Nye is as big a fake and hack as algore.  He apparently never had a job as an engineer. 

Anyone that has gone to an engineering school knows the mech engineering majors (ME) are generally the dumbest.

Figures he would try a scam like this, algore likely is advising him how to play it.

"settled science" or "proven fact"?

"settled science" or "proven fact"?

It's obvious Bill Nye is "a scientist at heart."

Nye is as big a fake and hack as algore.  He apparently never had a job as an engineer. 

Anyone that has gone to an engineering school knows the mech engineering majors (ME) are generally the dumbest.

Figures he would try a scam like this, algore likely is advising him how to play it.

I'm taking it you're not a mechanical engineer. . . 

I at the engineering school that I went to, I would say that  "less intelligence inclined" were the traditional civil engineers (CE) and the civil/environmental engineers (CEE).  That said, after the 200 level, I didn't interact that much with the MEs or EEs (electrical).  I would have many CE and CEE in my classes and they typically helped round out the low end of the bell curve.    

In practice, I would say that CE typically requires less higher technical knowledgege, in General. crap roles down hill.

Looks like bill nye won the debate in the video.  Basically tucker was screaming that since he didn't have the exact percentage everything he said is false. He is asking for evidence that humans at this point in technology cant predict.  Basically akin to someone in the 1900s demanding the exact size of earth just to prove it is round.  Technology back then had no way to prove the exact dimensions of earth.  But we all know it now and that it is indeed round.  I feel Bill is a net positive for the move toward science he is helping young people get into science. 

Looks like bill nye won the debate in the video.  Basically tucker was screaming that since he didn't have the exact percentage everything he said is false. He is asking for evidence that humans at this point in technology cant predict.  Basically akin to someone in the 1900s demanding the exact size of earth just to prove it is round.  Technology back then had no way to prove the exact dimensions of earth.  But we all know it now and that it is indeed round.  I feel Bill is a net positive for the move toward science he is helping young people get into science.

i'm not surprised you think nye won...

Looks like bill nye won the debate in the video.  Basically tucker was screaming that since he didn't have the exact percentage everything he said is false. He is asking for evidence that humans at this point in technology cant predict.  Basically akin to someone in the 1900s demanding the exact size of earth just to prove it is round.  Technology back then had no way to prove the exact dimensions of earth.  But we all know it now and that it is indeed round.  I feel Bill is a net positive for the move toward science he is helping young people get into science.

If you only argue conclusions and can't cite the supporting facts, then you win nothing. 

It's a basic question based on a basic premise Nye was stating.  If MAN is causing climate change, we MUST be able to prove that.  To do so, we must know to what degree that's happening.

Nye is relying on his own "common sense" to tell him the conclusion without having any concrete data to back it up.  That's the whole Climate Change debate in a nutshell. 

When you push a belief, that's not science.  That's religion.

Anyone that has gone to an engineering school knows the mech engineering majors (ME) are generally the dumbest.

Not sure I went to an "engineering school" but presuming I did, the figure is currently at Anyone - 2 people.

If you only argue conclusions and can't cite the supporting facts, then you win nothing. 

It's a basic question based on a basic premise Nye was stating.  If MAN is causing climate change, we MUST be able to prove that.  To do so, we must know to what degree that's happening.

Nye is relying on his own "common sense" to tell him the conclusion without having any concrete data to back it up.  That's the whole Climate Change debate in a nutshell. 

When you push a belief, that's not science.  That's religion.

If you scream for facts that a person doesn't have and use that as an excuse that you won clearly you haven't won. Religion is 100% belief with no proof or "science".  Climate change and bill are probably around 80% proven.  But harping on the missing 20% to deny everything is dumb. 

If you scream for facts that a person doesn't have and use that as an excuse that you won clearly you haven't won. Religion is 100% belief with no proof or "science".  Climate change and bill are probably around 80% proven.  But harping on the missing 20% to deny everything is dumb.

wait 80%?
i thought it was a "proven fact"?
or as your TV friend says "settled science"?

Not sure I went to an "engineering school" but presuming I did, the figure is currently at Anyone - 2 people.

All right "Most other engineering majors"

There were several ME types in my basic AC/DC circuits class taking it for the 2nd and 3rd times.  School required cross-discipline classes and they just could not pass this one.  The rest of us had no problem with static and dynamic, stregth of materials, etc.

wait 80%?
i thought it was a "proven fact"?
or as your TV friend says "settled science"?

"are probably around 80% proven"

Talk about pulling crap out of your butt.  Just as easy to write "are probably around 80%" psuedo-religious BS.

I'm taking it you're not a mechanical engineer. . . 

EE 

Never ran into any CE types that I was aware of.

If you scream for facts that a person doesn't have and use that as an excuse that you won clearly you haven't won. Religion is 100% belief with no proof or "science".  Climate change and bill are probably around 80% proven.  But harping on the missing 20% to deny everything is dumb.

See what happens when you have no facts?  You use words like "probably" and "around". 

That's why Climate Change is a THEORY, and NOT a fact-based, provable LAW.  Laws, like gravity -- which you like to bring up -- are indisputable, proven and predictable.  Climate change is not any of these.  The margin of error so far on all these climate related disasters is 100%.  Why is the latest one any better?

Sorry, dude.  Your religion might be based on some percentage of actual truth, but so are other religions.  I've studied it.  Stories in the Bible actually did happen.  There are plenty of other, independent writings which corroborate the basic facts of Jesus actually living and visiting the places in the Bible. The census that took Mary & Joseph to Bethlehem was documented.  The parting of the Red Sea was also recorded -- not as a religious story of God parting the waters, but of the Reed Sea, where it was mostly muddy swampland.  The chariots of Egypt would have gotten bogged down there, and the winds blowing would have dried the land enough for the freed slaves to "assist" God in smiting the soldiers, now that the slaves were greater in number and without chariots to fight against.  All recorded as history.

So, you keep believing, but don't act like your beliefs are better than any others' until you can prove them.

Just watched the video.  It wasn't a debate, at all.  Just dancing around the questions that couldn't be answered by "science".

The discussion was regarding documentation (I'll avoid using the word prove here) about the ASSERTION that evidence of climate change is the rate at which the climate is changing.  Nye went on to quote documentation of events that appear to document climate change.  I don't think anyone would really deny that the global climate is changing.  The key question in this discussion is what is the cause.  If one points to the rate in which climate change is progressing as evidence that humans are the cause, but yet cannot answer the questions let alone document facts to support that ASSERTION, it's just a belief. 

Ok, devil's advocate.  Carlson's question about what would the climate be like if there are no humans to me isn't a "fair" one.  Sort of like the Back to the Future deal where events of the past change the future.  I don't think anyone can say with the level of certainty that would be required to prove something to assert that if humans never started burning coal that the sea levels wouldn't be rising at the rate they are today.  That Nye points out the "fact" that wine producers are having to grow their crops further north than every before is perhaps an interesting tid-bit of information, but hardly proves that the global climate would be where it was in 1750 (or whatever the year he said). 

If one is to cite data to prove something, one has to take into overall context of that data.  Nye starts by saying that the last ice age was 10,000 years ago and then goes on to say something about effects are apparent over millions of years.  Rate of change is measureable change over time.  Nye couldn't answer either, at least to me.  It wasn't a debate.  It was someone spewing their stubbornly held beliefs and stating phenomenon that they believe as linked to that phenomenon.  When the "debate" strays to appealing to Carlson's emotions about caring for his children is when I tend to roll my eyes. 

To me, it all goes back to what is the main issue.  In my mind, the main issue here is the money that is being allocated to solving the "climate change problem" and that money is coming from all of us.  If I am going to pay for something, you better be able to convince me that it's worth it.  Not just a "trust me, I'm a scientist and know better than anyone" view point.  Yes, I may ultimately pay for the "climate change problem", which to me, at least right now seems to be a solution searching for a problem in that it has yet to be proven what causes climate change.

Ok.  People would get sick.  Say a local juju-man noticed that after a sick person sneezed in the presence of another and that the other would then get sick, the juju-man blamed it on the "rush of bad juju coming from the sick person and bad spirits causing transfer of bad juju".  Well, what was really happening is the sick person was spreading microscopic germs (bacteria, virus, etc) that caused the illness.  However, at that time, there wasn't any technology to prove that was happening, so the local juju-man's explanation was accepted as truth, which was really for the lack of better understanding.  Hell, it's common sense right.  Sick man sneezes, another gets sick, sneeze caused sickness.  Well, yeah, the sneeze is that contributed to the transfer of the germs, but as it turns out, wasn't the root cause.  In this case, maybe man's actions are the root cause, but it is up to those who assert that that is the case to prove their point, not for the skeptics to prove otherwise. 

EE 

Never ran into any CE types that I was aware of.

More just friendly teasing.  Interestingly, MEs used to have one of the highest salaries in the industry.  Or at least they used to.  However, they carry the highest rate of lawsuits for negligence.  The data showed that for many years, but it's been a while since I saw that data.  I used to tease the MEs on our design team about that.  Yeah, there's other things going on behind the rate of lawsuits and mostly part of being a sort of low hanging fruit.  That said, it didn't stop us non-MEs from ribbing the MEs.   

Looks like bill nye won the debate in the video.

Not even close.

Basically tucker was screaming that since he didn't have the exact percentage everything he said is false.

What Tucker said is true. If this science is "settled", then anyone who believes can say with 100% certainty and with evidence to back it up exactly how much humans affect the climate. And since he couldn't, and you can't either, the science is obviously not "settled" and is completely open to debate. You have no proof and as I posted in an earlier thread, the numbers don't lie. You can deny the truth all you want but you can't answer the one big question that is so completely relevant to this discussion. Without the knowledge of how much humans affect the climate then the discussion of so called climate change is moot.

He is asking for evidence that humans at this point in technology cant predict.

To use your own words against you... If humans don't know at this point how much they affect the climate then no one can say at all with any definity that humans DO affect the climate in any shape form or manner.

As I stated my position before, I believe that humans do pollute enough that we can affect the climate in some way. The problem is the numbers don't lie. The affect, if any is so small that it is not even worth talking about. After the numbers proving that humans cannot affect the climate enough to make a difference, and the fact that your own words show that the science is far from settled and no where near exact, for you to say that the science is 100% correct without being able to give a definitive answer as to how much it affects the climate just proves the science is not exact, not settled and cannot predict how much, if any humans are affecting the climate.

That position seems extreme, I question whether or not you stated or recognize your own position correctly. You believe it is proven that humans cannot affect the climate enough to make a difference?

Say a local juju-man noticed that after a sick person sneezed in the presence of another and that the other would then get sick, the juju-man blamed it on the "rush of bad juju coming from the sick person and bad spirits causing transfer of bad juju".  Well, what was really happening is the sick person was spreading microscopic germs (bacteria, virus, etc) that caused the illness.  However, at that time, there wasn't any technology to prove that was happening, so the local juju-man's explanation was accepted as truth, which was really for the lack of better understanding.

Haha! However I would suggest not to underestimate the juju-man, his explanation is not really that much worse, mostly just different terminology and a shallower understanding. Remember, "modern" medicine used to perform lobotomies and suck blood out with leeches not long ago. "Current" medicine in my opinion is just as bad with our acceptance of the ridiculous idea of "mental illness". Or the way we "treat" Alzheimer's thinking its due to chemical imbalances in brain fluids (I suspect it's a much more fundamental problem such as the loss/death of brain cells with age, or perhaps a limitation with animal intelligence itself i.e. running out of hard drive space).

Another disturbing analogy -- the current "judicial" system versus the middle ages "church" system. If you replace the terminology, priests with judges, banishment/stoning with imprisonment/injection, religious law with fuzzy corrupt politician law....is it really so different?