Fox Anchor Wonders If Moon Volcanoes Mean Global Warming Isn't Happening
From the July 27 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
TRANSCRIPT:
JON SCOTT: Does it go, you know, anywhere close to the climate change debate that's underway here on earth? I mean, you know, if the moon had --
BILL NYE: Well, it does for me.
SCOTT: -- had erupting volcanoes, a few years, well, a few million years ago, however you want to put it --
NYE: No, billion.
SCOTT: -- you know, it's not like we've been up there burning fossil fuels.
NYE: Uh, no, volcanoes are not connected to the burning of fossil fuels, it's connected to mining, but the big thing for us, on my side of this thing, is the science is true, and so when you discover -- the people who got really got involved in climate change, got involved in it often by studying Venus, the planet Venus. So the physics, the science that happens on Venus, is the same as the science that happens on the earth, the science that happens on the moon, in this case the geology the study of rocks, that happens on the moon, is the same science that happens on the earth. So when you say to yourself, well, I'm going to ignore all the evidence of climate change, you're saying, I'm going to ignore the best ideas anybody's ever had, that's science. And so this is quite troubling to those of us on our side of it.
SCOTT: Why aren't they erupting now?
NYE: Well the moon cooled off, that's a great question. That's a fabulous question. The moon is quite a bit smaller than the earth so it cools off faster.
Previously:
FOXLEAKS: Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science
The coal companies MUST be lining their pockets or something.
Back to the drawing board.
http://www.google.com/
/are you serious?
1. markbfoot199 ... .. Your Live link here...
2. mjlilgui ... Your Live link here ...
Got any numbers to back up your droppings?
Roy Spencewr can say anything he wants but his statements don't match with reality.
This is a link to a website that educates the public about the reality of man made global warming. They have responses to over 150 arguments made by so called 'skeptics'.
Bill Nye gets a thumbs up for breaking it down in very simple, straightforward terms, and putting the utterly stupid supposition of the global warming denier host to bed in a calm, non-confrontational way.
as for the roy spencer ploy:
heres what real scientist have to say
I am just wondering here, if anyone on the opposite side of science can please inform me, as to why we should continue to burn fossil fuels instead of using renewable energy.
I hear the age old argument, that man isn't creating climate change, but I never hear, well even if burning coal doesn't cause climate change, it does cause pollution right? And since we need air and water to live, shouldn't we be looking into, at the very least, clean energy?
Because huge corporations make loads of money doing so and faux bots are beholden to these interests. Does that answer your question? Huge profits trump climate change and pollution.
I've always wondered why even the "ween away" approach isn't even discussed when dealing with our energy consumption and dependence on an unstable world market to meet growing United States and World demands for energy.
There's little sense and a general lack of traditional American values in throwing up our arms and saying that since we can't meet total demand instantly and without investment from renewable energy, that we must give up on it and just hope for the best from fossil fuels.
That's not the America I was taught to love, the America that stuns the world with new discoveries and forward thinking. This is instead the America of corporate greed and apathy.
Thanx for making a point of this, wizbing. I always get a laugh out of the denial cultists framing science as a "pro and con" opinion model.
They've been so indoctrinated that every reality is a political issue that they see "facts" as favoring one side or the other.
I've had wingnuts call me a " Global Warming advocate" or a " Climate Change Proponent". It's like calling somebody who admits that cancer exists, and wants to do something about it, a "Cancer fan", and somebody who thinks cancer is a hoax "neutral" or a "skeptic".
The media have done a pretty good job on the gullible.
The media has done a good job of defining truth and fiction as two sides of an argument.
Anybody who doesn't give BS the same respect as facts is "intolerant', according to right wing political correctness.
Thanks, ILD
For example, someone who keeps repeating the same talking points over and over, when those talking points are easily debunked and proven wrong by facts, then it would be safe to say that person is either an idiot, or a partisan hack.
For example:
If someone defends James O'Keefe as a "journalist", even though it's been proven he doctors his videos and misrepresents himself and his subjects through editing techniques repeatedly, I'd say that person is an idiot or a partisan hack. The record of willful distortion and trickery clearly shows James O'Keefe is a fraud, not a journalist.
Does that clarify things?
BTW, I've never said O'Keefe is a journalist.
What kind of crystal are you referring to wiz? Just kidding!
Although I do recall something about leaked emails that indicted some kind of cover-up about the validity of a number of the AGW crowd's data.
BTW, I agree that man contributes to GW and we need to get off fossil fuels ASAP. Somebody here said we need to at least merge into clean energy, which is exactly what I think too. Honest efforts are needed to develop cost-effective ways to produce clean energy. We already know how - nuclear energy like France - but too many here are unnecessarily paranoid about the safety of these plants.
There are very few who think it's necessary or even feasible to convert completely to clean energy sources immediately. The mainstream and rational school of thought is that we have already waited too long to start implementing and developing renewable, clean energy sources to slowly ween us away from complete fossil fuel dependence, and there is no time like the present to start the process.
Those who claim that there is some cabal of militant environmentalists who demand instant withdrawal from all fossil fuel sources are creating a strawman for those without a clear understanding of the true price of continued fossil fuel dependence to lash out against.
Tell me what is the drawback of slowly refining and implementing technologies that reduce our need to import oil from regions of the world that are unstable and despotic? What is the drawback to harnessing resources that produce energy with less or without any carbon emissions? What is the drawback to having energy sources that can be harnessed domestically and do not rely on an intricate transportation scheme to get them to the consumer?
These are the types of rational, common sense questions and debates we should be having. There is a place for nuclear energy, and a need to ensure safe processing and maintenance of this potentially dangerous technology. Fossil Fuels will continue to be our primary energy source into the foreseeable future, despite the drawbacks. There also many benefits to the pursuit of clean, safe, renewable energy to supplement our growing energy needs. To simply dismiss the benefits to our National security, health, and safety that will come with continued research and development of such energy sources makes little sense when we have proven ourselves to be world leaders in technology and innovation in the past.
Did you not see my above post where I said, "BTW, I agree that man contributes to GW and we need to get off fossil fuels ASAP. Somebody here said we need to at least merge into clean energy, which is exactly what I think too. Honest efforts are needed to develop cost-effective ways to produce clean energy."
In other words, I had already answered you question / addressed your comment. Where did I go wrong?
Turns out that mdpi.com appears to be similar to those folks who publish their own books because no legit organization will do it for you.
An author pays mdpi.com some money, and then mdpi.com prints the article. It's not "peer-reviewed" like it would be if it were truly published in a scientific journal.
What I read from the press release is that their findings might mean something, but they don't know that it means anything.
And I can't find an original source for the press release.
But I have found out about Roy Spencer, the author. He's a long-time denier of manmade global warming who's been trying to dispute the findings of others for decades.
Suggest you make sure that your Adobe Reader is up-to-date version.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
FWIW, here is the paper's abstract.
Pajamas Media and Forbes blogger James Taylor are both running with this story. Taylor is a senior fellow at the very rightwing Heartland Institute.
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/
Your live here...
I've lost count of how many right wingers I've seen busted for plagiarizing right wing propaganda as their own thoughts. It's as if they're so immersed in dishonesty that they don't understand what's wrong with plagiarism.
It's also funny that they don't think anybody will notice the shift in style from right wing BS written at a Jr. High level ( their original posts) to right wing propaganda written at a high school level ( Republican think tank intellectuals).
Of course, Spencer's study does not explain why the Earth's glaciers continue to recede at a dramatic pace and why arctic ice is shrinking like ice cubes in a summer lemon ade. But I guess our eyes deceive us.
Why is reducing the levels of pollution we produce when it's easily possible a BAD idea to people at Fox? That's what I want to know.
By the way you don't have to go to the moon to study rocks, just watch Fox News.
Fox news, don't play games with Bill Nye "The Science Guy!"
But ooooooooooooo, the moron got schooled by Bill Nye
there was a TV series in the early 90's called 'The Miracle Planet'. in one of the first episodes (origin of the earth) they showed that water can be contained in meteors; they were able to heat meteorites till the water vapor could be trapped and condensed into pure water.
that means there could also be water at other places on the moon. i admit that i don't know, but i'd guess they'd be chondrite meteors, maybe carbonaceous.
if any reserves of water can be found, they'd be more valuable than gold or platinum or any other valuable metal, maybe all put together. they could help make colonies self-sufficient.
an atmosphere wouldn't hold because the gravity's 1/6th that of the earth. if any water or water ice was on the surface, in time it'd sublimate into space because of the low gravity.
anyway, all this has been by memory, and i'd welcome corrections.
ROTFLMAO
I know Bill Nye says, "That's a fabulous question.....and it is a great question, if you are a frickin' FOURTH grader!
Remember when you were a kid, and that really shy and stupid kid in class would finally ask a question, a really stupid one, and all the other kids laughed?
That's when the teacher had to really fluff that kid, for fear he'd never ask another question. This is when we heard " There's no such thing as a stupid question".
I've never seen this "special treatment" given to a supposedly normal adult before.
He turns the argument on its head and says, and I paraphrase, "the evidence for climate change is based on the very best scientific research, so it's very dumb to ignore it. And I find it really troubling that people do."
Oh yeah? But Rush Limbaugh said climate change is a hoax because of air conditioners or something.. I can't remember exactly but it was spot on! Stupid liberals and their air conditioners. Think they so smart
Having a scientist on Fox News is like the Flat Earth Society having an astronaut as a guest speaker.
I am kinda shocked that Bill Nye was on.
Yeah...he's a no-go for FOX.
Oh wait.
Never mind.
You may be ineligible at this point, but just the fact that you realize you need to do some work is a plus.
Good luck!
On matters of science, I think I'll take the word of Bill Nye over a Fox News anchor, thank you very much.
Let's keep it real here. If the topic were how to read copy with proper inflection and look into the correct camera, I'd go with the news anchor.
If you are willing to take the word of a Fox News anchor over Bill Nye on matters of science, then I think you have got the problem, my friend.
Thank you, at least, for cogent responses. I also appreciate the (not so) subtle insults to my intellect. I don't spend a lot of time here at MMFA, but more likely than not, I have direct personal attacks when I post. Maybe it's my screen name.
As for the global warning hysteria, when I wore a much younger man's clothing, the "Coming Ice Age" was the hue and cry:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
I thought you two would appreciate the perspective. Please let me know what you think.
As for Jon Scott, that was about as vapid an argument / question as could be constructed. No problem there.
AND COOLSLAW -
For my edification, would you take Paul Krugman's word over, say, Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman? It would give me a window on your views.
Thank you both in advance, gentlemen.(or gentlewoman, as appropriate…)
Steve
I hope YOU appreciate the real perspective.
And I can't speak for Coolslaw but yes I would take Krugman's word over Sowell or Friedman. I like my pundits to be...well accurate.
That's another good sign for you, admitting that your initial post was an ill-informed and sarcastic attempt at an insult at a lot of people.
Unless you were complaining that you're on the receiving end of personal attacks, which would just show a lack of self-awareness, and a very typical right wing love of playing the victim.
For the record, I'd take Krugman's word over both of the others. I certainly don't think Friedman is stupid, but I don't think he's honest. I'm not very familiar with Sowell, but what I have read from him have been mainly opinion pieces that seemed to be made up of meaningless talking points.
First of all, Calm down. I wasn't taking a dig at your intelligence. I was just making my point using a bit of humor. Your original post I responded to was quite sarcastic after all.
Now on to your question:
Short answer, yes.
Here's why:
Paul Krugman's editorials are based on hard numbers and historical precedent. A good economist may have an ideological leaning, as they are human beings, and as human beings are susceptible to having opinions. Taking that into account, Krugman's track record on predictive models and outcomes has been incredibly accurate.
Now, I acknowledge that Sowell and Freidman make an interesting case for their economic theories as well, but I have to say that they fall flat when taken out of the realm of theory and are practiced in reality. Supply side theory has proven to be an unworkable failure. The economic models have simply not panned out and accomplished what the authors supposed they would accomplish. Rather then revisiting their theories, they place the blame on failure to implement them completely and dig in their ideological heels.
Scientific Law, yes. Scientific Theory, not necessarily.
So then I guess you have a more relevant truth for "scientific theory", or are you willing to admit scientific theory is the closest thing to the truth we have yet to find and as more truth reveals it self through study, it will in turn become both "truth" and "scientific law". And please, please, please admit to us and yourself that when proven wrong and the truth does come out that ALL scientists have a willingness to accept that proof unlike those Political scientist types who continue to cling to falsehoods after proof is stapled to their foreheads.
That said, a theory is just as good. I think many people get a theory and a hypothesis mixed up. A theory has a working track record of being correct even though it lacks a mathematical Proof. It's just as valid though. A hypothesis is more of a proposal or new idea.
I've seen this a lot. Translated roughly, it means, "I do not understand that the word theory has several definitions."
Like the fact of gravity or the germ fact of disease.
"Having a scientist on Fox News is like the Flat Earth Society having an astronaut as a guest speaker."
Thank you blueline!
"To evaluate if CO2 emissions from volcanoes or other sources have an atmospheric impact on the moon like they do on earth would require that the moon actually have an atmosphere."
Doing basic research on a suject prior to interviewing an expert is the hallmark of a journalist and further evidence that Fox doesn't have any.
Roger Ailes, metal baseball bat in hand, prowls the corridors of the FOX NEWS studios, sniffing the air for a whiff of journalism.
Not surprisingly, the muscles he'd need for a good swing have atrophied to the point of uselessness.
Not if we have a friend in Jesus.
Where did we come from?
Our friend Jesus.
What else is there to know?
Here's your sign.
Somewhere, the FOX NEWS underling responsible for booking a person of the actual scientific persuasion is recovering from the vicious baseball bat beating just inflicted by Roger Ailes.
There is absolutely no way in the world someone can be genuinely stupid enough to go on national television and argue that volcanoes have anything to do with burning fossil fuels.
Nope. No way. I refuse to believe it. We cannot be that collectively stupid. We just can't.
I am taking a serious listen to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon right now. Us and Them.
I never thought of using Fox hosts as anchors but I can't think of a better way for them to make themselves useful.
Sorry, waaay too much gas - they'd just float.
That just implies that this guy is so rock-dumb that he lacks the natural human inclination to twist a doorknob, which is hilarious.
..I'll stop geeking out now.
/loves design
:x
especially the blond foxettestepfordolts.
FNC only has corporate whores that are in charge of other corporate whores.
Let's talk about the craters on the moon. Doesn't that somehow relate to a lot of Fox people since their brains have lots of hollow areas? Or is it that they only have rocks instead of brains?
This anchor has no business talking about science, logic, or anything that relates to rational thought.
Not to geek out too much...
I've always equated the Fox Talking Points kind of like Star Trek's Holodeck. It all seems real when they are talking and interacting amongst fellow Holodeck people, but once you try to take it outside the confines of the Holodeck.... poof, it disappears.
Bill Nye is why I loved science in the first place ;D
This is the part where the Foxbots pop in and yell "SCIENCE MAKES YOU LIBRUL! THE SCIENCE IN THE BIBUL IS GUD ENUF FOR ME"
I had some friends that went and they said he was awesome. I'm still jealous of them.
That segment, that single brief interview with Bill Nye is a microcosm of the greater problem poisoning our national cable news industry.
Yeah, I felt really sorry for him. He's so smart, and has done such a good job bringing science to the masses, especially children, in addition to working on some pretty cool stuff in the field of science.
Fox doesn't deserve him. For realsies.
NYE: No, billion."
Well at least they are not into the young earth crap.
That would be 5,500 in GOD years ... in Human years it would be Billions of years !
That must be why they call themselves the Young Earth society.... right? Wait a second....
It's a blog post.... not a reliable news source. Mr Taylor appears nowhere online other than this Forbes blog. Heartland Institute? Their motto..... Free Market Solutions! LMAO
Want more?
Supposed Link
Took forever to load and ended up as a Bad Gateway.
I can't believe how ignorant many of you lefties are. You are sheep.
What will it take for you to believe it? Does it have to come from James Hansen, Michael Mann, or the real expert on this topic, the Goracle himself, for it to possibly sink in?
I CHALLENGE MMfA TO DEBUNK THIS ARTICLE. I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU TO LOOK AT THIS EVIDENCE AND FIND ANY FALLACIES.
But no, you'd rather attack and ignore. It's what you are all good at when reality and the facts hit you square on the nose.
Cowards.
Why don't you read over the comments again, and maybe you'll see how you're being suckered.
It's called an echo chamber, Ravenrog, and you are plugged into it deeply. A corporate funded, obviously partisan think tank designed around the idea of promoting "free market" solutions is part of that echo chamber.
It's like acquitting a crime suspect solely based on the character testimony of their own mother, or settling a class action suit against a corporation based solely on the testimony of the CEO.
I'm still waiting to hear what the actual climate scientists get out of publishing findings that go against the desires of the big corporate funders.
I'm sorry if this is an inconvenient reality for you.
Your point? That doesn't debunk man-made climate change. Also, the man who wrote said article is associated with the Heartland Institute who have been climate change skeptics. Of COURSE he would write on this! It's in his agenda.
In conclusion: conservative article is conservative. Warming is still happening, POSSIBLY at a slower rate. Since I haven't straight up read the actual published scholarly article, I can't comment on the source or bias of that, etc.
TL;DR It doesn't debunk anything. Guy who wrote it was conservative and it shows. Warming still is occurring.
Once again, you fail to troll MMFA, Raven.
RRog debunk this: "The average surface temperature on Venus is a very toasty 894 °F! However, Venus's upper atmosphere is a startling 4-5 times colder than Earth's upper atmosphere."
RRog, why is it so hard for you to understand how science is done?
You need to learn to read the posts if you're going to not make a fool of yourself.
Here's a link to an article discussing critically one of Dr. Spencer's earlier peer-reviewed articles:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Let's just say he is part of a very, very tiny minority among climatologists, and leave it at that.
BILL NYE: Well, Thats a great question.
SCOTT: -- Thanks,I just figured that Jesus must have had shoes,and the bible never mentioned climate change being caused by Christians---
NYE: --No,No i think you have taken a wrong turn here now.....
SCOTT: -- But i'm right though about my shoe and fossil fuels--
BILL NYE:-- Sure whatever,i think were done."
Also:
1) Io, a moon of Jupiter
2) Triton, a moon of Neptune
3) Enceladus, a moon of Saturn
4) Mars .. Victim of Climate Change
5) Venus .. Victim of Climate Change
Bill Nye, the Science Guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzouFaMJU4
Get down with your bad self.
Your Live Link ...
You know he realizes he's on Fox News, because he put things in simpler terms than he ever did on his show.
Right there he should have lost any sane listener.
and don't forget that unions have nothing to do with those working cameras. and don't forget "..the tide comes in.. and the tide goes out.."(and what does the moon have to do with it?)
There really should be no expectation of anything remotely intelligent coming from these folks.. its all political theater to them.. minions reading the lines their masters write for them.