This is the first time that Tucker Carlson has gone full on redneck/caveman stupid. Usually he is dead on...

This is the first time that Tucker Carlson has gone full on redneck/caveman stupid. Usually he is dead on. Are the Fox news execs forcing him to appeal to the rednecks?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw&
youtube.com/watch?v=imymi3LBtSs
youtube.com/watch?v=zZZIDPgX4nE
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

no

No, he is a naturally ignorant person all on his own.

Tucker got tucked.

I try not to confuse this stuff with news.

He acted the same way he always does he just wasn't dealing with a retard this time.

This one was very very bad.

Obvious shill is obvious.

Not sure who you are talking about but it could be true in both cases.

>reddit migrants claim they're redpilled while believing in the climate jew

Sage. Nobody but lefty faggots and lesbian women use the word redneck

American education, folks

just admit you're a scientific hack, Bill, and go away

take your proxies with you too!

He was dead on, Bill Nye got tucked in the ass.

Fox News obviously has been pushing the denial agenda for years. They have to be one of the biggest if not the biggest propaganda machine for the denial movement. They'll say shit like, "I believe in science but I also think we should question, blah, blah". Obviously that's a bit dishonest because if it were really about altruistically presenting both sides and just posing the question, 100% of their host wouldn't be arguing from the foregone notion that it is a hoax. They would probably vary about on their support or denial but they all push very hard to deny it.

Tucker tried to come off like this was the first time he ever heard of climate change. A topic like this doesn't have much place in a 10 minute clip and they should interview an actual climate scientist instead of a science personality.

OP is a faggot shill

I think most people on the right don't necessarily deny that there are things we can do to help the environment. it's just that regulating ourselves in oblivion won't stop china, India, South America and Africa's larger impact.

>tfw I am just as qualified as Nye on climate change

Feels good.

"I believe in science, that's why I remain skeptical"


Hurr fucking Durr
This is why we are seeing measles outbreaks in America. Fuck scientific consensus, let's start questioning germ theory. It's just a theory (guess) ain't it?

WTF do those stupid science bitches know anyways?

No it won't be that shouldn't stop us because us adding more pollution just exacerbates the problem. What we should be doing is economically pressuring those shit holes to get in line. But because we are the only western 1st world country where a prominent party legitimately pushed a hoax narrative, we can't get on board with a plan of action. We're also the country with the most influence globally which further complicates things. Don't rely on the fucking EU to get all the other countries to line up.

>asks good questions that he honestly wants to know the answer to
>Nye doesn't have the answer nor does he explain why he doesn't have the answer. Averts completely

And Carlson is the idiot? OP will die of cancer with these tripps

>there are things we can do to help the environment
That's not what this is about. It is about whether climate change is a disaster looming, how much people are the cause, and what we could do to solve the problem.
Undeveloped countries are a looming threat but they aren't putting out as much emissions per capita that the developed countries are.
The right always says they aren't denying things but usually follows it up with borderline denial.
Maybe there are no solutions, maybe emissions are the great filter that stops life from reaching the stars.

He repeatedly answered the question.
Without human activity, we would not be observing a sharp change in global temperatures.
That's the answer but tuck the cuck doesn't really understand why rates of change are significant so he keeps asking the same fucking question like an idiot.

It was kind of a stupid question but Bill should have been more prepared to answer it. If you want to be an advocate for something you should be better prepared than he was to debate the other side.

are you fucking kidding me? He annihiliated Billy boy.

Just watched the first 6 minutes and couldn't make it any further

Bill Nye is Jewing it up so that interview, dodging every question, jumping on the offensive, belittling "deniers" without providing any support for his argument, just the same blanket statements over and over, dodging the same basic question, over and over. Nye doesn't look reasonable at all in this interview. Answer the question, Bill. A scientist should treat everything as a theory and welcome skepticism.

The rate of change in the climate is constantly changing. Research of what happened tens of thousands of years ago or millions of years ago will have some margin of error, rely on previous findings which may have some margin of error. A lot of unknowns to fill in when you look a million years back. Past Ice Ages are scientific theory, they're always open to question by definition. If you ban questions, you are removing science from the discussion and entering politics.

Some of the things characterized as man caused today, are natural fluctuations being politicized. The ocean temperatures which he talks about, fluctuations. A big El Niño just hit the pacific, not outside of the normal range of 2014 and before that, the water temperature had been in a prolonged COLD period, with strong La Niña conditions for well over 5 years. But you hear one a liberal thinker talk about it, it's a permanent rise in water temperature caused by smog! Affects of this natural temperature change on the marine life food chain is comically mischaracterized.

>Seals are dying oh no climate change!
>squad are disappearing oh no, climate change!

No you condescending jackasses, the squid are gone because of El Niño which is a natural cycle, and the sea lions are dying because they've been eating tons of squid for the past 5 years, the waters been so cold.

This is confirmation bias, and if you follow it up the ladder, you'll find Jews looking at their bank accounts.

Nye is not a scientist
youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw&

All he really did was talk over him, avoid the same question repeatedly, and not provide any evidence for his claims, and scoff at Tucker for asking him too.

As a scientist, Nye did not look good here. He did well pushing his point, but he shot down the conversation again and again. And it seemed like he was hopped up on adderall or something similar.

asks for quantitative evidence and gives quantitative evidence.. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED

qualitative*

The effects of El Nino last two years at most, we've experienced an undeniable sharp rise in global temperatures within the last ten years. Nothing like this has ever been recorded, but you are right that when comparing to events millions of years ago, it's hard to determine the rate of change accurately.
So what do we do? Wait around until we are absolutely certain? By what metric? Should we wait fit a 4c increase in global climate, 5, or 6c?

Or do we take preemptive actions and switch to clean renewable energy resources, before peak oil as well?

Get the fuck out of here you cucks

I have a nuclear engineering degree from an ivy league school and an engineering masters. Man-made climate change is based on faulty assumptions.

If you enter even the slightest allowance for the fact that increased temperature leads to greater evaporation, which also leads to greater cloud cover, then the entire computer model utterly falls apart. Why? Because cloud cover has a vastly greater impact on global temperature than the "greenhouse" effect - by multiple orders of magnitude.

The climate is not like a balanced pin that can be "tipped" slightly and then immediately falls apart. It's more like a weighted bowling pin wherein pushing it causes it to teeter for a while before settling back down.

Remember when the Deepwater Horizon spilled oil in the gulf, and people were claiming it would devastage the Florida coast for decades if not hundreds of years? Well, a few actual scientists (including myself) stated that the bacteria that consume oil would bloom, go nuts, and eat the problem. Who was right? Have you been to Florida? I live there, on the coast that was "hit" by the spill. You would never know it happened. And it's been that way for years.

Anthropogenic climate change is a political sledge hammer to be used on dimwits who either cannot or are too lazy to interrogate the data for themselves. Don't be one of them.

I never liked him. He doesn't really do a good job of debating them. Him laughing in their face is not an argument, and the marxists and kikes are too slippery to fall into his traps.

>All he really did was talk over him, avoid the same question repeatedly, and not provide any evidence for his claims, and scoff at Tucker for asking him too.

He was a typical liberal Jew, doing what all of them do on Tuckers show but he was raging so hard on whatever P.E.D., camouflaged the fact that he was avoiding honest discussion.

>No it won't be that shouldn't stop us because us adding more pollution just exacerbates the problem

you don't understand
the demand for manufacturing will still be there
all you'll do is continue the pollution elsewhere

nothing will change with the proposed economic regulations

>Without human activity, we would not be observing a sharp change in global temperatures.

that's not the answer though
tucker asked for numbers, real numbers

you can't simply claim "oh yeah humans did it" in science, you need to provide numbers

That's what debating is, though

Yeah and Fukushima didnt happen and the gulf on mexico isnt destroyed. Go back to your fracking brainwashing camp future oil shill

We need to switch to Nuclear power, you dense faggots. First we use traditional fission, then when we can get an energy producing fusion reactor (which will be soon), we are fucking gold. But not if we drown first.

Climate change is true. But climate has been changing thorough the millions and millions of years before human race even existed. What makes those people think they can in any meaningful way affect the changes in climate? That's retarded. Climate WILL change, you want it or not.

laughing at someone is not an argument

nobody here will argue against nuclear power you idiot, that's the leftists

But before the El Niño, water temperatures in the pacific off California were very, very low for an extended time. Look on fish and game at the squid harvests starting around 2009, record breaking harvest every year because the water was so cold.

We should make an effort to consume less, commercially, agreed 100% sooner not later.

But, this will happen anyway. Technology develops at such a rapid increase, incredible exponential growth we're seeing if you consider how long it took A.I. to get to where it is today, compared to the millions of years it took humans to get here. Electric cars are in production and hybrids are mass produced, growing into the market extremely fast. It won't be long until we don't need natural fuel, at all.

Tucker's question was so legit, it's the one you.l never see a lefty address head-on. Is there incontrovertible evidence the climate change is caused by man? There can be no incontrovertible evidence in science. We don't know how fast the past ice ages came, if the theory that they happened is correct.

>nothing like this has ever been recorded

Recorded history is an infinitely small period of time.

Both looked bad. it was a bit like a trainwreck desu, one where it collided with a fucking herd of elephants. One of the more cringy bizarre things I've seen recently.

Tuck because he was much louder/angrier compared to Nye, and refused to give ground where it should have been given (there was no reason to relisten to the 1750 wine shit, Nye's answer was satisfactory even if he did colour it with bs about wine etc).

Nye because he doesn't know how to debate and relies upon storytelling, is injecting himself into politics when he shouldn't (that was fucking... something...), and because he isn't '''allowed''' to give any ground to sceptics and say 'i don't know'.

Really fucking sick of the framing of climate change these days, and Nye is as to blame as even the stoogiest of big oil shills.

Whether he wants to admit it or not he bashes deniers while preaching to his chorus, then claims that the skeptics are idiots are not listening to him when he never fucking adresses them properly in the first place. He's a tv personality, and he grinds my fucking gears.

>climate change is real
>Man is increasing the rate
>it's not as bad as the alarmists paint it
>it's still not good by any means, but fuck me we have a long time to deal with it still
>the '''movement''' has been completely co-opted by political interests and painted as a moral and intellectual issue
>most of the strategies they suggest for combating it are retarded from a first world countries point of view
>they disregard methods of repairing damage
>they promote industry and economy destroying methods that effectively shift pollution to third world shit holes

>Fukushima didn't happen
Not relevant. I hope you're on Sup Forums to shitpost for shareblue because that's the intellectual level you are on. You sound like a fucking kike. You're probably just a moronic shabbos goy though.

>gulf on mexico
Great spelling faggot. No the gulf isn't destroyed. Inbreeds like you were crying that the coast would be virtually uninhabitable for upwards of 100 years.

You faggots are the intellectual equivalent of liberal trailer trash. Just a dumb, just as backwards, and just as ignorant of science, logic, and reason. No amount of academic accolades can dress up that much stupidity.

>Anthropogenic climate change is a political sledge hammer to be used on dimwits who either cannot or are too lazy to interrogate the data for themselves

Dont forget that "carbon tax". The jews go where the money is.

Neither is dismissing their points and refusing to answer reasonable, CRUCIAL questions.

if the planet is heating, can somebody explain to me why the sea levels aren't rising?

"Scientific consensus" is a bunch of chinks writing shitty research papers with fabricated data. Why should I trust them again?

tucker has never been a good debater or advocate

they try to use him to attract the fringe who has power now so we don't turn on fox news like we should

humans can accelerate climate change.

Climate change is factual, in my opinion, indisputable. Evidence for the earth warming right now is strong too. Evidence for the earth warming quicker than ever before is there but a little less clear. Evidence that we are having a significant impact is not indisputable but strong enough I'll believe it. Now comes the problem. How much burning of fossil fuels, which is the main sticking point, affects the climate is unknown. Pretty sure fucking decaying wood is releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than all fossil fuel use. There are other issues like carbon sinks that screw up the data. The ocean and growing forests both absorb very large amounts of carbon, while decaying forest release a lot and the ocean occasionally releases some of the CO2 it's absorbed. There are other greenhouse gas creators like livestock. Methane is much worse than carbon dioxide, only mitigated by the fact it doesn't stay in the atmosphere long (don't remember why).

In conclusion, it's complicated and sometimes nuanced positions get warped into ideological divides. The left might be wrongly targeting fossil fuel burning when deforestation is the real issue, while conservatives are turning a reactionary defense of a lifestyle into skepticism of science, that while biased, is unlikely to be totally fabricated. Avoiding calling the other sides retards and the like is probably the first step towards a solution

Do we even have a large enough sample size of meteorological data to say recent climate trends are in anyway more volatile than past periods?

I get we have ice core data, but that only tells so much. We've only been recording weather data with any sort of detail for what a couple hundred years? How can we claim that such a small sample size of data is in any way changing the long term trends that last hundreds of thousands of years?

I'm not saying that laughing is an argument, what I'm saying is that television debates are all about who whoops who's ass, charisma definetely plays a bigger role than providing facts to back up your claims

Not for another 10-15 years of messing atmospheric data that hasn't been fiddled before release by the ipcc. But...they...don't want the average joe reading unadjusted data.

Yeah by a one-billionth maybe.

He just gives his guest direct questions until they answer them, or don't. I think he's pretty good desu, but he should interview so many idiots and slimy Jews. Needs to broaden his guests IMO.

>bill nye
>not a retard

pick one

link yet?

Relying on arguments to win a debate is a poor strategy. Bullying is a very effective alternative; for example, Trump vs. Jeb.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years

This. I'd probably like Carlson more if he doesn't stall/waste time by trying to laugh his opponent off like he's channeling Sun Tzu himself to piss off his opponent and make them careless, as Tucker just looks like a faggot. I'd call out anyone who blatantly baits an ideological opponent like that t᠎bh
Tucker needs to get his shit together before he gets booted off of his prime time slot, let alone get canned.
Disappointed/10 tonight

Proof of causality?

All we have are politically motivated projections and assumptions. Current "data" that concludes we are warmer than ever and/or warming is rife with assumptions that are not supported by measurements.

We continue to make assumptions about errors in past measurement techniques, past instrumentation, past areas that we were not monitoring, etc. in order to show that we are warming. That's the entire story of "global warming."

Anyone who says otherwise is defending their religion. They have no actual data to refute that. All they have is their religion. Global warming is a religion and greedy scientists clutching to their pensions and grants are its priests. That makes Soros, Rothschild, Rockefeller, and other assorted (((philanthropists))) its prophets.

>shrill shilling intensifies

hey stupid shillfuck
warmer air holds more moisture
more moisture has more mass
winds become heavier, go farther, slosh around more
>muh clouds will shade everything hurr
warmer sea water is already killing reefs all over the world
it will make more heat-engine storms
the jet stream has already blown all over the place
>shill noises

the only reason you are paid to post your deliberate misinformation is because of the massively insecure faggots who think they'll be held liable for being oil companies so they send you, a gibbering idiot, to sneer and pretend you know all about it mayne

I've seen shills throw propaganda around for decades. You are in severely retarded damage control mode and this needs to fucking stop.

did you know it might not take much for the jet stream to form a barrier to warm air and create a massive ice cap that just keeps growing.

>i have some bullshit degree
yeah nobody is falling for such a clearly bullshit claim around here bub
go choke on a bag of dicks

DAMN look how hard these shills are trying to protect

>muh precious global warming meme

Too bad they're all about to get PUT IN PRISON

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ GET IN HERE ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Bill Nye is actually in love with Tucker Carlson, in case nobody noticed...

youtube.com/watch?v=imymi3LBtSs

I'm a big Tucker Carlson fan, but when Bill Nye did the stopwatch on his phone and showed Tucker how long it took for him to interrupt, all I could hear was
>BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL
>BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY

neither is interrupting every 6 seconds

having more charisma is not an argument. being more entertaining is also not an argument

Leftist faggots spent 150 years trying to ram communism down our throats. When that didn't work they trotted out the "global warming" lie to reintrotuce globalist socialism as the solution for this invisible, fake problem. The leftist shills in this thread don't know a fucking thing about science, and they can barely keep their true inentions of a globalist lefty supranational order masked. How does academia think people are this fucking stupid?

You can't be serious.

He didn't deny climate change.
He didn't deny human contribution to climate change.

He asked how much humans contribute to climate change, and whoever thinks anything Bill said was relevant or even close to answering this -- wtf are you thinking?

You have to change the thumb so it looks like cuck porn in order to make them click

Ask Bill Nye if he is in favour of Globalization (which he is) how he can complain about Climate Change?

If you believe in it then Globalization is the Root cause of this (besides 3rd World overpopulation)

>"Scientific consensus" is a bunch of chinks writing shitty research papers with fabricated data.
Maybe if you took a little time to understand the papers in question, you wouldn't leap to such retarded conclusions about them.

We know it's real, the question is are humans causing it? The answer is maybe. So is there scientific proof that climate change is man made? Nope.

So many assumptions are accepted at face value in this. Even framing it as "climate change" is in (((dishonest)))). No one reasonable denies that the climate is changing, but no reasonable person would say that climate isn't always changing.

Is it changing at a rate historiccall unseen pace? Yes but history is a small piece often past, and we've seen even less. Data available to humans for climate patterns is incomplete and that's not even a theory, its fact.

movies like this is why old lefties are so indoctrinated with climate change

youtube.com/watch?v=zZZIDPgX4nE

>having more charisma is not an argument. being more entertaining is also not an argument
Why am I obligated to make an argument? Arguments are obsolete. Here I am driving a car, and as I pass you by, you shout "not a horse".

>forcing him to appeal to the rednecks?
dunno why they would...

ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

Page 3 figure c)

Those papers should advertise themselves more effectively then, if they want to sway my opinion. Otherwise I will vote based on the opinions I already have.

Tucker was born a brain dead faggot, they must have let him off his tard leash

The only problem with that statement is saying it's the chinks. (((Science))) is full of assumptions and politics, and money, always has been.

I'll just leave this here.

Your point? CO2 is essential for life to exist. What humans produce is still a tiny little percentage of total CO2 levels in atmosphere.

History a small piece of the past

>that it is a hoax
Which it is or why else would the same People that push this Idea be in support of shipping goods across the Planet in the largest Boats, planes and Trains only to save on wages while producing in Eco-unfriendly factories and creating massive emissions through Transport of Goods while you could produce most of it here without Transport around the Globe and with better Environment Regulations?

what are you debating for?

>Nothing like this has ever been recorded,
Yes it has geologically

He's not unreasonable. Did you read what he wrote?

>so how has the climate changed as a result of human activity?
> the British can grow grapes now

Top fucking kek. Nye is just an obnoxious retard, not qualified to have this discussion. It's all just politics anyway, science is obscured and manipulated by various interests

Correlation is not causation. There are plenty of similar graphs that track, for example, crime rate vs. video game sales. Correlation is common between unrelated events.

Fun.

You are the scum of the fucking planet. The sooner you are gassed the better.

Moist air forms clouds which blocks insolation you fucking monkey.

>I've seen shills throw propaganda around for decades
So you were looking in the mirror then I assume? Because according to you intellectual giants the Earth was supposed to be practically barren dessert by now and Florida half under the ocean. Oops!

I noticed you ignored that little bit about the oil spill taking about 98% less than the 100+ years you projected to dissipate. I don't blame you, it makes you look pretty fucking stupid.

>durrr you're paid durr you don't have an education because I don't have one
Now go out to your shed, have one last ride on your cousin Jeb and off yourself, Cleetus.

Man this sort of autism really is, and always will be the heart of pol

Really, I only saw the first 2/3 but Nye was the one interrupting, Tucker was trying to keep him on point or get him to support claim, but Nye kept sliding around every question and point of discussion to launch into another lecture, jewed the fuck out of that interview

>what is the rate of the human impact on the climate?
>There were dinosaurs and Colorado used to be undersea.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting
changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe,
pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would
require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together
with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late
21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range,
depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

>What humans produce is still a tiny little percentage of total CO2 levels in atmosphere.
no

The ultimate redpill is that if global warming is real, it's actually a good thing. The biosphere is at its most productive during geological eras free of ice caps. CO2 concentrations rising lead to desertification around the equator and temperate poles. In other words, the shitskin regions will die out and the poles will turn into temperate rainforests, ready to be colonized by nearby whites.

With the high carbon atmosphere and permanent day of the new polar nations, farming will be revolutionized. Fruit will grow like weeds in Antarctica, the new atlantis, and Siberia and northern Canada will become lush and fertile fields of wheat and corn.