Getting back to Bill Nye.

In this video Bill Nye the mechanical engineering "science guy" invokes "science" and the "facts" in support of his views in favour of abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg

And here's Greg Koukl dissecting Nye's arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmFRcmIypiU

Flann 5 wrote:Getting back to Bill Nye.

In this video Bill Nye the mechanical engineering "science guy" invokes "science" and the "facts" in support of his views in favour of abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg

And here's Greg Koukl dissecting Nye's arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmFRcmIypiU

I almost don't even want to look at that video?
Nye "sciencing" about abortion??

Give me a break.

Will this phony do anything for money or what?

ant wrote:In this video Bill Nye the mechanical engineering "science guy" invokes "science" and the "facts" in support of his views in favour of abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg

And here's Greg Koukl dissecting Nye's arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmFRcmIypiU




I almost don't even want to look at that video?
Nye "sciencing" about abortion??

Give me a break.

Will this phony do anything for money or what?

Hi ant. It's quite bizarre that Nye is using his image as a science guy to bolster the impression that science and the facts support his position on an ethical question.

It's not a simple subject ethically but Nye is overweeningly confident that there is no real issue here.

Ireland has highly restrictive abortion laws allowing for it only in the case where the mother's life is endangered. It's likely that this law will be liberalized going by current opinion polls.

Amnesty International are vigorously campaigning to change the law here in Ireland. I find it strange that a human rights organization are taking such a negative view of the rights of humans in the womb.

Amnesty do good work for sure, but this is very strange in my opinion.

Here's a sample of the public debate on the subject here in Ireland at the moment.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pa ... in_Ireland

Here's what I can't understand:

Despite my personal acknowledgement of a warming planet
Despite my acknowledgement and support of the need to take action
Despite my complete and utter disdain for pollution and raping of our natural landscape (what's left of it)...,

I am still referred to as a "bigot" and "denier" because I will not point the finger at human beings as being strictly and completely responsible for climate change.


It's like a weird cult for people like Robert. It's so Orwellian.

ant wrote:Here's what I can't understand:

Despite my personal acknowledgement of a warming planet
Despite my acknowledgement and support of the need to take action
Despite my complete and utter disdain for pollution and raping of our natural landscape (what's left of it)...,

I am still referred to as a "bigot" and "denier" because I will not point the finger at human beings as being strictly and completely responsible for climate change.

From what I can glean on the subject of anthropogenic global warm here are a few items. The planet has warmed over the last century. A majority of climate scientist think that human C02 emissions have contributed to warming.

Their views of the level of warming that is human induced varies.

It seems evident that the planet was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. E.G. vineyards in England and even Scotland, and Greenland was farmed.

Whether that was global is disputed.

People like Piers Corbyn are often dismissed as cranks. Whether his solar magnetic theory is correct or not I don't know, but he consistently outperforms the British Met office on long range forecasting.

He maintains that it's because the Met office fail to factor in the solar activity sufficiently. His belief in the primacy of the sun for weather and climate is driving his methods of forecasting.

The satellite temperature statistics are more conservative than ground level temperature statistics.

The IPPC's climate models are failing continually by over predicting warming,suggesting their models assumptions are incorrect and perhaps assuming C02 plays a stronger role than it actually does.

Much of the claims about climate related disasters are exaggerated. E.g the stats of the U.S. Hurricanes Centre don't show increases in either frequency or intensity.

There are degrees of skepticism about AGW.

I think Freeman Dyson is right in not trying to ascribe motives but focusing on the science. I don't think there is some global conspiracy going on, but it's roots were political during Margaret Thatcher's time.

It may be that the paradigm is wrong but it's the currently accepted one of the majority of climate scientists.

It seems evident that the planet was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. E.G. vineyards in England and even Scotland, and Greenland was farmed.

Here was one study that essentially corroborates most of what you've stated above:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Abstract

Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

However.., HOWEVER, from my recollection from when I saturated myself in this entire issue, I believe it's the RATE of warming which is the key indicator the planet is warming due to an artificial event that is likely directly related to our carbon print. It's the rate that's alarming.

Whether his solar magnetic theory is correct or not I don't know,

Solar activity and its relationship to climate is notoriously complicated field of science. It's something that we can't give any serious empirical weight to at the present time.

The satellite temperature statistics are more conservative than ground level temperature statistics.

That is true, from what I've read, but takes nothing away from the data which indicates surface temps are consistently increasing at a troublesome rate.

The IPPC's climate models are failing continually by over predicting warming,suggesting their models assumptions are incorrect and perhaps assuming C02 plays a stronger role than it actually does

.

The IPPC has bureaucratic problems as well. Their short term models are terrible. Long term remain in question, but the trend is holding.

Much of the claims about climate related disasters are exaggerated. E.g the stats of the U.S. Hurricanes Centre don't show increases in either frequency or intensity.

True, but probably excusable. The El Nino prediction was horribly off in southern ca. But that's more of a local phenomena that does little to disprove the state of the CLIMATE

I think Freeman Dyson is right in not trying to ascribe motives but focusing on the science. I don't think there is some global conspiracy going on, but it's roots were political during Margaret Thatcher's time.

I've mentioned Dyson before here and how much he's respected within the scientific community. He's a living legend and has been described as "There's intelligence, and brilliance. Then there's Freeman Dyson" I've read a couple of his books. He's a man to admire greatly. He's essentially why I remain skeptical about whether or not global warming is entirely Mankind's fault.
I'll take his opinion any day over most anyone else.

here's one for ant and flann (honestly guys, no fooling, i think you'll love watching Feynman "science guy" it right down the crapper)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D2RaDVkylY

Thanks.
Was this produced before or after his sexual predatory behavior was made public?


https://restructure.wordpress.com/2009/ ... n-a-whore/

Ant, isn't Richard Feynman's sex life unrelated to his science credentials?

Feynman's academic credentials are undisputed.
Don't know why yukrst decided to place Feynman in a topic about Bill Nye. Misplaced is putting it lightly.

I've never understood why people cry ad hominem only when it's convenient for them to do so.
Most everyone attacks a person's character when it suits them. The atheist Nietzsche made a career out of it.

As it relates to overt sexism, Feynman was a chickenhead. Everyone knows that, or should.