Bill Nye the “Science Guy” is an Idiot. Gets Called Out by Real Scientists

Bill Nye the Science Guy has been around forever. He’s famous for his science kids TV show that introduced lots of kids to science. He’s gone to hell in a handcart in his old age.

This month he and the President took Air Force One on a little trip to promote fighting climate change. The White House documented the trip with a video.

We choked on the “I’m a patriot” part of that little speech. What does that have to do with anything?

The President and Nye are all hopped up about climate change. Obama says it’s our number one national security concern. We guess Hillary polished off the Russians and fixed the Middle East when she was Secretary of State. Anyway, with respect to climate change, the President and Mr. Nye simply reek of hypocrisy on this subject.

The 1,836-mile roundtrip will consume 9,180 gallons of fuel on Air Force One, according to CBS White House reporter Mark Knoller. And that’s just the president’s plane.

There will a half-dozen support planes along for the trip, Marine One helicopters, and a 25- to 30-vehicle motorcade belching exhaust into the air.

Personally, we’ll get concerned about climate change when those who say they’re concerned start acting like it.

Bill Nye isn’t resting on his Presidential video laurels. No sir. He’s busy finding stuff to blame on global warming climate change.


Floods in Texas, Alaska on fire. Oh my!

Mr. Nye got some feedback on this one. From scientists.

Nye’s extreme weather claims and hype over Tropical Storm Bill come on the heels of news reports that the U.S. has been in the midst of a 10-year “hurricane drought.” For nearly a decade, no Category 3 or higher hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S., and there’s been no upward trend in other natural disasters like tornadoes, droughts or wildfires. Even a meteorology student at Pennsylvania State University and independent weather forecasters out of New Jersey criticized Nye for harming the scientific debate on global warming.

Bill should consider marrying Algore. In keeping with today’s trend on “trans” they’re both “TransScientist” or maybe even “TransSmart.”


Today’s hard lesson, just because you think it’s so, doesn’t make it so.

The New Republic attacks scientific dissent regarding global warming
"Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion"
  • jim_m

    Global warming is pseudoscience for leftist morons who believe that because lots of people believe something then it must be true. If that were the case then we could have closed the door on evolution the day Origin of Species was published and Galileo could have been said to have been justly punished for his teachings as well.

    • Bret Zeller

      Climate change is a fact. Whether an individual event is related to it is another matter.

      There is no way to observe the data and not see a strong correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and the fact of rising global temperatures.

      • jim_m

        Climate change IS a fact. Man’s driving that change is a left wing hysteria.

        No model has demonstrated any value or ability to prodict global climate over the last 18 years. If you cannot predict the last decade accurately why should we suppose that you can prediuct the next 50 to 100 years?

        Why also, have there been so many scandals related to warmist ideology? WHy have we sen that Mann hockey stick so thoroughly discredited? Why does Mann find it necessary to attempt to silence his critics with lawsuits rather than defend his data? (Oh yeah, he won’t share his data, it’s secret) Why have other people come forward and admitted that teh Himalayan glaciers melting by 20345 was a fraud? Why has NOAA been caught multiple times manipulting data in fraudulant ways to support its warmist ideology?

        AGW is a leftist fraud. It is built on fraud. It is built on pseudosciuence and relies upon the ignorance of the public to sustain itself as it attempts to induce panic and fear in people to manipulate them.

        If warmism were real then none of this would be necessary. But it isn’t real. It is a sham. Only fools are still following this false religion.

        • Sea Pig

          You sound hysterical.

          • jim_m

            Respond to the substance dumbass. Or just STFU.

          • Raygun

            The thing is jim that its easily observable how man is in FACT impacting the climate. We destroy entire forests, animals are going extinct at an alarming rate and you can’t honestly tell me that drilling for oil and fracking (which is causing earthquakes) is healthy for mankind.

            I grew up in los angeles and let me tell you the air there sucks ass. Why? Well its not because the area just magically exudes smog, no its because of the density of people and pollutants from cars coupled with the terrain creates the brown, stinky air. Its not natural, its not healthy and its something we need to address. Ignoring climate issues is not the way to solve those problems.

            It does not matter if you agree with climate change or not, it is an irrefutable FACT that mankind is destroying the planet, any person with a brain can see that. If we dont make efforts to change and become more sustainable and wasting less, this planet will be a wasteland in 100 more years.

          • jim_m

            Yes, and mass extinctions never happened prior to mankind.

            You point out a number of issues that are completely unrelated to global climate. Deforestation, even on the scale that man has done it, does not affect global climate.

            Man contributes ~3.27% pf CO2 from burning of fossil fuels. That is 3.27% of 0.039% of the atmosphere. Water vapor and methane are far more serious contributors to green house gases and man is by far not the biggest producer of those two items.

            If you think that this is causing global warming you are a f*cking idiot. Yes, making the air cleaner for our own health is a laudable goal. Destroying our civilization because you are a fuck up is not.

          • Raygun

            Wow, you are fucking clueless. Honestly, F U C K I N G C L U E L E S S.

          • jim_m

            Wow. you are incapable of addressing the substance of the comments.

          • Raygun

            I can easily debate the substance of this matter, I mean facts are on my side, but you are clearly incapable of grasping even the most obvious of observable facts easily witnessed by anyone without an agenda.

            I refuse to argue with simpletons like yourself, hell you probably believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and was created by a sky fairy.

          • jim_m

            Yep, impose upon me ideas that are not my own and then argue the straw man.

            Tell you what genius, when you square the conflicting data from NASA and NOAA I will offer you another conundrum. Until then I have yet to see any of you morons even attempt to address it (unless you are attacking the the source that reposted the data from those two agencies). You can’t deliver a cogent argument without making some bullshit strawman. You can’t deliver an argument other than attempting to discredit the source. If you could deal with data you would, but you can’t so you don’t.

          • Raygun

   supports my case just fine. They have pretty pictures so morons like you can understand.

          • jim_m

            Um, NASA and NOAA data are in such conflict htat neither can be true simultaneously and still support a statistical proof that AGW is real. Deal with it.

          • Raygun

            The only person that needs dealings around here, is you. I suggest an anger management course and also talk to a therapist about denial of easily every day observable facts.

            Also. You need to consider something. You presume (incorrectly) that people who do not argue against you are wrong and that they put their tail between their legs and bow to you, but that’s not why people refuse to argue with you. They refuse to argue with you because you fail to look at facts and instead resort to ad hominem attacks.

          • jim_m

            LOL. Go ahead. Run away and refuse to address my comment.

            As for the rest… you are projecting.

          • Raygun

            • There is no deity
            • Humans are destroying the planet at an alarming rate
            • You are a moron

            • Me > You
            • You have a small penis and are terrible at using it
            • English tea > American tea
            • You have anger management issues
            • Ford > Chevy
            • Microsoft > Apple
            • Religious people are sheeple

          • Raygun

            BTW moron, I did refute your comment, multiple times…but all those comments are still waiting to be moderated 2 years later.

          • mickrrrrussom

            The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs – with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON’T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don’t want more plants and animals and trees, no.

            Any time period the warmunists want to “prove” there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter – now they have the perfect example – the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic… Wait, no, it didn’t, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

            Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and for nutjobs like you that don’t ever get beyond the metro area of the cities they live in (Heck, you probably don’t even get out of the city center), there is a LOT of wide open space in the world. You could put the ENTIRE global population inside Texas and it would have a pop density less than that of NYC.

            So if you ever dare go beyond the Starbucks at the corner you will find an enormous world out there, the vast majority of which is unspoilt by mankind.

            Take your neo-Malthusian predictions of doom and tell them to some moron who hasn’t graduated 6th grade. Maybe they will believe you. But I doubt it. Even kids that young know a fool when they see one.

          • Raygun

            LOL god damn you are clueless. For one, I live in the country North West of Fort Worth right now. Number two the density of people vs environment is good on paper but not in the real world, where I live not where you live. That population fitting inside of texas only works if the entire state was flat and only land mass, but then you forgo farming land, land for livestock etc. So ya, that “fit the whole world thing” into texas is not exactly true, we also did not consider waste but thats par for the course when dealing with fucktards like yourself.

            “According to the United States blah blah blah” Well, I did not know that the USA was the center of the world and that things outside our boarders do not affect us. Must be nice living in your dream world with the rest of your fucktard friends.

            Also, I dont drink star bucks, I import tea from England, coffee is for fucktard junkies like yourself.

            But Jim, you keep on thinking you have a fucking clue, because I love debating morons like yourself. Your kind eschew measurable facts for false ideals usually based on something as retarded as ‘god’.

          • Timmy

            the air was much worse in LA and So cal in the 60s and 70s than it is now. that was because of leaded gas and air pollution, not C02, which is a colorless, odorless gas.

          • R3Kless

            I read all of your comments and I wanted to say thank you for all the information. I am glad there are still a few intelligent people out there, that don’t jump on the liberal bandwagon to further their own agenda.

          • John Kwong

            What you just said has nothing to do with green house gases. Yes, there is pollution and over population but the planet has gone through millions of cycles of heating and cooling with higher levels of CO2 being the result of that and not the cause.

          • Raygun

            I also never stated that I believe mankind is causing global warning. In fact I am extremely skeptical that man has anything to do with green house gases blah blah blah. What is not debatable is that we ARE IMPACTING the environment when we cut down forests and species start dying off. Its sad that half the people here either stick to one side of the fence or the other all of them failing to understand the truth is in the middle.

      • mickrrrrussom

        Climate is always changing dingbat. On every planet. But what is the cause? And if you know the cause, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO FIX IT dingbat? THATS WHAT I THOUGHT – silence.

        • Bret Zeller

          You are responding to year old old comments. Interesting.

          Climate change is human caused, you dingbat. We have mountains of empirical evidence about the change in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the total state of warming that has taken place around the planet.

          We have, since I posted that comment, just had the warmest winter ever where I live. This is a trend. Some years we get very warm weather (60+ F even in January this time), now, most winters we get VERY cold weather (-15 in January). It was not like this in the past. We use to average 20s and 30s.

          Also, do you understand statistics? Serious change is occurring, we have a model to explain the change, and we have data proving that change is unprecedented. What is your theory to explain this all away?

          • DefiantDeity

            After one year I wonder if your are still as mentally challenged as you were back then.

            Can you tell us what the average or “normal” temp of the world is supposed to be? I guess you are hording critical data that no one else has ever seen such as the recorded temperature for every day for the last 4.5 billion years. That is the only way you could have come to your conclusion of what the average temp is supposed to be.

            So all this change is unprecedented you say? So who is your source that backs up your claim that this is unprecedented and is happening for the first time in Earth’s existence?

            Solar and is almost as worthless as wind energy. Are you aware electric cars actually put out more pollution and are more toxic to the environment than the average vehicle? The energy to manufacture them, the batteries that need to be replaced, they still use emissions to charge the batteries. A single natural disasters will put out more pollution than all of mankind has throughout history

            So while you idiots worry about the future I will burn my trash, including tires, plastic, oil based products, leave my car started, refuse to recycle, and pretty much do as much as humanly possible to leave the largest carbon footprint I can, because doing so negates the effort of so many of you idiots and that is hilarious!

    • Sea Pig

      Just because lots of people think you are an imbecile doesn’t mean it’s not true.

      Lessee… by your “reasoning” then, there is no god, the sun won’t come up tomorrow, Dubya was not the worst president in history and drove this country into the ground, Lebron James isn’t a drama queen who emotes whenever he knows there is a camera on him, and working stiff conservatives who vote against their own interests in every election aren’t angry, paranoid, gullible, brainwashed nutters.


      • jim_m

        I’ve actually provided links for my comments. You have provided zip to back up your religious beliefs.

    • Vozz

      Wow, you’re moronic babble proudly embraces the ignorance this country suffers from. Escalating carbon emissions have been documented since the 1950’s as a foundational contributor to global warming. Don’t believe greenhouse gasses can heat a planet beyond a habitable point? Check out the runaway conditions on Venus.

      • jim_m

        Are you fucking serious? I suppose being 50,000 Km closer to the sun has NOTHING to do with that.

        Seriously? Are you claiming that Venus is hot because of green house gases and not because it is 2/3 the distance from the sun that the Earth is? That’s got to set a record for the stupidest thing said here.

        • Corey

          Jim, the Greenhouse Effect on Venus contributes to its extreme temperatures much more than its distance to the sun. Its thick atmosphere traps the sun’s incoming radiation, thus warming the planet. Even though Mercury is closer to the sun, it does not get as hot as Venus. In fact, Mercury gets very cold on the side that doesn’t face the sun. Mercury’s extreme temperature differences contribute to its lack of atmosphere, not its close proximity to the Sun. Here is an excellent piece of literature for you to read before you come to a debate with your pseudoscience: Many of your arguments above are inaccurate and riddled with your own delusions. Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor the energy to disprove all the hot garbage you spewed. Stop polluting the minds of others.

      • jim_m

        You do realize that the earth has been warmer than it is today without CO2 emissions? You do realize that you are claiming that a change in 0.0012% of the atmosphere is the cause of this dramatic change? and that even the IPCC has said that if we ceased ALL CO2 emissions in 2010 that the change in global warming would be so slight that we would lack the technology to tell if it had any effect at all?

        Of course not. Because you aren’t even paying attention to the actual science.

      • jim_m

        THe earth’s atmosphere is 0.00127% CO2 from man. and 0.039% over all.

        Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% CO2.

        Just how in hell are you saying that there is any freaking comparison?

        Please explain how your comment is in anyway relevant other than to demonstrate how stupid you are.

  • Steve Svensson

    Wonder if Bill DeNye knows about Chemtrails.

    • Dave StrongArm

      By “chemtrails” do you mean normal “persistent contrails”? Or the pseudo-science backed nonsense being pushed by the likes of the “Flat earth” nutters? I wonder if (and if you did, HOW) you passed high-school sciences. Because if you believe in the latter, you obviously don’t understand basic,…well, anything.

      • Steve Svensson

        Obviously high school science is overrated. You are case in point being the moron that you are.

  • Gerald Allen

    What are the names of these ” Real Scientists’? Notice there are none listed.

    • jim_m

      Follow the link genius. There are a lot of scientists that dispute the concept of man made global warming. In fact a growing consensus that the AGW hysteria is in fact, hysteria has long since formed and a large number of real scientists are backing away from this ideologically driven nonsense.

      • Sea Pig

        Not a single thing in your comment is true. Just regurgitated stoopidity. Is it true what they say? Is it really bliss?

        Becker actually linked to a TDC article, as if that carries any weight for anybody outside the Bubble O’ Nuttery. I mean… The Daily Caller? LOL! May as well include some Beck, Limbaugh, or Alex Jones quotes, too.

        • jim_m

          See my comment elsewhere on this thread where I link to stories demonstrating that warmist psuedoscientists have commmitted academic fraud and where NOAA researchers have fraudulently altered their data.

          I don’t suppose you would like to refute the admission of warmist scientists who have confessed to their own fraud? Or are you really that fucking stupid?

          • Gerald Allen

            You must be a christian, you are not big on proof. You expect people to take your word without naming names to be checked.

          • jim_m

            You have not provided a single link. I have provided several. You are the religious nu demanding that we all bow to your god of warmism.

      • Gerald Allen

        Still NO names. Anybody can make up a story and site some and important scientists, but without names means nothing. This story is a fake,

        • jim_m

          Obviously you haven’t clicked the link. There seemed to be names when I bothered to look.

          • Adam The Great

            Jim knows it all! He read something Fred Singer wrote one time!

          • jim_m

            Hey, should you want to dispute the links I have posted here, be my guest.

          • Adam The Great

            Well for instance one of your links, the one about the noaa data, is to natural news, a conspiracy theory alternative news site advocating Chem trails and alternative nutrition.

          • jim_m

            Dispute the data. I can find other posts that show the same info about NOAA. NOAA has admitted to changing their temp data after the fact to make it coincide with their models.

            Are you going to dispute the facts or just whine about the particular source?

          • jim_m

            Just for you more recent discussion and analysis showing graphically how NOAA has altered their temperature data.

            Of course you will attack the source and ignore the data because you aren’t interested in science, you are interested in warmism, which is a religion.

          • Adam The Great
          • jim_m

            Um, not to put too fine a point on it but your link contains an admission from NOAA that they have altered data with the claim that in doing so they are making it somehow “more accurate” than the actual raw temperature recordings.

            Exactly how is an altered data point more accurate than the actual data point when we are directly measuring temperature?

            Mind you – making the raw data fit expectations by altering it has always in the past been considered FRAUD.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and you might take a look at some of those USHCN network stations that they are getting their data from:

            64% have an expected error of over 2C

          • Adam The Great
          • Adam The Great
          • jim_m

            The corrections I referred to were for current data. Not old data.

            You are misleading everyone by presenting information that is actually irrelevant to what I was saying. NOAA is altering current data to fit their models.

            Care to actually address what I am talking about?

          • jim_m

            It is a scientific site that is saying that while global climate is always changing and has indeed warmed through the end of the 20th century, it has not since then and it holds warmists to the standard of verifiable truth.

            Your claim is that AGW is continuing and is unabated. It isn’t and it is not correlated to human activity.

            Why is it denial to point out that the data is faked? Or fraudulently manipulated?

            Why did Michael Mann have to hide his data for the Hockey Stick? Why has he not confessed to his fraud even when the warmist community has acknowledged that it was fraud?

            Why did Murari Lal lie about the Himalayan glacier melting?

            WHy do you attack the source of the info without addressing the info itself?

            Because you are anti science. You are a religious fanatic, impervious to actual science.

          • Adam The Great

            I point out your sources because they are known conspiracy sites. How would you expect to be taken seriously? I’m not misleading anyone I’m providing them with information from reputable sources, one of which was created to debunk scientific misinformation like the conspiracy sites you’ve posted. The graph shows the altered data actually lowers the temp of the actual data for which there is an actual reason to alter. You focus on the data being altered and conclude it must be a CONSPIRACY!!!! 95% Of experts are lying to us all!

          • jim_m

            Watt’s site is not a conspiracy site. If you would bother to look at it you will find that there is a very large volume of data and statistical analysis.

            Watt’s site was one that helped debunk the Mann Hockey Stick.

            You still won’t address that, or Dr Lal’s lies.

            You want to make baseless accusations of conspiracies yet you won’t address admitted fraud by warmists.

            Your arguments are all ad homs and are pathetic.

          • jim_m

            Tell me. Why does Michael Mann find it necessary to sue his detractors for defamation when it would be so easy to produce the data that supports his bogus hockey stick? Oh yeah, he claims that he’s lost the data and cannot reproduce it. The defense of academic frauds everywhere.

          • Adam The Great

            The hockey stick debate is rejected by the majority of scientists as well and supported by career misinformation scientists like Fred Singer who also liked to tell the public that there’s no scientific evidence tobacco causes lung cancer. Come on man, don’t you have anything reputable?

          • jim_m

            Seriously? The hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited, to the point that Michael mann both disclaims it while claiming it:

            So the graph that has “absolutely nothing to do with Dr Mann” is listed
            on Dr Mann’s own CV as one of his published works. And, when Mann’s
            lawyers (John Williams and Peter Fontaine) state baldly that “Dr Mann
            did not create this depiction”, he is, by his own admission, one of the
            co-creators of said depiction.

            So you are defending something that Mann himself disclaims,(when he feels like it because he knows it is a fraud, but sometimes he wants to claim it because he knows morons like you will fall for anything)

            So which is it? Is it something that Mann did or is it not? He claims it when wanting to claim fame as a warmist, but disclaims it when he wants to clear himself of fraud charges. Funny that. WHen he is accused of fraud related to that he says he didn’t do it.

            Sounds like he’s a fraud to me regardless of whether it was actually academic fraud or not.

          • Adam The Great

            No it looks like he’s sticking by his claims. So what do you think is the motivation behind climate change scientists compared to deniers? Why do most support the idea that man is at least excellerating it?

          • Adam The Great

            Heres something on the hockey stick posted by the Yale climate forum. Doesnt sound as if Mann has any doubt about his findings and in fact theyve been reaffirmed several times.

          • jim_m

            Mann has never come forth and revealed how he produced the hockey stick. They only way anyone has been able to reproduce it is by fraudulently manipulating the data.

          • Adam The Great

            What have we learned? You get your science from conspiracy Web sites and career misinformation scientists like Fred Singer who denied the harmful effects of tobacco and are still at it today with global warming. They are on the payroll of right wing think tanks and polluting corporations who lobby for deregulation. Follow the money. Look into the sources and their history with some basic googling and it’s pretty clear you taken the misinformation bait like any typical simpleton. Good job.

          • jim_m

            Seriously? Back to the ad hom attacks and avoiding confronting the data. I suspect this is simply because you are incapable of understanding science and interpreting the data.

            Like most warmists you are only capable of parroting leftist talking points without any critical thinking or understanding involved. It would actually be nice to debate you but you have yet to address any of the data and have hidden behind ad hom attacks on the sources.

          • Adam The Great

            Well shockingly I’m not a scientist so I’m not qualified to speek on the data itself. So like you I have to take my position by researching multiple sources and their backgrounds. And from my quick research here Mann developed the graph using proxy data that other scientists have reconstructed using different methods and confirmed his findings. The career misinformation scientists and lobbyists who have no scientific background dispute it. Just do me a favor and look at your sources and tell me what is their motivation? Then tell me what would be the motivation of the 95% of real scientists who agree global warming is in part man made?

          • jim_m

            The difference between you and I is that I am willing to look at the evidence and weigh the criticism. You, on the other hand, take all scientific claims as received wisdom from god and accept it uncritically as the truth. Most science has flaws in it but you see warmism as perfect and without flaw and as such that it is beyond question or criticism.

            Hence why I tell you that you are a religious nutball.

          • Adam The Great

            Religion is a faith based belief. Global warming is based on impirical evidence and is debatable on how much humans have effected it is not debatable that humans have effected it. See in light of new evidence I will change my mind, but you’ve provided nothing but well known right wing propoganda. If most scientists and developed countries disagree with you then it is you, who has a faith based understanding of the facts. Good try though and good job not telling me what the motivation behind global warming scientists is.

          • jim_m

            You sound just like an evangelical Christian. Congrats!

          • Adam The Great

            Oh you got me! What with all my main stream science and impirical evidence! That’s totally a Christian thing, they need all kinds of proof for their beliefs! Say another stupid thing, this is fun!

          • jim_m

            Main stream science? You point to scientists but you take their claims with an uncritical eye and a religious like acceptance of every pronouncement they make. You don’t appeal to science, you appeal to authority. All of your arguments are from authority, that is why you attack the sources of my data rather than address the data itself.

            Yes, I am having fun belittling the religious fuck up that you are.

          • Adam The Great

            Ok so what athority do the scientists have over me and others? Inspiring to have cleaner air, water and a healthier life style? Yours on the other hand want deregulation for corporate profit that won’t trickle down to you and slows progress to a better society, new job creation and making America a world leader in science and technology. Your side is the most narrow minded, science denying, faith based organization in the US. Nothing you’ve said is outside the realm of well known misinformation and conspiracy. I’ve given you sever actual sourced that are backed by repeatable evidence. You’ve given me right wing think tanks with bias agendas and conspiracy Websites… You’re belittling your own cause.

          • jim_m

            Obviously you have never heard of the argument from authority. Since you really lack so much understanding there really is no point. Arguing with the ignorant is tiresome.

            I don’t deny science. I embrace it. It has been my career. I find it funny that you claim that you want a better society and job creation when global warming and environmentalism are anti-growth, anti-job and nearly every environmental policy actually hurts the poor by making the fundamental needs of energy for transportation and heating and cooking too expensive for them to afford.

            But your ideas are never about helping others, they are about making yourself feel righteous.

          • Adam The Great

            Yes progressing in science and technology for a better tomorrow makes me feel great! But you’re name calling again and out of ideas. To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. That’s a fitting statement for your side.

          • jim_m

            Yes, you are so devoted to the scince that when I posted data from NASA and NOAA showing that they conflict and were so dramatically different that their predictions of warming fit entirely within the margins of error, that you ignored the comment entirely.

            You don’t understand science and you accept warming as religious truth.

          • Adam The Great

            It’s funny that the guy who claims to have a science career spends 2 days arguing online and calling names. Something fishy about that. Is the noaa and nassa data the data that Steven Goddard put out? The data even your buddy Watts denied? Even Judith Curry dismisses as bogus? Is that what you’re talking about?

          • jim_m

            This is the data that NOAA and NASA defend. Therefore it is the data you defend. I really don’t care about it, but it is your religion. Defend it already.

          • Gerald Allen

            maybe because they lie?

    • david pollard

      This is what i was wondering as well.
      Also wondering why this shit showed up in my google now feed. Got click bated into thinking this was a real story.
      Oh and YEA fuck bill nye he don’t know shit. Just a lame ass ceo of the planetary society and former Boeing engineer who has written a few books and thinks he is hot shit. Come on Bill open your eyes to the truth. Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill nye science is for dummies. Jim M knows the truth.

  • Jeremy

    “Even a meteorology student at Pennsylvania State University and independent weather forecasters out of New Jersey criticized Nye for harming the scientific debate on global warming.”

    Really? A meteorology student and some independent weather forecasters? Those are your sources? Is this a joke?

    Nye may be right, or he may be wrong. but at least his sources are credible. He is certainly no more of an idiot than the author of this article. Seriously, this is high-school level journalism. How does this kind of crap get published?

    • jim_m

      Nye was criticized for idiotic statements that are actally harmful to the cause of global warming. Yet warmists will defend him because they aren’t really interested in the science. They are religious fanatics. There are a few honest people that believe in it but 99.999% are ignorant fools who attack anyone who suggests that it is not fully supported by data.

      • Jeremy

        Oh really 99.999%? Do you have data to back that up? Or is this similar to whole climate change denial thing where you don’t need any.

        • jim_m

          Evidence that my point is correct, that this particular idiot is incapable of recognizing hyperbole. Thanks for playing.

          • Jeremy

            Oh I recognized it, and called it out because it has no place in this discussion. For a person who seems so intent on the accuracy of everyone else’s statements you are sorely lacking it for yourself.

          • jim_m

            Wow. what an intolerant, humorless jerk you must be.

          • Jeremy

            Welcome to the internet.

  • ohio granny

    So everything I was taught in school about the ice ages was a lie? There was never any ice ages or any warming periods? And the melting isn’t what formed the Great Lakes, the Rocky Mountains, the Smokey Mountains, and Kelley’s Island in Ohio? Wow, just wow.

  • jim_m

    For all our warmist friends:

    NASA’s Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (GLOTI) estimates global average temperature from 1951 to 1980 at 14.0°C

    NOAA’s data claims that global average temperature for the same time period is 16.44°C

    So which is it? If we accept that both of these data sets are accurate( and both of these are used by warmists to support their claims so let’s agree with them, shall we?) then we arrive at a reasonable conclusion that global average temp is somewhere around 15.22 +/- 1.22°C. That much error pretty much swallows up all global warming from as far back as 1880.

    There is no statistical evidence that global warming is happening because the data sets are crap. They provide inconsistent and conflicting data that no one wants to try to explain or justify, but instead they look at each data set and data point in isolation because to put everything together shows that their religious claims are BS.

    So what we see is that this isn’t science. This is games with data in order to advance ideology. (i.e Religion). Is the earth warming? Maybe. It’s even highly likely. The issue is that the data cannot support the conclusions that warmists are claiming and the claims that we can affect a change in climate are bullshit because they cannot even claim to be able to measure any effect that our cessation of making CO2 would have.

    • jim_m

      Wait… I post actual data and conclusions from NASA and NOAA and no warmist wants to dispute the conclusions? I suppose they are allergic to actually science.


        If you’re taking the best possible raw data and then ‘adjusting’ it – you’d better have a damn good reason and explanation for the adjustments.

        Now the data set that’s showing no temperature rise (indeed, instead it shows a slight decrease over the last 10 years) is being ‘adjusted’ by some to prove there’s still warming going on. They’re interpolating from another data collection method, which wasn’t meant for scientific collection in the first place.

        I sure wish I could ‘adjust’ my bank account like that. 😉

        • Raygun

          jims a religious nutjob, can’t argue with people who think the planet is 6,000 years old.

          • JayV81

            I can’t find the quote where Jim says he believes the planet is 6,000 years old. Stop projecting you idiot.

          • Raygun

            You dont have to. To believe in god and believe in the bible you have to believe the earth is 6k years old. It says in the bible that its all “god breathed” so, if he did not believe it was 6k years old, then he could not believe in god or the bible as he would be inferring that god lies. God says he cant lie…so which one is it.

            Answer: He believes the earth is 6k years old.

            Also, I am not projecting, I simply know more than you.

          • By what right are you the arbiter or judge of the beliefs of anyone who is not you?

          • Raygun

            Simply going by the facts. You need to study your bible more. It sad when an atheist knows more about god than you do.

          • jim_m

            So you are going to declare that there are absolutely zero metaphors in the Bible because God doesn’t use metaphors. Except Jesus is God and He used parable 9ie metaphors) to make His points.

            So fuck off.

          • Raygun

            No thanks Jim, you are not my type. I prefer women.

            Secondly, where did we ever talk about metaphors? Ohh thats right, I did not talk about metaphors. You people are seriously delusional. LOL and to think you promote the Lord God Almighty who commands that you love your neighbor. You sick fucks must belong to some kind of wacko cult.

  • AirBetty

    “So, when I casually voiced something sarcastic about global warming, Jim said: “Have you checked the data?” In engineering speak that translates as, “Dude, are you high?”

  • Tonto

    The definition of hypocrisy is Bill Nye the comedian, turned wannabe scientist. He talks about the education of others when his own credentials are very suspect. They always want a PhD from anyone on our side, yet their science spokesperson is a failed comedian with a degree in an unrelated field. What a joke.

  • Tonto

    The definition of hypocrisy. Bill Nye is a comedian turned wannabe scientist. He talks about the education of others when his own credentials are very suspect. They always want a PhD from anyone on our side, yet their science spokesperson is a failed comedian with a degree in an unrelated field. Hilarious.

  • DD

    This evil false religion of man made climate change has to rank as one of the worst scams in human history. The false science created and manipulated to support the falsehood is overwelming. Just remember one major volcanic eruption puts more of the so called global warming gasses into the atmosphere than the combined history and activity of mankind. There have been thousands of volcanic eruptions and in comparison the combined activity of human history can not even be measured it is so minuscule.

  • mickrrrrussom

    .Bill Nye, corporate shill for the WORST Company on the face of the earth, CultSanto Monsanto. He is also an evil man who supports this growing police state. This mentally disabled “person” was married for 2 months and has no kids. People without kids are THE worst type of sociopathic politicians and policy makers. And “people” like this think we are all indentured morlocks to serve them.

  • sick and tired of the dictator

    its all about agenda 21.which most americans dont have a clue..most of you will all lose your homes,they will have restrictions and ordinances you will never be able to afford etc.the united nations has already taken over most of our national parks.we will all eventually not be allowed to own a car they will also use this agenda to gain acess to take your children etc you will be forced to will be charged for the air you meters will monitor everythng you do and if you use to much of anything you will be penalized etc think im crazy,i suggest people educate yourselves.your local city has probably already started towards the see the government offers huge amounts of money so your city will take the money.when they do your city will do what the government tells them to do along with the united nations which obama has been working overtime to destroy you,america etc there will be no more state lines and even states for that matter.wake up america wake up! obama has also put many executive orders in place to coincide with this.i have been researching this for a long time and there is nothing good about it.people need to quit trusting government as your buddy.its the people vs them.if you cant see america isnt america anymore then i dont know what to say.i want all children in the future to experience life under freedom and happiness love and goodwill.we have a sick evil government etc