Bill Nye/SE Cupp

Post Reply New Topic

Cupp needs to be at Fox Views where she belongs. She has no integrity as a journalist. It is her rhetoric that is the "scare tactics." Bill Nye is talking reality. Let Cupp sit on the podium with all the other Fox Views skirt flashers, keeping all the old men comatose staring at their legs.

She is out of her league trying to debate or interview Bill Nye. Whatever she was trying to do. It wasn't professional. Maybe she needs to go apprentice in Sean Hannity dressing room for a few years. Fox is going al Fem Fem soon. Might as well just show Hannity and O'Reilly a taste of what their future holds.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05 ... l-warming/

In the article, Cupp had defended her position by stating that so many Americans didn't believe in global warming. Well, long ago when people thought that Kepler and Galileo were dead wrong for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun, and was not the center of the universe, didn't mean that what people believed made it so. Science and facts are not dependent on popular opinion.

Why doesn't fox just bite the bullet and just put a stripper pole in the middle of the news desk. This is what they've been edging towards, and it's the only reason they still have an audience.

Well, that, and providing a place where racism and homophobia can still can be blurted out loud.

Her argument is, "efforts to get Americans to believe in 'global warming' are not working".

Cupp cites 'Gallup Polling' to make her argument.

'Gallup Polling' shows only 36% of Americans believe in 'global warming'.

Nye is unable to address her argument. Nye gets flustered.

That's because Nye had gone into the debate with scientific facts, not to argue opinions. Silly scientist, thinking you can't decide science and facts on popular vote!

What you state here is non sequitur.

Her argument is about 'the Gallup poll' results.

How does Bill Nye's 'scientific facts' change the results of the 'Gallup poll' ?

What does it even matter what the unwashed masses believe? If the majority believed the earth was flat, should politicians make policy based on that?

People can believe the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it true. Just because people don't believe in scientific findings findings doesn't negate said findings because of popular opinion.

Climate change isn't what's being disputed, it's the cause of said change.


Did Galileo or Kepler have politically driven motives or have people and a government with politically driven motives behind them with money?


Climate change with pollution being highest contributing factor is a leftist belief.
Leftist who ironically are traditionally tree huggers and haters of big business and capitalism in general.

I believe it was Joseph Goebbels or Vladimir Lenin that said "A lie, when repeated by enough people, becomes truth" or words to that effect.

And that is where Nye went so horribly wrong. Instead of addressing Cupp's actual point, which was "efforts to get Americans to believe in global warming are not working" (as evidenced by the Gallup poll), he tried to convince her of the seriousness of climate change. But that wasn't what she was talking about. She wasn't disputing the seriousness. She was saying that Nye's and others' ways of telling people about this just wasn't working.
quote]
Cupp, who pondered whether public consensus is needed in order to get traction on the issue, asked Nye what politicians should be doing to convince the public of their global warming contentions.[[/quote]

He didn't actually answer what politicians should be doing to convince the public. He just repeated that it is very serious.

His way wasn't working with me and I already agree with him! But he just muffed this so badly by not really listening to her. It sounded like he was on autopilot instead of engaging with what she was actually saying. He just repeated facts about climate change but did not address what she actually brought up.

Facts about climate change will work for people who are looking for facts about climate change. But for others, they won't work. What is needed is narrative. Fox is very, very good at narrative and Bill Nye is very, very bad at it. Somebody who is good at narrative needs to get on this, to translate the facts into a narrative that will convince people who respond to that.

You might say, why do we need those people who won't just respond to facts? Because they make public policy. That's what happens when you live in a democracy. You need people on your side.

He didn't actually answer what politicians should be doing to convince the public. He just repeated that it is very serious.

His way wasn't working with me and I already agree with him! But he just muffed this so badly by not really listening to her. It sounded like he was on autopilot instead of engaging with what she was actually saying. He just repeated facts about climate change but did not address what she actually brought up.

Facts about climate change will work for people who are looking for facts about climate change. But for others, they won't work. What is needed is narrative. Fox is very, very good at narrative and Bill Nye is very, very bad at it. Somebody who is good at narrative needs to get on this, to translate the facts into a narrative that will convince people who respond to that.

You might say, why do we need those people who won't just respond to facts? Because they make public policy. That's what happens when you live in a democracy. You need people on your side.[/quote]

That's because Nye deals entirely with scientific fact, and is not a propagandist.

Are you seriously trying to argue that climate change deniers aren't motivated by a political agenda? Or that there isn't powerful financial motivation behind this propaganda coming from big oil and coal? PLEASE!

Yup. and dealing entirely with scientific fact with no propaganda at all just doesn't work on Fox or with Fox's audience. He brought a knife to a gun fight.

Luckily there is Neal deGrasse Tyson who just did a bit on climate change on the Cosmos show. Now there's a guy who knows his way around a narrative. Hopefully he's not just preaching to the converted with that show and it's reaching a wider audience. His narrative skills (or propaganda if you insist) are better than Nye's so he has a better chance of conveying this.

Everyone's motivated by their wallets, but which side brought up climate change first?

Sometimes policy hurts real people, something warmists don't care much about. My family is originally from northern Wisconsin and there's this big debate about reopening mines up, so many of these areas up there so impoverish and have been that way since they closed these mines decades ago. Anyone that has ever been to northern Wisconsin knows how beautiful it is and tourism is now the main driving force in the local economies, having a lake property in northern Wisconsin is a major status symbol in the region. You have a lot of wealthy people from Chicago who buy up these properties that locals can't even live on anymore and restrict access and now a lot of these same people are opposing reopening these mines. Most would prefer that these poor hicks just leave the places their families have lived for generations and don't care if they have to exist on public assistance, most of my family including myself have. There has to be a balance, you can't destroy people's livelihoods and entire economies because it might hurt a few fish or mess up your unadulterated views.

In the end, people's pocketbooks and survival are what matter the most to them not "science" or ideology. Our government is suppose to represent the people, so it does matter what the "unwashed masses" believe.

Last edited by Jacoby on 08 May 2014, 6:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.