Bill Nye The Science Guy narrated Al Gore’s “Climate Reality” show of the “High School Physics experiment”, which he claimed, climate deniers seem unable to comprehend. Climate 101, you see.
It was smooth sailing - until it came to light through Anthony Watts’s diligence, that it was all lies. Yes, lies. A fake. They presented a totally faked little movie.
Watts uncovered the scam and then meticulously recreated the experiment, as Bill Nye advised the kids that they could do.
Everything was faked - and not just faked as it might be to speed things up for TV, but a real fake…their experimental set up never works, cannot work.
Science Guy presents Climate Reality !
Watts reports on the tawdry affair
Readers may recall my previous essay where I pointed out how Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 Video, used in his “24 hours of climate reality”, had some serious credibility issues with editing things to make it appear as if they had actually performed the experiment, when they clearly did not. It has taken me awhile to replicate the experiment. Delays were a combination of acquisition and shipping problems, combined with my availability since I had to do this on nights and weekends. I worked initially using the original techniques and equipment, and I’ve replicated the Climate 101 experiment in other ways using improved equipment. I’ve compiled several videos. My report follows.
One thing to note though, the guy who called us out on this drew an incorrect conclusion, or he made an erroneous claim. He says any change would have been caused by “… a completely different physical mechanism than actually occurs in our atmosphere…” That’s wrong. It is this mechanism. The model has to be set up properly. Keep in mind that our troposphere is several dozen kilometers thick, and it doesn’t comprise pure carbon dioxide. This is a model, a demonstration. Real atmospheric models are astonishingly complex.
Regardless of any shortcomings or shortcuts in the model shown by the Climate Reality Project advocacy group, the world is getting warmer, and we had all better do something about it.
Finding trivial errors is hack work. The question is whether AGW is real, not whether some public demonstration was done correctly.
I should add (it isn’t relevant to this particular issue, though it demonstrates what’s really going on here) that the editor of the “wattsupwiththat” website is in the pay of the Heartland Institute.
One thing to note though, the guy who called us out on this drew an incorrect conclusion, or he made an erroneous claim. He says any change would have been caused by “… a completely different physical mechanism than actually occurs in our atmosphere…” That’s wrong. It is this mechanism. The model has to be set up properly. Keep in mind that our troposphere is several dozen kilometers thick, and it doesn’t comprise pure carbon dioxide. This is a model, a demonstration. Real atmospheric models are astonishingly complex.
Regardless of any shortcomings or shortcuts in the model shown by the Climate Reality Project advocacy group, the world is getting warmer, and we had all better do something about it.
Finding trivial errors is hack work. The question is whether AGW is real, not whether some public demonstration was done correctly.
Doug, do you label this incident showing deception, to be a trivial error ? Do you see back up information from Nye ? No ?
Doug, have you checked Nye’s assertions ? Yes: good work. Your findings ?
No: Well, then…
How about checking for Al Gore’s admission ? Can you find it ?
Doug, certainly a question. one question, is whether or not AGW is real or not. This was to prove the greenhouse effect, and onward to demonstrate how stupid it would be to deny this basic physics which they are supposed to be demonstrating for the kids. The kids were told they could do it. It could cost them quite a pretty penny of allowance to find out the fraud…it would be a good lesson, though, one could argue !
How about the teachers who might have tried this demonstration for their class ? Would it be “trivial” to be placed in that position in front of your class ?
Greenhouse gas effect of CO2 in a bottle , yes or no - that is the question, and the answer was to be demonstrated by the experiment.
This question about reality and honesty, is not that one which you suggest is the question. There are other questions, Doug. Not only one.
Thanks
Now Doug..will you declare what Watts is being paid for ? It’s not for blog work nor for this work exposing the fraud. It’s a total of almost $ 90,000 for honest hard work developing scientific systems related to NOAA output and a web site to allow visitors to more easily access and relate official NOAA data.
I’ll admit I don’t know anything about this particular affair, but will read WUWTs links when I have a chance. Although I would like to ask a couple questions.
FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 05:47 AM
Now Doug…will you declare what Watts is being paid for ? It’s not for blog work nor for this work exposing the fraud. It’s for honest hard work developing scientific systems.
Can you describe what “scientific systems” Anthony has developed?
FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 05:47 AM
Greenhouse gas effect of CO2, not AGW.
I’m confused, or maybe it’s you, but are you admitting that atmospheric CO2’s physics are well understood?
Assuming that the physics of atmospheric CO2 is understood - why wouldn’t that knowledge support AGW understanding?
Can you describe what “scientific systems” Anthony has developed?
I added some detail to the previous post.
FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 05:47 AM
Greenhouse gas effect of CO2, not AGW.
I’m confused, or maybe it’s you, but are you admitting that atmospheric CO2’s physics are well understood?
Sorry for lack of clarity there. I’ve added to it so it might be better now.
That is not my claim nor an admission. Doug declared that the question must be about AGW. That is not the question, though. The experimental question was about the effect on “air” temperature when CO2 is added to a bottle, and when the appropriate lamps are applied.
Assuming that the physics of atmospheric CO2 is understood - why wouldn’t that knowledge support AGW understanding?
It should. However, the presentation of a deception, to children, is what this thread is concerned with.
FrenchCurve, I think that you are deliberately confusing doing one for doing the other to create doubt, and it’s a despicable tactic.
The technical, marketing term is “FUD”, which stands for “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt”. It is a form of disinformation.
Should be welcomed that you have the opportunity to dispel the disinformation with good evidence. You fail to provide evidence and fail to take the task of showing the disinformation. You do not have it. You have baseless ad hom a-plenty, though.
My point behind my previous post was that we already have shown our evidence, and you’re apparently refusing to make the effort to try to understand why we are saying what we’re saying.
And besides, if you consider what we have said to be ad hominum attacks, then the articles critiquing Bill Nye and Al Gore are exactly the same thing. Don’t confuse critique of your arguments of critiques of your person. No one here has yet said personally nasty things about you, just that your arguments suck.
As the saying goes . . . you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
My point behind my previous post was that we already have shown our evidence
Where? You’ve not shown anything of the sort. The religious often enough claim “We do show the evidence…it’s all there in the Bible”... and thereby refusing to show their supposed evidence.
And besides, if you consider what we have said to be ad hominum attacks, then the articles critiquing Bill Nye and Al Gore are exactly the same thing.
Quite wrong. I’m attacking what was done, not attacking Gore or Nye. You can’t see the difference. Too bad.
Let me explain. I said NOTHING about either party. Get it ?
My point behind my previous post was that we already have shown our evidence
Where? You’ve not shown anything of the sort. The religious often enough claim “We do show the evidence…it’s all there in the Bible”... and thereby refusing to show their supposed evidence.
In this very thread, in fact. Which I have stated already. Which is why I recommended that you go back and reread it.
And besides, if you consider what we have said to be ad hominum attacks, then the articles critiquing Bill Nye and Al Gore are exactly the same thing.
Quite wrong. I’m attacking what was done, not attacking Gore or Nye. You can’t see the difference. Too bad.
Let me explain. I said NOTHING about either party. Get it ?
Oh really?
FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 05:18 AM
Bill Nye The Science Guy narrated Al Gore’s “Climate Reality” show of the “High School Physics experiment”, which he claimed, climate deniers seem unable to comprehend. Climate 101, you see.
It was smooth sailing - until it came to light through Anthony Watts’s diligence, that it was all lies. Yes, lies. A fake. They presented a totally faked little movie.
Watts uncovered the scam and then meticulously recreated the experiment, as Bill Nye advised the kids that they could do.
Everything was faked - and not just faked as it might be to speed things up for TV, but a real fake…their experimental set up never works, cannot work.
Science Guy presents Climate Reality !
Watts reports on the tawdry affair
Readers may recall my previous essay where I pointed out how Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 Video, used in his “24 hours of climate reality”, had some serious credibility issues with editing things to make it appear as if they had actually performed the experiment, when they clearly did not. It has taken me awhile to replicate the experiment. Delays were a combination of acquisition and shipping problems, combined with my availability since I had to do this on nights and weekends. I worked initially using the original techniques and equipment, and I’ve replicated the Climate 101 experiment in other ways using improved equipment. I’ve compiled several videos. My report follows.
You sure seem to be saying SOMETHNG about the parties. In the same way that you’re attacking what those people did there, we are attacking what you’re doing here. Therefore, if our criticism of your arguments here is ad hominum, so is your criticism of Bill Nye’s (and company) methods. Makes the whole argument pretty useless to define away your own posts along with everyone else’s.
