TUCKER CARLSON BTFO!

How will he ever recover?

youtube.com/watch?v=kF0027AAZGA

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/skeptics-case
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
youtube.com/watch?v=MTJQPyTVtNA
biography.com/people/bill-nye-20950589#synopsis
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

How is this a Round 2 if he doesn't let Tucker have a chance to respond?

This is just him trying to spew more propaganda without having anyone disagree

Is Science the ultimate appeal to authority?

Bill Nye addressed every question that Tucker Carlson had asked when he appeared on the show proving without shadow of a doubt that AGW is real, is the primary driver for climate change and the exact extent that human activity is responsible.

oh, never mind. He did none of that.

Not on this flat earth

>Master's Degree
>popular 'science'
>literally just a children's TV entertainer, like Mr Rogers and Barney

>"the science guy"

Im tired of this meme, the guy has a m.eng UNDERGRAD degree and had a meme show for a decade. He is not a scientist, he is a shill for green energy. Look it up.

look at the file name

> What happened to you man you used to be cool.
I wish they would just DO MORE SHOWS SHOWING AND PROVING THE SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

very nice OP didnt notice

I wasnt taking a shot at you though, just tired of hearing it everytime this guy gets brought up by lefties

Scott Adams claimed he went to cognitive dissonance but I felt like Bill did try to answer Tucker's questions in a roundabout way.

Tuck gets cucked like every fourth guest. He just sits there with that stupid look on his face and says "I don't think you know what you're talking about." Or " Did you even read/watch/see that?" It only works if the guest truly isn't prepared. If you roll in there with a five minute rant ready to go you can just roll him until it's time for the next segment

>belching, burping bumbling idiot

I can't watch this guy for more than a minute

He's buttmad because he got put on the spot and came up short and put out a video no one is going to watch.

TUCK BTFO!!

I don't even like Tuck but this is just pathetic

0. he's not claiming to be a scientist

0.1 he's a science guy

1. are you retarded?

Shouldn't he have trained to do interviews? I mean it is job.

Bill can't argue BUT he is right about global warming because caused by human actions which is the false narrative Tucker buys.

>get engineering degree
>star in popular kid's education television show
>millions of kids grow up knowing who you are, and respect you because they grew up with you
>use your fame and recognition to spew baseless science, and millions of people believe you only because you say so


must feel good to literally live off appeal to authority fallacy

prove it

Don't even put Mr. Rodgers in the same category as Bill Nye the science meme

>Don't even put Mr. Rodgers in the same category as Bill Nye the science meme
I agree

For the most part he does his homework, though on this interview he was tunnel visioned on his idea that if the science is settled, they should be able to give precise numbers on how much of global warming is caused by humans, and what the impact is. I feel like he could have brought up predictions in the past that were proven false (by not happening) too but he didn't.

Lol Bill Nye the Bachelor's Degree guy

>they should be able to give precise numbers on how much of global warming is caused by humans, and what the impact is.
They should be able to. Isn't this what the real debate is about?

The data should at least indicate that the earth is warming and yet it seems to indicate that the earth has not been warming for 20 years.

i have a bachelors of science in music. please sit back while i lecture you in astrophysics

The grapes, Tucker.

The Skeptic's Case

02/24/2012 David M.W. Evans

We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

What the Government Climate Scientists Say

Figure 1: The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1oC x 3 = 3.3oC.1

The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.2

Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.3 The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

I can't watch this video right now
Does bill actually provide a quantifiable statistic regarding how much of climate change is the result of human activity?
Or is the whole thing just adhom about tucker?

What the Skeptics Say

Figure 2: The skeptic's view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ≈ 0.6°C.4

The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.5 The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct-warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth's climate is long-lived and stable — it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.

pop-sci is.

Bill Nye doesn't even have a science degree. he's just a pundit who pretends to be a scientist

Slander Rogers again in real life not online and see what happens

Air Temperatures

One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the "father of global warming":

Figure 3: Hansen's predictions to the US Congress in 1988,6 compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.7

Hansen's climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased — which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.

slow fucking clap

never seen it expressed in that manner, well done.

A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC's First Assessment Report:

Figure 4: Predictions of the IPCC's First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

It's 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

The problem about the climate "debate" is it is all people that don't have a full grasp of it debating strawmen.

Left: WORLD IS ENDING OIL SHILLS WILL BRING APOCALYPSE
Right: No problem here, Commies just want tax payer jobs.

...

Ocean Temperatures

The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We've only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.9,10 In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

Figure 5: Climate model predictions of ocean temperature,11 versus the measurements by Argo.12 The unit of the vertical axis is 10^22 Joules (about 0.01°C).

The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

Atmospheric Hotspot

The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the "hotspot."

The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see figure 1). The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer, wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 1970s to the late '90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.13 Here it is:
Atmospheric Warming 1979 to 1999

Figure 6: On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons.14 On the right is what the climate models say was happening.15 The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.

In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification — the amplification shown in figure 1 does not exist.16

>he only has a fucking bachelor's degree

Why does anybody consider this guy an expert?

>get btfo on live tv
>upload a video where your opponent, who btfo you, can't reply
>reddit audience thinks you won

I WANT A NEW HITLER NOW TO FUCKING KILL LEFTWING RETARDS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The main problem with it as I see it is that most people seem to think that carbon dioxide is a pollutant when it is in fact good for life on earth. More carbon dioxide means more vegetation.

But, muh carbon cycle.

Outgoing Radiation

The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification in figure 1.

Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth's surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:
Outgoing radiation from earth against sea surface temperature

Figure 7: Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as "predicted" by 11 climate models (the other graphs).17 Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.

This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification shown in figure 1 does not exist.

Conclusions

All the data here is impeccably sourced — satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.18

The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin — it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic's excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces — and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.

We've checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:
Predictions of climate models

The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore,

The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.

The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

The skeptical view is compatible with the data.

Some Political Points

The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer, and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050 or so, or it doesn't.

Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?

mises.org/library/skeptics-case

This is a big problem. Most people don't have the time to sift through the shit to get to the truth.

Nye-yuk nye-yuk nye-yuk

>and yet it seems to indicate that the earth has not been warming for 20 years
It was 15 years, from 1998 - 2013, and there has been clear warming since then.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
>The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed "hiatus" since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend.

Bill Nye the pedo guy.

>97% of scientists are very concerned about climate change
Opening the video with an untruthful propagandist statement like this gets me to not watch any of the rest of it.

and higher sea levels are good for corals.

>We will surely meet again Tucker
>Doesn't meet again

I don't think any of his other guests bothered to do anything besides complain on Twitter after they got BTFO. This proves more than anything that Bill felt he got tucked hard

>4 minutes to prove climate change exists, what should I talk about?
>oh I know Trump's crowd sizes

THIS FUCKING GUY

Sound reasoning from BN here.
Can't deny his points and the fact that TC argues in an unpleasant way.

>dude that guy we watched as kids said some stuff
>instant win because my nostalgia

Sorry, replied to wrong post before.

Your graph shows a clear rise between 98 and 13 anyway though. Why is this?

>bill nye the mechanical engineering faggot
why is he even a thing

Can one claim the 10000 bucks if one disprove that Global Warming is anthropogenic?

I believe most of the people don't dismiss GW per se, but just the idea that humans are an active agent to it.

Nobody disputes that humans have an effect on warming. It's how much of a problem it is.

tucker sure is an autistic manbaby.

pls respond

Tucker couldn't even take a kids show host. How sad.

Hang on. Sup Forums thinks that climate change doesn't exist? haaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha

you lot are more retarded than I thought, holy shit.

>Says he can't watch the video right now. Wants to know what happens in the video.
>40 minutes later asks for someone to please respond

It's 4 minutes long

Ignore the trend line and look at the black data points, the strong point in 1998 is almost as high as any of the following points until around 2013, or at least close enough for there to be no visible warming trend. Focusing on this fact was the case being made for a hiatus in warming.

However, because the points in 1999 and 2000 were much lower than 1998 they of course affect the general trend line.

A mechanical engineer isn't an expert on climatology, atmospheric physics, or ecology. Bill Nye is a meme scientist.

Nye's grapes sure are sour

lmao this nigga got btfo on live TV so hard he had to go home and make a video response

carry on mr carlson....our paths will cross again....

This lol.

Gg no re bill guy the science lie

I'm surprised that climate change is the hill many right wingers want to die on.

neither is a mediocre host like tucker.

>mechanical engineer

bruh he wasn't even doing engineering, he got on TV doing a bit on a sketch comedy show

I'm not at home right now, I'm not in a place where I can just watch a video but typing on a phone is fine

so pls respond

>you have to respect the facts
>still doesn't provide proof
okay

>the womens march was objectively bigger than the inauguration

it actually wasn't the fucking left media doesn't even say this, what the fuck? why would you blow any sort of credibility you had about discussing climate change by showing your bias?

Bill Nye isn't a doctor. .

>"99% of the world's scientists believe in climate change
What's the sample size Bill Nye? Clearly it's not every single fucking scientist in the world. I'm all for conservation and advacocy of environmentist policy making, however these autistic celebrity scientists do the cause no favours. Employing to Boykoff's (2007) journalistic norms and then sounding all serious and profound is fucking retarded.

The thing i dislike about all theses "Hottest/Ice cap-size/drought year/month/decade on record" is that the "record" doesn't go that far back.. various ways of measuring temperature and so on, deviate from each other.. The method change, so often when scientist talk about hottest year/month on record, then the record is no more than 20-30 years old.

Statisticly speaking then some year/decade will have to be the hottest/coldest just by change. If you only have data that go back 3-4 decades, then yea, the likelihood of this decade being the hottest is pretty big.

Even if we have data that goes back a 100 years, then the likelihood that this decade would be the hottest ever recorded would be 10% if it was pure coincidence.
The likelihood of this being the decade having the least amount of rain in Tanzania or smallest ice-cap or most forest fires or etc. We will always have these event pop up..

No scientist of the brain or behaviour is saying that genetics doesn't determine your cognition. The data concludes however that genetic variation between races alters the brain in negligible ways and culture and economic factors play a much larger role.

he is just whining about the situation regarding the whole climate debate, bitching about tucker and predicting the next decade will be the warmest ever. not presenting any interesting information.

>Does bill actually provide a quantifiable statistic regarding how much of climate change is the result of human activity?
>Or is the whole thing just adhom about tucker?
He says a whole lot of nothing. "Muh 97%" "Respect the facts" then provides no data. He let's it be known that Tucker is a big meany and a poopyhead then offers a wager on future temperature.

"the data concludes".. use your common sense, the vast majority of all studies and all data are flawed. Don't worship studies, especially if they are humaniora studies and have a political angle.

>be 1400
>galileo come on man
>99% of scientists agree the earth is the center of the universe man

This is why you should never trust men with bachelor degrees on youtube.

but tucker was the one who had a tantrum on his show.

who gioves a shit what mechanical cuck kike thinks

Bill Nye was the one with egg on face after that interview. Now he is on youtube trying to wash it off by smashing eggs on his face.

Rogers was decent man, I read a couple his books. Wholesome dude, believed in the future and well being of kids. Please do not associated him with lazy memes and bad people.

>that one guy who loses an argument in the moment and comes back days later with a comeback

I don't want to believe that those quotes on the right are true.

he only has a bachelors

guys on the right are of course mostly faggots, but keep in mind that philosophy as a discipline had become much more degenerate in their time.

also, have another bachelor degree amateur youtube video youtube.com/watch?v=MTJQPyTVtNA

source?

Nye holds several United States patents,[42] including one for ballet pointe shoes[36][43] and another for an educational magnifying glass created by filling a clear plastic bag with water.[44][45]

biography.com/people/bill-nye-20950589#synopsis

>After attending the private Sidwell Friends School, Nye enrolled at Cornell University, where he studied mechanical engineering. Upon earning his Bachelor of Science degree, Nye went on to begin his career at The Boeing Company in Seattle, where he would live for many years. Nye developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor that is still used in the Boeing 747.

kek

who cares

we'll grow oranges in michigan, and LA will be under water, what's the loss?

>a patent for "an educational magnifying glass created by filling a clear plastic bag with water"
why is this allowed