We're All Gonna Die: Bill Nye Discusses Climate Change

December 7, 2015

bill-nye-climate-change.jpg

This is a 4-mintue video of Bill Nye discussing climate change, and the things we as individuals can do to help prevent it. I learned a lot by watching it. Mostly facts and figures that I'll forget by the next time I'm arguing climate change at the bar and have to make up on the fly. I will do a bad job, my opposition will call me out, and I'll have to buy his next beer. Later, if I get drunk enough, I'll yell, "THIS IS FOR BILL" and attack him with a pool cue. It's what the Science Guy would have wanted.

Keep going for the video, then somebody email him and ask him how far in the future he had to travel to get that sweet suit jacket.

Thanks to Dungbee, who imports glacier ice to sell to rich people for their cocktails.

  • Trojanman

    Bill Nye would make a great doctor who

  • shashi

    The number 1 reason for the propagation of our human species across this globe is not due to our suitability for its conditions but rather our adaptability to its environments. The question of whether we have the power to change climate should not affect our moral imperative to leave this dwelling in a tidy state for those who may want to use it after us.

  • JJtoob

    Or those who may want to use it after us could adapt to it as well?

  • syllyn

    absolutely right - but caring for the planet, wanting to prevent pollution,and believing that we should look after it for perpetuity, does NOT necessarily mean one therefore is obligated to blindly believe in climate chnage

  • Rick Thomas

    Have we all forgotten about Climategate, fudging the numbers to make global warming look more severe?

  • syllyn

    yes, apparently many have! I have no doubt we should be looking after our planet, and have long tended towards being 'green' - yet I have not seen any real scientific evidence of climate change on the scale the warmest alarmists would like us all to believe.
    Personally, if it leads to us all being more green, I guess thats a result I wouldn't argue with, although I would prefer that change to be based on HONEST science.
    However, I do think there is real danger that, once people DO discover that climate change IS alarmist, that that may harm all genuine green initiatives & causes

  • Yikes GW. Really?

    Wanna know how someone is brainlessly spouting propaganda about MMGW? Listen for the "97% of Scientists agree" line. This little factoid has been endlessly repeated by the propagandists, and it has actually already been thoroughly debunked.

    For those who haven't heard, that statistic was based on the most
    manipulative, (and outright dishonest) practices of John Cook, an
    Australian "Scientist" back in 2009 who counted pretty much ANY paper
    that mentioned Global Warming as support for MMGW, leading a team of
    "researchers" (not scientists) to read, not the scientific papers
    submitted in 2009, but mainly just the abstracts of the papers, and even
    then it was confirmed that his 'researchers' concluded the OPPOSITE
    position that the authors of the papers themselves were demonstrating,
    something like 60% of the time. The Cook assertion that "97% of
    Scientists agree" is not science, it is bald-faced propaganda meant to
    appeal to stupid or intellectually lazy people, to give them a false
    sense of vindication for their cognitive bias (bandwagon fallacy). (Or in most cases, blind religious belief that we humans are evil and need to feel guilt about how we treat the Earth.)

    Wanna know why the 97%-myth is even dumber to use? Even if the 97% myth were true, "consensus" does not equal "truth". At one point it was the "Scientific consensus" that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. Did that mean that was true? Nope. It was the "Scientific consensus" that if you had an infection, doctors should cut you and let you bleed out the sickness. For someone to point to this 97%
    myth as inescapable proof of the truthfulness of their religion is just pathetic.

    If your side is right, if there is real reason and evidence that you can stand on, why this weird need to spit out the debunked 97% factoid? Because MMGW has NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. It is a political agenda pushed by well-intention-ed, but dangerously ignorant buffoons, and orchestrated by some pretty shady individuals.

  • syllyn

    well said - YES!

  • Deksam

    Awesome man!

  • Deksam

    The very fact that they had to change the name from Global Warming [temperatures going up] to Climate Change [temperatures going up and down] is conceding to the fact they know they had lost the argument on most all points.

    Carbon Tax and controlling the masses is what all this is about! The government loves Carbon Taxes, because it is one of the few taxes they can get people to actually throw their hard earned money at them and have almost nothing to show for it, except some really fat bank accounts like Al Gore's.

    Poor misunderstood Co2 is food for plants, this world has never been so green!

    But really, all cold up here in Canada, I wish it was getting warmer, I hate the cold. The colder it gets the more people die and the more money we have to pay to stay warm.

    I could go on and on, but I digress...

  • Richard H Sanford

    As soon as the bozos (with apologies to Bozo the Clown) practice what they preach, then maybe I'll listen to them. Until then they can continue streaking across the planet in their carbon and pollution spewing jets, living in energy wasteful homes and scolding us for not doing enough and I'll ignore them as they deserve.

  • GeneralDisorder

    I look forward to nuclear powered aircraft...

  • Richard H Sanford

    I look forward to teleconferencing. Oh, that already exists? Oh, then they could use it? Smart!

  • Curtis Rasmussen

    BSME, Bill. That does not make you a climatologist so STFU.

  • Munihausen

    Hey now...nothing wrong with BSMEs. Granted, I am not going on TV and misrepresenting reality.

  • Curtis Rasmussen

    I am one too. Expertise in one area does not guarantee intelligence in others. Just ask my wife.

  • Munihausen

    Reducing "pollution" and creating more energy-efficient technologies are perfectly noble goals. However, crushing the U.S. economy when India flat out refuses to do anything and China can't be trusted with anything, makes no sense. Solar and wind power delivery is horrendously expensive; the technology just isn't there, and unfortunately the experience we've had with the Fed subsidizing the development of such technologies has been a lesson in Cronyism 101.

    I would take these alarmists more seriously if any of them got behind nuclear power, which is an obvious and basically-inexhaustible solution. Neither Nye, Tyson, other TV scientists, or geopolitical figures do, and their refusal indicates to me that, unlike Bill's Problem -- Solution simplicity in he video, finding an actual "solution" is not the main goal.

  • Jordan Nass

    Nye's, Tyson's, and other scientists' refusal to embrace nuclear technology isn't because they aren't interested in a solution - it's because they probably know more about the subject than you.

    The cost of building, running, and maintaining a nuclear reactor results in essentially no net gain. You'd have to go out at least a dozen decimal places before you start seeing a positive return from a nuclear reactor, which essentially makes it a wash. On top of this, you have to deal with the spent nuclear rods that can have a half-life of over 4 billion years. Nuclear reactors are not a meaningful solution to the increasing power demands of the modern world.

  • syllyn

    criticizing others for not knowing enough about a subject, then proving that you know even less than they do, isn't a winning argument

  • Munihausen

    ...since when did proposed financial costs become considerations for the true-beliver crowd? This is all about supplanting fossil fuel-based energy production, no? Are you proposing that nuclear power generation is less attractive because the big, scary nuclear power companies, of course being heavily subsidized, would be insufficiently profitable? Nuclear waste storage, problematic only because voters are misinformed (but isn't everything?), has no appreciable affect on global temps.

    I am fascinated by your implication that woefully-inefficient solar / wind / happy-thought power generation and delivery tech will "meet the increasing...demands of the modern world."

blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Post
Next Post