperatures. There are natural drivers for temperature increase but the IPCC sponsored models down weigh them and they over weigh the effects of so called "green house gases"  

By the way, the temperature increase IS real.  It is what one would expect following the end of the Little Ice Age  around 1850.  After a cold spell ceases one expects the temperature to rise from natural causes.  Do not pay any attention to people who are saying that temperatures on the average are going up a little. They go up.  They go down. They go up and there is a slight rise.  Eventually we will reach equilbrium temperature and the temperature will cease rising (on average).  

Here is something the AGW folk do not like to admit.  Historically the greatest advances in civilization and science have taken place during warm spells   such as the Roman warming, the medieval warming (the  renaissance took place during the warm spell).  Very cold spells are bad for progress and people's health. So do not wish for an ice age any time soon. They also do not want to admit that more CO2 (up to a point)  will increase crop yields.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  Nay,  it is pant food. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get that the earth would be 15 degrees hotter than if there were no atmosphere. What is the temperature of the moon? Also, aren't we talking about the temperature of the atmosphere, not the earth?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistype on my part.  Because of our Atmosphere there Earth is 33 degrees warmer than it would be w.o.  an atmosphere.  The atmosphere is a bit like a blanket.  It slows down the re-radiation of energy to outer space.  The AGW people claim that with the increase in atmospheric  CO2 the temperature will go up 5 to 6 degrees  by the end of this century.  But this ignores the cooling effect of the oceans.  The atmosphere is not an isolated system.  The atmosphere, the land, and the oceans all interact to produce  that temperature state of the oceans and the air.  

Somewhere along the line, the powers that be in the IPCC decided ex-cathedra  that human produced CO2 is responsible for the warming.  If that is so, why was it warmer during the medieval optimum than it is now????  How was it possible for Greenland to support farming and cattle raising  during the medieval warming?  Why was the North Pole warmer during the 1940s  than it is now?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Idiocy + science = idiocy--on stilts.

Unfortunately the gurus of the IPCC and like pro-AGW groups are NOT doing science.  Real science is respect for the facts,  recognition of what the world IS. It is the antithesis of  irrational consensus.  While many scientists can agree on this hypothesis or that theory there is no such thing as Consensus.  That is an overt collectivist  impulse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2016 at 4:12 PM, RobinReborn said:

 

In my experience the AGW people are somewhat informed of actual scientific claims made by people who have PhDs.  I don't doubt that there's a level of complexity to the research that they've done that I would have to work hard to understand.  My skepticism is more due to this 'climate science' being a relatively new field of study.

I just found this really good free online book by Bob Tisdale and it explains the global warming science and politics in layman's terms.

On Global Warming and The Illusion of Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MereMortal said:

I just found this really good free online book by Bob Tisdale and it explains the global warming science and politics in layman's terms.

On Global Warming and The Illusion of Control

Interesting paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...