So this guy, is he a reporter? He's terrible. He's not a reporter, he's not reporting, he's interviewing someone while the interviewer pushes an agenda that he clearly has. He doesn't want answers, he doesn't have an open mind. He's determined to be hostile.
"Just answer what percent climate change is due to humans!" So what answer is he hoping for? 73.2%? Of course not he just tries his best to slip up his guest on a technicality.
Normally when you interview someone, you don't treat them like a hostile witness do you? Is that what they teach in the highly accredited "fox news school of journalistics"?
Carlson goes on and on claiming "you shout down climate change deniers" when he's the one shouting the science guy down.
So this guy, is he a reporter? He's terrible. He's not a reporter, he's not reporting, he's interviewing someone while the interviewer pushes an agenda that he clearly has. He doesn't want answers, he doesn't have an open mind. He's determined to be hostile.
"Just answer what percent climate change is due to humans!" So what answer is he hoping for? 73.2%? Of course not he just tries his best to slip up his guest on a technicality.
Normally when you interview someone, you don't treat them like a hostile witness do you? Is that what they teach in the highly accredited "fox news school of journalistics"?
Carlson goes on and on claiming "you shout down climate change deniers" when he's the one shouting the science guy down.
This is actually one of the most wonderful interviews i had the pleasure of watching a few days ago, because it goes right to the heart of the polarization within the scientific community itself.
Tucker continuously asks for specific numbers or percentages to the claim that humans did affect climate change to Bill Nye. Bill Nye's never answers any specifics, and simply re-states that it is 'settled science' and vaguely humans did affect the climate. Tucker makes the point early on, to which exposes the entire wrong attitude of many people in the scientific community.
Science is based on skepticism.
'It is settled science' is not an acceptable answer, anywhere, at any time, in Science. Science should always be open to more evidence to everything, especially deeply held beliefs.
The contemptuous attitude many in the scientific community have to people skeptical or do not believe in their 'consensus beliefs' is incredibly sad to me, it was not so long ago that Scientists faced hurdles from those who believed in the 'consensus beliefs' of the broader society that disagreed with them.
Now Bill Nyes may have just been unprepared in the interview to give some basic statistics or numbers which i hope he gives them next time around.
However in this interview unfortunately Bill Nyes did a disservice to Science.
Here's the great secret about people like Tucker Carlson: he doesn't even believe what he's spewing. I'm sure deep down he's well aware of man made climate change. He just happens to be paid alot of money to lie to you on purpose.
And that's the difference between placed like FOX when compared to CNN, or the Daily Caller as opposed to the Washington Post. The later get things wrong, have their faults, but are at least TRYING, on some basic level, to provide you accurate information. FOX was conceived, from it's very inception by Roger Ailes, to deliberately mislead it's viewers. That's why it exists, and every segment of every day is tailored to that end.
And let me say this, FOX News is BRLLIANT at what it does. They are unbelievably effective at disseminating right-wing propoganda. Along with talk radio they have managed to brainwash roughly 30% of the country. It's actually a monumental feat.
Conservative attacks on and mistrust of the "mainstream" press, whatever it's faults, go back 30+ years and it all boils down to one thing: they brought down the criminal Presidency of Richard Nixon, and they've been working like hell ever since to make sure that never happens again. They've done a damn good job at it.
there is no polarization in the scientific community. Climate change is accepted fact by scientists around the world, the Republican party and the people who buy their messaging don't believe it. So that makes them think there's polarization because they are blasted with climate change is fake propaganda. They are pushing that message out on behalf of the energy lobby. This is the same ploy that cigarette companies pulled - yeah there's no consensus that smoking causes cancer! when they find one scientist they can pay off "oh there's no consensus!"
People can not believe in consensus belief - "It's going to get dark tonight" "yeah I don't believe it!" - well bully for you sir.
If people think reporting should be inviting people on your show then yelling at them is wonderful then I don't think people are understanding the role of reporting. You bring someone on, you ask him or her what she thinks about whatever, you listen, they tell the truth, that's it. That's how things should be done.
In Science, nothing is 'accepted fact' but merely degrees of confidence in theories due to the integrity of evidence.
The proper attitude in Science is skepticism.
Newtons Laws of Gravity was so popular it became the standard (and still is the standard in area's that don't need extreme rigor) in many practical applications today.
We know it is inaccurate and that Einstein's theory of Relativity is more accurate.
In time there may be another theory even superior to Einstein's.
It is however, very true that some scientific models for climate change have been proven false and inaccurate.
This does not disprove the general hypothesis that mankind has a significant and measurable affect on the climate.
However the proper attitude is to apply more skepticism on any theory of climate change so we can get to a more accurate theory that supports all evidence.
Imo, this was the last great act of true Patriotism of the outgoing Administration. Thanks to these efforts the actions of these traitors will eventually see the light of day. It's not a matter of if the other shoe eventually drops on Trump, but when:
Theresa May plans to trigger Brexit in two weeks despite defeat by 'posturing' Lords over rights of EU citizens Theresa May has defiantly insisted her timetable for triggering Brexit will not be blown off course despite suffering her first Parliamentary defeat over the Article 50 bill. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/01/brexit-lords-vote-debate-theresa-may-pmqs-live/
The official exit of the EU by the UK will be one of the most significant events happening soon.
If the UK escapes without too significant an economic downturn, Many other EU states will be encouraged by that.
The UK will not leave the EU for at least 2 years (its exit is not irrevocable under article 50 either)-and even after that it will very likely still be subject to some EU institutions. If the UK crashes out then it will almost certainly be under extreme economic stress.
The left has nobody but themselves to blame for Trump, Brexit, the very close race involving Le Pen, and the whole wave of nation-first politics that has come. Working class people can't afford and shouldn't have to pay for the morality of coastal elites who are far removed from the effects their own policies have on the rest of us and the chronically dishonest reporting for which their media wings have become notorious for. You can only go so far with the electorate by bullying them into silence with horrible accusations like racist, sexist, xenophobe etc. that have become the norm in political dialogue. It is not in the interests of the poor or working class to have 12+ million people working for illegal wages in their labor market, or to persist in trade deals which make what good low skill labor jobs existed to flee, when you understand that, the very red map of the 2016 election cycle makes perfect sense.
Identity politics might have cost the Democratic party votes, and I personally find some of the left's rhetoric caustic and unproductive, but it's not like Democratic policies have impoverished the working class.
Democrats support higher spending on the poor and middle class, higher taxes on the 1%, a higher minimum wage, job training programs for out of work coal miners, and perhaps most importantly, stronger labor unions. Labor unions were the primary reason postwar blue-collar jobs had such high pay: they gave employees bargaining power over their employers. Without them, employers can offer whatever wages they want--which means low wages. When Republican policies weakened labor unions, American wages began to go stagnant.
As for immigration and trade deals:
1. Democrats do not support removing all restrictions on immigration and letting people flood in, contrary to GOP claims. Democrats just don't find it necessary to build an expensive wall when immigration is already at a 20-year low. Immigration only needs to be decreased when it's actually high--and right now, for all of the talk about immigration, it is not.
2. The GOP supported international trade deals just as much as the Democratic party did. The opposition to those trade deals was also bipartisan: both Sanders on the left and Trump on the right were prominent critics of NAFTA. Whether you think the trade deals are good or bad, they're not just the work of one party.
You can't blame one party for the other party's decisions. For good or ill, the people who are responsible for Trump's victory are the people who voted for him--not the people who voted for his opponent.
I'm responsible for my own decisions. I don't blame other people for my choices.
The GOP is very pro free trade usually, quite correct about that, and so it's good to distinguish between what Trump's ideology represents- protectionism in economics, a focus on working people, closed borders- and establishment GOP, which is much more free trade, open borders, "the rich will solve everything" kind of deal.
And also correct that the Dems have options which are more serious about closing the borders- most people don't know this, but Bernie Sanders has called open border policies a "Koch Brothers" funded policy that hurts working people. All the more shame that he wasn't given a fair primary race.
It's sad working people were duped by Trump's drain the swamp line. Republicans are hardly the party of workers and unions and so forth. They are the party of wall street and greed and the top 1% all their talk of cutting taxes invariably helps the rich. They are all about cutting entitlements such as social security, Medicare, and affordable health insurance.
Trump's swamp cabinet of billionaires and wall street executives are the party of the people huh?
This is actually one of the most wonderful interviews i had the pleasure of watching a few days ago, because it goes right to the heart of the polarization within the scientific community itself.
Tucker continuously asks for specific numbers or percentages to the claim that humans did affect climate change to Bill Nye. Bill Nye's never answers any specifics, and simply re-states that it is 'settled science' and vaguely humans did affect the climate. Tucker makes the point early on, to which exposes the entire wrong attitude of many people in the scientific community.
Science is based on skepticism.
'It is settled science' is not an acceptable answer, anywhere, at any time, in Science. Science should always be open to more evidence to everything, especially deeply held beliefs.
The contemptuous attitude many in the scientific
People have deeply held beliefs that the earth is flat but it isn't true. Beliefs are nothing, look at the data, the science is there and those deeply held beliefs have already been tested. Repeatedly. But you still don't want to believe it? Ooookkkkk..
If you have a political party and their propaganda saying the Earth's flat. These flat earthers can be shown a globe, flown around in space - whatever they will still deny it. They profit by denying it, it's in their interest to deny it. What do you do with people who intentionally ignore the truth because it doesn't fit their world view?
Carlsons illogical argument to this would be "But but you can't tell me what percentage of the earth is round" and you are supposed to leap to the conclusion that because you can't tell me that then you don't know anything and you are just trying to shout down us flat earth skeptics.
So this guy, is he a reporter? He's terrible. He's not a reporter, he's not reporting, he's interviewing someone while the interviewer pushes an agenda that he clearly has. He doesn't want answers, he doesn't have an open mind. He's determined to be hostile.
"Just answer what percent climate change is due to humans!" So what answer is he hoping for? 73.2%? Of course not he just tries his best to slip up his guest on a technicality.
Normally when you interview someone, you don't treat them like a hostile witness do you? Is that what they teach in the highly accredited "fox news school of journalistics"?
Carlson goes on and on claiming "you shout down climate change deniers" when he's the one shouting the science guy down.
The beauty of debates is not how someone reacts, but what they are reacting too. Nye answers the hosts questions repeatedly, but the host is looking for a different answer, and will interrupt Nye before the proper answer is given. The host keeps throwing out the term honest question, yet he is not asking an honest question through out. He knows if Nye gives him a specific answer, he can go "AHA, you don't know that!" as it isn't a scientific question he is asking but a theoretical one.
Break down: (AKA) wall of text:
Host: Climate deniers are delusional according to Bill Nye!!
Bill Nye: Laughing, no, it is a human feature, we are looking at why extreme skeptics are not believing the evidence that is being provided to them. A person's world view trumps evidence that rebukes that world view. If you have a better hypothesis of why deniers deny the overwhelming evidence, than I'd be happy to hear it.
So the two words: extreme, as in people that completely deny it, think it is a hoax, isn't happening what so ever. The host later states that global warming is happening, so he isn't really an extreme skeptic
The word overwhelming is also important. He is noting, with that one word, that there is rebukes to some global warming studies, however, a vast majority of them are pointing one way.
At this point, Nye has rebuked that delusional claim that the host first provided. The host changes the goal posts.
Host: The essence of science is extreme skepticism. (He is taking the words, and twisting them. Yes science is based off of extreme skepticism, but you need to take that skepticism towards a theory, like Global Warming is mostly man made, and attempt to find evidence that that is wrong. Global Warming skeptics do not do this, they just scream from the roof top about it being a conspiracy theory. Science has nothing to do with it.)
Bill Nye: Oh, I know, I belong to those skeptic organizations. Climate change denial is denial. (As in there is no science behind the claim) Host interrupts him though to ask another question, once again, before he can fully rebut the first claim.
Host: The climate is changing, it has always been changing as you know.
Nye: It's the rate. (Climate has always changed has been one of the biggest arguments man made climate change deniers as always stood on. This is always countered with the rate in which climate change has changes, as Nye brings forth. So three words in... "it's the rate Karl..."
Host: WHOA WHOA, slow down! (after 3 words) The core question from what I can tell, why the change? Is it part of the endless cycle of climate change or is human activity causing it? That seems to be the debate to me. It's an open question (it isn't) to what degree human activity has caused global warming. (The host has now given Nye an either or question where neither of the answers are 100% correct. He is attempting to trap Nye at this point. And the core question is (or should be) has human activity greatly increased the rate in which climate change has happened,, and how much so.)
Nye: Uh, that wasn't an open question. (It was an either or) Human activity is causing climate change.
Host: To what degree? (The host is asking for a specific, to a specific to which can't be given. At this point in time, you can not take humanity out of the question due to out impact. It's like asking what would the future have been like if an asteroid didn't kill off the dinosaurs.)
Nye: To a degree that is a very serious problem (probably attempting to figure out what the host meant by degree) in the next few decades.
Host Whoa whoa whoa... stop! You said it's a settled point (Nye didn't)
Nye: ya, in the science community. (Going back to the first question. Deniers are not scientist. They are deniers. What the scientist are asking is WHY people are denying the information. I honestly believe this is what Nye prepared to answer for this interview. Hence why he seems unprepared from this point forward.)
Host: Ok great, listen to me, To what degree is climate changed caused by humans. Is it 100%, is it 74.3% It's settled science so what is the answer. (So at this point the host is trapping him again. He knows it isn't 100%, but he is also trapping him into a specific answer, so specific he wants it to the decimal. Claiming that it is settled science, and an answer of a significant amount will not be suffice)
Nye: Well that is your word, degree (The look on the host's face is priceless here). But the speed in which climate change has changed is happening by humans. The time scale is instead of millions of years, or lets say fifteen thousand years (to correct his math, on the fly, so he can't be trapped again), it is happening in decades and now years. Now I offered.... (The science community came to the conclusion on another variable, the speed, and not the variable that the host is looking for. That variable, can not be obtained unless humans are taken out of the equation. Nye, then gave him the science community consensus on which they think the speed has been changed by humans)
Host: HOLD ON HOLD ON To what degree is human activity responsible for speeding that up? Please be precise.
Nye: 100% (answering the question. The host then begins talking over Nye, to confuse the watcher/listener throwing in another question "So climate would have change")
Host: So what rate would it have changed without human activity. (This has already been answered. Instead of the planet being heated up in decades, it would have taken 15, 000 years. Nye attempts to answer it by starting off as an example that deniers point to. The world was warmer when the dinosaurs were around, and there were no humans then, so are you sure humans are the cause.)
Nye: *dinosaurs* But the was millions of years ago.
Host: you just said it was 10, 000. (Brining Nye's creditability into question with the viewer, with a mislead.)
Nye: That was the last ice age. Now the RATE the RATE is the problem. Now here the thing, half of the people in the world live on sea coast, as we get the ocean a little bit warmer ,the ocean is going to expand and people... (the host interrupt him before he can circle back to the word, rate. As the rate of this is happening is happening too fast for humans and other animals to adapt.)
Host: Hold on you're chaning the subject (actually, the host is at this point as Nye was talking about the rate) Now I am asking a simple question and I want a simple answer. Without human activity how long would it have taken for the planet for us to reach this level. Specifically. (Now this is not a simple question that can be answered using a simple specific answer. It is a theoretic question that host is looking for a scientific answer, once again, in an attempt to trap Nye)
Nye: Answering, it's not clear that it would have happened. Humans have changed the climate so drastically that we all but assume to avoided another ice age.
Host: And when would the ice age of happened?
Nye: When would have the next ice aged happen? I think that is irrelevant. (which it is)
Host: *waving his hand to the conversation* Here's the point I hope our viewers understand. That you claim that all this is settled and we know precisely what is happening and why and anyone who asks pointed questions about it is a denier. (At this point Bill Nye really wants to face palm himself at this point. As that is not what the claim, or what he has said. It is what the host is saying he said.) And either needs to be imprisoned or shouted off the stage.
Nye: That is your words... that is not my claim.
Host: Would you like me to read your quote *looks down as if he is about to read it, paraphrases (once again misleads the viewer) "people who disagree with you aught to go to jail. YOU SAID THAT" (Which once again, he didn't, the host is paraphrasing drastically and taking it out of context."
Nye: I don't think that is exactly what I said. (While the host talks over him with jibberish (seriously, at this point tell me what the host is saying.)
Host: Shouldn't we be encouraging people to ask honest questions, which I am doing (he isn't) and you don't have the answers to those questions.
Nye: OK, I got to disagree with you (as he has been answering the honest questions the host provided, just not in the terms the host wanted)
Host: (I love this Freudian slip) You don't reach correct conclusions in science or politics (politics are ideas, there is never a correct conclusion or a precise answer to it) or any other field unless you can ask honest answers without being shouted down.
Nye: You don't ask answers but I know what you mean.
Host: NO! I do mean ask! *How dare you question me attitude* (which makes me think it wasn't a Freudian slip but deliberate.)
Host: It is a simple question, what would have happened without human activity.
Nye: *relenting* It would like it how it was in 1750.
Host: It wouldn't have changed in that period?
Nye: starts giving climate related examples to how it has changed in the last 300 years as to why he gave the answer of 1750.
Host: You're using the language of politics. You're not a scientist *laughing* Your a populizer! Which, there is nothing wrong with that. *While still laughing*
Nye: Uh, it's not the language of politics. I am using the language of economics (which is a science). You asked what it would be like without human effect. (Why he gave examples) Did you not ask...
Host: (interrupting again) Do you prevent people from having an honest conversation. (The hypocrisy is outstanding with this one) You are a great disservice to science.
Nye: So you asked what would climate be like without human involvement.
Host: That is right.
Nye: *Attempts to answer again*
Host: YOU DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW!!! Because it is unknowable! (But it's an honest question, that I am asking!)
Nye: *Holds up his phone showing 6 seconds.* this is how long it takes you to interrupt me, ok. *re answers the question, stating the word economics so the host knows it isn't political*
Host: I think that is probably all true but so much of this you don't know, but you pretend to know. But you bully people who ask you questions! (hypocritical again)
Nye: I disagree with you again.
Host: I'm open minded, you are not. (which once again, is a false statement.) But we are out of time unfortunately. (So Nye, can't dispute the last claim)
If Jeff Sessions and the Administration thinks that press conference put anything to bed, they might want to rethink things. Everyone who meets with this Russian Ambassador seems to magically forget the conversation when it comes to light. Does he have one of those lasers from "Men in Black"??
Also, recusal is NOT enough. Go look at a video of him swearing under oath to tell the truth, then watch him lying to Al Franken. By the way, Sessions, on top of everything else, is apparently a god-awful lawyer, as he broke the easiest rule in the book, which is to never answer more than you are asked. He put himself in, which is telling in and of itself
People have deeply held beliefs that the earth is flat but it isn't true. Beliefs are nothing, look at the data, the science is there and those deeply held beliefs have already been tested. Repeatedly. But you still don't want to believe it? Ooookkkkk..
If you have a political party and their propaganda saying the Earth's flat. These flat earthers can be shown a globe, flown around in space - whatever they will still deny it. They profit by denying it, it's in their interest to deny it. What do you do with people who intentionally ignore the truth because it doesn't fit their world view?
Carlsons illogical argument to this would be "But but you can't tell me what percentage of the earth is round" and you are supposed to leap to the conclusion that because you can't tell me that then you don't know anything and you are just trying to shout down us flat earth skeptics.
It is a correct question as to what degree the earth's temperature would be without human's, because only by having that answer, and comparing it to what the temperature is now, can you actually conclude that humans have affected earth's climate significantly.
Bill nye's failed to give the data, now he may have just been un-prepared for the interview and believed it was just an interview over generalities so we should get another interview with prepared details.
However Bill nye's should never be saying it is 'settled science', that is not a scientific answer, as no scientific theory is ever settled.
Furthermore, Bill nye's opened the actual interview by denigrating Climate Denier's as suffering cognitive dissonance.
If he is being interviewed in the position of some random person off the street, then they can hurl insults all they want.
But he operated in that interview under the public capacity as a man of Science.
So no, i found his conduct distasteful as he should not open the discussion by denigrating skeptics, which Science is all about.
It is a correct question as to what degree the earth's temperature would be without human's, because only by having that answer, and comparing it to what the temperature is now, can you actually conclude that humans have affected earth's climate significantly.
Bill nye's failed to give the data, now he may have just been un-prepared for the interview and believed it was just an interview over generalities so we should get another interview with prepared details.
However Bill nye's should never be saying it is 'settled science', that is not a scientific answer, as no scientific theory is ever settled.
Furthermore, Bill nye's opened the actual interview by denigrating Climate Denier's as suffering cognitive dissonance.
If he is being interviewed in the position of some random person off the street, then they can hurl insults all they want.
But he operated in that interview under the public capacity as a man of Science.
So no, i found his conduct distasteful as he should not open the discussion by denigrating skeptics, which Science is all about.
"Furthermore, Bill nye's opened the actual interview by denigrating Climate Denier's as suffering cognitive dissonance."
That is absolutely not what happened. Check the order of events please. Bill Nye did not show up and say this there was no reason for this to come up in this interview other than Carlson mentioning it.
Tucker Carlson opened the interview starting off the interview with an assault on Nye that Nye had to explain/defend before even getting to things.
Carlson is like here's Bill Nye the guy that hates Climate Deniers then Nye felt he had to explain what his previous statement meant and he did. He did not show up and say that unprovoked. He said it in response to Carlson starting the interview intentionally on the wrong foot. "Here's this guy who hates puppies, hi how do you do?"
And the other point about the unknowable answer to the irrelevant question. Carlsons question "what % is human affecting climate change" is dumb. It is not a simple question like he was attempting to frame it. You don't get a "the answer is 12.2%" and Carlson knows that.
Climate change is an observed fact. In science, a theory can be supported by strong science. Don't make the mistake that "theory" means unreliable or unsupported.
People have deeply held beliefs that the earth is flat but it isn't true. Beliefs are nothing, look at the data, the science is there and those deeply held beliefs have already been tested. Repeatedly. But you still don't want to believe it? Ooookkkkk..
If you have a political party and their propaganda saying the Earth's flat. These flat earthers can be shown a globe, flown around in space - whatever they will still deny it. They profit by denying it, it's in their interest to deny it. What do you do with people who intentionally ignore the truth because it doesn't fit their world view?
Carlsons illogical argument to this would be "But but you can't tell me what percentage of the earth is round" and you are supposed to leap to the conclusion that because you can't tell me that then you don't know anything and you are just trying to shout down us flat earth skeptics.
It is a correct question as to what degree the earth's temperature would be without human's, because only by having that answer, and comparing it to what the temperature is now, can you actually conclude that humans have affected earth's climate significantly.
Bill nye's failed to give the data, now he may have just been un-prepared for the interview and believed it was just an interview over generalities so we should get another interview with prepared details.
However Bill nye's should never be saying it is 'settled science', that is not a scientific answer, as no scientific theory is ever settled.
Furthermore, Bill nye's opened the actual interview by denigrating Climate Denier's as suffering cognitive dissonance.
If he is being interviewed in the position of some random person off the street, then they can hurl insults all they want.
But he operated in that interview under the public capacity as a man of Science.
So no, i found his conduct distasteful as he should not open the discussion by denigrating skeptics, which Science is all about.
He did give the answer though. The earth is heating up within decades and years when it should only take 100, 000 of years. The host was looking for a specific answer, which can't be given as it is a theoretical question, there are too many other unknowns in the equation to get it precisely to where the host wants it.
It is a moot point anyway as it is the rate that the world is heating up, not the actual temperature that is the problem. That is the settled answer and it is a fact. The planet is warming too quickly for the species of the planet to adapt.
The host was looking for a specific answer so he could turn around and say "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! IT ISN'T A PROVEN FACT!!! YOU'RE NOT A SCIENTIST!" Which he ended up doing at the end anyway once he knew he was running out of time to trap him.
And the HOST began the interview with the cognitive dissonance remark claiming that it is psychological delusion which wasn't true. (watch the ticker change after Nye explained his remarks)
Nye was probably asked to come on to explain his remarks on Cognitive Dissonance and instead had it twisted into this.
And yes, you can be skeptical, but you need to take that and prove the theory wrong with evidence. Extreme Climate deniers don't do this. They just question why their children are being fed lies about Polar Bears losing their habitat and drowning as ice melts in the artic.
Opinion: Climate Change is real. Russia isn't in control of our gov't.
Marine Le Pen may be prosecuted for sharing a tweet depicting IS violence (not nearly as bad as it could have been either). At the moment, the normal immunity from prosecution she would have has been revoked.
As an American, I feel uncomfortable with the laws in some European countries that give criminal penalties to acts of expression that would normally be unthinkable to prosecute normal people over let alone front running political candidates.
On that note, Germany is also scrapping a law that bans criticism of foreign leaders, so that's a start. I probably would have been a repeat offender of that law.
Marine Le Pen may be prosecuted for sharing a tweet depicting IS violence (not nearly as bad as it could have been either). At the moment, the normal immunity from prosecution she would have has been revoked.
As an American, I feel uncomfortable with the laws in some European countries that give criminal penalties to acts of expression that would normally be unthinkable to prosecute normal people over let alone front running political candidates.
On that note, Germany is also scrapping a law that bans criticism of foreign leaders, so that's a start. I probably would have been a repeat offender of that law.
Opinion: Climate Change is real. Russia isn't in control of our gov't.
Marine Le Pen may be prosecuted for sharing a tweet depicting IS violence (not nearly as bad as it could have been either). At the moment, the normal immunity from prosecution she would have has been revoked.
As an American, I feel uncomfortable with the laws in some European countries that give criminal penalties to acts of expression that would normally be unthinkable to prosecute normal people over let alone front running political candidates.
On that note, Germany is also scrapping a law that bans criticism of foreign leaders, so that's a start. I probably would have been a repeat offender of that law.
Marine Le Pen is doing well in the polls, if she wins it will probably be the 3rd big event in tandem with Brexit and Trump on the swing back to Nationalism.
All actively backed, promoted, and being helped by Russian meddling in every case. Apparently the post-WW2 alliances like the United Nations, NATO, and the EU mean nothing to many people anymore. They are the only reason that European continent and the world weren't consumed by a Third World War. Not surprising with the last survivors of that conflict dying off by the day.
I see Milo has crawled out of his hole. What happens when a preening hate-monger loses the attention that is the oxygen that fuels him?? Apparently he writes articles about Marie LePen.
All actively backed, promoted, and being helped by Russian meddling in every case. Apparently the post-WW2 alliances like the United Nations, NATO, and the EU mean nothing to many people anymore. They are the only reason that European continent and the world weren't consumed by a Third World War. Not surprising with the last survivors of that conflict dying off by the day.
Russia was part of the Allied powers with America and Europe, and one of the original members of the UN.
I doubt Russia has such power they can interfere with American elections, Brexit referendum and Le Pen.
All actively backed, promoted, and being helped by Russian meddling in every case. Apparently the post-WW2 alliances like the United Nations, NATO, and the EU mean nothing to many people anymore. They are the only reason that European continent and the world weren't consumed by a Third World War. Not surprising with the last survivors of that conflict dying off by the day.
Russia was part of the Allied powers with America and Europe, and one of the original members of the UN btw.
As I've been saying throughout this thread, Putin's Russia bears almost no resemblance to the USSR, aside from intelligence tactics brought over from the KGB. It's an autocratic petro-state firmly in control on one man and a group of billionaire oligarchs. Putin's primary goal of destabilizing NATO and the EU is so blatantly obvious it's screaming in bold 54 point font. Brexit, Trump, maybe LePen next. If that happens, Merkel in Germany is the only thing standing between him and his goal, and Russia is already actively working to defeat her as well.
Comments
So this guy, is he a reporter? He's terrible. He's not a reporter, he's not reporting, he's interviewing someone while the interviewer pushes an agenda that he clearly has. He doesn't want answers, he doesn't have an open mind. He's determined to be hostile.
"Just answer what percent climate change is due to humans!" So what answer is he hoping for? 73.2%? Of course not he just tries his best to slip up his guest on a technicality.
Normally when you interview someone, you don't treat them like a hostile witness do you? Is that what they teach in the highly accredited "fox news school of journalistics"?
Carlson goes on and on claiming "you shout down climate change deniers" when he's the one shouting the science guy down.
Tucker continuously asks for specific numbers or percentages to the claim that humans did affect climate change to Bill Nye.
Bill Nye's never answers any specifics, and simply re-states that it is 'settled science' and vaguely humans did affect the climate.
Tucker makes the point early on, to which exposes the entire wrong attitude of many people in the scientific community.
Science is based on skepticism.
'It is settled science' is not an acceptable answer, anywhere, at any time, in Science.
Science should always be open to more evidence to everything, especially deeply held beliefs.
The contemptuous attitude many in the scientific community have to people skeptical or do not believe in their 'consensus beliefs' is incredibly sad to me, it was not so long ago that Scientists faced hurdles from those who believed in the 'consensus beliefs' of the broader society that disagreed with them.
Now Bill Nyes may have just been unprepared in the interview to give some basic statistics or numbers which i hope he gives them next time around.
However in this interview unfortunately Bill Nyes did a disservice to Science.
And that's the difference between placed like FOX when compared to CNN, or the Daily Caller as opposed to the Washington Post. The later get things wrong, have their faults, but are at least TRYING, on some basic level, to provide you accurate information. FOX was conceived, from it's very inception by Roger Ailes, to deliberately mislead it's viewers. That's why it exists, and every segment of every day is tailored to that end.
And let me say this, FOX News is BRLLIANT at what it does. They are unbelievably effective at disseminating right-wing propoganda. Along with talk radio they have managed to brainwash roughly 30% of the country. It's actually a monumental feat.
Conservative attacks on and mistrust of the "mainstream" press, whatever it's faults, go back 30+ years and it all boils down to one thing: they brought down the criminal Presidency of Richard Nixon, and they've been working like hell ever since to make sure that never happens again. They've done a damn good job at it.
People can not believe in consensus belief - "It's going to get dark tonight" "yeah I don't believe it!" - well bully for you sir.
If people think reporting should be inviting people on your show then yelling at them is wonderful then I don't think people are understanding the role of reporting. You bring someone on, you ask him or her what she thinks about whatever, you listen, they tell the truth, that's it. That's how things should be done.
The proper attitude in Science is skepticism.
Newtons Laws of Gravity was so popular it became the standard (and still is the standard in area's that don't need extreme rigor) in many practical applications today.
We know it is inaccurate and that Einstein's theory of Relativity is more accurate.
In time there may be another theory even superior to Einstein's.
It is however, very true that some scientific models for climate change have been proven false and inaccurate.
This does not disprove the general hypothesis that mankind has a significant and measurable affect on the climate.
However the proper attitude is to apply more skepticism on any theory of climate change so we can get to a more accurate theory that supports all evidence.
Theresa May has defiantly insisted her timetable for triggering Brexit will not be blown off course despite suffering her first Parliamentary defeat over the Article 50 bill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/01/brexit-lords-vote-debate-theresa-may-pmqs-live/
The official exit of the EU by the UK will be one of the most significant events happening soon.
If the UK escapes without too significant an economic downturn, Many other EU states will be encouraged by that.
It may trigger a chain reaction.
Democrats support higher spending on the poor and middle class, higher taxes on the 1%, a higher minimum wage, job training programs for out of work coal miners, and perhaps most importantly, stronger labor unions. Labor unions were the primary reason postwar blue-collar jobs had such high pay: they gave employees bargaining power over their employers. Without them, employers can offer whatever wages they want--which means low wages. When Republican policies weakened labor unions, American wages began to go stagnant.
As for immigration and trade deals:
1. Democrats do not support removing all restrictions on immigration and letting people flood in, contrary to GOP claims. Democrats just don't find it necessary to build an expensive wall when immigration is already at a 20-year low. Immigration only needs to be decreased when it's actually high--and right now, for all of the talk about immigration, it is not.
2. The GOP supported international trade deals just as much as the Democratic party did. The opposition to those trade deals was also bipartisan: both Sanders on the left and Trump on the right were prominent critics of NAFTA. Whether you think the trade deals are good or bad, they're not just the work of one party.
I'm responsible for my own decisions. I don't blame other people for my choices.
And also correct that the Dems have options which are more serious about closing the borders- most people don't know this, but Bernie Sanders has called open border policies a "Koch Brothers" funded policy that hurts working people. All the more shame that he wasn't given a fair primary race.
Trump's swamp cabinet of billionaires and wall street executives are the party of the people huh?
If you have a political party and their propaganda saying the Earth's flat. These flat earthers can be shown a globe, flown around in space - whatever they will still deny it. They profit by denying it, it's in their interest to deny it. What do you do with people who intentionally ignore the truth because it doesn't fit their world view?
Carlsons illogical argument to this would be "But but you can't tell me what percentage of the earth is round" and you are supposed to leap to the conclusion that because you can't tell me that then you don't know anything and you are just trying to shout down us flat earth skeptics.
Break down: (AKA) wall of text:
Bill Nye: Laughing, no, it is a human feature, we are looking at why extreme skeptics are not believing the evidence that is being provided to them. A person's world view trumps evidence that rebukes that world view. If you have a better hypothesis of why deniers deny the overwhelming evidence, than I'd be happy to hear it.
So the two words: extreme, as in people that completely deny it, think it is a hoax, isn't happening what so ever. The host later states that global warming is happening, so he isn't really an extreme skeptic
The word overwhelming is also important. He is noting, with that one word, that there is rebukes to some global warming studies, however, a vast majority of them are pointing one way.
At this point, Nye has rebuked that delusional claim that the host first provided. The host changes the goal posts.
Host: The essence of science is extreme skepticism.
(He is taking the words, and twisting them. Yes science is based off of extreme skepticism, but you need to take that skepticism towards a theory, like Global Warming is mostly man made, and attempt to find evidence that that is wrong. Global Warming skeptics do not do this, they just scream from the roof top about it being a conspiracy theory. Science has nothing to do with it.)
Bill Nye: Oh, I know, I belong to those skeptic organizations. Climate change denial is denial.
(As in there is no science behind the claim) Host interrupts him though to ask another question, once again, before he can fully rebut the first claim.
Host: The climate is changing, it has always been changing as you know.
Nye: It's the rate.
(Climate has always changed has been one of the biggest arguments man made climate change deniers as always stood on. This is always countered with the rate in which climate change has changes, as Nye brings forth. So three words in... "it's the rate Karl..."
Host: WHOA WHOA, slow down! (after 3 words) The core question from what I can tell, why the change? Is it part of the endless cycle of climate change or is human activity causing it? That seems to be the debate to me. It's an open question (it isn't) to what degree human activity has caused global warming.
(The host has now given Nye an either or question where neither of the answers are 100% correct. He is attempting to trap Nye at this point. And the core question is (or should be) has human activity greatly increased the rate in which climate change has happened,, and how much so.)
Nye: Uh, that wasn't an open question. (It was an either or) Human activity is causing climate change.
Host: To what degree?
(The host is asking for a specific, to a specific to which can't be given. At this point in time, you can not take humanity out of the question due to out impact. It's like asking what would the future have been like if an asteroid didn't kill off the dinosaurs.)
Nye: To a degree that is a very serious problem (probably attempting to figure out what the host meant by degree) in the next few decades.
Host Whoa whoa whoa... stop! You said it's a settled point (Nye didn't)
Nye: ya, in the science community.
(Going back to the first question. Deniers are not scientist. They are deniers. What the scientist are asking is WHY people are denying the information. I honestly believe this is what Nye prepared to answer for this interview. Hence why he seems unprepared from this point forward.)
Host: Ok great, listen to me, To what degree is climate changed caused by humans. Is it 100%, is it 74.3% It's settled science so what is the answer.
(So at this point the host is trapping him again. He knows it isn't 100%, but he is also trapping him into a specific answer, so specific he wants it to the decimal. Claiming that it is settled science, and an answer of a significant amount will not be suffice)
Nye: Well that is your word, degree (The look on the host's face is priceless here). But the speed in which climate change has changed is happening by humans. The time scale is instead of millions of years, or lets say fifteen thousand years (to correct his math, on the fly, so he can't be trapped again), it is happening in decades and now years. Now I offered....
(The science community came to the conclusion on another variable, the speed, and not the variable that the host is looking for. That variable, can not be obtained unless humans are taken out of the equation. Nye, then gave him the science community consensus on which they think the speed has been changed by humans)
Host: HOLD ON HOLD ON To what degree is human activity responsible for speeding that up? Please be precise.
Nye: 100%
(answering the question. The host then begins talking over Nye, to confuse the watcher/listener throwing in another question "So climate would have change")
Host: So what rate would it have changed without human activity.
(This has already been answered. Instead of the planet being heated up in decades, it would have taken 15, 000 years. Nye attempts to answer it by starting off as an example that deniers point to. The world was warmer when the dinosaurs were around, and there were no humans then, so are you sure humans are the cause.)
Nye: *dinosaurs* But the was millions of years ago.
Host: you just said it was 10, 000. (Brining Nye's creditability into question with the viewer, with a mislead.)
Nye: That was the last ice age. Now the RATE the RATE is the problem. Now here the thing, half of the people in the world live on sea coast, as we get the ocean a little bit warmer ,the ocean is going to expand and people... (the host interrupt him before he can circle back to the word, rate. As the rate of this is happening is happening too fast for humans and other animals to adapt.)
Host: Hold on you're chaning the subject (actually, the host is at this point as Nye was talking about the rate) Now I am asking a simple question and I want a simple answer. Without human activity how long would it have taken for the planet for us to reach this level. Specifically.
(Now this is not a simple question that can be answered using a simple specific answer. It is a theoretic question that host is looking for a scientific answer, once again, in an attempt to trap Nye)
Nye: Answering, it's not clear that it would have happened. Humans have changed the climate so drastically that we all but assume to avoided another ice age.
Host: And when would the ice age of happened?
Nye: When would have the next ice aged happen? I think that is irrelevant. (which it is)
Host: *waving his hand to the conversation* Here's the point I hope our viewers understand. That you claim that all this is settled and we know precisely what is happening and why and anyone who asks pointed questions about it is a denier.
(At this point Bill Nye really wants to face palm himself at this point. As that is not what the claim, or what he has said. It is what the host is saying he said.)
And either needs to be imprisoned or shouted off the stage.
Nye: That is your words... that is not my claim.
Host: Would you like me to read your quote *looks down as if he is about to read it, paraphrases (once again misleads the viewer) "people who disagree with you aught to go to jail. YOU SAID THAT"
(Which once again, he didn't, the host is paraphrasing drastically and taking it out of context."
Nye: I don't think that is exactly what I said. (While the host talks over him with jibberish (seriously, at this point tell me what the host is saying.)
Host: Shouldn't we be encouraging people to ask honest questions, which I am doing (he isn't) and you don't have the answers to those questions.
Nye: OK, I got to disagree with you (as he has been answering the honest questions the host provided, just not in the terms the host wanted)
Host: (I love this Freudian slip) You don't reach correct conclusions in science or politics (politics are ideas, there is never a correct conclusion or a precise answer to it) or any other field unless you can ask honest answers without being shouted down.
Nye: You don't ask answers but I know what you mean.
Host: NO! I do mean ask! *How dare you question me attitude* (which makes me think it wasn't a Freudian slip but deliberate.)
Host: It is a simple question, what would have happened without human activity.
Nye: *relenting* It would like it how it was in 1750.
Host: It wouldn't have changed in that period?
Nye: starts giving climate related examples to how it has changed in the last 300 years as to why he gave the answer of 1750.
Host: You're using the language of politics. You're not a scientist *laughing* Your a populizer! Which, there is nothing wrong with that. *While still laughing*
Nye: Uh, it's not the language of politics. I am using the language of economics (which is a science). You asked what it would be like without human effect. (Why he gave examples) Did you not ask...
Host: (interrupting again) Do you prevent people from having an honest conversation. (The hypocrisy is outstanding with this one) You are a great disservice to science.
Nye: So you asked what would climate be like without human involvement.
Host: That is right.
Nye: *Attempts to answer again*
Host: YOU DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW!!! Because it is unknowable! (But it's an honest question, that I am asking!)
Nye: *Holds up his phone showing 6 seconds.* this is how long it takes you to interrupt me, ok. *re answers the question, stating the word economics so the host knows it isn't political*
Host: I think that is probably all true but so much of this you don't know, but you pretend to know. But you bully people who ask you questions! (hypocritical again)
Nye: I disagree with you again.
Host: I'm open minded, you are not. (which once again, is a false statement.) But we are out of time unfortunately. (So Nye, can't dispute the last claim)
Also, recusal is NOT enough. Go look at a video of him swearing under oath to tell the truth, then watch him lying to Al Franken. By the way, Sessions, on top of everything else, is apparently a god-awful lawyer, as he broke the easiest rule in the book, which is to never answer more than you are asked. He put himself in, which is telling in and of itself
If you interrupt the answer, you're not asking questions.
Bill nye's failed to give the data, now he may have just been un-prepared for the interview and believed it was just an interview over generalities so we should get another interview with prepared details.
However Bill nye's should never be saying it is 'settled science', that is not a scientific answer, as no scientific theory is ever settled.
Furthermore, Bill nye's opened the actual interview by denigrating Climate Denier's as suffering cognitive dissonance.
If he is being interviewed in the position of some random person off the street, then they can hurl insults all they want.
But he operated in that interview under the public capacity as a man of Science.
So no, i found his conduct distasteful as he should not open the discussion by denigrating skeptics, which Science is all about.
That is absolutely not what happened. Check the order of events please. Bill Nye did not show up and say this there was no reason for this to come up in this interview other than Carlson mentioning it.
Tucker Carlson opened the interview starting off the interview with an assault on Nye that Nye had to explain/defend before even getting to things.
Carlson is like here's Bill Nye the guy that hates Climate Deniers then Nye felt he had to explain what his previous statement meant and he did. He did not show up and say that unprovoked. He said it in response to Carlson starting the interview intentionally on the wrong foot. "Here's this guy who hates puppies, hi how do you do?"
And the other point about the unknowable answer to the irrelevant question. Carlsons question "what % is human affecting climate change" is dumb. It is not a simple question like he was attempting to frame it. You don't get a "the answer is 12.2%" and Carlson knows that.
Climate change is an observed fact. In science, a theory can be supported by strong science. Don't make the mistake that "theory" means unreliable or unsupported.
It is a moot point anyway as it is the rate that the world is heating up, not the actual temperature that is the problem. That is the settled answer and it is a fact. The planet is warming too quickly for the species of the planet to adapt.
The host was looking for a specific answer so he could turn around and say "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! IT ISN'T A PROVEN FACT!!! YOU'RE NOT A SCIENTIST!" Which he ended up doing at the end anyway once he knew he was running out of time to trap him.
And the HOST began the interview with the cognitive dissonance remark claiming that it is psychological delusion which wasn't true. (watch the ticker change after Nye explained his remarks)
Nye was probably asked to come on to explain his remarks on Cognitive Dissonance and instead had it twisted into this.
And yes, you can be skeptical, but you need to take that and prove the theory wrong with evidence. Extreme Climate deniers don't do this. They just question why their children are being fed lies about Polar Bears losing their habitat and drowning as ice melts in the artic.
Jared Kushner had a secret meeting with Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador during the campaign
https://nyti.ms/2lEFB32
Donald Trump Jr. accepted at least 50k to speak to Russians about Syria during the campaign
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-jr-was-likely-paid-at-least-50-000-for-event-held-by-hosts-allied-with-russia-on-syria-1488473640
USA Today is reporting that at least two more Trump campaign staff members had conversations with the russian ambassador at a diplomacy conference connected to the Republican National Convention.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/02/exclusive-two-other-trump-advisers-also-spoke-russian-envoy-during-gop-convention/98648190/
And Mike Pence used a personal email server for government business while governor of Indiana and it was hacked and he discussed Homeland Security on it
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/mike-pence-private-email/98637782/
Marine Le Pen may be prosecuted for sharing a tweet depicting IS violence (not nearly as bad as it could have been either). At the moment, the normal immunity from prosecution she would have has been revoked.
As an American, I feel uncomfortable with the laws in some European countries that give criminal penalties to acts of expression that would normally be unthinkable to prosecute normal people over let alone front running political candidates.
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/03/le-pen-jail-time/
On that note, Germany is also scrapping a law that bans criticism of foreign leaders, so that's a start. I probably would have been a repeat offender of that law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/germany-scrap-law-bans-insulting-foreign-leaders/
All actively backed, promoted, and being helped by Russian meddling in every case. Apparently the post-WW2 alliances like the United Nations, NATO, and the EU mean nothing to many people anymore. They are the only reason that European continent and the world weren't consumed by a Third World War. Not surprising with the last survivors of that conflict dying off by the day.
I see Milo has crawled out of his hole. What happens when a preening hate-monger loses the attention that is the oxygen that fuels him?? Apparently he writes articles about Marie LePen.
I doubt Russia has such power they can interfere with American elections, Brexit referendum and Le Pen.
Ben Carson passed approval for HUD.
He was one of the nicer candidates, I'm glad he is serving a role.