This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Bill Nye just dropped several pegs on my respect meter.
Where we "Deniers" have issues is with the ability of SCIENTISTS to claim that any change in the weather is proof of their hypothesis. This should cause any scientist to step back and say "Oops, that's FUBARRED". If every observation, no matter what it is, supports my hypothesis, my test is bad. Scientist thrive on the concept of falsifiability. Failure to recognize that your hypothesis isn't falsifiable IS BIG BLUNDER.
When we point to the excessive cold as "proof" of the invalidity of the AGW or ACC (anthroprogenic climate change), it is not because it is cold, it is because it is contrary to the predictions.
Mr. Nye. Wake up and smell your religion, it's name is Climate Change.
I looked up who Bill Nye is, and he seems to be a famous US TV presenter for science shows specifically aimed at kids.
We don't really get 'science for kids' TV shows in the UK any more. There used to be quite a few of them, with their heyday back in the 1970s involving presenters like David Bellamy, Magnus Pyke and Johnny Ball.
But I'm pleased to say that our former presenters for this kind of show have a strong tendency to be AGW sceptics. David Bellamy is one of the UK's most famous sceptics and it was revealed a couple of months ago that Johnny Ball is also a sceptic following the incident described on this link:
To me, the quintessential "science guy" is Don Herbert. I grew up watching his Mister Wizard on TV.
In contrast, Bill Nye always seemed full of himself. He taught science in the rather arrogant style he now holds when discussing global warming skeptics.
I remember a TV series on PBS during the mid-sixties. I looked it up. The show was called “Experiment,” and Don Herbert hosted it. One show, “Weather By Numbers,” discussed the hopes and problems with predicting weather using computer models.
He demonstrated a computer run based on a northern hemisphere grid work of weather measurements. He also compared the computer run to actual weather. The computer run started out close to the actual weather, but then rapidly diverged.
Today we know that it’s the chaotic nature of weather that makes it hard to duplicate weather on a computer. Don Herbert’s final comment lamented that if only we had sufficient funding it may be possible to create accurate weather prediction programs. The climate guys figured out how to get the funding.