Conservatives Beating Bill Nye the Global Warming Guy, But Obama to the Rescue

July 4, 2012 | Filed under Barack Obama,Big government,corruption,Culture Of Corruption,Democrats,Environment,Global Warming,Liberals,Media | Posted by

=Bill Nye “the Science Guy” and CNN are a bit miffed at all those global warming scoffers. They are winning the public debate, beating the “consensus” opinion that global warming — or globaloney — is poised to destroy the planet.

Nye and CNN host Carol Costello both dismissed any climate change skeptics with Costello claiming that “politicization” and a willful disbelief in global warming consensus was helping to ruin that cherished science. Costello also worried that skeptics were “winning.”

In a July 2 appearance on CNN’s Newsroom, host Carol Costello warmed Nye up driving straight for the idea that “the weather” has become “incredibly politicized” and asked Bill Nye to respond to charges that he was just a “kooky guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

Nye defended himself saying, “I can read graphs” and went on to claim that the left’s beloved consensus was true because, well, that is “just how it is.”

It is interesting to note that neither Costello nor Nye seemed to think that left-wing, global warming supporters were engaging in any “politicizing” of the issue. Curiously, neither mentioned Climategate, the now infamous series of emails released by whistleblowers that proved that global warming supporters were engaging in a monumental political campaign in order to keep the money flowing to their research projects, a campaign that made the lie to the “science” of global warming.

Nye also seemed to be selling the idea that after the upcoming presidential election, Obama would come to the aid of globalonyists in his second term.

Host Costello worried that the “people who are politicizing” global warming seemed to be “winning” the issue and beating back supporters of climate change. She thought this was true, “because not much is being done on the issue of climate change even though President Obama promised that, you know, back in the day, 2008.”

But Nye thought it would be Obama to the rescue once he wins reelection. (See transcript)

Well, I think you’re going to have to wait. I mean, I’m not – I think you’re going to have to wait until after the election. By the way, if you’re a voter, consider taking the — the environment into account as well as the economy. Consider including the environment. I think the two candidates running for president right now have very different views about the validity, for example, of science and the importance of it and what you would do about climate change in the coming years.

Nye then went on to say that we’d solve global warming the same way we invented the iPhone. Though, since the left’s ideas of “solving” global warming is to destroy society’s capability to make and invent thinks like iPhones, one finds the analogy a bit lacking.

Nye also blamed Christians for perpetrating the success of global warming denial. “We have an enormous population of people in the United States who don’t believe in evolution the fundamental idea in all of life science,” he said icily. “It would be like saying I don’t believe in earthquakes or something.”

What was Nye’s proof that we have global warming? Well, he informed host Costello that we have had, “16 warmest years on record over the last 17.”

So, 16 out of the last several millions of years have been hot so that means we have global warming?

Ah, that must be the “science” of consensus.

« « The story behind the National Anthem
236 Independence Days and Counting, But What Does it all Mean? » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on July 4, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, Big government, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Environment, Global Warming, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • cirby

    The new usage is “climate justice.”

    You know, since the globe wasn’t warming fast enough, climate stopped changing the way they predicted, and nobody ever bought into “climate instability” for more than a couple of minutes.

  • 914

    “politicization” and a willful disbelief in global warming consensus was helping to ruin that cherished science”

    Kinda like ? Hope and Change? lol

  • GarandFan

    First it was “Anthropomorphic Global Warming”, which became “Climate Change”; people might deny AGW, but they can’t claim that climate isn’t “changing”. Gotta love how the AGW crowd is always upfront. Matter of fact, they’re just as “transparent” as the current administration.

  • LiberalNitemare

    Liberalism depends on the ignorance of its supporters.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Nye also blamed Christians for perpetrating the success of global warming denial. “We have an enormous population of people in the United States who don’t believe in evolution the fundamental idea in all of life science,” he said icily. “It would be like saying I don’t believe in earthquakes or something.”

    From a Gallup poll, ‘On Darwin’s Birthday, (his 200th, in 2009), Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution in the USA‘ “Belief drops to 24% among frequent church attenders”. It must be about 3 in 10, with conservatives or Republicans.

    It is hard to have a intelligent conversation about global warming, let alone science or biology or botany or zoology or genetics with most of America. Nye is right, it is pretty well hopeless!

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      “It is hard to have a intelligent conversation about global warming,”

      LOL. Especially when you’re into the “The Science Is Settled, so STFU you deniers” method of argument.

      I told you quite clearly what you had to do to convince me on global
      warming in our previous ‘discussion’. I believe you know as well as I
      do that the AGW hoax doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on, and
      appeals to emotion and authority while hiding the processes and data
      used to come to the conclusions they have about AGW don’t inspire much
      trust in the folks who have been pushing this particular piece of
      foolishness.

      (And wasn’t it convenient how Al Gore just happened
      to be part owner of a company that sold carbon credits while he was
      pushing the “We must control CO2 emissions or we will DIE!” concept of
      buying carbon credits to offset carbon usage?)

      If you were writing a movie where the bad guys were trying to scam the
      world into paying trillions for crappy tech, what would they use as a
      method? Alien invasion? Nah, too easy to disprove, any piker could
      just point a telescope at the supposed incoming fleet, and if it isn’t
      there… you’re busted! Biosphere breakdown? Mmm, some potential
      there, but too widespread – people can inspect things for themselves,
      and if their results don’t match your projections, you’re busted again.
      (Remember how coral bleaching was a sign of global warming?
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423100817.htm Maybe not
      so much.)

      So let’s go with global warming. Find a few tree cores you can interpret as showing signs of massive warming (which is strange, because looking at the entire data set on those trees doesn’t seem to show any overall warming, and out of the 10 trees selected that seem to show warming, only 1 really indicated warming… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/ )

      Push the idea there’s a crisis, get help from someone influential that stands to make a killing on providing a ‘remedy’. Enlist a group that stands to gain a lot of academic fame by backing you up with properly ‘adjusted’ results from data collected from iffy stations (http://surfacestations.org/ ) and then trying hard to block any sort of criticism of their work… while hiding the data and methods they use to get the results they did…

      That’d make for a stupid movie, wouldn’t it? Who would believe scientists would ever tell people questioning them – “STFU – the science is settled!”

      That’s the reason why it’s hard to have an intelligent conversation, Steve. You’re arguing religion and the adherence to doctrine – while the rest of us are arguing science, and adherence to established scientific principles.

      Plus there’s this. CO2 emissions seem to be falling in the US, without draconian intervention by government. (Part of that’s due to shale gas, part due to the suck-ass economy.) http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3791

      • Jwb10001

        Not only are CO2 emissions falling it’s hotter than hell, of course that just weather of course generally hot weather is proof of global warming and counts, only cold weather is just weather. But you know we’re really impossible to have an intelligent conversation with… whatever!

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Lawson, I started by linking to the first site, you pasted a rather old 2009 scientific report which gave a little optimism to the Great Barrier reef from bleaching, due to the acification of the ocean and global warming. Nothing in the article discredited global warming or that bleaching is caused by warming waters.. Of course the temperatures of surface water are going up faster than land. Global warming is explicit and implicit in the way these scientists wrote in your article, you quoted as in millions like it, in the past ten years. AGW just like evolution, it is only controvertible for non scientists. Why bother reading the literature Lawson like science daily if article after article, without question, talks about global warming and its complex effects, in this case on coral reefs, if you think AGW is a hoax? Anyways, as you linked me to the site, (there were many reports on coral reefs) it looks generally like the same group of Australian scientists- so let’s look at two paragraphs from a more recent 2011 study in the same site, science daily Corals Can Sense What’s Coming’
        Australian scientists have thrown new light on the mechanism behind the mass death of corals worldwide as Earth’s climate warms.
        Coral bleaching, one of the most devastating events affecting coral reefs around the planet, is triggered by rising water temperatures. It occurs when the corals and their symbiotic algae become heat-stressed, and the algae which feed the corals either die or are expelled by the coral. Okay let’s go to 2012 Under Climate Change, Winners and Losers On the Coral ReefScienceDaily (Apr. 12, 2012) — As ocean temperatures rise, some species of corals are likely to succeed at the expense of others, according to a report published online on April 12 in the Cell Press journal Current Biology that details the first large-scale investigation of climate effects on corals.”The good news is that, rather than experiencing wholesale destruction, many coral reefs will survive climate change by changing the mix of coral species as the ocean warms and becomes more acidic,” I could go and on..At least you linked to a scientific journal,I’ll give you credit for that that try reading one page of scientific american the best one, if you dare..climate depot and most of the climate change global deniers are written by non scientists, noramlly paid hacks by oil companies, that most of you link to. Most of you are like flat Vatican flat earthers in a Copernican world. I admit used to be patient with more of you, but the references unlike science daily you normally use are so second and third rate-that is, mostly to non scientists, (where has Hearland gone, it is so discredited after so many front pages on wizbang, didn’t that give you any pause? I know it is diificult to find good scientific references to deniers when 97% of climate scientists, and every major scientific and scientific academic body in the free world-not even a minority report has AGW dissentors .I don’t know what profession you are in Lawson, but i’m sure you try to read the most qualified reports from the most qualified people to ascertain the accuracy of the subjects much better, than from the least qualified.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Ah! Wonderful! Appeal to authority – amazing! And a crappily-formatted wall of text, to boot, on just ONE of the articles I posted!

          I was betting with myself whether you’d use ‘appeal to authority’ or not. I didn’t think you wouldn’t even fucking READ Ruddiman’s article in our previous discussion. The one where, in figure 1, it’s pretty clearly indicated that ‘yes, anthropogenic methane HAS changed the climate, and HAS changed it for the last 8 thousand years’, and understood that WITHOUT that warming from human farming-generated methane, there’s a damn good chance that we’d have glaciers covering most of the continents at the present time?

          That our current civilization would likely NOT exist?

          Here it is again, in case you missed it the first time.
          http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

          I’ve made no bones about whether I believe in anthropogenic global warming or not. I DO believe in it, primarily because of that single article. I’ve stated it multiple times on this blog, in fact.

          What I do NOT believe in is the scam that Hansen started pushing with the Briffa cores, Al Gore’s been pushing with his authority, and the CRU folks signed onto with distorted data, black-box models and suppression of any sort of questioning or dissent to their message – that AGW was/is a crisis, and the only way to cure it was throw trillions at crappy tech and idiotic schemes right NOW.

          Because they say so, and there’s no time to actually show their work. Just trust them!

          You’re a condescending, gullible fool, Steve, to not see how the scientific method was perverted to boost the egos of Hansen and the CRU folks, and to note how Al Gore made millions off pushing their results.

          But you call folks who disagree with their conclusions deniers?

          Seems to me like you need to look to your own sources, and at the big picture – you’re taking the word of metaphorical mayflies who see the passing of a cloud across the sun as reason to worry about first global cooling and then global warming when it clears.

          I’ve tried to explain to you in the past such things s instrument error, and observation error. I’ve tried to explain to you that Hansen’s work with the Briffa tree cores has been debunked. I’ve tried to get you to understand that you cannot take instrument readings and ‘adjust’ them and end up with useful data, especially when you don’t keep a record of HOW you adjusted them. I’ve tried to get you to understand that not releasing the methods for HOW a particular conclusion is derived is bad scientific procedure.

          You blather about oil companies and deniers, as if somehow it’s a mantra you can use to ward off unpleasant thoughts.

          Good luck with that, by the way. That ‘green bus’ you were hoping to ride? I think the wheels are deflating fast…

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I only looked at the coral reef post the first time because it was late at night and the post is winding down but as to the Ruddiman. reference. He seems fairly complimentartary on first glance to what is taking place to modern AGW…He is a well accepted climate scientist, and the commentsfoor example from14 through 20 are close (relatively speaking) to the same debate we are having. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/early-anthropocene-hyppothesis/ and Ruddiman answering some of the comments, in his own comment #40, and even more illuminatiing more recent, and in a slightly less technical report, wrtten by him http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/an-emerging-view-on-early-land-use/comment-page-2/#comments
            with several comments by him. No one seems to question, very seriously, his premise that human beings had a great deal of effect on climate, beginning few thousand years ago, with heavy forest clearance. He wouldn`t last long on this site!

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Why do you think that, you gullible sap? He’s documented his stuff, put all his info out for peer review. Anyone can replicate his work, anyone can look at his data for themselves.

            That’s how science works.

            CRU? Hansen? Hell, no. They’ve fought tooth and nail to keep their info hidden, and stomp down any criticism of their work.

            As I’ve pointed out, I’ve got no problem with the concept of AGW. What I have a problem with is the “OMG this is a CRISIS and you’ve got to give us MONEY to FIX it or WE WILL ALL DIEEEEE!!!!” scam.

            Scam? Yes. Ever see the movie “The Music Man”? Drum up a cause you can promote as a problem, offer a solution, get money from people to pay for the solution and then skip town – but in this case, it’s just ‘slip out of the public light’ over time after having gotten your name in enough places and enough stroking of your ego while ensuring you got big grants to ‘research’ the problem.

            Or, a bit briefer – if it were a crisis, then Al Gore jetting around the world pushing his carbon credit scam while buying seaside property doesn’t look like HE thinks it’s too serious. And if HE doesn’t, why should anyone else?

    • jim_m

      It’s really hard to have an intelligent conversation when you are disputing one person’s religion based on your own religious viewpoint: warmism.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        The hard bigotry of the acolytes of algore…

  • Wild_Willie

    If Nye and the left nitwits embrace the entirety of Darwin, especially ‘adapt of perish’ why does the left go out of their way to stop a species from dying out? Darwin’s main thrust and the left doesn’t accept it. So where is the hypocrisy? ww

  • jdj

    “We have an enormous population of people in the United States who don’t believe in evolution the fundamental idea in all of life science,” he said icily. “It would be like
    saying I don’t believe in earthquakes or something.”
    I find time and chance to be completely insufficient to explain the reality and complexity of life. An omniscient, omnipotent Creator (Yahweh is his name) makes a whole lot more sense.

    • jim_m

      In truth, the reason that people are more comfortable with ascribing everything to chance because they are very uncomfortable with the moral strictures they face if there really is a God.

      Cosmology before the Big Bang is merely conjecture and offers no insight or proof of what happened as it is beyond the reach of observation. Explanations of how life came about require ignoring as many scientific issues as these explanations are supposed to account for. Ultimately we have substituted a pseudoscience as a religion in place of God.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wheelerlouis Louis Gene Wheeler

    I like to ask the Greens, “When was the most beneficial climate in human history? When was the Sahara a grassland and the rain forests were half again larger?” Google Holocene Optimum. It was 7 to 8 thousand years ago.