Netflix Original: Bill Nye Saves The Earth

[CWO]

And the winner by unanimous decision:

Corvette guy.

[Mysticcobrakilla]

I can tell you Schlumberger is spending metric fuck tons of money. That has to say something.

[mschmoyer]

Off-topic, but if we're discussing Bill Nye, you can't go without seeing this video. The debate itself is pretty interesting too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9A-F8JEFyY

[Strychnine]

Rodney, I decided to be impartial, give this the benefit of the doubt, and actually watch it. Here are some thoughts on episode 1.



Immediately, he starts talking about the expansion of the ocean due to heat (coefficient of expansion) means floods in Miami, Pensacola and Galveston!? Bill holds his hand about mid-shin (12” or so?) and says they’d have water “this high” on the floor all the time!

So right off the bat, purely based on Bill’s words, he’s lying.

In summary, while the evidence is still incomplete, there are widespread indications of thermal expansion, particularly in the sub-tropical gyres, of the order 1 mm/yr

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/411.htm

1mm/yr = 1in/25yr = 4in/century…. 12” at that rate is a few hundred years.

Keep in mind that Bill's "go to" talking point on temp rise is THE RATE! It's all about the RATE OF CHANGE! Well apparently he can't grasp the RATE of change when it comes to the expansion of seawater.

Maybe some glacial/polar melting could be added in there, but said "expansion" a bunch and mentioned nothing about "melting," and his demonstration was a bunsen burner under a beaker showing how fluid expands when heated (conveniently, that setup will exaggerate the perceived expansion as the fluid moves into a reduced volume up the neck... opposite of how the oceans would work)


And here, just 6 minutes in is a great example of Bill’s disengenuos one-sided shit that doesn’t give all the facts.
He said that global warming and climate change are “way worse” world wars and pandemics.

WW1 – 17 million deaths
WW2 – 60 million deaths
Pandemics since 1900, leaving out the Spanish Flu since that’s generally included in WWI

• Asian Flu (1957-58) – 2 million
• Hong Kong Flu (1968-69) – 1 million
• Measles – 770,000 deaths in the year 2000 alone (so we’ll just add in 20 million, though it’s likely MUCH more)
• Tuberculosis – nearly 100 million deaths in the 20th century

Notice I didn’t include malaria, Dengue fever, and other vector-borne diseases.

So in the past century let’s call it an even 200 million deaths from world war and pandemic.

A report released earlier this year from the climate change watch group DARA estimates that the deaths related to climate change and its chief driver, fossil fuels, were roughly 5 million in 2010. That number makes climate change one of the leading causes of death in the world; for comparison, cancer causes about 7.6 million deaths per year.

These deaths are caused by a variety of factors related to climate and carbon. A changing climate not only makes agriculture less productive in many areas of the world, decreasing access to food, but also leads to greater food spoilage from heat; these effects alone lead to diarrheal illnesses and hunger that caused around 310,000 deaths in 2010. Heat and cold illnesses, malarial and vector-borne diseases, meningitis and environmental disasters account for the rest of the almost 700,000 deaths attributable to these direct climate impacts. Pollution, indoor smoke, and occupational hazards related to the carbon economy cause the rest of those 5 million deaths through ailments like skin and lung cancer.

https://mic.com/articles/21419/climate-change-kills-5-million-people-every-year#.u4gKSimlE

Note that last part about “Pollution, indoor smoke, and occupational hazards” being responsible for 5 million deaths – those are there despite any change in climate. The majority of those deaths are from third world and underdeveloped countries attempting to better themselves.

So really, those 310,000 deaths per year for causes linked to climate change but not directly caused by carbon emissions equates to 31 million over a century. Just a bit less than the 200 million from “world wars and pandemic” that Bill claimed pale in comparison. Even if you take out every TB death, the point still stands.

That’s a pretty big miss just 6 minutes in, right?

Beyond that, there’s a large portion of those other 5 million deaths that are due to shitty household air quality. Just under half of the entire world (like 3 billion people) “cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal”

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/

A whopping 90% of the mortality identified in the report comes from developing countries

Inefficient solid fuel stoves, lack of electricity for lighting, etc lead to particulate matter that’s fucking horrible for health. So on the other side of Bill’s coin is the moral case for fossil fuels, at least in the current global state. In the future they will go away, but right now GDP, life expectancy, mortality rates, etc. are very closely linked to energy availability and with carbon based fuels being the most easily dispatchable… technically, by giving diesel generators, coal plants, etc to developing nations you can save lives. Just another part of the discussion that should be happening, rather than saying “the science is settled!”

But Bill won’t ever mention those details during his circus show – they don’t fit the narrative that his scientist persona is being paid for





At 10 min in he starts talking about Venice…
Poor Venice is being flooded by raising sea levels! They’ve had to build structures to protect their precious history! This is horrible!

Venice floods ~100 times every year.
Oh and the entire fucking city is sinking… and tilting to the east. Did Bill bother mentioning that shit?

The forces causing the subsidence now are likely natural ones that have been impacting the area for a long time, particularly plate tectonics. The Adriatic plate, on which Venice sits, is subducting beneath the Apennines Mountains and causing the city and its environs to drop slightly in elevation. The compaction of the sediments beneath Venice also remains a factor.

Floods are happening more frequently along Venice's canals now, Bock said, with residents having to walk on wooden planks to stay above the floodwaters in large parts of the city about four or five times a year.

http://www.livescience.com/19195-venice-sinking-slowly.html

Venice's Gradual Sinking Charted by Satellites

A new study using modern satellite data has shown the amount that Venice is sinking with an unprecedented level of resolution, allowing scientists to tease apart the influence of natural causes of the sinking, due to compaction of the sediments on which the city is built, versus man-made ones, such as building restoration.

Scientists first recognized the problem decades ago when they noticed that pumping of groundwater from beneath Venice was causing the city to settle into the earth. The pumping and its effects have long since stopped, but the city continues to sink.

http://www.livescience.com/39979-venice-gradual-sinking-charted-by-satellites.html

BTW that article had the same stat I posted above, which does not agree with ol' Bill's exaggeration.

The Northern Adriatic Sea is rising at about 0.04 inches (1 mm) per year,

It’s been happening forever








And no dam, movable inflatable barrier arrangement, or anything else can stop it. We could be in a global cooling phase and Venice would still flood just the same.

Bock and his colleagues calculate that the city and surrounding land could sink by about 80 mm (3.2 inches) relative to the sea in the next 20 years if the current rate holds steady.

So here I am 12:36 in episode one, and I need a fucking drink. Please don't promote this shit. Start a conversation, but be honest about it. Don't let this asshat educate you.

Bill Nye, fuck be upon him, can’t be bothered to present all the facts, because yet again, it doesn’t please the people writing his check.



Oh, and the forced applause and laughing is worse than watching Jimmy Fallon bomb jokes on the Tonight Show.

[Nash B.]

Haha

[naynay]

my lord, dude. i'll be back another day on that response, but i am definitely gonna comb through it and learn something i know. i kinda miss the red text.

this turned out to be a good thread, and big shout out to z06 dude for breaking the echo chamber and adding some true content and food for thought.

and to that last bit, i slayed a crowd of about 17 today with a joke about my $ invested in susan g. koman, trying to bang chicks from highschool.

if anyone has been affected by Multiple Sclerosis though, I am doing MS150 again next week, feel free to throw a dollar at a player

$20 says no one will, but if anyone does i vow to do both days, the full 150 miles.

https://secure.nationalmssociety.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=BIKE_HOM_pc_2017&pc2_page=center&fr_id=28791

[CWO]

Rodney, I decided to be impartial, give this the benefit of the doubt, and actually watch it. Here are some thoughts on episode 1.



Immediately, he starts talking about the expansion of the ocean due to heat (coefficient of expansion) means floods in Miami, Pensacola and Galveston!? Bill holds his hand about mid-shin (12” or so?) and says they’d have water “this high” on the floor all the time!

So right off the bat, purely based on Bill’s words, he’s lying.

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/411.htm

1mm/yr = 1in/25yr = 4in/century…. 12” at that rate is a few hundred years.

Keep in mind that Bill's "go to" talking point on temp rise is THE RATE! It's all about the RATE OF CHANGE! Well apparently he can't grasp the RATE of change when it comes to the expansion of seawater.

Maybe some glacial/polar melting could be added in there, but said "expansion" a bunch and mentioned nothing about "melting," and his demonstration was a bunsen burner under a beaker showing how fluid expands when heated (conveniently, that setup will exaggerate the perceived expansion as the fluid moves into a reduced volume up the neck... opposite of how the oceans would work)


And here, just 6 minutes in is a great example of Bill’s disengenuos one-sided shit that doesn’t give all the facts.
He said that global warming and climate change are “way worse” world wars and pandemics.

WW1 – 17 million deaths
WW2 – 60 million deaths
Pandemics since 1900, leaving out the Spanish Flu since that’s generally included in WWI

• Asian Flu (1957-58) – 2 million
• Hong Kong Flu (1968-69) – 1 million
• Measles – 770,000 deaths in the year 2000 alone (so we’ll just add in 20 million, though it’s likely MUCH more)
• Tuberculosis – nearly 100 million deaths in the 20th century

Notice I didn’t include malaria, Dengue fever, and other vector-borne diseases.

So in the past century let’s call it an even 200 million deaths from world war and pandemic.

https://mic.com/articles/21419/climate-change-kills-5-million-people-every-year#.u4gKSimlE

Note that last part about “Pollution, indoor smoke, and occupational hazards” being responsible for 5 million deaths – those are there despite any change in climate. The majority of those deaths are from third world and underdeveloped countries attempting to better themselves.

So really, those 310,000 deaths per year for causes linked to climate change but not directly caused by carbon emissions equates to 31 million over a century. Just a bit less than the 200 million from “world wars and pandemic” that Bill claimed pale in comparison. Even if you take out every TB death, the point still stands.

That’s a pretty big miss just 6 minutes in, right?

Beyond that, there’s a large portion of those other 5 million deaths that are due to shitty household air quality. Just under half of the entire world (like 3 billion people) “cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal”

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/

Inefficient solid fuel stoves, lack of electricity for lighting, etc lead to particulate matter that’s fucking horrible for health. So on the other side of Bill’s coin is the moral case for fossil fuels, at least in the current global state. In the future they will go away, but right now GDP, life expectancy, mortality rates, etc. are very closely linked to energy availability and with carbon based fuels being the most easily dispatchable… technically, by giving diesel generators, coal plants, etc to developing nations you can save lives. Just another part of the discussion that should be happening, rather than saying “the science is settled!”

But Bill won’t ever mention those details during his circus show – they don’t fit the narrative that his scientist persona is being paid for





At 10 min in he starts talking about Venice…
Poor Venice is being flooded by raising sea levels! They’ve had to build structures to protect their precious history! This is horrible!

Venice floods ~100 times every year.
Oh and the entire fucking city is sinking… and tilting to the east. Did Bill bother mentioning that shit?

http://www.livescience.com/19195-venice-sinking-slowly.html

http://www.livescience.com/39979-venice-gradual-sinking-charted-by-satellites.html

BTW that article had the same stat I posted above, which does not agree with ol' Bill's exaggeration.



It’s been happening forever








And no dam, movable inflatable barrier arrangement, or anything else can stop it. We could be in a global cooling phase and Venice would still flood just the same.






So here I am 12:36 in episode one, and I need a fucking drink. Please don't promote this shit. Start a conversation, but be honest about it. Don't let this asshat educate you.

Bill Nye, fuck be upon him, can’t be bothered to present all the facts, because yet again, it doesn’t please the people writing his check.



Oh, and the forced applause and laughing is worse than watching Jimmy Fallon bomb jokes on the Tonight Show.

worth repeating

[naynay]

wish i woulda known last night that i could've just skipped to the last 4 lines to get the point of all that.

[CWO]

wish i woulda known last night that i could've just skipped to the last 4 lines to get the point of all that.

The last 4 lines he said were basically brought up over and over prior to that in several posts by multiple people. You chose to dismiss those comments at the time they were made.

[naynay]

dismissed because they were presented without facts, purely hate and speculation.

[SS Junk]

dismissed because they were presented without facts, purely hate and speculation.

Strychnine my new monica. You're dismissed.

Off-topic, but if we're discussing Bill Nye, you can't go without seeing this video. The debate itself is pretty interesting too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9A-F8JEFyY

"My beliefs are based on evidence."

As I said earlier, if one believes in evolution then the belief is still based on faith, just as Christians base their faith on God creating the Heavens and the Earth.

[mschmoyer]

Keep in mind that Bill's "go to" talking point on temp rise is THE RATE! It's all about the RATE OF CHANGE! Well apparently he can't grasp the RATE of change when it comes to the expansion of seawater.

I think you misinterpret this scientific point. It's the rate of change of temperature of the earth, and rate of change of pollution being put into the atmosphere. Not rate of change of ocean expanding. Let's say we believe your model...with enough time, does it really matter? We just get to the same end a hundred years later. That makes it your grandchildren's problem instead of your childrens. So is he really wrong to bring it up?

And here, just 6 minutes in is a great example of Bill’s disengenuos one-sided shit that doesn’t give all the facts. He said that global warming and climate change are “way worse” world wars and pandemics.

Climate change hasn't really hit stride yet, so none of us can know the end result. His claim is that it will be worse if the current trend continues unchanged. He made a prediction about the future. That cannot be proven right or wrong at this point. Try this exercise in 50/100 years with no changes and it may look a lot different. There were also people that predicted WW2 was going to be bloody and we needed to help, and we ignored them for quite a while too...

Inefficient solid fuel stoves, lack of electricity for lighting, etc lead to particulate matter that’s fucking horrible for health. So on the other side of Bill’s coin is the moral case for fossil fuels, at least in the current global state. In the future they will go away, but right now GDP, life expectancy, mortality rates, etc. are very closely linked to energy availability and with carbon based fuels being the most easily dispatchable… technically, by giving diesel generators, coal plants, etc to developing nations you can save lives. Just another part of the discussion that should be happening, rather than saying “the science is settled!”

But Bill won’t ever mention those details during his circus show – they don’t fit the narrative that his scientist persona is being paid for

Why does he need to? He doesn't disagree, and it's not exactly relevant.

However...later in the show they discuss how 3rd world countries don't matter for pollution, they can have all the oil&gas they want. These people use something like .1 tons of carbon per year, whereas us Americans use something like 20-30 tons. Give them all they want, they still don't drive SUVS to the mall everyday...

So I don't think anybody is against them getting whatever they need. He's against US getting this crap when we have something better sitting right in front of us, and the money & tech to build and use it.

At 10 min in he starts talking about Venice…
Poor Venice is being flooded by raising sea levels! They’ve had to build structures to protect their precious history! This is horrible!

Venice floods ~100 times every year.

He's illustrating what happens if water were to rise in a populated area. At least, that's how I took it. An example of where a predisposition changes how one interprets a segment.



So I get that your hyper-analyzing some of the minute details of his episode, but what about the overarching point?

Do you disagree humans are affecting the climate? And ultimately, regardless of when or how much, enough of this can cause issues down the road?

Do you disagree we should let wind/solar/renewable at least have a fair shot to win in the open market? Remove oil&gas advantages, encourage renewable?

Do you disagree we should make a better effort to elect at least a few scientifically literate politicians?

I appreciate the discussion btw. It's interesting to debate this in a somewhat-random melting pot of opinions.

[mschmoyer]

As I said earlier, if one believes in evolution then the belief is still based on faith, just as Christians base their faith on God creating the Heavens and the Earth.

Evolution, and all scientific discoveries, are about observable results, not a "belief". For example...

I can watch a tree grow. I can cut it down and count the rings. X rings per Y years. Then, I can do this 1,000 times. It will be the same every time. Now we have a PROVEN way to tell a tree's age.

So we find a tree with a lot of rings. We know it's more than 6k years old. How can the earth be only 6k years old? How is this "faith"? We just proved it with OBSERVABLE science. Nothing about the old testament is OBSERVABLE. That's faith.

Evolution is much tougher to debate among laymen like us, but they have the same observable science. Again, not something you can find in the Bible.

I'm not expert on evolution, but one source on it:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e1

[SS Junk]

Evolution, and all scientific discoveries, are about observable results, not a "belief".

You did not watch the video. When your boy was questioned regarding certain events he said he did not know, but believed them to be true. That is faith, dear sir no matter how you want to slice it. I know evolutionists despise that term, but as my former monica used to say, it is what it is.

[mschmoyer]

You did not watch the video. When your boy was questioned regarding certain events he said he did not know, but believed them to be true. That is faith, dear sir no matter how you want to slice it. I know evolutionists despise that term, but as my former monica used to say, it is what it is.

On this specific quote, Bill is bated into an argument on "belief" when in reality, what he's trying to spit out is that he believes observable science to be truth. So he "believes" what can be observed and duplicated. There's no observable proof of noah's ark, so it's faith to believe it existed, or as some do, take it to not be a literal story.

Also, theories like evolution may be key to things like curing cancer and other diseases. Regardless of belief, we should not actively teach or prevent children from learning about the world around us (science) to try to solve these problems. Religions like Catholicism actively embrace science.