Bill Nye the "sex junk" guy
- Thread starter CommuterBob
- Start date
Bill Nye is a buffoon left wing pundit that they parade out there to be their token "science defender". He's also the idiot that thinks the Constitution explicitly calls for federal funding of science projects. He cannot understand he is reading the Intellectual Property clause.
I hope the left wing extremists continue putting garbage like this out there. They'll continue to repulse normal people who aren't violent culture warriors
I hope the left wing extremists continue putting garbage like this out there. They'll continue to repulse normal people who aren't violent culture warriors
Haven't watched it yet, but if it has our resident Einstein's Bob and 85 popping rage boners it must be both informational and entertaining.
It's a moronic SJW dance with the creativity of a 4th grader, presented on a show that presents a guy who has an engineering degree as some sort of credible scientist. A guy who worked at Boeing for a few years before going into television to play a character on TV which he now clings to.
Maybe something up your alley though.
I'm more offended that it's so unfunny than because it's garbage science. Anyway, Becoming bisexual is evolutionary? Since when does evolution care about things outside of propagating species?
This is postmodern gender and sexual religious speak. It isn't science.
This is postmodern gender and sexual religious speak. It isn't science.
Bill Nye "whines" on CNN because one of the 5 people on the show do not share his exact same opinion. He whines in just the first 90 seconds.
#unreal
Funny to see this Mechanical Engineer whine that someone might disagree with him in regards to his views on "science".
#unreal
Funny to see this Mechanical Engineer whine that someone might disagree with him in regards to his views on "science".
The one episode I watched wasn't that bad. Corny, but wasn't a anti Trump political message at all. He just called out the alternative medicine hippy bullshit for what it is... fake. If anything he was crapping on something the far left attempts to push.
He just goes off on anything that goes against peer reviewed anti-science and let's be real both sides of the aisle have these wack jobs. On the right climate change deniers, on the left anti immunization loons. He goes after them both.
He just goes off on anything that goes against peer reviewed anti-science and let's be real both sides of the aisle have these wack jobs. On the right climate change deniers, on the left anti immunization loons. He goes after them both.
But he's absolutely right!!! Climate change is widely accepted within the scientific community so CNN not paying homage to the fact that 98 out of 100 scientists believe climate change to be occurring leads to a growing stupidity in America.
Anyone that denies climate change is just as stupid as the people who blame humans 100% for global warming.
Last edited:
Anyone that denies climate change is just as stupid as the people who blame humans for global warming.
Cherry pick all you want. But here are about a dozen other "legit" organizations that all agree that global warming is occurring and has increased due to human activity. I'll trust the people with doctorates and degrees who overwhelmingly believe it is occurring because of humans than some message board posters.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
It's not cherry picking. It's factual. The earth has warmed and cooled for as far back as has been researched. I should have put 100% in there about humans though. I'm sure humans have an impact, just like the dinosaurs did.
Ignoring the painfully obvious consensus that pumping trillions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere does indeed cause bad things to happen...how about this study showing huge differences in birth weights (one of the best indicators of infant health) due to pollution in general (not just CO2).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150428171400.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150428171400.htm
Trump seems hell bent on Palin's "drill baby drill" environmental policy, so it's not that people are saying pollution isn't bad, just that they would gladly put cheap dirty energy over clean more expensive energy.
Obama was the Frackin' King...which was actually one of the good things he did during his 2 tenures.
More energy from home, the better.
And the left has environmental warriors who oppose any new nuclear energy, despite the fact it's entirely CO2 free and we know exactly how to produce new plants. France generates most of their energy from nuclear power yet we have people saying we shouldn't expand our own output.
That is the issue here. Not that Trump or his people want to flood the market with "dirty" sources of energy. Just that we should stop trying to force everyone into 2-3 preferred sources of renewables favored by the left wing lobbies, for technologies that just aren't ready to fuel a country like the US yet.
No oil. No coal. No nuclear. They want everything to run on solar and wind tomorrow. It's unrealistic and stupid.
If the thesis is that CO2 is going to kill us all sooner than later, then these people should be begging for CO2-free nuclear power plants.
I do not understand why people oppose nuclear, I am 100% for it. In fact I just watched the first episode of bills show and they had some people on there advocating for it.
You are wrong about Trump and coal though, at least if you listen to his campaign rhetoric.
Also bills first episode was not funny, kind of painful to watch. Way too dumbed down slap stick crap. We aren't 10 years old anymore, the zany sound effects aren't that funny.
Plenty of Liberals...including Bernie Sanders and most of his minions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a5aed7958dc_story.html?utm_term=.aad482d4d318
Before you guys start crapping on coal, you better head to the states and localities that are built on the coal industry and look them in the face and tell them the alternative.
It's easy to sit at your computer and crap on coal. It's not so easy to transition entire counties that are built on the coal industry.
It's easy to sit at your computer and crap on coal. It's not so easy to transition entire counties that are built on the coal industry.
See what I did there? You're so far out of fvcking touch it's ridiculous. So modernization and innovation should just take a back seat because it would put a small number of people in certain jurisdictions out of work? Here's something to blow your mind, did you know that between 2015 and 2016 there were more people employed in the solar energy industry than all traditional fossil fuels (nat gas, oil and coal) combined? In fact, solar employees made up just under 50% of total employment in the energy sector in the U.S. and wind energy employment was third behind combined fossil fuel employment.
I work in the energy industry and feel that a common sense mix would include nuclear, nat gas, solar and wind. For those that like to spew that the gubment plays favorites with respect to energy, let me remind you that fossils and nuclear have been enjoying subsidies for far longer than alternative energy. In addition to quantifiable subsidy dollars, oil, etc. also enjoy favorable tax and investment structures including REITs and MLPs that are not yet available to alternative energies (due to the very powerful fossil fuel lobby).
When NextEra (formerly FP&L), Duke, Southern Company and NRG (all of which are utilities) are the largest owners of and investors in alternative forms of electric generation (wind and solar) then you know it must be an industry with legs. No one has forced NextEra to be the largest owner of wind energy facilities in the U.S., they are just a forward thinking and forward looking company that understands that a diverse energy mix (including one with a continual reduction in dependence on fossil fueled generation) is paramount to our nation's future and security.
Cars were more efficient than the horse and buggy. Not true with coal and renewables. Killing coal isn't about money, it's about politics.
Bullshit comment is bullshit. Wind and utility-scale solar are cheaper than coal, even on a non-subsidized basis and without the added social externalities and societal subsidies of dirty fuel:
Another important factor left out of the chart above, as it pertains to nuclear, is the cost of decommissioning and insurance for nuclear plants. Adding in those essential costs to every nuclear plant would push nuclear much farther to the right (and possibly even off the chart).
What data are you using, boob, to argue that coal is more efficient than solar? Solar has an endless fuel supply while coal must be mined, etc. Also, about 30% of burned coal is considered converted for energy production. There are solar panels on the market today that have an efficiency rating of 40%, and that rate continues to climb.
Bullshit comment is bullshit. Wind and utility-scale solar are cheaper than coal, even on a non-subsidized basis and without the added social externalities and societal subsidies of dirty fuel:
Another important factor left out of the chart above, as it pertains to nuclear, is the cost of decommissioning and insurance for nuclear plants. Adding in those essential costs to every nuclear plant would push nuclear much farther to the right (and possibly even off the chart).
What data are you using, boob, to argue that coal is more efficient than solar? Solar has an endless fuel supply while coal must be mined, etc. Also, about 30% of burned coal is considered converted for energy production. There are solar panels on the market today that have an efficiency rating of 40%, and that rate continues to climb.
He's not using data. He's talking out of his ass like he usually does!
The problem with coal is that coal mining jobs aren't coming back, even if coal returns to prominence (although it hasn't slipped all that much). The mining jobs have been dropping for years, mostly due to better techniques and automation.
You want someone to blame for the loss of coal mining jobs? Blame the mining companies and foreign entities which no longer buy US coal and that Trump has zero control over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/coal-jobs-trump-appalachia.html?_r=0
And it's only going to continue that trend.
WTF did I just watch.... How can a science guy who once did a segment on chromosomes not think there are more than 2 genders? LOL what a joke.
There's a National Security benefit to a decentralized power grid as well. Right now, there's 3 major power grids in the US but only a handful of power plants can be "Black started", or started without any external power. It would take a very long time to get power back to everyone if a nationwide blackout were to occur.
Bullshit comment is bullshit. Wind and utility-scale solar are cheaper than coal, even on a non-subsidized basis and without the added social externalities and societal subsidies of dirty fuel:
Another important factor left out of the chart above, as it pertains to nuclear, is the cost of decommissioning and insurance for nuclear plants. Adding in those essential costs to every nuclear plant would push nuclear much farther to the right (and possibly even off the chart).
What data are you using, boob, to argue that coal is more efficient than solar? Solar has an endless fuel supply while coal must be mined, etc. Also, about 30% of burned coal is considered converted for energy production. There are solar panels on the market today that have an efficiency rating of 40%, and that rate continues to climb.
The chart you posted shows coal is cheaper or as cheap as everything else. What are you arguing? You've already resorted to cursing and name calling so it's obvious you are unable to debate this topic objectively.
Apparently the meth production in your trailer park is melting your brain. The chart shows coal costing between $60 and $143 per MWh. By comparison, utility scale solar is between $46 and $61 per MWh and wind is between $32 and $62 per MWh. By the way, add somewhere between $90 and $140 per MWh (per a study conducted by Harvard Medical School) to coal's cost for environmental and health effects directly attributable to coal. Also not factored in coal's cost as shown in the graphic is the cost of transportation from mine to point of consumption.
Apparently the meth production in your trailer park is melting your brain. The chart shows coal costing between $60 and $143 per MWh. By comparison, utility scale solar is between $46 and $61 per MWh and wind is between $32 and $62 per MWh. By the way, add somewhere between $90 and $140 per MWh (per a study conducted by Harvard Medical School) to coal's cost for environmental and health effects directly attributable to coal. Also not factored in coal's cost as shown in the graphic is the cost of transportation from mine to point of consumption.
Ok, but contrary to left wing belief, there is not a right wing conspiracy to kill solar or wind energy in this country. The biggest producer of wind power in the nation is deep red Texas.
So why then are these not rapidly catching on nationally, if they really are cheaper on a non-subsidized basis? If they were competitively cheaper and more readably available, there's no reason why the markets wouldn't have moved onto them as main power sources by now. But that's not happening.
Many factories are opting for NatGas ahead of wind or solar.
Wind power is huge in the Rockies and great plains. Like half of eastern Colorado is wind farms. I saw many in Idaho too. Firms are trying to get licenses for the oceans as well. Solar is expanding too, which is why the power companies spent so much money trying to curb it in the last election.
You guys need to chill out. Was there anything in my post that made me a coal loving energy wingnut?
Read it again.
Apparently you like to treat certain cities and states as "flyover" country. There are real people living there that have for generations worked these mines. The only problem that I have with alternative sources of energy (well, other than the fact that most don't work as well as promised) is that politicians generally take a crap on an entire state with the stroke of a pen without any regard to what real people are going to do when you outlaw their jobs.
You guys love to shove your charts and your data down people's throat. That's great. Typical politicians that don't give 2 craps about people ... only science.
You want to rid the world of dirty coal for good? Next time, instead of just wiping out thousands of families with a pen, come up with alternative sources of livelihoods for the people working there. Cause when you don't, crap like this always happens and the first politician that promises them their jobs back will win.
You have way too much hyperbole in this rant.
The changes you describe don't occur at the rate you think. There's market forces at play and it takes time for the impact to be felt. It's on the individual to recognize these forces and adapt, either by learning new skills or moving to where there are jobs that match their skill set.
To put it bluntly, if a blue collar worker (or any worker for that matter) isn't surveying the employment landscape and adapting their skills to be relevant, they will be left behind. It's been that way for years in many industries. You can't expect government to fix that, it's not their role.
