Bill O'Reilly...You're fired!

Milagro said:
snip....

Can you tell me how it is possible for so called scientists to use computer models as evidence, I know of no other branch of science where that would be tolerated.
Click to expand...

You do not appear to have even a rudimentary understanding of science?

2013 Chemistry Nobel Goes to Computer Modeling of Chemical Reactions

By combining quantum and classical mechanics, three researchers could model how electrons jump between elements in a molecule, enabling a deeper understanding of reactions and the design of new drugs

This year's chemistry prize goes to three theoretical chemists who devised a way for computers to model and predict how such reactions take place: Martin Karplus of Harvard University and the Universite de Strasbourg in France; Michael Levitt of the Stanford University School of Medicine and Arieh Warshel of the University of Southern California. Or, as the Nobel Committee put it in awarding the prize: "for the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2013-chemistry-nobel-for-molecule-computer-models/
Click to expand...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Other way around Tom. Nye showed brilliantly how to deal with a milksop polemicist attempt to hijack a conversation and Carlson losing his composure when Nye did so was jus laugh out load hilarious. LOL
Score a major win for science over polemics LOL
Click to expand...
Nye is not a scientist and has very little conception of the scientific method which has scepticism built into its very fabric. I again implore you to read more about Richard Feynman he would have made short work of the likes of Bill Nye, Michael Mann and James Hansen.

Can you tell me how it is possible for so called scientists to use computer models as evidence, I know of no other branch of science where that would be tolerated.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

Mott the Hoople said:
Who the he'll would know Tom? You're letting your bias on the climate topic interfere with your thinking. Nye couldn't get a word in edge wis cause Carlson did the tried and true trick of a polemicist to hijack a conversation he kept interrupting his guest with a prosecutors brief and wouldn't let him answer and when Nye called his bluff on it Carlson had an epic meltdown which, ironically as hell, proved a Nye's point on cognitive dissonance. It was funny as hell and it impressed me as I didn't think Nye had it in him.
Click to expand...


Oh ridiculous, he kept asking him to say what percentage of the warming was anthropogenic. Of course Bill Nye couldn't answer so just prevaricated instead. We are always being told that it is settled science and hundreds of billions have been spent on research yet a seemingly simple question is no nearer to being answered than it was 30 years ago.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
You do not appear to have even a rudimentary understanding of science?
Click to expand...
Yeh does that model predict chemical behaviour 50 years in the future? I have other stuff to do so I will let Judith Curry explain it to you instead. Oh she is a climatologist by the way so you won't be able to pull your usual bullshit about climate being too complex for rocket scientists to understand.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I did. I thought it was hilarious how Nye made Carlson completely lose his composure by continuing with his response despite Carlson's constant interruptions. Made Carlson look like a rookie but it was an excellent lesson by Nye on how to deal with a polemicist trying to hijack a conversation. It also validated his point on cognitive dissonance. Major win for Nye.
Click to expand...
You must have been watching something different to me, and I would also accuse you of confirmation bias.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Thing1 said:
Classic "family values" hypocrite. Preachy, dishonest & arrogant. "No spin" was a myth.
Click to expand...

I have a solution for O'Reilly's situation. Claim to be a Democrat and he can get elected to office by the lefty voters like you.
 
Milagro said:
Nye is not a scientist and has very little conception of the scientific method which has scepticism built into its very fabric. I again implore you to read more about Richard Feynman he would have made short work of the likes of Bill Nye, Michael Mann and James Hansen.

Can you tell me how it is possible for so called scientists to use computer models as evidence, I know of no other branch of science where that would be tolerated.

Sent from my iPhone 10S




Oh ridiculous, he kept asking him to say what percentage of the warming was anthropogenic. Of course Bill Nye couldn't answer so just prevaricated instead. We are always being told that it is settled science and hundreds of billions have been spent on research yet a seemingly simple question is no nearer to being answered than it was 30 years ago.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
Well that's because it was a stupid question. How much wood can a woodchuck chuck Tom? Come on Tom! How much wood? Can you tell me right now how much wood a woodchuck chucks?

It was a stupid question Tom.
 
Where there is smoke there may be fire.
So now O'reily becomes a hero to the left,
a place on the mantle next to Bill Clinton awaits him in most liberal households.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that's because it was a stupid question. How much wood can a woodchuck chuck Tom? Come on Tom! How much wood? Can you tell me right now how much wood a woodchuck chucks?

It was a stupid question Tom.
Click to expand...
How is it stupid? Surely with the hundreds of billions spent on climate research and the declaration that it is supposedly settled science then they ought to be able to put a percentage on it by now? Otherwise you'd have to draw the obvious conclusion that nobody actually knows. Which being the case then why would anybody trust anything the likes of Michael Mann aka Mr. Hockey Stick, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen have to say?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Milagro said:
How is it stupid? Surely with the hundreds of billions spent on climate research and the declaration that it is supposedly settled science then they ought to be able to put a percentage on it by now? Otherwise you'd have to draw the obvious conclusion that nobody actually knows. Which being the case then why would anybody trust anything the likes of Michael Mann aka Mr. Hockey Stick, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen have to say?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
Tom! You could ask the same logical fallacy about any form of pollution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top