Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist
This is the first climate change discussion I have seen without mentioning Bill Nye. I am not very familiar with this site, but they cite sources and do not rant. I like that. Please excuse when it gets specifically political: 9 Reasons You Shouldn't Listen To Bill Nye About Science | Daily Wire
I have been trying to find information regarding the professor’s claim the computer models have been inaccurate. Nye just yelled that was cherry picking. The people I expect to say they are accurate say they are accurate. The people I expect to say they are inaccurate say they are inaccurate. People still justify adjusting climate data. I found this graph, but can find absolutely no information on it: http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/...Comparison.png
I am not sure I have ever watched a video where I felt anyone destroyed anyone else. This is honestly a video where you will cheer on your team as hard as before, but Bill Nye never answered the accuracy of the computer models.
Nye refers to “engineers concerned about climate change.” I guess that is him. Mr. Bean has more credentials than he does. |
I'm still a fan of Bill Nye, despite strong disagreement with some of his political positions. I'm impressed that he is willing to change his position on a subject, even if it's going to alienate some of his political base. He was
anti-GMO for years before changing his position.
It is a logical fallacy to validate/invalidate someone's argument based on their assumed authority on the subject (or lack thereof). It's called the "Appeal to Authority Fallacy". If I assert that the world is spherically shaped, the truth of that statement has nothing to do with my formal education. The earth either is, or is not spherically shaped regardless of my authority on the subject. Besides, Bill's degree is in mechanical engineering, which is a science degree.
I have full confidence that Bill grasps science concepts better than the most people, despite being a bit of sci-fi dreamer and political activist.