even though i think the "climate change is a hoax" narrative is dumb carlson makes a good point with nye just bullying people who ask him questions that he can't/won't answer
the whole "not gonna answer you, i'll just make fun of you" thing is really dumb and it sucks that it's becoming more common in debates
I like how carlson repeatedly talks over bill then gets extremely defensive while simultaneously offering no substantial refutation of anything Bill has said.
[editline]27th February 2017[/editline]
Wtf does Carlson mean when he says the "language of politics" as Bill describes what the climate would be like without human induced climate change?
i dont get the "bill was rekt" comments
like, the question tucker is asking is so obscenely irrelevant and semantic that it borders on being petty
also his "trying to seem attentive but actually just looking patronizing" expression he pulls with all his hosts is mind bogglingly condescending and makes him the most punchable person on FOX at the moment
i can see why he pulls such high ratings for viewers, he's got no tact and practically bullies his guests with circular hyper focused questions totally unrelated to the real point so he can push a narrative under the guise of being skeptical
I like how Carlson resorts to talking over Bill when he's refuting his points so that he can say that Bill didn't answer him.
[QUOTE=upsideonion;51885441]even though i think the "climate change is a hoax" narrative is dumb carlson makes a good point with nye just bullying people who ask him questions that he can't/won't answer
the whole "not gonna answer you, i'll just make fun of you" thing is really dumb and it sucks that it's becoming more common in debates[/QUOTE]
But Nye [I]did[/I] answer his questions, when he was able to. This was an absolutely shameful interview by Tucker. Tucker repeatedly interrupts, insults and instigates, then when Nye answers his question very simply ("the climate would look like ...") and even gives real-world examples of the accelerating change in the climate, Tucker just starts to laugh at him and say he doesn't know what he's talking about, then closes by saying he is open minded and Bill Nye is not. I mean, what? This was just embarrassing to watch. Tucker is a strong debater but he can't debate his way out of being wrong.
[QUOTE=upsideonion;51885441]even though i think the "climate change is a hoax" narrative is dumb carlson makes a good point with nye just bullying people who ask him questions that he can't/won't answer
the whole "not gonna answer you, i'll just make fun of you" thing is really dumb and it sucks that it's becoming more common in debates[/QUOTE]
i agree, i love bill nye but sometimes he doesn't seem as equipped as others to debate certain topics.
I mean he really didn't answer Tucker's question.
It is a pretty obvious point that the degree of climate change is still being analyzed.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51885451]I like how carlson repeatedly talks over bill then gets extremely defensive while simultaneously offering no substantial refutation of anything Bill has said.
[editline]27th February 2017[/editline]
Wtf does Carlson mean when he says the "language of politics" as Bill describes what the climate would be like without human induced climate change?[/QUOTE]
Tucker is essentially asking Nye to look into a crystal ball and predict with extreme precision what the climate would look like (and to describe it numerically) without human interference, something Tucker knows Nye can't do on the spot (and I'm not sure is even scientifically possible? I'm sure we have models of what the climate would look like without industrialization, but he's asking an impossible question by repeatedly stressing the need for the starting date and time of a fucking ice age). In doing so he's setting Nye up to fail and reassuring his audience that the big mean scientist really doesn't know what's going on.
This guy came off as a huge cunt on this topic.
"YOU'RE SHOUTING PEOPLE DOWN!" says the man shouting down and interrupting Bill.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885529]I mean he really didn't answer Tucker's question.
It is a pretty obvious point that the degree of climate change is still being analyzed.[/QUOTE]
How did he fail to answer his question? Tucker asked what the climate would look like without the effects of industrialization, Nye responded by telling him the climate would look roughly like it did in 1870 or whatever year it was. What do you feel went unanswered?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885529]I mean he really didn't answer Tucker's question.
It is a pretty obvious point that the degree of climate change is still being analyzed.[/QUOTE]
He did though, of course it was hard to hear through Tuckers constant fucking interruptions.
I find it hilarious that deniers constantly ask for this stuff to be explained in layman's terms and then when it is they bitch that they aren't being extremely precise and technical.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885529]I mean he really didn't answer Tucker's question.
It is a pretty obvious point that the degree of climate change is still being analyzed.[/QUOTE]
The degree of what in climate change? Human influence? We already know that. Tucker was essentially asking Bill to look into an alternate timeline and he did the best that you can possibly do. Bill answered every question Tucker put forth and Tucker knew that. That's why he talked over him and kept bringing up irrelevant points such accusing Bill of saying that climate change deniers should be arrested.
[QUOTE=srobins;51885537]How did he fail to answer his question? Tucker asked what the climate would look like without the effects of industrialization, Nye responded by telling him the climate would look roughly like it did in 1870 or whatever year it was. What do you feel went unanswered?[/QUOTE]
Something more precise really.
I mean it is kinda unscientific to just say the climate has been affected "a lot."
I actually believe in climate change btw. I just think it has been heavily politicized to appear settled when it really isn't.
"You don't know what you're talking about!" says the fuckin journalist to the scientist and engineer.
I also love how he responded to Bill saying "I love ya but I disagree" with "Hey, no name calling!"
The fact that you are supporting Tucker in this speaks volumes about your own ability to debate.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885562]Something more precise really.
I mean it is kinda unscientific to just say the climate has been affected "a lot."[/QUOTE]
No it's not?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885562]Something more precise really.
I mean it is kinda unscientific to just say the climate has been affected "a lot."[/quote]
Tucker asked a stupid question that was only very trivially related to the topic of discussion. Bill answered in the way he did because its the kind of question a five year old would ask him.
[quote]
I actually believe in climate change btw. I just think it has been heavily politicized to appear settled when it really isn't.[/QUOTE]
What aspect of it isn't settled?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885529]I mean he really didn't answer Tucker's question.
It is a pretty obvious point that the degree of climate change is still being analyzed.[/QUOTE]
Question: What would the climate look like today if it weren't for climate change?
Answer: It would look like it did in 1750.
What question didn't he answer?
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51885572]No it's not?[/QUOTE]
So when I say the sun is really hot by "a lot," is that acceptable for a scientific answer?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885562]Something more precise really.
I mean it is kinda unscientific to just say the climate has been affected "a lot."
I actually believe in climate change btw. I just think it has been heavily politicized to appear settled when it really isn't.[/QUOTE]
It's the exact opposite, it has been heavily politicized by the right, specifically the American right as far as I can tell, to appear as though it [I]weren't[/I] settled when it is. Why do [I]you[/I] believe in climate change, if it's an unsettled matter? If the issue were truly undetermined, if you really felt that way, how could you possibly have any confidence in saying you believe in climate change?
[QUOTE=joshjet;51885588]Question: What would the climate look like today if it weren't for climate change?
Answer: It would look like it did in 1750.
What question didn't he answer?[/QUOTE]
How much do humans overall affect the einviroment.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885562]I actually believe in climate change btw. I just think it has been heavily politicized to appear settled when it really isn't.[/QUOTE]
It is settled tho. When there is a 97% consensus it's pretty damn settled. How is it not settled? Because it isn't 100%? Give me a bloody break.
If I stuck a burger in front of 10 people and 1 of them said it wasn't a burger that doesn't mean that the burger is not a burger.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885599]How much do humans overall affect the einviroment.[/QUOTE]
That is an intentionally broad question and you know it. There are dozens, if not nearly a hundred, ways this could be answered.
You are purposefully trying to trip people up because nobody's going to put in the effort to feed your already morbidly obese ego.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885589]So when I say the sun is really hot by "a lot," is that acceptable for a scientific answer?[/QUOTE]
Tucker asked an unscientific question and received an unscientific answer in response. If I ask you how bad a broken nose feels, you can't expect a precise answer like "40.5 owie-meters".
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885589]So when I say the sun is really hot by "a lot," is that acceptable for a scientific answer?[/QUOTE]
The question itself was about as unscientific as it gets. Its essentially the same as a 5 year old asking "So what would happen if we didn't have school?". Its such a silly unanswerable question that there is no way to "scientifically" respond to it.
But of course you're going to ignore this post because you only reply to the weakest argument presented.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885599]How much do humans overall affect the einviroment.[/QUOTE]
Humans affect the environment in a massive number of ways, which Nye demonstrated in his answer. Aside from the big topic which is "global warming" caused by carbon emissions, we also raze forests, pollute bodies of water, poison livestock and plant life, etc. If you want a precision answer you need to ask a reasonable question!
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885599]How much do humans overall affect the einviroment.[/QUOTE]
A majority.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885599]How much do humans overall affect the einviroment.[/QUOTE]
Enough to lower the timescale of climate change from thousands of years to a year by year basis.
Ask a broad question, get a broad answer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.