Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Wants Jail Time for Climate Change Denial Fraudsters

[Ripster42]

Remember, Fidel Castro operated concentration camps in Cuba where he executed right-wing citizens. Others fled to Florida if they could. This is the same Fidel Castro who was honored as being a pallbearer for Pierre Trudeau (former Canadian PM) at his funeral in 2000. This is the same Fidel Castro whom the media attempts to reform by giving him a platform to speak as relations with Cuba normalize, only to attack America as an empire and speak of preserving the revolution.

Look at how the media bends over backwards to protect and HONOR Fidel (that makes me sick). You think anything will come of Bill Nye talk about jailing people who don't believe in climate change? I'm sure by their treatment of Fidel that most in the press probably agree with Nye.

- - - Updated - - -



That means global warming is a fraud because they are omitting the data that shows that the cost of solar power is falling and its efficiency is rising such that, at its current rate, it will become cheaper than fossil fuels by 2030. That is hard science. You see, global warming crazies omit that data because they want to commit fraud. That data tells you that solar power will be a superior fuel source by 2030. That data tells you we will stop using fossil fuels and switch over to solar.

If Bill Nye is so eager to adopt a policy to jail people who commit scientific fraud, maybe he should jail himself or something? Crazy moron.

No, it doesn't. Scientists aren't economists. Part of the reason the cost of solar power is falling so fast is because of large government investment. The reason governments are investing in solar power is because they want to get off fossil fuels faster. Because AGCC is real. Get a clue, your shitty argument is shitty, and relies on AGCC not being a fraud for one of its premises.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

See I know about Nye and if you think that he didnt really mean he wants skeptics jailed then you dont know him. Nye is a fanatic and this isnt the first time hes suggested something like this.

You're the fanatic here, friend

[wheresmywoft]

Some people are just losing a battle with their inner demons it would seem.

If I add this word and that word and this phrase, OMG LOOK HE SAID ALL OF THESE HORRIBLE THINGS.

[Kallisto]

Why is jailing people that have deliberately presented false data which harmed others a left wing thing? I really can not see where you are getting that from.

2 reasons

A) Some people really don't think the Data is falsified as it sticks to their beliefs on Climate change

B) "Muh first amendment rights" In that even if they didn't think the data is falsified it must be protected under freedom of speech and that freedom to misinform people to the point we could wreck our own societies comes under freedom of speech. Which quite clearly to an intelligent person it is not protected.

[Garnier Fructis]

2 reasons

A) Some people really don't think the Data is falsified as it sticks to their beliefs on Climate change

B) "Muh first amendment rights" In that even if they didn't think the data is falsified it must be protected under freedom of speech and that freedom to misinform people to the point we could wreck our own societies comes under freedom of speech. Which quite clearly to an intelligent person it is not protected.

For A), nobody is saying we should go after idiots. A deliberate lie requires that the person know they are lying, otherwise it's just ignorance. For B), it's not simply freedom of speech. It's speech with the intent to deceive, with the purpose of monetary gain. That kind of speech is called fraud, and it's definitely not protected under the first amendment.

[Kallisto]

For A), nobody is saying we should go after idiots. A deliberate lie requires that the person know they are lying, otherwise it's just ignorance. For B), it's not simply freedom of speech. It's speech with the intent to deceive, with the purpose of monetary gain. That kind of speech is called fraud, and it's definitely not protected under the first amendment.

Of course not and I agree with you. I was trying to point out why those who Kalis is debating with are acting how they are.

[Garnier Fructis]

Of course not and I agree with you. I was trying to point out why those who Kalis is debating with are acting how they are.

Oh.

Yeah, I guess that flew right over my head.

[Forogil]

So, I wanted to check how good Mr. Nye is in terms of science and science education - and after looking at a badly made video about creationism I got to:

http://billnye.com/billnye_resource/...and-molecules/

"Everything is made of only 109 different kinds of atoms, called elements. 92 of these elements occur naturally, but the rest of them – ones like Technetium and Promethium have only been found in distant stars and Californium and Einsteinium – are only made in laboratories. A molecule is born any time two or more atoms combine together."

Fact-check:
There are now up to 118 (not 109) elements.

The next sentence in in inaccurate in several ways.

The 92 naturally occurring elements is a bit misleading (Uran being the 92nd element is the heaviest naturally occurring element in large quantities), and Technetium and Promethium are part of the naturally occurring elements (in small quantities since they are radioactive - they are in fact also found in some stars, but they were first found on earth as far as I know) - there are also trace elements of Plutonium and some other transuraniums in nature.

So instead he could have written:
"about 80 of these elements are stable and found on earth, a dozen more occur naturally but are decaying - some slowly like Uran and some quickly like Promethium, and some Californium and Einsteinium – are only made in laboratories."

"All of these kinds of atoms make up everything in the Universe by combining with each other to create molecules of new kinds of stuff."
Fact-check:
Except that we now know about dark energy, dark matter, black holes, neutron stars (so basically the major part of the universe), and even normal stars don't have normal atoms as far I remember - it's more a plasma mix of atomic nuclei and electrons.
--
Then:
http://billnye.com/billnye_resource/atmosphere-2/

"It’s made from gases – mainly nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor, with a little argon, carbon dioxide, xenon, neon, helium, and sulfur."

Fact-check: the amount of water vapor and argon is on average about the same - it's just that the water contents varies whereas Argon contents is fixed; and I see no system in the other gases listed.

And:
http://billnye.com/billnye_resource/chemical-reactions/
Did you know that: "TNT (trinitrotoluene) is a chemical that spontaneously explodes?"

Fact-check: No it doesn't, it is so widely used because it explodes with a lot of energy, but not spontaneously.

And even climate part is wrong according to our current view:
http://billnye.com/billnye_resource/climate/
"There are lots of different climates all over the world. Deserts are warm and dry. Temperate forests are cold and wet. Tropical rain forests are warm and wet. Animals and plants live in climates that are good places for them to live. Cacti wouldn’t grow too well in the Arctic, just like polar bears would over heat in the desert."

We now say that parts of the polar region are cold deserts (little rain/snow); and even tropical deserts can be cold during the night.
--
Or in other words: outdated contents, and lots of minor errors. The first point of science is knowing that there are things you don't know - and that's why we want doubt - and not people like Mr. Nye. (And, yes, global warming still exist and is mainly caused by humans; but that doesn't excuse other errors.)

[Unholyground]

Climate has change in my short 30 year life, we already get 3 months less winter in 30 years so if that is not evidence I don't know what is.

[Forogil]

Nigel deGrasse Tyson as Pol Pot.

Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[Slant]

Or in other words: outdated contents, and lots of minor errors. The first point of science is knowing that there are things you don't know - and that's why we want doubt - and not people like Mr. Nye. (And, yes, global warming still exist and is mainly caused by humans; but that doesn't excuse other errors.)

Yeah, when nitpicking, you should make sure you are factually correct, too. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not things we know. They are things we suspect.

Pop quiz (without looking it up): Is Dynamite TNT?

[Forogil]

Yeah, when nitpicking, you should make sure you are factually correct, too. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not things we know. They are things we suspect.

True, we know that without dark matter and dark energy our current theories don't work - but there are other possibilities.

And even if knew it existed we wouldn't know what it is.

Pop quiz (without looking it up): Is Dynamite TNT?

I guessed that it isn't the same, but related - but turned out that they are very different.

[Ishayu]

That's fucking ridiculous.

It's ridiculous for scientists and researchers to try to stamp out scepticism like that. Anyone noticed the etymology of the word "research"? "Re search"? Search again? Check again. And again. And again. Over and over. Never EVER trust a fact until you've searched for the truth again yourself again.

And I know people are gonna bring up something like "would you doubt gravity?" now, to which I can only say that our theory of gravity has been proven wrong quite a lot of times now and has been revised. First it was just some unexplained force that made you fall down. Then it was described as a downward acceleration in your current reference frame using calculus. Then we found out it was an attraction between bodies in general. Then we found out there was a field driving it, and now we're finding out there's particles coming from that field, which means the particle/wave duality is in effect, which means gravity is actually waves.

But even ignoring all that...

The climate is a system which is _VERY_ hard to understand and all the evidence we have so far is statistical or based on statistical models. Statistics CANNOT prove natural laws. You can use statistics to prove statistical properties about trends, means, etc. but that's it. Incidentally, all the data we use in these models are created by publicly funded institutions whose funding depends on which political party is in power, and several of them have been caught repeatedly fiddling with the numbers. The GISS satellite data is particularly borked by "adjustments to raw data", which is so egregious from a scientific organization that it should be de-funded on that spot.

Frankly, I don't even know why anybody think it's a good idea to base an entire scientific field on a theory. Most others are based on an ancient piece of logic, such as mathematics or physics.

I'm very unsure about whether anthropogenic climate change is even happening, but even if we assume that it is, I'm even more in doubt about whether it's something we should do something about. So what if the water levels rise 6 meters? It's not THAT hard to move our buildings, is it? And nature has even less of a problem with it; it happens all the time, repeatedly.

[Grapemask]

It's ridiculous for scientists and researchers to try to stamp out scepticism like that. Anyone noticed the etymology of the word "research"? "Re search"? Search again? Check again. And again. And again. Over and over. Never EVER trust a fact until you've searched for the truth again yourself again.

I understand this argument on one hand, but on the other hand, people like Nye are (perhaps not in all seriousness) calling for this because we need drastic action and we need it soon, and having people still denying something we have every reason to believe is occurring is literally killing us. Yes, there will always be a doubt or a possibility - but the whole point of the science is that it's pushing those possibilities into the fractions of percents.

Plus, we're not thinking about just mild changes to the Earth, nor are they generations further down the road, and those are other reasons people are very concerned. We'll see mass extinctions in our own lifetime according to all of the science. Compound that with the fact that even simple math says our mainstay food supply will be inadequate to meet the world's needs in only a couple of decades. We shouldn't even think about risking a mass extinction of any kind.

[Slant]

True, we know that without dark matter and dark energy our current theories don't work - but there are other possibilities.

And even if knew it existed we wouldn't know what it is.


I guessed that it isn't the same, but related - but turned out that they are very different.

Can you see why he made that mistake? Perhaps intentionally, since TNT sounds cooler than Dynamite. And Dynamite's explosive, Nitroglycerin is rather volatile and has to be combined with a reaction dampening (probably the wrong word) material to not make it explode "spontaneously". Don't be so harsh on the man, popular science is meant for the masses, not actual scientists.

- - - Updated - - -

That's fucking ridiculous.

It's ridiculous for scientists and researchers to try to stamp out scepticism like that. Anyone noticed the etymology of the word "research"? "Re search"? Search again? Check again. And again. And again. Over and over. Never EVER trust a fact until you've searched for the truth again yourself again.

And I know people are gonna bring up something like "would you doubt gravity?" now, to which I can only say that our theory of gravity has been proven wrong quite a lot of times now and has been revised. First it was just some unexplained force that made you fall down. Then it was described as a downward acceleration in your current reference frame using calculus. Then we found out it was an attraction between bodies in general. Then we found out there was a field driving it, and now we're finding out there's particles coming from that field, which means the particle/wave duality is in effect, which means gravity is actually waves.

But even ignoring all that...

The climate is a system which is _VERY_ hard to understand and all the evidence we have so far is statistical or based on statistical models. Statistics CANNOT prove natural laws. You can use statistics to prove statistical properties about trends, means, etc. but that's it. Incidentally, all the data we use in these models are created by publicly funded institutions whose funding depends on which political party is in power, and several of them have been caught repeatedly fiddling with the numbers. The GISS satellite data is particularly borked by "adjustments to raw data", which is so egregious from a scientific organization that it should be de-funded on that spot.

Frankly, I don't even know why anybody think it's a good idea to base an entire scientific field on a theory. Most others are based on an ancient piece of logic, such as mathematics or physics.

I'm very unsure about whether anthropogenic climate change is even happening, but even if we assume that it is, I'm even more in doubt about whether it's something we should do something about. So what if the water levels rise 6 meters? It's not THAT hard to move our buildings, is it? And nature has even less of a problem with it; it happens all the time, repeatedly.

The problem is not that climate change may be wrong. The problem is that at this point in time it's the best scientific theory we have. Outright denying it is stupid to begin with, but since it's so overwhelmingly accepted as a theory, we might as well act upon that (widely accepted) theory.

What pisses people off is not that people deny climate change. I don't give a fuck if you think it's fact or false. What pisses people off is that there are people out there denying it and thus tell us to keep on going harming Earth without science to back it up. All for profit.

[Youn]

First amendment doesn't protect you when presenting data to a court. If you claim to be an expert and provide false data with the claim that it is factual. You are lying to the court. This is considered a crime.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It is bizarre to me. One of the things that the right has always been known for is being tough on crime, but when we have someone saying that people who deliberately misrepresent data which causes harm (i.e. a crime), should be prosecuted, some on the right (and it is some from one particular nation) start calling that person a leftie.

Being tough on crime is our thing, we do not start advocating being soft on crime just because someone ostensibly on the left argues for crimes to be punished - what is going on here? Is there no consistency over your side of the pond? Sort it out!

I guess the consistency is that if you consider yourself to be on the right and someone you think is on the left says one thing...you have to say the opposite? I dunno.

[Ripster42]

Can you see why he made that mistake? Perhaps intentionally, since TNT sounds cooler than Dynamite. And Dynamite's explosive, Nitroglycerin is rather volatile and has to be combined with a reaction dampening (probably the wrong word) material to not make it explode "spontaneously". Don't be so harsh on the man, popular science is meant for the masses, not actual scientists.

- - - Updated - - -



The problem is not that climate change may be wrong. The problem is that at this point in time it's the best scientific theory we have. Outright denying it is stupid to begin with, but since it's so overwhelmingly accepted as a theory, we might as well act upon that (widely accepted) theory.

What pisses people off is not that people deny climate change. I don't give a fuck if you think it's fact or false. What pisses people off is that there are people out there denying it and thus tell us to keep on going harming Earth without science to back it up. All for profit.

That's not the main problem. The main problem is that people conducted studies, covered up their findings, planned their company's risk structure around it, then lied to their shareholders about the studies. That's fraud. Especially when they take it to the point of hiring lobbyists to influence legislation.

[Forogil]

Can you see why he made that mistake? Perhaps intentionally, since TNT sounds cooler than Dynamite. And Dynamite's explosive, Nitroglycerin is rather volatile and has to be combined with a reaction dampening (probably the wrong word) material to not make it explode "spontaneously". Don't be so harsh on the man, popular science is meant for the masses, not actual scientists.

That is hiding his incompetence behind contempt for the masses, and I detest both.

What you mean is that he wrote "TNT spontaneously explodes" and meant nitroglycerin which is used as ingredients in Dynamite (together with stabilisers); and doesn't bother to have someone fact-check it - since "Bill the Science Guy" isn't interested in real science - just popular science for the stupid american kids?

That also shows the problem that it is just listing statements (including some incorrect ones) - not giving a scientific understanding.

If you have common sense you understand that you don't use something that spontaneously explodes - and either you find another material (TNT) or make it not explode in other ways (Dynamite). Saying "TNT needs an initiater to explode" is technologically interesting in itself, saying "Nitroglycerin spontaneously explodes - how is Dynamite different?" starts asking questions.

[Ishayu]

I understand this argument on one hand, but on the other hand, people like Nye are (perhaps not in all seriousness) calling for this because we need drastic action and we need it soon, and having people still denying something we have every reason to believe is occurring is literally killing us. Yes, there will always be a doubt or a possibility - but the whole point of the science is that it's pushing those possibilities into the fractions of percents.

Plus, we're not thinking about just mild changes to the Earth, nor are they generations further down the road, and those are other reasons people are very concerned. We'll see mass extinctions in our own lifetime according to all of the science. Compound that with the fact that even simple math says our mainstay food supply will be inadequate to meet the world's needs in only a couple of decades. We shouldn't even think about risking a mass extinction of any kind.

That's still ridiculous. "Agree with me, or at least shut up, or I'll jail you" is not a scientific argument. It isn't even a good argument. This is the sort of thing I'd expect out of Kim Jong Un, not Bill Nye.

And look, the evidence we have of global warming isn't actually all that good. It's based pretty much entirely on statistics. We can't physically simulate these systems at all, but if we do a simple simulation using physically known constants, mild cooling or pretty much flat temperature is predicted.

What really makes the heat explode upward is the feedback loop of more CO2 -> warmer weather -> natural processes release even more CO2 -> even warmer weather and so on, and that loop's coefficient has been estimated to be positive with a very poor linear fit on stochastic data. Not only does it not make any sense whatsoever for this coefficient to be positive but there's a good portion of the data sets which give a negative correlation. Not most, though, but a lot of the data has been tampered with, which just makes any of this impossible to take seriously anyway.

Basically, scientists are modelling as if global warming is a self-accelerating process, but it can't be. Life couldn't have evolved here if that was the case we'd all have fried to death at the first sign of a natural disaster. What we should expect is that warmer weather leads to some automatic cooling and excess cooling leads to some automatic warming. What we expect is for the planet to be a self-correcting system with occasional swings from outside influence.

On top of that, we're going out of the Little Ice Age. Some scientists like to deny that. They especially like looking at the trend from the 1700's, which was the peak of the Little Ice Age. They also like to deny the existance of the medieval warm period using tree ring data, which is probably the least accurate measurement we have, and then they apply statistics on that just to make it even less accurate.

Simply put: If climate scientists want me, and a large portion of the rest of the world as well, to take them seriously, and by the way I've got a Ph.D. in computer science, specifically modelling and simulation, they'll have to do a shitton better than they have so far and they have to stop fiddling with the data. Sure, have corrected data - but call it that, and stop messing with the raw data no matter what.

That said, there are definitely pollution problems which we need to take very seriously all over the world.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is not that climate change may be wrong. The problem is that at this point in time it's the best scientific theory we have. Outright denying it is stupid to begin with, but since it's so overwhelmingly accepted as a theory, we might as well act upon that (widely accepted) theory.

What pisses people off is not that people deny climate change. I don't give a fuck if you think it's fact or false. What pisses people off is that there are people out there denying it and thus tell us to keep on going harming Earth without science to back it up. All for profit.

What theory? We have a bunch of bad statistics; that's what we have. That's not a theory. And even if it was good statistical analysis with high confidence, statistics CANNOT prove a theory other than about statistics itself - it can only show correlation, NEVER causation.

I repeat: The current approach to climate science cannot prove why the climate is changing because it's statistics, and it can't even prove it is changing at all because there's a lot of bad statistics in there, too, much of it critical.

Of course I don't approve of us harming the Earth. We should seek to more effectively generate energy with less waste or side effect, but that doesn't mean putting our entire societies at risk. The goal must be to minimize human suffering both in the short and long term.