No, Sarah, you're not as much of a scientist as Bill Nye

[idb]

Pollution is bad for people and usually animals, that is true. Now all you now need to do is make the connection between pollution and CO2. Plants love CO2, animals love plants. Global warming hysteria is opposed by those who don't think 1 degree rise is something to put their father out of work.

I don't have to. The longer mankind delays tackling the problem of ever decreasing non-renewable energy sources the harder it becomes to remedy the problem.

So far government solutions have not worked. It wouldn't be so bad if one of these people would actually create a product that could compete with oil and not harm the atmosphere in a way that they say oil does. I have no problem with that approach. You might even make millions of dollars doing it. Good Luck!

I thought it was the coal industry they were bankrupting over global warming. We still likes the oil.

The government is bankrupting the coal industry?

Where have you been? Hiding under a coal pile. Obama SAID he was gonna bankrupt them and he's doing everything he can to carry out that threat...

How is he doing it though?

 

[flacaltenn]

What Sarah knows that Bill Nye doesn't is the ACTUAL enviro impact of searching for and extracting coal and nat gas. And what it means to the citizens in Alaska that all get a check every year from the State to disperse the ROYALTIES that the companies pay to do the work in Alaska.

The benefit/cost for Alaska is a very high ratio. Of course -- THEY don't have to refine it and they don't USE much of it -- so those are "other people's problems"..

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't have to. The longer mankind delays tackling the problem of ever decreasing non-renewable energy sources the harder it becomes to remedy the problem.

So far government solutions have not worked. It wouldn't be so bad if one of these people would actually create a product that could compete with oil and not harm the atmosphere in a way that they say oil does. I have no problem with that approach. You might even make millions of dollars doing it. Good Luck!

I thought it was the coal industry they were bankrupting over global warming. We still likes the oil.

The government is bankrupting the coal industry?

Where have you been? Hiding under a coal pile. Obama SAID he was gonna bankrupt them and he's doing everything he can to carry out that threat...

How is he doing it though?

Seriously Dude -- WhereTF have U been? Didn't hear about Sup. Ct battles and decisions to block this Onslaught against coal by Obama? Read these and get back to us..

Coal Plants Affected by EPA Regulations

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/u...limate-plan-with-his-legacy-in-mind.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/u...t-new-coal-mining-leases-on-public-lands.html

 

[idb]

So far government solutions have not worked. It wouldn't be so bad if one of these people would actually create a product that could compete with oil and not harm the atmosphere in a way that they say oil does. I have no problem with that approach. You might even make millions of dollars doing it. Good Luck!

I thought it was the coal industry they were bankrupting over global warming. We still likes the oil.

The government is bankrupting the coal industry?

Where have you been? Hiding under a coal pile. Obama SAID he was gonna bankrupt them and he's doing everything he can to carry out that threat...

How is he doing it though?

Seriously Dude -- WhereTF have U been? Didn't hear about Sup. Ct battles and decisions to block this Onslaught against coal by Obama? Read these and get back to us..

Coal Plants Affected by EPA Regulations

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/u...limate-plan-with-his-legacy-in-mind.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/u...t-new-coal-mining-leases-on-public-lands.html

The new rules aren't in place, they have been blocked indefinitely by the Supreme Court and yet coal companies are still going out of business.
Do you think there might be other reasons?

 

[flacaltenn]

I thought it was the coal industry they were bankrupting over global warming. We still likes the oil.

The government is bankrupting the coal industry?

Where have you been? Hiding under a coal pile. Obama SAID he was gonna bankrupt them and he's doing everything he can to carry out that threat...

How is he doing it though?

Seriously Dude -- WhereTF have U been? Didn't hear about Sup. Ct battles and decisions to block this Onslaught against coal by Obama? Read these and get back to us..

Coal Plants Affected by EPA Regulations

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/u...limate-plan-with-his-legacy-in-mind.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/u...t-new-coal-mining-leases-on-public-lands.html

The new rules aren't in place, they have been blocked indefinitely by the Supreme Court and yet coal companies are still going out of business.
Do you think there might be other reasons?

You don't understand what "blocked" means. The DEADLINES are still law. The states are STILL REQUIRED to submit plans and statements. The ENFORCEMENT of those rules is temporarily blocked. Meanwhile Obama is doing his best to make coal itself more expensive by closing Federal leases and tons of new mining restrictions. It's a full-out assault to bankrupt every part of the industry,. From the miners, to the rail lines to the plants themselves. ALL BEFORE --- anyone figures out what's gonna REPLACE all that reliable power.

The left doesn't care. They are not problem solvers or engineers. They only have rhetoric and agendas.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- while all those NEW regs are "blocked", permits to MODIFY existing plants are virtually non-existent. If you want to make modifications, the EPA requires you to virtually TEAR everything old in that plant to bits. Kinda like the city knocking on your door and telling you that if you want a permit for that new patio, you're gonna have to bring the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, earthquake, insulation ----- ALL up to the NEW standards we just imposed,.

THAT''s WHY all those plants are gonna get dynamited. EPA won't LET the owners keep them running unless they virtually build them up from scratch..

 

[idb]

The government is bankrupting the coal industry?

Where have you been? Hiding under a coal pile. Obama SAID he was gonna bankrupt them and he's doing everything he can to carry out that threat...

How is he doing it though?

Seriously Dude -- WhereTF have U been? Didn't hear about Sup. Ct battles and decisions to block this Onslaught against coal by Obama? Read these and get back to us..

Coal Plants Affected by EPA Regulations

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/u...limate-plan-with-his-legacy-in-mind.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/u...t-new-coal-mining-leases-on-public-lands.html

The new rules aren't in place, they have been blocked indefinitely by the Supreme Court and yet coal companies are still going out of business.
Do you think there might be other reasons?

You don't understand what "blocked" means. The DEADLINES are still law. The states are STILL REQUIRED to submit plans and statements. The ENFORCEMENT of those rules is temporarily blocked. Meanwhile Obama is doing his best to make coal itself more expensive by closing Federal leases and tons of new mining restrictions. It's a full-out assault to bankrupt every part of the industry,. From the miners, to the rail lines to the plants themselves. ALL BEFORE --- anyone figures out what's gonna REPLACE all that reliable power.

The left doesn't care. They are not problem solvers or engineers. They only have rhetoric and agendas.

" Meanwhile Obama is doing his best to make coal itself more expensive..."
He's doing a shit job then...coal prices are plunging.

 

[bripat9643]

It will so long as you and your ilk continue to insist it's flat.

Grow up for chrissakes. You look stupid sitting with the third graders. And you're scaring them.

Apparently "growing up" means becoming a sucker for obvious cons

If you liked the scientific consensus on climate change you'd be here every day touting it.

Perhaps you or Bill should explain exactly what part of the many GW pronouncements and theories this "consensus" applies. To have any kind of consensus -- you need to state a question or state a proposition.

Like

The Earth has warmed over the past 100 years.
Man plays a ___________ % role in that warming.
The Global Avg Temp in 2065 will be __________ degrees.
The trigger temperature at which the climate will enter an inescapable path to destruction is _____________ degs.

WHICH ONE (or any other question you might think of) does this well-known "consensus" cover?

Think Bill could answer that? And if he COULD -- could he answer the other critical questions that I attempted to list?

Pollution is a bad. That's what I know for sure. All climate change denial is motivated by those who want to pollute for the sake of profit.

CO2 isn't pollution, dumbass. Anyone who blames global warming on "pollution" only unmasks himself as an ignoramus.

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently "growing up" means becoming a sucker for obvious cons

If you liked the scientific consensus on climate change you'd be here every day touting it.

Perhaps you or Bill should explain exactly what part of the many GW pronouncements and theories this "consensus" applies. To have any kind of consensus -- you need to state a question or state a proposition.

Like

The Earth has warmed over the past 100 years.
Man plays a ___________ % role in that warming.
The Global Avg Temp in 2065 will be __________ degrees.
The trigger temperature at which the climate will enter an inescapable path to destruction is _____________ degs.

WHICH ONE (or any other question you might think of) does this well-known "consensus" cover?

Think Bill could answer that? And if he COULD -- could he answer the other critical questions that I attempted to list?

Pollution is a bad. That's what I know for sure. All climate change denial is motivated by those who want to pollute for the sake of profit.

Pollution is bad for people and usually animals, that is true. Now all you now need to do is make the connection between pollution and CO2. Plants love CO2, animals love plants. Global warming hysteria is opposed by those who don't think 1 degree rise is something to put their father out of work.

I don't have to. The longer mankind delays tackling the problem of ever decreasing non-renewable energy sources the harder it becomes to remedy the problem.

Another gem of pure idiocy from Nycarbineer. How does discarding an very effective source of energy improve anything?

 

[westwall]

He graduated from a school of engineering. That makes him more of a scientist than you.

Sarah Palin mocks Bill Nye over climate change - CNNPolitics.com

So what. He can't perform a simple experiment. He's a total failure as a scientist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He graduated from a school of engineering. That makes him more of a scientist than you.

Um, no , it doesnt.

There is a huge difference between a scientist and an engineer.

Scientists develop and test theories in the lab for publication.

Engineers do real things in the real world.

Bill Nye is less an engineer and more of a 'entertainment personality' like Rush Limbaugh instead of an actual engineer anyway.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He graduated from a school of engineering. That makes him more of a scientist than you.

Sarah Palin mocks Bill Nye over climate change - CNNPolitics.com

So what. He can't perform a simple experiment. He's a total failure as a scientist.

Nye is no scientist.

 

[Freewill]

If you liked the scientific consensus on climate change you'd be here every day touting it.

Perhaps you or Bill should explain exactly what part of the many GW pronouncements and theories this "consensus" applies. To have any kind of consensus -- you need to state a question or state a proposition.

Like

The Earth has warmed over the past 100 years.
Man plays a ___________ % role in that warming.
The Global Avg Temp in 2065 will be __________ degrees.
The trigger temperature at which the climate will enter an inescapable path to destruction is _____________ degs.

WHICH ONE (or any other question you might think of) does this well-known "consensus" cover?

Think Bill could answer that? And if he COULD -- could he answer the other critical questions that I attempted to list?

Pollution is a bad. That's what I know for sure. All climate change denial is motivated by those who want to pollute for the sake of profit.

Pollution is bad for people and usually animals, that is true. Now all you now need to do is make the connection between pollution and CO2. Plants love CO2, animals love plants. Global warming hysteria is opposed by those who don't think 1 degree rise is something to put their father out of work.

I don't have to. The longer mankind delays tackling the problem of ever decreasing non-renewable energy sources the harder it becomes to remedy the problem.

So far government solutions have not worked. It wouldn't be so bad if one of these people would actually create a product that could compete with oil and not harm the atmosphere in a way that they say oil does. I have no problem with that approach. You might even make millions of dollars doing it. Good Luck!

I agree and now is the time to do it. I think that the government should sponsor a 1 billion dollar contest to find the most feasible alternative.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I agree and now is the time to do it. I think that the government should sponsor a 1 billion dollar contest to find the most feasible alternative.

What is wrong with nuclear power?

What is wrong with liquid salt reactors that run on Thorium?

What is wrong with using coal and advanced scrubbing systems?

 

[Davros]

He graduated from a school of engineering. That makes him more of a scientist than you.

Um, no , it doesnt.

There is a huge difference between a scientist and an engineer.

Scientists develop and test theories in the lab for publication.

Engineers do real things in the real world.

Bill Nye is less an engineer and more of a 'entertainment personality' like Rush Limbaugh instead of an actual engineer anyway.

Point is he is more of a scientist than Sarah because he actually has a degree in engineering which requires learning science. He is a scientist entertainer, not a research scientist, but a scientist nonetheless. Whereas Sarah is a politician and a sports journalist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He graduated from a school of engineering. That makes him more of a scientist than you.

Um, no , it doesnt.

There is a huge difference between a scientist and an engineer.

Scientists develop and test theories in the lab for publication.

Engineers do real things in the real world.

Bill Nye is less an engineer and more of a 'entertainment personality' like Rush Limbaugh instead of an actual engineer anyway.

Point is he is more of a scientist than Sarah because he actually has a degree in engineering which requires learning science. He is a scientist entertainer, not a research scientist, but a scientist nonetheless. Whereas Sarah is a politician and a sports journalist.

Thats like saying that Sarah is 'more pregnant' than Nye.

One is ether a scientist or one is not and Nye is not a scientist and I dont think he is really an engineer any more either.

His authority to endorse Climate Change is no better than Palins is.

 

[Davros]

He graduated from a school of engineering. That makes him more of a scientist than you.

Um, no , it doesnt.

There is a huge difference between a scientist and an engineer.

Scientists develop and test theories in the lab for publication.

Engineers do real things in the real world.

Bill Nye is less an engineer and more of a 'entertainment personality' like Rush Limbaugh instead of an actual engineer anyway.

Point is he is more of a scientist than Sarah because he actually has a degree in engineering which requires learning science. He is a scientist entertainer, not a research scientist, but a scientist nonetheless. Whereas Sarah is a politician and a sports journalist.

Thats like saying that Sarah is 'more pregnant' than Nye.

One is ether a scientist or one is not and Nye is not a scientist and I dont think he is really an engineer any more either.

His authority to endorse Climate Change is no better than Palins is.

Climate change doesn't need anyone to endorse it any more than evolution or gravity needs someone to endorse it. It is a fact. Bottom line is if he can make a valid argument, it is valid regardless of his credentials. But Sarah was talking about him being no more of a scientist than she is which is false because this guy has spent his career teaching science whereas she is a politician and a sports journalist. Get it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Climate change doesn't need anyone to endorse it any more than evolution or gravity needs someone to endorse it. It is a fact.

Sure it does since there is no direct evidence that supports the claim that human behavior is driving climate change, NONE whatsoever.

Bottom line is if he can make a valid argument, it is valid regardless of his credentials.

True, but he makes no arguments, He simply tries to pretend he is an authority and says it is true. But he is not an authority and that was PAlins point, duh.

But Sarah was talking about him being no more of a scientist than she is which is false because this guy has spent his career teaching science whereas she is a politician and a sports journalist. Get it?

Lol, no, he is not more of a scientist than Palin, dumbass, no more than you are.

 

[OKTexas]

He graduated from a school of engineering. That makes him more of a scientist than you.

Sarah Palin mocks Bill Nye over climate change - CNNPolitics.com

How does a BS in mechanical engineering qualify him as a climate scientist?

 

[westwall]

He graduated from a school of engineering. That makes him more of a scientist than you.

Um, no , it doesnt.

There is a huge difference between a scientist and an engineer.

Scientists develop and test theories in the lab for publication.

Engineers do real things in the real world.

Bill Nye is less an engineer and more of a 'entertainment personality' like Rush Limbaugh instead of an actual engineer anyway.

Point is he is more of a scientist than Sarah because he actually has a degree in engineering which requires learning science. He is a scientist entertainer, not a research scientist, but a scientist nonetheless. Whereas Sarah is a politician and a sports journalist.

Thats like saying that Sarah is 'more pregnant' than Nye.

One is ether a scientist or one is not and Nye is not a scientist and I dont think he is really an engineer any more either.

His authority to endorse Climate Change is no better than Palins is.

Climate change doesn't need anyone to endorse it any more than evolution or gravity needs someone to endorse it. It is a fact. Bottom line is if he can make a valid argument, it is valid regardless of his credentials. But Sarah was talking about him being no more of a scientist than she is which is false because this guy has spent his career teaching science whereas she is a politician and a sports journalist. Get it?

The difference being we can actually measure gravity. There is no empirical data to support the theory of AGW. It is a failed theory supported only by those who turn a blind eye to the widespread, and provable, data falsification that has been going on within the climatology community for years.