Tucker Carlson: Bill Nye the Science guy Interview over Climate Change.
222 replies, posted
[QUOTE=srobins;51885594]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]
Because the greenhouse effect makes scientific sense, and there are obvious effects we can see on the einviroment.
On the other hand I believe the Left (and Right) also politicize the effects of it cause it seems to change. Polar bear population going extinct, ice caps melting, and other predictions throughout the decades that now how contrary evidence, and you can see there are still theories on the actual effects we have and on what scale.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885623]Because the greenhouse effect makes scientific sense, and there are obvious effects we can see on the einviroment.
On the other hand I believe the Left (and Right) also politicize the effects of it cause it seems to change. Polar bear population going extinct, ice caps melting, and other predictions throughout the decades that now how contrary evidence, and you can see there are still theories on the actual effects we have and on what scale.[/QUOTE]
So you feel that climate change and the human influence on it is in question because polar bears are not yet fully extinct, and there are still ice caps remaining?
Tucker seems to be an obnoxious asshole in every video I see of him.
"What if we create a better world for nothing!?"
[QUOTE=srobins;51885613]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]
Ok, so we can probably measure our carbon output right? I mean, we would have to able to if we were going to implement a carbon tax.
So taking out CO2 emissions from major industries/technologies humans produce, how much different in temperature would the earth be? I also imagine if we're trying to cut our carbon footprint that scientists have probably tried to tackle this question somewhere.
I mean that sounds pretty specific
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51885626]Tucker seems to be an obnoxious asshole in every video I see of him.[/QUOTE]
To be fair here, Tudd has posted some Tucker vids where he has been mostly fair(imo) but in this one it's just Tucker being a complete knob.
I don't understand who anyone could defend his behavior in this. Constant interruptions, out of context quotes, bein a hypocrite, etc etc.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885623]Because the greenhouse effect makes scientific sense, and there are obvious effects we can see on the einviroment.
On the other hand I believe the Left (and Right) also politicize the effects of it cause it seems to change. Polar bear population going extinct, ice caps melting, and other predictions throughout the decades that now how contrary evidence, and you can see there are still theories on the actual effects we have and on what scale.[/QUOTE]
The ice caps are melting though? Polar bears will end up becoming extinct in the wild as a direct result of that.
[editline]27th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885639]Ok, so we can probably measure our carbon output right? I mean, we would have to able to if we were going to implement a carbon tax.
So taking out CO2 emissions from major industries/technologies humans produce, how much different in temperature would the earth be? I also imagine if we're trying to cut our carbon footprint that scientists have probably tried to tackle this question somewhere.
I mean that sounds pretty specific[/QUOTE]
Thats an impossible to answer question. Its like asking how the world would be if the holocaust never happened. All you can get is speculation.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51885610]But of course you're going to ignore this post because you only reply to the weakest argument presented.[/QUOTE]
It must be very frustrating to try and have a discussion with Tudd, like you do in most of his threads, and be constantly ignored.
I dunno how you don't explode.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51885657]It must be very frustrating to try and have a discussion with Tudd, like you do in most of his threads, and be constantly ignored.
I dunno how you don't explode.[/QUOTE]
I argue and will continue to argue in the hope that somehow, someday I'll end up convincing him to reevaluate his views. As I do with everyone I argue against.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885639]Ok, so we can probably measure our carbon output right? I mean, we would have to able to if we were going to implement a carbon tax.[/QUOTE]
How do you follow climate science and not know for sure that we can do that, and have been doing that for a long time? I hope it doesn't come as a shock to you that we know the exact concentration of CO2 in the air in parts per million as well.
I'm not trying to be snide, but this comment just makes me scratch my head.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51885644]The ice caps are melting though? Polar bears will end up becoming extinct in the wild as a direct result of that.
[img]https://skepticalscience.com/pics/DMI_rebuttal_WUWT_Aug_2010_small_update.JPG[/img][/QUOTE]
As far as I know the polar bears are increasing population.
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/polar-bear-population/[/url]
Also here is a NASA study showing that the Antartic ice caps are gaining ice over losing.
[url]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses[/url]
And here is a scientist claiming in 2013 the Arctic ice caps disappearing, but having to change it to 2016. Even though that still seems like it hasn't happened.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm[/url]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt[/url]
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51885664]I argue and will continue to argue in the hope that somehow, someday I'll end up convincing him to reevaluate his views. As I do with everyone I argue against.[/QUOTE]
Kinda hard to argue when the other side has their fingers in their ears tho.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885639]Ok, so we can probably measure our carbon output right? I mean, we would have to able to if we were going to implement a carbon tax.
So taking out CO2 emissions from major industries/technologies humans produce, how much different in temperature would the earth be? I also imagine if we're trying to cut our carbon footprint that scientists have probably tried to tackle this question somewhere.
I mean that sounds pretty specific[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere[/url]
CO2 is at its highest level in between 3 and 20 million years. According to the graphs on that page, we ought to be ~250ppmv. We're over 400. As for temperature difference:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record[/url]
According to the data on that page, we've jumped .4 C in the last century. Additionally, a lot of the factors that influence climate change are feedback cycles. For example, without sea ice, the albedo of water is [I]significantly[/I] lower than that of sea ice, so more heat is absorbed into the ocean, leading to less sea ice, and so on. This is almost anti-vaxer level bullshit. The data exists [I]everywhere,[/I] but people still play the sympathy troll card and hide behind "bbbbut I just have questions?!?!". Quite frankly, I love when this subject comes up, because there's such a massive amount of easily available data to prove that climate change is real, climate change is human caused, and that climate change has a sizable potential impact on human populations. You would think that, at some point, the republican party would stop pushing so hard a subject that's so easily argued against.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51885657]It must be very frustrating to try and have a discussion with Tudd, like you do in most of his threads, and be constantly ignored.
I dunno how you don't explode.[/QUOTE]
You know it is typically me having to answer several people who typically ask the similar things? Hence why I might not quote specifically all of you.
[editline]27th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=joshjet;51885684][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere[/url]
CO2 is at its highest level in between 3 and 20 million years. According to the graphs on that page, we ought to be ~250ppmv. We're over 400. As for temperature difference:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record[/url]
According to the data on that page, we've jumped .4 C in the last century. Additionally, a lot of the factors that influence climate change are feedback cycles. For example, without sea ice, the albedo of water is [I]significantly[/I] lower than that of sea ice, so more heat is absorbed into the ocean, leading to less sea ice, and so on. This is almost anti-vaxer level bullshit. The data exists [I]everywhere,[/I] but people still play the sympathy troll card and hide behind "bbbbut I just have questions?!?!". Quite frankly, I love when this subject comes up, because there's such a massive amount of easily available data to prove that climate change is real, climate change is human caused, and that climate change has a sizable potential impact on human populations. You would think that, at some point, the republican party would stop pushing so hard a subject that's so easily argued against.[/QUOTE]
So how much of the .4C is human contributed over natural?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885639]Ok, so we can probably measure our carbon output right? I mean, we would have to able to if we were going to implement a carbon tax.
So taking out CO2 emissions from major industries/technologies humans produce, [B]how much different in temperature would the earth be[/B]? I also imagine if we're trying to cut our carbon footprint that scientists have probably tried to tackle this question somewhere.
I mean that sounds pretty specific[/QUOTE]
It would be about the same as in the 1800s, like Nye said. The atmosphere and climate of the planet is complex and it's impossible to spit out a number and say "the Earth would be precisely XX.X degrees Celsius right now without humans!", but you can say that 97% of global warming since the 1950's has been caused by human influence, as is the [url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm]overwhelming consensus[/url] among the scientific community.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885680]
Also here is a NASA study showing that the Antartic ice caps are gaining ice over losing.
[url]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses[/url][/QUOTE]
It's a completely different story when you look and the North Pole AND Greenland tho.
[QUOTE=srobins;51885696]It would be about the same as in the 1800s, like Nye said. The atmosphere and climate of the planet is complex and it's impossible to spit out a number and say "the Earth would be precisely XX.X degrees Celsius right now without humans!", but you can say that 97% of global warming since the 1950's has been caused by human influence, as is the [url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm]overwhelming consensus[/url] among the scientific community.[/QUOTE]
Again I don't say Climate Change doesn't exist, but I argue to the degree of which humans have affected the climate is still being measured.
Also about what the 1800s would be isn't really that great of an answer for how much we actually affect the einviroment today.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885706]Again I don't say Climate Change doesn't exist, but I argue to the degree of which humans have affected the climate is still being measured.
Also about what the 1800s would be isn't really that great of an answer for how much we actually affect the einviroment.[/QUOTE]
Tudd the contrarian posts yet another video that utilizes fake facts and sensationalism to misrepresent science and bill nye, and then tries to argue humans haven't affected climate change not realizing that the only reason the conservatives actually believe that is because it is counter to their corporate interests.
Grow up tudd, you have been brainwashed by a corporate backed politcal machine that preys on young people who watch youtube, and old upset baby boomers.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885687]You know it is typically me having to answer several people who typically ask the similar things? Hence why I might not quote specifically all of you.
[editline]27th February 2017[/editline]
So how much of the .4C is human contributed over natural?[/QUOTE]
.4C
.4C is the human contributed part, according to temperature data extrapolated over the last 1500 years.
[url]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php[/url]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885680]As far as I know the polar bears are increasing population.
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/polar-bear-population/[/url][/quote]
Your own source offers the real explanation here:
[quote]The population of polar bears today is larger than it was in the 1970s, due mainly to legislation banning polar bear hunting, but exact numbers are unclear. We couldn’t find any figures showing that the population had tripled.[/quote]
Polar bears are at risk of extinction [I]because[/I] of melting polar ice caps, i.e. a loss of habitat. Their population could skyrocket year after year and still it would not invalidate the fact that as their habitat ceases to exist, so will they.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885680]Also here is a NASA study showing that the Antartic ice caps are gaining ice over losing.
[url]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses[/url][/quote]
There are ice caps in places other than Antarctica. I'm not sure what else needs to be said about that, you can have growth in one place and overwhelming deterioration in others, they aren't mutually exclusive.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885680]And here is a scientist claiming in 2013 the Arctic ice caps disappearing, but having to change it to 2016. Even though that still seems like it hasn't happened.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm[/url]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't understand your point? You think that because we weren't able to perfectly predict the date at which the ice caps will cease to exist, it somehow invalidates the fact that they are in fact disappearing, something that is physically demonstrable?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885680]
And here is a scientist claiming in 2013 the Arctic ice caps disappearing, but having to change it to 2016. Even though that still seems like it hasn't happened.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm[/url]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt[/url][/QUOTE]
Breaking News: Man is Wrong.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885706]Again I don't say Climate Change doesn't exist, but I argue to the degree of which humans have affected the climate is still being measured.
Also about what the 1800s would be isn't really that great of an answer for how much we actually affect the einviroment today.[/QUOTE]
So what is it specifically that you disagree with regarding the 97% number which is overwhelmingly supported by numerous scientific organizations around the globe? As for the second half of your post, I can't read that. I don't know what this means.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885687]You know it is typically me having to answer several people who typically ask the similar things? Hence why I might not quote specifically all of you.[/QUOTE]
What's even the point in engaging you in a discussion at all then?
Surely you must know how infuriating it is to get snubbed like that.
You'd have to be pretty intentionally negligent to actually think that humans don't / haven't affected the environment in a pretty huge way
[t]http://whyfiles.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1landfill.jpg[/t]
[t]http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/10/21/heavy-smog-invadesnortheasternchina/_jcr_content/mainpar/imageslideshow/slideShowImages/slide1/image.adapt.960.high.china_smog_01a.jpg[/t]
How would this, every day, over decades, not cause damage?
Just look at traffic jams
[t]https://www.eliteliving.club/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/traffic.jpg[/t]
[t]http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/9da349b/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-origin-images.politico.com%2F2014%2F01%2F30%2F140130_traffic_atlanta_ap.jpg[/t]
think of how much fuel was used in these images alone, over the course of 1 hour, and then think about the fact that this accounts for less than 1% of worldwide traffic. Do you think the fumes just disappear because you can't see them? How oblivious do you have to be to think it wouldn't add up to something? When you light a fire in a perfectly sealed room, does the oxygen not burn up and suffocate everyone inside? How the hell can you believe that releasing emission's won't make a change?
Like this is basically something that should be common sense. Hiding behind "Show proof" and "But this is just naturally happen" is just fucking taking the piss. Those defenses in my eyes make you look like a jackass.
Tudd doesnt realize he is being played by corporations, who run the entire politcal party he supports, and the current administration. Who have tried super hard to convice many people basic enviormental science is wrong because it goes against their profits.
[editline]27th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51885719]Tudd the contrarian posts yet another video that utilizes fake facts and sensationalism to misrepresent science and bill nye, and then tries to argue humans haven't affected climate change not realizing that the only reason the conservatives actually believe that is because it is counter to their corporate interests.
Grow up tudd, you have been brainwashed by a corporate backed politcal machine that preys on young people who watch youtube, and old upset baby boomers.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885680]As far as I know the polar bears are increasing population.
[URL]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/polar-bear-population/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Your own article states that multiple polar bear populations are also either shrinking or we dont have enought data to assess them.
[quote]But studies by the United States Geological Survey show that some populations may, in fact, be shrinking. One USGS study from 1984-2004 showed that the number of polar bears in the West Hudson Bay stock, in Canada, decreased from 1,194 polar bears in 1987 to 935 in 2004, a 22 percent drop. USGS documented reductions in the weight of adult bears and the survival rate of newborn cubs along with this population decrease, which correlated with a loss of sea ice. A 2007 USGS report on the status of polar bears in Alaska’s Southern Beaufort Sea found a similar decrease in cub survivorship.[/quote]
and at the very end of the article it states
[quote]According to several 2007 reports by the USGS, if the predicted decline in sea ice actually takes place, the world will lose nearly two-thirds of its polar bear population by the middle of the 21st century.[/quote]
In direct contradiction to what you stated.
[quote=tudd]
Also here is a NASA study showing that the Antartic ice caps are gaining ice over losing.
[URL]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses[/URL]
[/quote]
Your own source states that the ice sheet is shrinking in some areas and growing in others
[quote]. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”[/quote]
Furthermore it also states that the increase in size is only temporary and that it will reverse if the current rate of increase in ice loss continues.
[quote]But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”[/quote]
[quote=tudd]
And here is a scientist claiming in 2013 the Arctic ice caps disappearing, but having to change it to 2016. Even though that still seems like it hasn't happened.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm[/URL]
[URL]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt[/URL][/quote]
The scientist didn't state in the first article that the ice sheets would melt in 2013, and the second article focuses mainly on the potential damage caused by methane release caused by climate change.
Congratulations somehow you managed to find four sources that directly refute the point you were trying to make. Next time you should read them.
[QUOTE=joshjet;51885725].4C
.4C is the human contributed part, according to temperature data extrapolated over the last 1500 years.
[url]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php[/url][/QUOTE]
I looked in that link and it mentioned nothing about human impact.
Tudd, this is a fact, you cannot use fringe studies to dispute 99% of the scientific community, who actually use EVIDENCE
[QUOTE=srobins;51885731]So what is it specifically that you disagree with regarding the 97% number which is overwhelmingly supported by numerous scientific organizations around the globe? As for the second half of your post, I can't read that. I don't know what this means.[/QUOTE]
97% of scientist agree people affect the climate. That is fine.
But there seems to be no standard consensus on how much we have impacted by measurable amounts, and theories of ice caps melting and polar bear populations are just a few examples of where scientific consensus has had to change or been predicted wrong by scientists.
How do people not understand the correlation between the industrial revolution (pollution), the baby boom causing an additional spike, and changes in climate?
Do you think that cars have existed and been used since the beginning of time or something???
what do you [B]THINK[/B] is causing it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.