The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[Xist]

I remember watching a video of Nye, Michio Kaku, and others saying it was irresponsible to teach children religion. I found this instead: https://www.cnet.com/g00/news/teachi....google.com%2F

I cannot find anything about the other one, just the lame CNN video I already shared where Nye (absolutely did not) /allcaps destroy /allcaps an actual climate scientist, but I watched another video where he said only climate scientists should be allowed to debate against climate change.

Isn't that a double standard?

For the same video, people claimed that nye /allcaps lambasted /allcaps the host for not having 97 climate change scientists or engineers that believe in it.

That is ridiculous. Why invite more people than you can have speak?

Bill Nye does not understand math.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's because most people believe that human actions are warming the planet at least some. But most people do not belive it's a problem or a problem that can or should be fixed.
Actually only 15% to 20% of voting age americans believe man is the driving force behind climate change and that this is a problem that must be fixed now.
I call them the militant minority.

The Bill nye show sucks because his politics only appeal to a small numerous of people, as most religions often do and the rest of us don't need some elitists engineer scolding us just for breathing.

Almost nobody is willing to reduce their standard of living for the sake of preserving resources. The problem is unsolvable because most people justify their way of life by pointing to someone else who consumes more. It's pretty easy to say "hey, it's not me, just look at that other guy".

Just look at the leader of the CO2 religion, Al Gore. Even if someone were persuaded by his arguments, his hypocrisy (relative carbon footprint) makes even the most sympathetic people say "well, what are ya gonna do".

Originally Posted by Xist

...I watched another video where he said only climate scientists should be allowed to debate against climate change.

Isn't that a double standard?

Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson both believe they are intellectual superiors in all matters just because they know more about certain subjects. Both make claims that are provably false, which should instill some humility, but looking at the current political climate, humility isn't en vogue.

[freebeard]

Almost nobody is willing to reduce their standard of living for the sake of preserving resources.

Why is no-one willing to raise their standard of living for the sake of preserving resources? Don't make me quote Bucky Fuller.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

...only climate scientists should be allowed to debate against climate change.

NOBODY should be allowed to debate AGW. If you've got evidence, present it and let it speak for itself.

[NeilBlanchard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKP9EXyd1so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nrWQ4tMBrs

[freebeard]

Whoosh goes the science/economic models joke.

I listen to Scott Adams almost daily, lately.

[SH@UN]

Doesn't really matter anyway, because we'll all be dead from viruses, war, or lack of natural resources long before anything major happens.

[oil pan 4]

It's kind of hard to believe something when the leader says "sea levels are going to rise" then buys a 9 million dollar beach front mansion. Says you need to emit less CO2 when he takes a privet jet to go play golf.
Or when the UN gives the maltives millions of dollars to relocate their islands population because of global warming and they take the money and build multiple multimillion dollar resorts, on the beach of their island that's supposedly going to be under water in a few years.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Why is no-one willing to raise their standard of living for the sake of preserving resources? Don't make me quote Bucky Fuller.

Humans are herd creatures. We gotta keep up with the Joneses, and the Joneses generally make poor purchasing decisions. We can hardly plan for today, let alone months and years down the road.

[sendler]

Years are not the problem. The next century will be the problem. And it takes 100 years to put in the changes to fix it.