What does TV think of Bill Nyes new global warming propaganda show on Netflix?

What does TV think of Bill Nyes new global warming propaganda show on Netflix?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

is he bald? that hair looks as fake as an average temperature study dataset

bill nye is a complete cunt and i have no interest in anything he does.

>Science is "propaganda" now

>global warming
>propaganda

lol alright cletus

Yea,liberals fund science that meets their beliefs.

Pic related average liberal

thanks for making the Sup Forums containment thread

Bill Nye is a massive faggot and all his (((science))) has a massive political slant

youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg

Watch this and tell me how this faggot can call himself the science guy

those are just average americans

>manipulated and falsified data
>computer models that produce the same results no matter the input
>Satellite imagery shows contrary to what they pander
>ice depth surveys show contrary to what they pander
>current gulf stream shifts consistent with a COOLING of the earth
>no actual data to support their case

(((((Science)))))

Abortion is a settled issue.

Why is he still harping on this shit?

>Can we stop telling women what to do with their bodies?

No

Man, remember when people said shit like this ironically on here just a few years ago?

Then Sup Forums gets overrun by a shitload of newfags that storm out in every board because they actually think everyone is being serious with this.

It's so fucking bizarre.

>Lying in bed under covers, comfy.
>Somebody adds more blankets and you get uncomfortably hot
>Fucking liberals and their imaginary "blanket warming" propaganda!

> Killing babies is a settled issue

*citation needed
Nice try Mr. Goldstein but I'm still buying an electric car so I don't need to give Arabs my gas money

He builds his whole terrible argument on the idea that you can't be against abortion because fertilized eggs sometimes fail to attach to the womb and therefore dont get to become humans. He says who are you going to punish for that, who is going to jail?

GEE BILL WHAT ARE NATURAL CAUSES!

His exact same logic would be "haha dude a lot of people die from natural causes and accidents, who are you going to blame and throw in jail for those deaths?! There is no difference between stabbing a man to death and a child who got the flu and died! A death is a death, oh well!

...

Fuck off baby killer.

>IPCC publishes report indicating that 98.5% of climate scientists feel that man-made global warming has no major effect on climate change
>media and IPCC spin it claiming 99% agree that it *exists* though! (also incorrect per their findings) GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING!

Except its not, because the constitution says nothing about abortion, which means the right to decide about it is up to the individual states, and the Roe v. Wade court clearly overstepped the bounds of their judicial authority.

Not him, but c'mon. Even proponents for abortion recognize that Roe v Wade represented a massive overstep of authority on the part of the Supreme Court to where even Norma McCorvy (Roe) the plaintiff called it a travesty of justice.

And if you think the issue is "settled" when elections are won and lost based on the candidates position on abortion, you're wildly naive at best and just plain retarded at worst.

I love that people recognized it was propaganda right off the bat

Oh look! It's Bill Nye the engineering degree guy!

I surely hope based Beakman doesnt rip him a black hole in his asshole!

>America's foremost scientific mind is a man named "Bill Nye the Science Guy"

BILL NYE

THE SCIENCE GUY

trump ruined Sup Forums

This is Sup Forums in a nutshell. Spew a bunch of shit with no sources

That's liberals in a nutshell.

remember Sup Forums is always right and if you dont think so chances are you're a redditor

>no you are!
Conservative arguments in a nutshell.

What a dumb cunt

liberals look like that? wtf i hate liberals now...

No you are
Liberals in a nut shell

Wouldn't Mr. Goldstein hate arabs even more than you do?

That nigga could be Felicia days daddy. Just look at him

"Science" to liberals now exclusively diversity, global warming, conservation, and promoting vaccinations. gtfo nerds with your warp drives and stars exploding shit.

Alt-right baiting in a nutshell

>"ironically"

When is the realization that this is the site's culture and it always has been going to sink in for faggots like you?

>haha i post on Sup Forums where we talk about how much we hate niggers and sjws haha but its just kidding around haha
>man, people have been saying this for years haha like how long can you keep this same joke going haha

Whenever liberals post sources the response is that the sources are invalid or fake.
Dumb people don't believe anything that conflicts with their viewpoint

>the sources are invalid or fake.
That tends to be the case though. For non science related stuff anyway. Wouldn't know about any climate change sources.

>Anything I don't agree with a propaganda even though the evidence points to climate change

>JUST PAY FOR CARBON AND STOP ASKING QUESTIONS GOY!!! SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

>Muh god
>Muh mortal sin
>It's Satanic
That's basically what the argument boils down to

More like
>stop whoring around
>don't be a fucking whore
>grow some responsibility bone
>stop whoring like a whoresome whore from the planet Whoreon

I agree but it's their body and their choice, they should be able to have a choice on whether to have a baby or not which they do so what's the issue?

Ask as many questions as you like, the facts speak for themselves
>Everything is DA JOOS
I agree, bro, fuck the Jews but there's literally no one doing any studies that debunk the climate change ones. You can either accept the evidence or deny it because that's all that's been going on. No one is doing their own independent studies, probably because they're afraid of the outcome.

>they should be able to have a choice on whether to have a baby or not

They absolutely do. It's called saying "No"

Because you people are anti-science and purposely misrepresent the data, you're like fucking creationists on that front

Wait, do you even understand what 'climate change' is, and that it needs no 'evidence'? Climate's been changing for billions of years on Earth, long before first creatures crawled from the primordial soup. Thats not what people debate over.

>watch video
>karlie kloss

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>global warming

funny last year in Australia it was only 40 degrees C for like 4 or 5 days throughout 2 months not even consecutive days and it was back to rain, wind and cold.

absolute bullshit, its been getting colder.

>People should be conservative just because I don't agree with them being able to choose to abort a baby
You know what I meant, man made climate change. Either have someone on your side fund their own studies or stfu and stop denying the evidence.

It's called climate change

No, it's called weather.

Last year here in PA it was cold as fuck. This year it's warm (so far).

Pffft, weather is part of the climate

I don't deny AGW, but Bill Nye is an asshole and I have no respect for him as a person.

If he's just the host of the show, and doesn't present himself as an expert, then that's fine. Have the researchers / scientists who have published their research themselves come on the show to discuss the scientific topics at hand, or at the very least Nye needs to provide sources for everything he says so that it's not just conjecture.

Climate is weather over an extended period of time.

The Earth is getting warmer. The debate is how much humans are helping it.

The baby isn't her body though, so that argument makes no sense

Sup Forums's already rampant contrarianism turned into turbo autismo mode with Sup Forums. Suddenly, contrarians became contrarian of other contrarians on Sup Forums, starting things like "Christian general threads, and the whole Trump memes. People need to study this shit, it's insane how once ironic shitposting has slowly turned into such high levels of autistic mental gymnastics.

Until they cut the umbilical cord, the baby is part of her body. The question is whether the 'baby' in her belly is developed enough or not

What's the evidence for either side?

If you don't like abortion, simple, she should be able to give it to the guy to take care of whether he wants it or not.

ITT: The dumbest board on 4changs tries to talk science.

Evidence the Earth is getting warmer? You mean other than the mean temperature increase all over the planet?

It could be natural. We're coming out of an ice age. We could be helping it along.

Ultimately it doesn't make a fucking difference. The places like China and India that pump the most GHG into the atmosphere aren't going to stop doing it. Neither is Texas, which, if it were its own country, would be 5th highest worldwide.

Oh wait, I just looked up info about this show and it's laughable. A bunch of nobody "correspondents," none of whom have published any scientific literature.

Popular Science itself is fine, as it can teach basic concepts to those that don't understand it, but I would much prefer a show that tackles topics like Climate Change by interviewing the people who study it / publish themselves, debunking common claims made by deniers.

member when al gore said cities would be underwater by 2014

>muh infallible libtard predictions

No, the moment of conception the baby is a separate entity. This is scientifically indisputable. It has different and distinct DNA from the mother. Regardless of whether the mother is carrying it or the child is viable outside the womb, the fact remains that at conception a new and separate life is created.

The issue is when we begin the nebulous and indefinable trait of "personhood" into the argument. Sure, a fetus is a human life, and not just part of the mother, but is it a "person"? Note that this argument really only exists within the context of abortion and only as a means of ethically justifying infanticide.

Evidence for either side about whether humans are 'helping it along' or not.

>its global warming
>now its climate change
>tomorrow its manspreading mansplaining hetero cis climate change

>global warming is real and its a threat to our world
world actually cools down
>it's called climate CHANGE

I can't believe people actually believe in this jewery

Child please.

Al Gore isn't a fucking Climate Scientist.
Would you rather the babies be born risking population growth?

lol you're so pathetic.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) pulled together 11,944 peer-reviewed papers about climate change. Of those, 66.4% of them had NO OPINION on anthropogenic or "man-made" global warming whatsoever. That's 7,930 of them. Again, they neither support or denounce AGW (anthropogenic global warming) they simply don't acknowledge it at all.

That leaves 4,014 papers that DO have an opinion on AGW. This is where the IPCC gets tricky. They claim 97% of the remaining studies support AGW. However, what they mean is that 97% of the remaining scientists simply acknowledge that there is SOME man-made effect on the climate. Not necessarily that it's a major, or even noticeable one, or even that there's any longterm result of human interference. Simply that humans do effect the environment in SOME way.

Now, this is where most liberals quit reading. "97% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is real! EAT THAT CONSERVASHITS!"

What matters is, of those "97%" how much did they say it actually affects the environment. And here's where everyone was misled. Only 64 papers suggest that AGW is the leading cause of climate change. That is 1.5% of the papers that even discuss AGW, and 0.5% of all global warming research.

What does that mean? 98.5% of all peer-reviewed scientific studies suggest man-made global warming is NOT a major factor in climate change.

I'd rather some middle ground be found between the literal slaughtering of innocent lives and everyone being allowed to vomit out five dozen kids until the world runs out of resources. I feel like it's not unreasonable to assume that SOME middle ground between those two points exist.

neither is bill nye or rachel maddow or barack obama

but they speak for the religion of global austerity to fight some battle against CO2

Is there no board that Sup Forums hasn't infected? I want these newfaggot Gen-Z niggerfaggots to fuck off already. Get back to your containment echo chamber and stay there.

Denying climate science doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you an edgy little contrarian fuck.

Climate change denial is so ridiculous, you people are so wrapped up in a web of conspiracy with zero evidence, you believe that tens of thousands of researchers publishing peer-reviewed data worldwide are all involved in some kind of conspiracy... to do what exactly? Muh carbon taxes?

Meanwhile, the multi-trillion dollar global Fossil fuel industry has spread propaganda and denial of scientific concepts since the 1980s to discredit the scientific data of climate change. Companies like Exxonmobil (Whose CEO your previous Trump appointed as SoS) has a long history of funding entities like the GCC, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute (the same guys who lobbied for big tobacco denying the health concerns of cigarette smoking), and George C. Marshall Institute among others. They have published funding showing the millions of dollars they have given these organizations directly, all of which are staffed with people denying the science of climate change and spread propaganda in conferences every year.

But no, that's not a conspiracy, it's some renewable energy conspiracy or liberal agenda or whatever retarded bullshit you believe.

See:

yes your alarmist eco cult is indeed stupid

I'm not sure you realize how ironic and retarded this statement is.

Like what?
Where are you getting your information from?

>SCIENCE BAD! TRUMP GOOD!

Good thread OP.

both sides have a motivation for proving their argument, the idea that the issue places wise, altruistic liberals against self-interested conservatives is absurd.

bill nye the engineer guy is not a climate scientist either you climate change shill.

childish alarmism. c02 emissions have never been lower in the western world

Directly from the IPCC, friend.

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

BN isnt a scientist

Meanwhile chinks and russians produce the biggest amount of harmful materials yet I dont see liberal fucks attack and demand anything from them.

>Is there no board that Sup Forums hasn't infected?
Can newfags please fuck off ?

Back in the old days (before Trump), Sup Forums and Sup Forums were a singular entity. All boards were very similar to Sup Forums when political discussions arose.

Ever since this election and the increase in traffic, the gap between Sup Forums and the other boards is widening. And it's not just because Sup Forums has become more radical.

>pop science
>good for anything other than getting kids to enjoy actual science

btw solar energy is useless when you know there is no sun, and without wind, wind turbines are useless too. duuuuuuuuuuuur.

>Like what?
It doesn't matter like what. Any alternative to abortion will automatically sound outlandish and foreign by virtue of it being what it is. But that's what would need to happen to effect change. Twenty years ago, you wouldn't have expected the President of the United States to make an executive order allowing grown men into public showers with little girls. But in the current year, you don't bat an eye.

So too with alternatives to abortion.

>See my source-less bullshit from cherrypicking data

No thanks Sup Forums-tard. No fucking shit most papers on climatology have NO OPINION on climate change. That's not fucking mindblowing, climatology is not just about AGW you stupid fuck, it's a multi-disciplinary field. Do you even know the first thing about Earth Science? I actually have a degree in Geology focusing on Petrology and Mineralogy, you?

The IPCC never made the 97% claim either you dumb fuck, the 97%, so again you are LYING like the little cunt you are. That is from John Cook, a guy who runs SkepticalScience, not the fucking IPCC you stupid cunt. Can you even read?

All you can do is cry "MUH LIBRULS" because you're so stuck in this identity politics bullshit. People like you take politics into fucking EVERYTHING, you can't see merit in anything that isn't supported by your little echo chamber. It's so sad and juvenile.

Also, you little faggot, CONSENSUS MEANS NOTHING. The scientific research and PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHED DATA stands for itself. There is EVIDENCE that has been collected for over 50 years now, not just paleoclimatology data, but land, ocean and satellite temperature records, snow and ice records and many MANY MORE.

Fuck off with your anti-science agenda, crawl back into your hole where others parrot your shitty opinions please.

Again, your entire argument is based on concensus, which means NOTHING in science. ONLY THE EVIDENCE MATTERS, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports the science of AGW. Go fuck yourself you misinformation spreading cunt.

>President of the United States to make an executive order allowing grown men into public showers with little girls
Finally!

He cited his source: And in the opening few paragraphs it confirms half of his post.

you're having a meltdown right now. it's not doing whatever argument you have any service.

Bad science BAD
calling out the bullshit GOOD

you should give it a try

then stop changing names from global warming to climate change. we have a top scientist at cern ovah here.