Bill Nye, the Junk Science Guy

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 17 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
Bill Nye, the Junk Science Guy

It is almost impossible to know the truth of things, especially technical, legal, scientific matters, because there are "experts" on both sides of every issue and they present all kinds of "evidence" for their side.

The link below is to a Just Facts page on Global Warming. In it they mention Bill Nye. The upshot of the article there is no "settled science" on this matter and, in fact, it is very much in dispute. One thing I did not know is that the so-called data used to compare historical temperatures to modern temperatures is not from actual temperature. Before 1850 or so there were no such temperature records so, they use what is called "proxy" data....tree rings, sediments etc. Very few of these are available and they are not real accurate.

Many serious scientists doubt that the warming we do actually see is faster than it should be or is primarily caused by mankind. Bill Nye is not one of these climate scientists. He is NOT a climate scientist and has no education or training at all in the field. He is a mechanical engineer and, according to the article addicted to false, (fake) data and junk science. He is a fool!

Global Schmobal

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
Bill Nye has engineering

Bill Nye has engineering degrees, not climate science degrees. At this point, he's more of an entertainer than anything else. (It's ridiculous, but I am more qualified to talk about climate change than he is. Of course, if I went on TV, I'd have to change my voice and hide behind a shadow screen to retain my anonymous coward status!)

Most of the article you linked is just rehashed stuff that we've rehashed and rehashed multiple times in the global warming megathread that went by a few months ago.

It however, fully admits that there is warming and sea level rises, just that it is less than the bulk of the models.

Nye is certainly out of line to definitely say that very old historical records are reliable - Al Gore had the same problem with his movie & book.

However, it *can* be said with complete certainty that this is the first time in the Earth's history that an external source of a greenhouse gas (that is, a source of CO2 & NH4 that is not a result of the regular variability of oceans & atmosphere) has been applied to the Earth's atmosphere/ocean system.

Again, this thread is not really worth pursuing, because there's nothing new that we haven't already discussed ad naseum, except that Bill Nye is not really representing the climate change side very well (I am in agreement with you).

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 17 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
True, much of the data in the

True, much of the data in the article has been seen been seen before but, I will bet you millibars to Southern oscillations that more people have seen or heard what the pencil-necked whacko, Nye, has said than have read the facts which are in this article. That means that repeating it over and over again can only help educate the dumb masses.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
True, but given the average

True, but given the average readership of AMG, I highly doubt anyone here would take Nye seriously.

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 17 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
There are a couple of brain

There are a couple of brain-donors who screed here often but, nothing will ever enter their depleted uranium skulls.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 32 sec ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
How is the debate about the

How is the debate about the unsettled science of global warming due to the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere going?

Those advocating for CO2 control by humans are having a difficult time justifying the 18 year plus non-warming trends. I still say global warming due to CO2 is a hoax. See below: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-the-mit-lette...

The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain…… hypothetical, ……model-based projections…… By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.

It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,

Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.

I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petition (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
Respectfully yours,

Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
I've seen a talk by Dick

I've seen a talk by Dick Lindzen, he's a very smart guy (and I've hobnobbed with a few of his graduate students - I somehow ended up at their table during dinner).

But he's literally the *only* respected atmospheric scientist that has called into global warming into question. I'm not talking about "economists who have read a few atmospheric science books", or emeritus physics professors that are so old they probably watch Fox and Friends just for the gold commercials.

His objections are, in my opinion, pretty nitpicky. He doesn't question the radiative transfer physics - he's basically saying that we haven't exhaustively examined every possible negative feedback loop that could exist.

Now, he is more of an atmospheric scientist than I ever was or will be, but to me, the evidence that climate change is happening now is way better than it was 20 years ago, when he was fully doing work (he's emeritus, obviously). I think he had an argument back then, but he's still living in the past.

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
20 years of free flowing,

20 years of free flowing, agenda driven grant programs will change many people's perspective on that evidence.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 32 sec ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
In response to: But he's

In response to: But he's literally the *only* respected atmospheric scientist that has called into global warming into question.

Lindtzen says:

I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petition (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation).

ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012).

BASTARDI, Joseph: Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics.

BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.

CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer.
DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees.
EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year.
FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia).
HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993.
HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut.
IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska – Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meterologist.
LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri.
MARKÓ, István E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium).
MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).
MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society).
NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition.
SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.
SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist.
SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ’81; M.S., Meteorology, ’79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ’78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology.
STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic).
WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.
ZYBACH, Bob: (PhD., Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University); http://www.ORWW.org, author of more than 100 popular articles and editorials regarding forest history, wildfire mitigation, reforestation planning, and Indian burning practices.

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
It's amazing how much of a

It's amazing how much of a lie - and how many of the public bought into - is the "consensus" claim about global warming.

A complete and shameless lie.

Green-ee
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
Joined: 09/08/2007 - 6:08am
The 1870's had their Cardiff

The 1870's had their Cardiff Giant. We have Climate Change caused by man despite amazing pollution elimination advances and the collapse of the industrial age.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Spider: "I hope these

@Spider: "I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petition (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC."

If you look at the list closely, most of these people are not atmospheric scientists. Many are emeritus, which, historically speaking, is pretty bad in the sciences (most big advances in scientific thought happen when one generation dies off and is replaced by the next - think evolution, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, etc.)

Of the remaining ones:
BASTARDI, Joseph: Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics. - this guy is a weather guy (it's a sub-branch in atmospheric sciences, the other being climate). He really does not understand climate physics at all, as evidenced by his statements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi#Stance_on_global_warming):
"Bastardi also states that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics,[17] " (completely and totally incorrect)
"CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. " (also wrong)
"For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. " (again, totally wrong - not the part about specific gravity, but everything else in that statement says that he literally has no understanding of radiative transfer).

That guy is so wrong in so many ways, the fact that they even let him near the petition suggests that they are desperate for signatures.

CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science): from (http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charles-clough/climate-change-theorist...) he's mistaking CO2 levels as the driver now vs. the dependent variable in pre-industrial times. This is the point I made previously, that this is the only time in the history of the Earth that CO2 was driven independently of the atmosphere/ocean system.

David Legates: this guy appears to be a legitimate scientist... has a paper (one, which is suspicious), am reading it now. Might take me a few days to get through it.

Roy Spencer is legit

But that's it. And keep in mind, you could easily fill a petition of 300 signatures of people who, say, don't believe in evolution, which is a settled scientific theory. Or that smoking causes cancer (you could get Dick Lindzen to sign that, he doesn't believe smoking causes cancer - or at least he used to, back in the 90's).

So having a bunch of signatures, only 2-3 of which are by legitimate climate scientists, is not really sufficient to delegitimize climate change.

Now, having said that, the estimates of the economic impact, as well as the correct policy to apply are a whole different topic (this is what mainemom is pushing - questioning whether carbon taxes are the better/worse in the long term for poor nations than allowing fossil fuels to help them develop economically.)

But we can't start a real conversation about economic policy until we're all in agreement that the physical phenomenon is real.

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
But we can't start a real

But we can't start a real conversation about economic policy until we're all in agreement that the physical phenomenon is real.

The conversation has been ongoing about economic policy all along, regardless of whether the phenomenon is real or not.
There's the rub.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 32 sec ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
Moving my taxpayer dollars

Moving my taxpayer dollars from my possession to your possession so you can ‘study non-existent global warming due to CO2’ is good economic policy for you….bad for me. Global warming due to the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is a hoax.

http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/411305/

“You will never read or hear any of this from the scientific and political establishments,” Dr. Terry Hughes, professor emeritus of earth sciences and climate change at the University of Maine, told The College Fix.

“I’m now retired, so I have no scientific career to protect by spreading lies.”

He said he thinks dire global warming predictions are really all about lassoing federal research funding and votes.

“Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want,” the glaciologist added.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20751/

While much of the debate over climate change surrounds whether or not it is occurring, one glaciologist and retired professor says the real issue is that the topic is being used as a political pawn to siphon money and votes.

Dr. Terry Hughes, in an interview with The College Fix, said researchers want to keep federal funding for climate change alive, and politicians want to earn environmentalist votes, and both predict global pandemonium to that end.

Hughes – who worked for 35 years at the Department of Earth Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine – said climate cycles overlap with election cycles, which helps politicians “get electoral visibility by pounding the panic drums.”

"But what he wants people to understand is that climate change researchers and politicians collude to create fear of a disaster that will never happen".

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
Ugenetoo: "The conversation

Ugenetoo: "The conversation has been ongoing about economic policy all along, regardless of whether the phenomenon is real or not.
There's the rub."

It's not at the forefront of the discussion. The forefront of the discussion is all sorts of fake news about whether global warming is real or not.

Yes, there are a small handful discussing the economic impact, but that's not at all what you see in national discussion - you see Pruitt & Trump, and 80% of the GOP denying it's even real.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
Ok so the Legates paper (http

Ok so the Legates paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927316305448) details a hyper simple model - flat, uniform earth, etc.

That, in and of itself, is not a problem, but what it means is that the outcome of the model relies heavily on what you use for inputs... there's a solid criticism here:
https://www.realskeptic.com/2015/06/02/moncktons-fundamentally-flawed-si...

The actual critical paper is paywalled, so I can't read it, unfortunately, but the summary is pretty complete.

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
As Spider stated, it is

As Spider stated, it is always about my money being taken to allay the fears of the chicken little, hand wringers about ________ (fill in the blank).

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 32 sec ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
From the Monckton link in

From the Monckton link in post #16:
“This is diametrically opposed to the well-established approach of the IPCC and the 97 percent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities.”

Except that…..

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/mr_president_heres_why_t...

Mr. President, Here’s Why That Claim of a 97% Climate Change Consensus Is Bunk

The study reporting the 97% consensus, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” by John Cook and friends, under the halo of the University of Queensland was published in 2013 and, according to Watts Up With That, when the source data for the study was published online, the University of Queensland got so worried they threatened a lawsuit over use of Cook’s “97% consensus” data for a scientific rebuttal.

A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American reported that, out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the “consensus” position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded:

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper.”

I say neither Global warming nor the claim of 97% can withstand scrutiny.

“In fact popular technology listed 97 papers refuting Cook’s study here.”

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consens...

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Global warming due to CO2 is a hoax.

Log in to post comments