• Why can't Bill Nye ELI5?

  • The place for sharing and discussing videos.
The place for sharing and discussing videos.

Climate change?

Real
2
100%
Fake
No votes
0%
Real, but how much is man made?
No votes
0%
 #1035  by s0urce
 Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:34 am


Masterful debate by Tucker here against the "its settled science" nonsense. Almost everyone acknowledges that the climate does, indeed, change over time, but for it to be real "science" you would need a control against which to compare current observed data. Simply saying "its science" without hard data about what the temperatures WOULD be without human activity, its just conjecture.

Imagine Einstein, when developing nuclear weapons, not being able to tell you what the blast yield would be of a nuclear bomb if they added more fissable material.

Einstein: Yeah, it'll be a bigger boom if you add more plutonium
Military: Okay, but what will the blast radius be if we add another kilogram of plutonium?
Einstein: Bigger.
Military: Yeah.... but how much bigger? We need to know precisely so that we can build it knowing what it'll destroy, and the plane that drops it doesn't get destroyed...
Einstein: It'll be bigger, bro. I have no idea HOW MUCH bigger, but totally bigger. Trust me.
 #1040  by mrlousyjeans
 Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:57 am
First, if you're looking for scientific truths and explanations you might want to dig a bit deeper than Tucker Carlson and Fox News. Also, you might want to dig a bit deeper than Bill Nye.

Secondly, what's interesting here is your attempt to tie Bill Nye's appearance and inability to produce a satisfying argument for you, to whether or not man made climate change is real. By definition one would be off-topic trying to address your climate change poll and not Bill Nye's ability to talk down to adults about a very complicated and virtually settled topic.
 #1043  by MikeHockusthick
 Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:18 am
Why can liberals use science to debunk / figure out anything... except the gender issue.

s0urce wrote:
Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:34 am


Masterful debate by Tucker here against the "its settled science" nonsense. Almost everyone acknowledges that the climate does, indeed, change over time, but for it to be real "science" you would need a control against which to compare current observed data. Simply saying "its science" without hard data about what the temperatures WOULD be without human activity, its just conjecture.

Imagine Einstein, when developing nuclear weapons, not being able to tell you what the blast yield would be of a nuclear bomb if they added more fissable material.

Einstein: Yeah, it'll be a bigger boom if you add more plutonium
Military: Okay, but what will the blast radius be if we add another kilogram of plutonium?
Einstein: Bigger.
Military: Yeah.... but how much bigger? We need to know precisely so that we can build it knowing what it'll destroy, and the plane that drops it doesn't get destroyed...
Einstein: It'll be bigger, bro. I have no idea HOW MUCH bigger, but totally bigger. Trust me.
 #1048  by almostapathetic
 Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:54 am
mrlousyjeans wrote:
Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:57 am
First, if you're looking for scientific truths and explanations you might want to dig a bit deeper than Tucker Carlson and Fox News. Also, you might want to dig a bit deeper than Bill Nye.

Secondly, what's interesting here is your attempt to tie Bill Nye's appearance and inability to produce a satisfying argument for you, to whether or not man made climate change is real. By definition one would be off-topic trying to address your climate change poll and not Bill Nye's ability to talk down to adults about a very complicated and virtually settled topic.
Look at this smart guy using common sense and reason and stating it very clearly. You do realize this is the internet and especially ebwf, right? There's no need for any of that here, fag.

:dbagsmile:
 #1049  by mrlousyjeans
 Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:21 am
MikeHockusthick wrote:
Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:18 am
Why can liberals use science to debunk / figure out anything... except the gender issue?

There is no "gender issue" insofar as there has always been people who feel that they were born in a body that didn't suit the way they feel inside. Just as there has always been people (often from more rural areas that have less exposure to different ways of life, perspectives, and education) who have found reason to ridicule another's experience because they don't understand it.

In the past few decades it has become more acceptable (while it's been even more accepted at various points in history) for people to be vocal about the disparity between their genitals and their mind, which largely is a good sign socially. There will always be a faction however, that believes that if it doesn't fit into their worldview (or beliefs) that it's wrong, immoral, or something that should be publicly mocked. Unfortunately the mocking tends to gather more support than resistance because with anything that's a very rare perspective, people often don't know enough to properly support the minority viewpoint, but it's exceedingly easy to just say something's weird and dismiss it.
 #1050  by kocher
 Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:08 am
MikeHockusthick wrote:
Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:18 am
Why can liberals use science to debunk / figure out anything... except the gender issue.

Because gender isn't based on science, and even less so in this thread about climate change. Drop trou, I'm going in.