Bill Nye is heading to Netflix to take on climate change deniers — with help from a supermodel.
Nye first found television fame in the ’90s with his weekly children’s show on PBS. Now, he’s returning to the small screen — or, at least, the streaming device — with Bill Nye Saves the World, a Netflix series set to debut this spring.
“Each episode will tackle a topic from a scientific point of view,” Nye said in a statement, “dispelling myths, and refuting anti-scientific claims that may be espoused by politicians, religious leaders, or titans of industry.” Those topics include some hot-button issues, like vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change.
Though he got his start on an uncontroversial kids’ show, in recent years Nye has not shied away from contentious issues. He’s been an especially outspoken critic of climate change deniers. Last year, he bet notorious denier Marc Marano $20,000 that 2016 would be one of the 10 hottest years on record. Morano declined the offer — which, considering the data, was probably wise. (Note: The Pause Lives on: Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 & Death Of Global Temperature ‘Pause’ Greatly Exaggerated – 2016 Not Statistically Warmer Than 1998)
Nye will get some help on his new show from special correspondents like Karlie Kloss. “We’ll be talking about every nerdy thing you can dream of,” says the model.
In so many ways climate change was one of the primary issues that allowed Donald Trump to crash through the blue wall of the industrial Midwest. The Democrats’ preposterous opposition to building the Keystone XL pipeline which could create as many as 10,000 high-paying construction, welding, pipefitting, electrician jobs is emblematic of how the party that is supposed to represent union workers turned their backs on their own members and their families.
The Paris climate change treaty puts America last and forces us to stop using cheap, reliable and abundant domestic fossil fuels while the rest of the world — particularly China and India — are all in on coal. Nobody in Washington seemed to notice that as The Wall Street Journal reported last month: “China’s government will raise coal production by as much as 20% by 2020, ensuring a continuing strong role for the commodity in the country’s energy future.” That’s more than the entire energy usage of Canada in a year. Um, does this sound like a country that has any interest in cutting its carbon emissions? Amazing that the truck drivers in Indiana, and the coal workers in West Virginia, and the steel producers in Ohio get that the rest of the world is laughing at us, and the president of the United States doesn’t.
The surprise of this election is that Democrats were surprised by the mass voter rejection of the radical climate change agenda. Every poll for the last five years at least has shown that climate change barely registers as a leading concern of American voters. Jobs and the economy were always issues number one and two, and global warming was usually close to last on the list. A 2015 Fox News poll found that only 3 percent of Americans believed that climate change was “the most important issue facing America today.” That means 97 percent disagreed with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernard Sanders and Tom Steyer that global warming was the greatest threat to America. This didn’t stop Hillary Clinton from telling West Virginians that she would put every coal miner out of a job. Then she wonders why she got crushed in this unionized historically reliable Democratic state.
The issue that now confronts Democrats is whether they can reconnect with blue collar union voters by disassociating themselves from the fanatical greens that are trying to destroy union blue collar jobs. It won’t …
Any estimate of temperature trends that have their endpoint on the uptick of the El Nino curve will give a misleadingly high trend. It is obvious that a better trend will be obtained after the natural El Nino has ended. Likewise care must be taken if the start point is near the La Nina years of 1999-2000. The temperature trends of the oceans estimated by the new paper fall into this trap. – Dr David Whitehouse, The GWPF Observatory, 5 January 2016
1) Death Of Global Temperature ‘Pause’ Greatly Exaggerated
2) 2016 Not Statistically Warmer Than 1998, Satellites Data Shows
3) North Atlantic Ocean Cooling Rapidly
4) “Hottest Year Evah”: A Reality Check
5) Judith Curry Retires, Citing ‘Craziness’ Of Climate Debate
6) Friends Of The Earth Promise: We Will Never Again Spread Misleading Anti-Fracking Scares
7) Stephen Moore: 2016’s Biggest Loser – The Green Blob
Strong December cooling leads to 2016 being statistically indistinguishable from 1998. —Dr Roy Spencer, 3 January 2017
While it has understandably not received much, if any, media attention, the North Atlantic Ocean has been rapidly cooling since the mid-2000s, or for more than 10 years now. The longer the cooling trend continues — and scientists are projecting more cooling for the coming decades — the more difficult it will be to ignore. The North Atlantic Ocean is, after all, a key trend-setter for hemispheric- and perhaps even global-scale climate changes. –Kenneth Richard, NoTricksZone, 5 January 2017
Supposedly 2016 was the banner year for global warming. So what has it brought? Arctic sea ice extent finishes the year at the level of the last few years. Northern Hemisphere snow extent was at the second highest on record this autumn. Greenland’s ice sheet has been growing at a phenomenal rate. Hurricane activity for the last 12 months has been normal. The US tornado season has been one of the quietest on record. US wildfires have been below the 10-year average.
Watch: ‘You just made the claim!’: Warmist Prof. hilariously fails to name source of 98% ‘consensus’ claim
A college professor claimed that “98 percent of the world’s scientists” agree that manmade climate change is real — but things soon became awkward when Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked the academic to name the source of his information on-air.
“I am interested in the claims you’ve made about climate science, that it’s settled, and that 98 percent of worldwide scientists believe that. How do you know that? Are you a scientist or have you polled other scientists? Where did you get that figure?” Carlson asked California State University-Sacramento professor Joseph Palermo on Wednesday.
Palermo clearly wasn’t prepared to defend his previous assertion.
“Well, see, that’s another one of those interesting kind of questions is that, that wasn’t what the blog was about,” Palermo replied, referencing “right-wing websites” misconstruing science for “catchy headlines” and “clickbait.”
But Carlson was determined to get an answer. So he asked the question a second time.
Palermo dodged the question again, saying, “I didn’t want to get into — are you a climate change denier, or a skeptic?”
That’s when Carlson laid into the academic, reminding him that not taking everything at face value is how science works.
“The essence of science, and of journalism,” Carlson said, “is skepticism, because it seeks to get to the truth.”
“And I’m asking as you as someone who just said, as a statement of fact, that 98 percent of the world’s scientists agree with you, with whatever you believe, I’m wondering how you know that,” Carlson added.
Palermo avoided providing evidence to his claim twice more. At one point, he even urged Carlson to send out his “giant research team” to “find out about it,” a suggestion that prompted a good laugh from the Fox News host.
“You just made the claim!” Carlson pointed out.
According to a new study, the rate of ocean warming for the past 19 years was rising nearly twice as fast than originally measured, but land temps still show a global warming pause. Previously, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were rising at 0.07C per decade, but the new paper shows it’s actually .12C. But the new paper has flaws being glossed over by mainstream #News outlets to push the #Climate Change narrative. The study was published in #Science Advances and is open to the public.
First, the study only looked at ocean temperatures, not land, and didn’t include the year 2016, a markedly cooler year in the latter half. Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said there was no discernible warming since 2000 in its 2013 report. They wrote that global temperatures showed a “much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.”
How they did it
In this new study led by Zeke Hausfather, they homogenized buoy, satellite, and ARGO buoy records to come up with mean ocean temperatures. The authors believe that ocean temperatures have been “underestimated” for the past 20 years because ocean buoys record slightly colder sea temperatures when compared to how they were measured last century; seawater would flow into a ship’s intake systems and a temperature reading would be taken.
But by ending the study on an El Nino year, estimating temperature trends that begin and end on an “El Nino curve will give a misleadingly high trend.” That’s according to a statement by Dr. David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Forum think-tank. He notes that researchers need to be careful when estimating temperature trends with rigid start and end dates. Adding or removing even a year or two can produce dramatically different results. Which is what happened here.
No, the pause isn’t over
Because the …
In Jack London’s famous short story, “To Build A Fire,” a man freezes to death because he underestimates the cold in America’s far north and cannot build a proper fire. The unnamed man—a chechaquo, what Alaska natives call newcomers—is accompanied by a wolf-dog that knows the danger of the cold and is wholly indifferent to the fate of the man. “This man did not know cold. Possibly, all the generations of his ancestry had been ignorant of cold, of real cold, of cold 107 degrees below freezing point. But the dog knew; all its ancestry knew, and it had inherited the knowledge.”
If only the bureaucrats in Washington DC knew what the wolf-dog knew. But alas, now comes the federal government to tell the inhabitants of Alaska’s interior that, really, they should not be building fires to keep themselves warm during the winter. The New York Times reports the Environmental Protection Agency could soon declare the Alaskan cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, which have a combined population of about 100,000, in “serious” noncompliance of the Clean Air Act early next year.
Like most people in Alaska, the residents of those frozen cities are burning wood to keep themselves warm this winter. Smoke from wood-burning stoves increases small-particle pollution, which settles in low-lying areas and can be breathed in. The EPA thinks this is a big problem. Eight years ago, the agency ruled that wide swaths of the most densely populated parts of the region were in “non-attainment” of federal air quality standards.
That prompted state and local authorities to look for ways to cut down on pollution from wood-burning stoves, including the possibility of fining residents who burn wood. After all, a declaration of noncompliance from the EPA would have enormous economic implications for the region, like the loss of federal transportation funding.
The problem is, there’s no replacement for wood-burning stoves in Alaska’s interior. Heating oil is too expensive for a lot of people, and natural gas isn’t available. So they’ve got to burn something. The average low temperature in Fairbanks in December is 13 degrees below zero. In January, it’s 17 below. During the coldest days of winter, the high temperature averages -2 degrees, and it can get as cold as -60. This is not a place where you play games with the cold. If you don’t keep the fire …