Environment Technology

Environment Technology

Climate Realist Marc Morano Debates Bill Nye the Science Guy on Global Warming

Posted by admin on December 24, 2012 in Global Warming with 25 Comments


OnlyWaxinghttp://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/OnlyWaxingNewsClimate Realist Marc Morano Debates Bill Nye the Science Guy on Global Warming

Duration : 0:10:46


« previous post

The VI International olympiad ...

Gulnare Safarovahttp://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/l3fbi1qwZFRmeSH72katfQTechThe VI ...

next post »

A.B.B. Develops Hybrid HVDC De....

A.B.B., a Swiss-based power technology and automation company, has developed a new device ...

  1. ge556December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #1

    “Then why does CO2 …
    “Then why does CO2 peak 100s of years after the temperature peaks?”

    The co2-lags-temperature article explains this. It’s true only when something other than CO2 causes the initial warming.

  2. ge556December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #2

    I hope your …
    I hope your question means that you are open to learning something other than denialist distortions.

    It is true and demonstrable that trace gasses act as greenhouse gasses. Methane is much stronger than CO2, even. They are amplified because their warming increases water vapor, which increases warming further.
    The current warming is mostly caused by increased CO2.

    Here are two sources (remove the spaces):
    skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
    climate. nasa. gov/causes

  3. cupera1December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #3

    Then why does CO2 …
    Then why does CO2 peak 100s of years after the temperature peaks?
     How can a gas that is >4% of the atmosphere and is ~5% the affect of H2O in the air drive temp change? Is that blaming the penny for the dollar?

  4. sorrybadbeatDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #4

    If yelling made you …
    If yelling made you right Morano would never be wrong.

  5. Whoknows1445December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #5

    How does that …
    How does that counter what I stated? The land was protected for a reason; and even Teddy would’ve agreed on such measures. The fact of the matter is that the oil present over there is NOT economical if oil was priced well below $100/ barrel. You won’t – in other words – be getting the $20-30/ barrel of early 2000 and rather most would be exported.

    Is that even worth it? Remember, if the oil in protected areas, it would’ve been exploited a long time ago. US production has peaked decades ago.

  6. Baileygeep7December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #6

    Idyllic and naive, …
    Idyllic and naive, all permits in the US are down just shy of 50%, peak oil by decree.

  7. wwjsharkloverDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #7

    Bill Nye doesn’t …
    Bill Nye doesn’t own a private jet, yacht, or a mansion.

  8. wwjsharkloverDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #8

    They should have a …
    They should have a rap battle.

  9. ge556December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #9

    Because CO2 is the …
    Because CO2 is the biggest cause of warming in recent decades. Its effects are amplified by water vapor. If you are going to argue about it, you should learn the basics.

  10. cupera1December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #10

    Why all the focus …
    Why all the focus on just one green house gas? There are over a dozen that are in the atmosphere and most are at trace amounts. CO2 have been higher in past times during ice ages and lower during warm periods, Medieval Warm period. The biggest green house gas is water vapor due to the shear amount in the atmosphere and overwhelms all other GWH effects by a factor of 20X. Why all the efforts on one gas that is <0.1% of the green house gas effect? When in doubt follow the money.

  11. Razor95321December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #11

    “And where exactly …
    “And where exactly have you heard this? Quite silly really. I hope you’re just a troll.”

    First of all, I’d learn to understand sarcasm. Then, I would read a chapter in a chemistry book that describes the term “Reaction rate”.

  12. Razor95321December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #12

    “Science isn’t …
    “Science isn’t about STAGNANT IDEAS, it’s about expanding ideas until we find the best possible option with the strongest evidence and working with that.”

    Ahh! Finally someone on YT who understands the principals of science.

  13. Razor95321December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #13

    “Razor, you really …
    “Razor, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Why not? Tell me why Greenland has been and is still being called “Greenland/Grönland”!

    “You are confusing the medieval warming period with years ago with many millions of years ago.”

    No I’m not. I was only tiping about the recent warm periods.

  14. MartinJaysDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #14

    Intention*
    Intention*

  15. Jack DanielsDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #15

    Bill Nye coolest …
    Bill Nye coolest guy I’ve ever seen on a debate

  16. damogoshDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #16

    Bill Nye got owned …
    Bill Nye got owned morano! Green lefties 0 – the rest 1

  17. George LopezDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #17

    kudos to bill for …
    kudos to bill for always keeping his cool. People constantly disrespect him while debating it. Bill nye is such a awesome human being.

  18. newdimensionfilmsDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #18

    I wonder how much …
    I wonder how much the Koch brothers pay this guy to yell lies on television.

  19. Brad ReynoldsDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #19

    I agree, …
    I agree, Toooooommmmmmm. Don’t we all wish that the global change deniers were right and we could sit back and do nothing. Don’t we all with that 99% of climate scientists were involved in some nefarious plot. It is pretty horrendous to think of what kind of future we are handing off to our children.

  20. ToooommmmmmmmmmmDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #20

    I wish Morano was …
    I wish Morano was right. Sadly Bill Nye is right on the money

  21. Whoknows1445December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #21

    Who knows. It could …
    Who knows. It could be due to the fact that there is greater emotional attachment to Arctic lands than offshore. Biomass density is a lot higher despite biodiversity offshore probably being higher. Those cuddly animals probably play a role here, and it would be interesting to see what would happen if the lands become contaminated…

    I wonder how insurance claims are doing in the Gulf. Is the recovery process over? It is hard to relate when having a diversified portfolio/ multiple homes…

  22. cupera1December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #22

    This is a case of, …
    This is a case of, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Al Gore, Bill Nye and the other eco-elitist will continue to live in their four mansions and fly on private jets, sail on luxury yachts and run up electric bills 20X of the rest of us. They have no intension of stopping their life styles to “save the planet”. The rest of us, “the great unwashed”, to the elitists, will have to live in caves or live like the Unibomber.

  23. stellabella841December 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #23

    While it is true …
    While it is true that climate change is a completely natural thing that happens, it is not supposed to happen this fast. The Ice Age for example was a very slow process, while with Global Warming, the ice has been melting rapidly as well as temperatures rising quickly in only the last few years.

  24. Peter MogensenDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #24

    I remember the ice …
    I remember the ice age talk too … but I don’t remember every single scientific society on the planet issuing statements supporting the theory – like is the case with global warming.
    Even accepting your argument that there was a scientific consensus about an argument makes it only will-full ignorance to use that to reject global warming. Science does progress.. we are allowed to get wiser. Now we know the ice age warning was wrong and warming is our problem.

  25. Peter MogensenDecember 24, 2012 - 1:42 am #25

    I do – but the …
    I do – but the interesting question here is why you believe that the direction you’re going in any way leads to an argument against my main point, that Monckton is basing his “16 years” argument on a single temperature measurement of one parameter inside a very complex system over a time period way too short for the noise levels?
    Why would Monckton have a better case if one took your point into account? It just makes what he’s looking at an even smaller part of the system.

Leave a Reply

No trackbacks yet.

No post with similar tags yet.

Posts in similar categories
Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE