Bill Nye Wants to Tax Cow Farts
Bill Nye. Now, this is an example proving once again the things that we used to joke about are now actually coming to pass. You know, Bill Nye the Science Guy? You know he’s not a science guy. He’s a nerd. He’s a geek. I mean, he wears a white lab coat, and he’s on PBS. So he’s an accepted leftist. But he’s not a scientist. It’s typical. The left totally invests in this guy and he’s not even a scientist. Because he utters the political things they want to hear.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/...cow-farts/
This guy is as real of a scientist as the news the MSM reports.
He was an engineer, so presumably he has a decent technical background. Of course he hasn't worked as an engineer in a long time.
And he lost all credibility when he faked an experiment to "prove" global warming. Now he's nothing but another media Leftist willing to flat out lie to impose his view of what the world should be on everyone else.
Ugh is he one of those round earthers?
Is he related to Louis Nye?
I used to like him years ago before he was political. Its a shame.
(05-23-2018, 12:16 AM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]I used to like him years ago before he was political. Its a shame.
This is the exact reason he was chosen to push leftist propaganda disguised as science. He had credibility as "the science guy".
Why do so many people doubt that human made CO2 emissions and cow-made CH4 emissions can change the climate? If you doubt that, don't you have to believe instead that the vast majority of scientists are lying or ignorant about the topic? Ignorance seems unlikely, they spend their careers doing experiments that could prove them wrong, if they were wrong. So that leaves the possibility that they are lying. Why would so many scientists in so many different countries working before so many different institutions want to lie about this? What could possibly be in it for all of them? Wouldn't the one scientist who took on the role of "whistle blower" against such a conspiracy get an infinitely larger payday, in terms of money and notoriety?
How many climate scientists are self-funded? There's your answer. They know the funding dries up if they don't reach the desired conclusion.
So far none of the "climate change" predictions have been accurate. Yet they always say "the science is settled".
No real scientist would ever say that. True science is a working hypothesis always subject to revision.
(05-23-2018, 09:22 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]How many climate scientists are self-funded? There's your answer. They know the funding dries up if they don't reach the desired conclusion.
So far none of the "climate change" predictions have been accurate. Yet they always say "the science is settled".
No real scientist would ever say that. True science is a working hypothesis always subject to revision.
The big oil companies are free to fund their own studies. And they have.
(05-23-2018, 12:16 AM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]I used to like him years ago before he was political. Its a shame.
Because that's how public school teachers taught us back in the day.
Stick on Magic School Bus or Bill Nye the Science Guy and call it a day.
(05-23-2018, 10:03 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2018, 08:49 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Why do so many people doubt that human made CO2 emissions and cow-made CH4 emissions can change the climate? If you doubt that, don't you have to believe instead that the vast majority of scientists are lying or ignorant about the topic? Ignorance seems unlikely, they spend their careers doing experiments that could prove them wrong, if they were wrong. So that leaves the possibility that they are lying. Why would so many scientists in so many different countries working before so many different institutions want to lie about this? What could possibly be in it for all of them? Wouldn't the one scientist who took on the role of "whistle blower" against such a conspiracy get an infinitely larger payday, in terms of money and notoriety?
To answer your last question first, any scientist who takes the role of "whistle blower" risks losing all funding and eventually a job/faculty position. Check out what happened to Judith Curry and Peter Ridd for examples. In spite of the lies of the warmists, Big Oil is not funding the skeptics. Big government, however, is an unlimited source of continual funding for those who toe the party line. There is no financial incentive to being a "whistle blower."
As far as your first statement, check your premises. It's a strawman argument. The question is not whether methane and CO2 can change the climate, it's whether or not it can change the climate significantly enough to make government intervention (i.e. force backed by guns) worthwhile. We're talking about a degree or two of temperature change, which is what you experience walking from the bedroom to the living room (maybe in your case from your parents basement to the dining room). Hurricanes and tornadoes have decreased as temperature increased, and more people die from cold weather that from hot weather, so in those cases warming is a net positive. The sea level is rising at the same rate it has since records were kept (circa 1900). If you don't believe me check out the tide gauge data at NOAA.gov.
Most Climate Scientists aren't lying per se, but they are exaggerating the risk to get continued funding. Scientists are human, and want to keep their jobs, pay the mortgage, and feed the family, and if funding goes away they are flipping burgers at McDonalds.
There are some liars among them however, and many news reports that get it wrong (intentionally or not) always in the direction of alarmism. The rest of the Climate Scientist community allows the lies to persist, so they are complicit in that regard. In the case of Bill Nye, it was proven that he lied about an experiment he used in a video.
Hurricanes and tornadoes have not decreased. There is not enough data on that question either way.
The warmer measured temperatures have correlated droughts. The drought in Syria, which was one of the causes of the Civil War there, was was longer and over a wider area than the drought documented in the Bible's story of Elijah. You may remember a lot of difficult conversations about terrorism and refugees happening both here and in Europe as a result of this war. While it's not wrong to focus on the religious or cultural dimension, neither the war nor the refugee flow happen without the drought happening first. And all of the possible ways to handle that problem cost money and tax our national interest in the national interests of our allies.
The rising temperatures have increased the difficulty of growing certain tropical crops like coffee and chocolate.
There's been documented declines in the health of farm workers in warmer regions around the world because working in hot temperatures stresses out many organs. A couple Generations ago these farm workers lived longer and had fewer health problems. Nothing changed but the ambient temperature. For the crip can sometimes tolerate it, sugar for instance does not care about 90 and 100 degree temperatures, but the human body less so.
It seems like everybody but me is making a logical connection between "the government wants to tax cow farts" and "this tax will convert us all to socialism and eliminate our freedom and create a One World Government."
Weather or Not cow farts are warming the planet, and whether or not our government should be worried about trying to prevent the warming of the planet, all have a tax on cow farts would ever do is marginally increase the cost of beef and milk. This in turn would cause American consumers to demand a little less beef and a little more pork and chicken. Meanwhile our country's Sovereign government would continue holding free and fair elections and our courts would continue to strike down laws that conflict with our actual freedoms and constitution. The Constitution says that the Federal Government can tax us pretty much however they see fit.
I think $500k for a Clinton speech is more than adequate thank you.
(05-23-2018, 12:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile our country's Sovereign government would continue holding free and fair elections and our courts would continue to strike down laws that conflict with our actual freedoms and constitution. The Constitution says that the Federal Government can tax us pretty much however they see fit.
Are they teaching those lies in public school now? In a Constitutional Republic, the individual is sovereign. There is no higher authority.
(05-23-2018, 06:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2018, 12:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Hurricanes and tornadoes have not decreased. There is not enough data on that question either way.
The warmer measured temperatures have correlated droughts. The drought in Syria, which was one of the causes of the Civil War there, was was longer and over a wider area than the drought documented in the Bible's story of Elijah. You may remember a lot of difficult conversations about terrorism and refugees happening both here and in Europe as a result of this war. While it's not wrong to focus on the religious or cultural dimension, neither the war nor the refugee flow happen without the drought happening first. And all of the possible ways to handle that problem cost money and tax our national interest in the national interests of our allies.
The rising temperatures have increased the difficulty of growing certain tropical crops like coffee and chocolate.
There's been documented declines in the health of farm workers in warmer regions around the world because working in hot temperatures stresses out many organs. A couple Generations ago these farm workers lived longer and had fewer health problems. Nothing changed but the ambient temperature. For the crip can sometimes tolerate it, sugar for instance does not care about 90 and 100 degree temperatures, but the human body less so.
It seems like everybody but me is making a logical connection between "the government wants to tax cow farts" and "this tax will convert us all to socialism and eliminate our freedom and create a One World Government."
Weather or Not cow farts are warming the planet, and whether or not our government should be worried about trying to prevent the warming of the planet, all have a tax on cow farts would ever do is marginally increase the cost of beef and milk. This in turn would cause American consumers to demand a little less beef and a little more pork and chicken. Meanwhile our country's Sovereign government would continue holding free and fair elections and our courts would continue to strike down laws that conflict with our actual freedoms and constitution. The Constitution says that the Federal Government can tax us pretty much however they see fit.
Any new tax is a loss of freedom. It takes money from the working class and gives it to the ruling class.
Blaming the war in Syria on the weather is pure bullcrap from a desperate group using any catastrophe to further their agenda. It just shows again how pathetic the warmist argument is.
Almost all of the ONE DEGREE warming so far has been in the Arctic and Siberia. There is no unusual temperature stress on workers in warm regions, just the usual weather those regions have always experienced. Likewise, there are no temperature effects on tropical crops since the tropics haven't warmed.
Hurricanes and tornadoes have decreased. It's not statistically significant, but neither is much of the warming (good luck finding a warming graph with valid error bars). In any case the warming has not caused an increase in dangerous storms.
Like most of the Climate-related proposals, a tax on cattle would hit the working poor the hardest, not the "renewable energy" pushers or the Climate Scientists making over $100K per year.
There is no such freedom as "freedom from taxes." Low taxes are good, but, "no taxes" = "no government" = "no freedom."
We are talking about an optimization relationship, not minimization.
What if this new tax was introduced at the same time as a reduction in other taxes?
I agree also that taxes can be regressive and if we aren't careful, the working poor can get hit the hardest, but I doubt that your concern is offered sincerely here. The Republican party, the party of denying climate change, is also the party of wanting taxes to be flatter regardless of how that might burden the working poor.
(05-24-2018, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2018, 06:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
Any new tax is a loss of freedom. It takes money from the working class and gives it to the ruling class.
Blaming the war in Syria on the weather is pure bullcrap from a desperate group using any catastrophe to further their agenda. It just shows again how pathetic the warmist argument is.
Almost all of the ONE DEGREE warming so far has been in the Arctic and Siberia. There is no unusual temperature stress on workers in warm regions, just the usual weather those regions have always experienced. Likewise, there are no temperature effects on tropical crops since the tropics haven't warmed.
Hurricanes and tornadoes have decreased. It's not statistically significant, but neither is much of the warming (good luck finding a warming graph with valid error bars). In any case the warming has not caused an increase in dangerous storms.
Like most of the Climate-related proposals, a tax on cattle would hit the working poor the hardest, not the "renewable energy" pushers or the Climate Scientists making over $100K per year.
There is no such freedom as "freedom from taxes." Low taxes are good, but, "no taxes" = "no government" = "no freedom."
We are talking about an optimization relationship, not minimization.
What if this new tax was introduced at the same time as a reduction in other taxes?
I agree also that taxes can be regressive and if we aren't careful, the working poor can get hit the hardest, but I doubt that your concern is offered sincerely here. The Republican party, the party of denying climate change, is also the party of wanting taxes to be flatter regardless of how that might burden the working poor.
No Government does not equal No Freedom. Ever. Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always. The question is the extent to which freedom is reduced.
(05-24-2018, 01:14 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2018, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such freedom as "freedom from taxes." Low taxes are good, but, "no taxes" = "no government" = "no freedom."
We are talking about an optimization relationship, not minimization.
What if this new tax was introduced at the same time as a reduction in other taxes?
I agree also that taxes can be regressive and if we aren't careful, the working poor can get hit the hardest, but I doubt that your concern is offered sincerely here. The Republican party, the party of denying climate change, is also the party of wanting taxes to be flatter regardless of how that might burden the working poor.
No Government does not equal No Freedom. Ever. Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always. The question is the extent to which freedom is reduced.
Right, with no government we can all enjoy the freedom to have no one come investigate who has robbed us or murdered our family members, the freedom to have no-one punish them if we already know who did it, and the freedom to take matters into our own hands in an endless cycle of revenge violence such as could be seen in tribal areas of Pakistan today. Or maybe those tribes with their patriarchs are too much like a government for you.