Tucker vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy

  • Leave A Comment

    Leave a comment ?

    22 Responses to Tucker vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy

    1. This Tucker person reminds me of myself when I was 12 years old… What an idiot.


      • Yeah….Tucker completely mischaracterized Bill’s comments on “should be jailed”.
        Shell oil execs had a better understanding of the science of Climate Change than the general public did in 1991….enough to produce a very honest, very concerned video about the consequences of non-action…and did a complete 180…and did everything in their power to prevent action.
        Just like cigarette company execs on the the cancer issue.

        Tucker really isn’t that bright…


        • You seem to like calling people unintelligent when their worldview doesn’t differs from yours. What do you think that tells people about you and your confidence in your own ability to reason?

          His argument wasn’t wrongly characterized, and Nye failed to defend it when brought up because he knew it was an awful thing to say. Nye let it go and went into his Cognitive dissonance theroy.


          • Anthropogenic climate change isn’t a worldview.
            It’s the established, confirmed, peer reviewed science.

            In other words: reality.

            How is one suppose to characterise those that refuse to acknowledge the reality in front of their eyes….?

            Cognitive dissonance would be one accurate definition.
            Stupid would be another.

            Which one describes you Numby….?


            • Again, like Nye, you fail to answer even the most basic question that would be simple to quantify were this settled science.

              Reality can be measured.

              To postulate that humans have a direct influence on global temp. One would expect you to be able to quantify the effect of the influence based off the observed temp’s delta to the predicted temp. That is Tuckers question, Nye skirted it the whole time and eventually tossed out some anecdotal examples of growing grapes further north in France when pressed.

              As a lover of nature I do what I can to minimize my negative impact on it. As a skeptic the Global warming, Climate change, Climate Disruption, Carbon Pollution gives one pause. Falsified reports, sky is falling predictions that never come to pass, and a grant based system that seems to encourage politically motivated outcomes, are big red flags. Add to that the collective wailing and gnashing of teeth when someone starts questioning the group think and it becomes a very bitter pill to swallow.


          • you seem to be making shit up and getting outraged about it. Nye did a fine job of framing his answer in a way that’s understandable to the audience that show has. Tucker just didn’t give him any time to actually finish a sentence.


            • Just watched it again and Nye spent over half of the interview speaking. 9:22 segment, 22sec intro 4:49sec of Nye speaking, leaves 4:11 for Tucker, I would call that more than ample opportunity to make his point. Yes they BOTH talked over each other, I’ll let someone else watch it and count those.

              He spent the last 16sec ranting about leaks in the white house. How does this guy not come off as a complete loon?


            • Good for you for taking the time to count minutes and seconds. Have a cookie. But you know what? Tucker is the fucking HOST. He should be shutting the hell up for at least 90% of it. Could you factor that into your differential equation somehow, Einstein?

              (but seriously, do keep counting nits and such. It probably keeps you out of trouble and means you are not spending that time annoying those around you IRL)


            • A reasonable debate format is where both sides have the same amount of time to express their views. Once you get your own cable news show you can run it how you see fit Padre.

              Tiki said Nye wasn’t given a chance to speak, when in fact he took more than half the available time. Best way to prove my assertion was to measure the amount of time each spoke.

              So much for answering the question Tucker raised in the video. You guys should feel proud of the work you have done here.


            • Again, it is a news show, not debate club. The host is supposed to pose questions and give the guest time to respond in full. If the host disagrees with the guest, that’s fine. He is entitled to do so. But he is NOT entitled to interrupt repeatedly and prevent him from actually making an argument.

              Though I will give you the “not answering Tucker’s question”. But that’s only because I can’t stand to watch that punchable motherfucker for more than 3 seconds and don’t even know what his question was. Sorry.


            • Things are not what you decide they are. His show is a current affairs program not a news show. The way he conducted his show with Nye is the way he traditionally interacts with guests, and has since the show’s inception. Nye should of known this going into the show and was still woefully unprepared, Using his time on air to try and scare people instead of present scientific fact. If his goal was to convert skeptics how successful was he in it? My guess was he went on to virtue signal and judging by the reaction from the crowd here he did a good job of it.

              What kind of scientist is Bill Nye, have you ever looked up his credentials?

              For someone using the moniker “father” you come off an awful lot like an edgy teen.


            • You are correct Numby.
              Tucker has always acted like a juvenile dick.

              A real shame Nye tried to talk to him like an adult.


            • If you think Nye’s behavior was adult, and Tucker was a dick, that lends insight into why you comport yourself the way you do.

              Still not answering Tucker’s basic question I see, just devolved into personal attacks.


            • What the global temp rise would be without anthropogenic release of long sequestered CO2…?

              If you understood how science works, you’d understand that it is impossible to give an exact number.

              The question is kinda like asking your doctor how many cigarettes a day you can smoke…and still guarantee you won’t get lung cancer.

              A stupid question.

              The science has determined (and this is well documented…a simple internet seach will lead you to the studies and the rational)…that there is no climate model that can account for the global increase in temps over the last 30 years that does not factor in anthropogenic causes.

              Hence Bill’s answer.
              100% certainty that temp increases are anthropogenic in origin.

              Here’s a trend graph that might help you understand:

              Hint: we’re off the map now….here be monsters…


            • There you go…experiencing some more cognitive dissonance Numby…


    Leave a Comment

    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas