Where's an Environmentalist when you need one

[apeman]

Environmental activist Leonard DeCaprio flies a gal 7,500 miles to do his eyebrows for the Oscars. I don't know if DeCaprio is gay or not, but this is a really gay move on a several levels.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 01731.html

In this 2014 news puff piece a weepy eyed reporter engages him and Leonard says the environmental situation is 'Dire'.

then Leonard went on to speak at the UN with all kinds of strong words about how serious pollution is as a threat to the planet.

Will greenies take on these elitist polluters or will they just allow him to put on a fund raiser and call it good ?



UN speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-FM845giaI

It's almost like

he's

acting

[Kazmyr]

It's almost like

he's

acting

To Carlus' question - all he needs is a #NoDAPL sign and one speech, maybe mix in something clever about Trump being orange and an asshole and all will be right with the world.

[C-Mag]

It's almost like
he's
acting[/quote]

He almost made me cry.

Tucker Carlson asked some very simple, logical questions about AGW Climate Change to Bill Nye. The science guy stumbled around but did manage to say that if it weren't for AGW we would be in an Ice Age, or have the Climate of 1750, and that ALL Climate Change, 100% - is a result of AGW.


@Kazmyr - Yeah, a few hours of brushing shoulders with the plebes should do it

[Otern]

He almost made me cry.

Tucker Carlson asked some very simple, logical questions about AGW Climate Change to Bill Nye. The science guy stumbled around but did manage to say that if it weren't for AGW we would be in an Ice Age, or have the Climate of 1750, and that ALL Climate Change, 100% - is a result of AGW.


@Kazmyr - Yeah, a few hours of brushing shoulders with the plebes should do it

Have to go will Bill Nye on this one. What an awful interviewer.

[C-Mag]

He almost made me cry.

Tucker Carlson asked some very simple, logical questions about AGW Climate Change to Bill Nye. The science guy stumbled around but did manage to say that if it weren't for AGW we would be in an Ice Age, or have the Climate of 1750, and that ALL Climate Change, 100% - is a result of AGW.


@Kazmyr - Yeah, a few hours of brushing shoulders with the plebes should do it

Have to go will Bill Nye on this one. What an awful interviewer.

I thought the questions were logical.

If the science is solved. Then the science will be predictive and we should be able to know at what rate humans are changing the environment and when things will happen. What problem did you have with that ?

[Speaker to Animals]

The climate has changed far more rapidly in the past and it had nothing at all to do with human activity.

His argument is false. He asserts that the rate of climate change today is much faster than in the past because of human activity. That's absolutely false. We already know that the climate changed at far, far fast rates in the past. The Younger Dryas, for example.

[C-Mag]

The climate has changed far more rapidly in the past and it had nothing at all to do with human activity.

His argument is false. He asserts that the rate of climate change today is much faster than in the past because of human activity. That's absolutely false. We already know that the climate changed at far, far fast rates in the past. The Younger Dryas, for example.

Yep, and these are all good reasons why Tucker's questions are logical. If the Science is settled, shouldn't we be seeing some egghead promote the Scientific Law of Anthropromorphic Global Warming or some such shit. Here's a question I have for the science community on this.

Where are we in the process of the Scientific Method ?

[Otern]

I thought the questions were logical.

If the science is solved. Then the science will be predictive and we should be able to know at what rate humans are changing the environment and when things will happen. What problem did you have with that ?

I don't think the science is solved on exactly what mankind contributes to climate change. And therefore it's not possible to give an exact figure on the "rate".

But that's not what Bill Nye was trying to explain either. What we do know, is humans have contributed to climate change, but we can't precisely define the extents of its effects.

Really, fossil fuels, that have been underground for millions of years, are now being pumped up, dug up and burned, in the past two hundred years, effectively bringing back a lot of carbon that has gradually been taken out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. And now we're bringing it all back in the carbon cycle. Of course this will have effects. We can never for sure know the extent of those effects, but they're definitely there, and they're definitely man made.

[C-Mag]

I thought the questions were logical.

If the science is solved. Then the science will be predictive and we should be able to know at what rate humans are changing the environment and when things will happen. What problem did you have with that ?

I don't think the science is solved on exactly what mankind contributes to climate change. And therefore it's not possible to give an exact figure on the "rate".

But that's not what Bill Nye was trying to explain either. What we do know, is humans have contributed to climate change, but we can't precisely define the extents of its effects.

That was pretty simple. I really don't have any trouble with those statements. It tells me AGW in a Theory, not a Law, more information has to be collected, more experimentation has to be done in order to come up with predictive results.

Now, why couldn't the guest answer as simply as you did ? Congrats Otern, you are officially smarter than Bill Nye, the Science Guy.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

The very fact that they've renamed global warming and now call it climate change discredits two hypotheses; they cannot even experiment, only observe, so the scientific method has left the building. Every time someone says "the science is settled," you've heard from someone who no longer thinks--just preaches.