Bill Nye the science guy.

Post Reply New Topic

Alternatively, you could only point to the best predictions—that one crackpot who says there is no climate change. But you wouldn't do that because no one agrees with them and there's zero evidence for that statement.
The so-called "worst predictions" are also the most credible ones, so I think it's reasonable to prepare for the worst.

The evidence is undeniable for climate change as a general phenomenon, but how strong is the evidence for anthropogenic climate change? That's a whole other issue and people often conflate the two concepts.

Are you f**king kidding? This is ridiculous. I'm not posting in this thread anymore.

It is an important, critical question to ask, which prompts a person to observe why they believe what they believe, and from which sources? Could the predictions be wrong?

Saying "the scientists said so" isn't very specific and seems to verge on dogma.

For all anyone knows, the predictions regarding anthropogenic climate change could be as wrong as the "Miasma theory" was, which people believed for a very long time.

"The miasma theory (also called the miasmic theory) is an abandoned medical theory that held that diseases—such as cholera, chlamydia, or the Black Death—were caused by a miasma (μίασμα, Ancient Greek for 'pollution'), a noxious form of "bad air", also known as night air. The theory held that epidemics were caused by miasma, emanating from rotting organic matter.[1] Though miasma theory is typically associated with the spread of contagious diseases, some academics in the early nineteenth century suggested that the theory extended to other conditions as well, e.g. one could become obese by inhaling the odor of food.[2]

The miasma theory was advanced by Hippocrates in the fourth century B.C.[3] and accepted from ancient times in Europe and China. The theory was eventually abandoned by scientists and physicians after 1880, replaced by the germ theory of disease: specific germs, not miasma, caused specific diseases."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory

Miasma was largely an unsupported hypothesis, I'm not sure that you're making a valid comparison with your analogy. It seems like you're comparing two unequal things and hoping no one will notice they're unequal.

The scientific method wasn't the normal way of evaluating ideas for most of the time miasma was treated as the cause of diseases. The same is not true of the era when anthropogenic climate change was hypothesized and researched.

I agree that it is more likely that anthropogenic climate change predictions will be less likely to be prone to error with current scientific methods versus those of the pre-1880's (with regards to the Miasma theory), but it is still a possibility that predictions of the weighting of anthropogenic climate change, versus climate change in general, could be somewhat 'off'.

Do you think it will be thrown out entirely like miasma or creationism, or continue to be refined like evolution and plate tectonics?

I think it's undeniable that humans have by orders of magnitude the greatest impact on the environment of any animal to ever live and it seems like we pretty consistently underestimate our impacts, rather than overestimate them.

^ Most likely it will be refined. I am hoping it will be refined (as per evidence) to support a more optimistic, future outlook. But that's just a hope.

I'm not that bothered in any case.

!	Cornflake wrote:
	A series of off-topic posts has been removed.

^ Very good...

He's tells Bill Nye off in one episode - Take a hike bow tie.

I wasn't a part of that particular discussion, but removing those posts was utterly inappropriate. Shame on you.

I never cared for Bill Nye. But I liked watching Beakman's World, which was aired on YTV in Canada. Beakman was a guy with big hair, a somehow even bigger brain, and there was a guy in a lab rat suit and a girl who'd say "FACT!", and then Beakman would tell the viewers some strange but true scientific fact. It was pretty much your typical edgy 90s kid show. Also it may have been possible that Beakman and Cosmo Kramer were twins.

They were reported, off-topic, argumentative and disrupted the flow of the thread.
Removal was therefore appropriate.