Tuesday, February 28, 2017

CLASH: Tucker Carlson vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy on Climate Change

One point not touched on by Carlson is that climate change may not be all bad.

Nye even provides the claim that grapes are being grown in areas that otherwise wouldn't be suitable for grape growing if it wasn't for a warmer climate. Isn't this a positive?

As for people on coastlines that are supposedly threatened, they obviously don't think the threat is a great enough concern or they would move.

Nye says in the clip that he is providing economic analysis but he is ignoring fundamental exchange and valuation analysis---all to bring state coercion into the picture.



  1. I've been visiting the beaches of South Texas for over 20 years now; I have yet to see any evidence of rising sea levels. If it were true, surely much less building would be taking place and the insurance would be even higher on top of the hurricane danger.

    I wonder what size home the 'climate' change advocates live in? It is never a micro house, right?

    1. I took a geology course at a school that people go to from across the country specifically for their geology program. It wasn't my major, this was an introductory class but the guy that taught it was a PhD and loved geology. Someone asked about the rising sea level and he said concerns are overblown. He said the sea level has been rising for a very long time, we know what the rate is and that rate is very small and very steady. Also, he pointed out that sea ice melting does not contribute to this rise, only terrestrial ice would make a difference.

    2. Re: The Lab Manager,

      There's obviously no rise in sea or ocean levels. Like John Tamney once said: if climate change was a real problem then the cost of insuring new commercial spaces on shores would skyrocket.

      You can easily find out just how committed are these believers if you ask them 'why do you see CC as a problem when there's no evidence it is a problem' because they will invariably answer with precautionary principle claptrap like 'well, the price of doing nothing could be much higher!' Bill Nye is squarely in that camp.

  2. The problem with Nye is that he takes a moral position when defending so-called 'Climate Change' to the point where he finds no discussion or dissent acceptable. Climate Change believers (and I call them 'believers' accurately) quickly changed from simple advocacy to preaching and millenarist prophecy. That is why I call them Angry Volcano God priests.

    Nye is like the person I describe in a joke I tell to illustrate the ideological bent of Climate Change believers:

    "The climate is changing because of human activity! The science is clear on that!"
    "Really? That's interesting."
    "And the way to solve this problem is by imposing worldwide Socialism!"
    "Wow! Really? What a happy coincidence!"

    1. "Angry Volcano God priests" ... good one.

    2. Priests are exactly what they are. Nye, the celebrity scientist is one of the leading priests.

      These people are literally telling us we have to obey the ruling class and sacrifice to them for good weather. Otherwise we'll get bad weather and starve to death or some such.

      Thousands of years go by and nothing really changes on this rock. Only the window dressing of the scams change.

  3. "We in the science community..." Nye is not a scientist - he has a degree in engineering. He's as much a fraud as global warming. No one should listen to this dope.

    1. And Einstein was a patent clerk, and Tom Woods is a historian, and so on, and so forth. Your pseudonym belies the opportunity for intelligence, truth, and mastery to exist outside of academic credentials and/or government enforced licensure.

    2. Authority and credentials are important in the church of climate change. It is common to have the believers bring up the credentials of their priest class and demand critics to have similar or greater. The faithful will often use the 'you're not a climate scientist' attack, except of course when the person agrees with them.

      I took Mr. Spock's comment in that light, as a reflection of what the believers do.

      Nye is especially fun for me when the credential card is played for his credentials are in the same field as mine and mine exceed his.

    3. To Bradley:

      OK. Sorry for any confusion. Let me rephrase my comments:
      Bill Nye is not a scientist.
      Bill Nye is not a part of the "science community."
      Global warming is a fraud.
      Bill Nye is a fraud.
      No one should listen to this dope.

  4. Assuming global warming, legitimate questions:
    1. Is man causing warming? (can you establish causation without a control?)
    2. Is warming a bad thing?
    3. What is the perfect temperature?
    4. If man caused, is there anything we can/should do to stop it?
    5. If warming is bad, and we can stop it, what are the conditions? (Do the costs out weight the benefits? For example, will we have to live like cave beasts w/o fossil fuels as energy?)

    1. "If man caused, is there anything we can/should do to stop it?"

      And if we had a solution, would passing a law through that sausage factory filled with lobbyists result in the correct solution being applied?

  5. pretty scary guy for a children's show host.

  6. Brutus, A South Korean sci-fi film answered this question. From wikipedia:

    "In 2014, an attempt to counteract global warming through climate engineering backfires catastrophically, unintentionally causing an ice age that extinguishes all life except the inhabitants of the Snowpiercer, a massive train powered by a perpetual motion engine that travels a circumnavigational track, created by the transportation magnate Wilford. By 2031, elites inhabit the extravagant front cars and the "scum" inhabit the tail in squalid and brutal conditions. Under watch by Wilford's guards, they are brought only gelatinous protein bars to eat and kept in their place in the social order by Minister Mason, while sometimes small children are taken away."