Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye Slams Donald Trump, Republicans On Climate Change (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: On the eve of Earth Day, environmental activist Bill Nye told CNN that while everybody is more aware of climate change "than ever before," we still have a long way to go (annoying auto-play videos). The science educator and engineer, who became an icon on his 1990s hit show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," criticized the Republican presidential candidates and the fossil fuel industry for not acknowledging the deleterious effects of climate change. "There's still a very strong contingent of people who are in denial about climate change," Nye said. "And if you don't believe me, look at the three people currently running for president of the world's most influential country who are ... climate change deniers," Nye said, referring to the three Republican presidential candidates: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich.
Does Nye still have *any* cache in the "pop science" universe? Or is he now just one of Al Gore's friends and late night talk show fodder?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
You don't even need a degree to call yourself a scientist. At least in engineering you need to show something.
That's like saying an artist or musician without an art or music degree is not an artist or musician. To be a scientist, you must do science. It isn't about the formalities.
Climate denialism is a scam and a fraud. Nothing the leading denialists say comes from observations, and nothing they claim is later verified experimentally.
If anything, this shows that despite his proclamations to the contrary, Donald Trump is just like the others: bought and paid for by the fossil fuel lobby. Either that, or his climate policy is the result of a mouth speaking unattached to a brain and a refusal to listen to the advice of experts in the field.
Comically bad.
Amazing how very shortly after this feed gets put up, the first postings all follow the MO of the petro-chemical industry and the GOP...
So, let us address a few things here.
1)
"Bill Nye isn't a 'Science Guy', he just holds a BS degree!"
Assuming for a moment that we overlook the obviously implied "appeal to authority" fallacy this involves, he could be a bumbling idiot with cabbage in his beard that talks to empty chairs-- The data he directs people to is correct, and will continue being correct no matter what degrees or qualifications he has. So, discounting this obvious fallacy, there's buried ad-hominem goodness there too. Shooting the messenger like this does not make climate change less real, nor the message inaccurate.
2)
"The climate change crazies want to force their religion on us!!"
Science is not a religion. It is a process, and a damned cuthroat one too. It might surprise you to know that the scientifically literate population have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1909, and have raised the red flag on industrial release of this gas through fossil fuel combustion since the 20's, predicting mass climate change. Here it is, a century later, and we have bulletproof data showing exactly this. What exactly consistutes religion to you? The belief in something without proof (which is what denialism is, given the massive amounts of experimental and climatological data collected so far showing that fossil fuel use is cumulatively deleterious to the climactic environment) or observing repeatable phenomena, creating testable hypotheses, and then strongly advising the world based on those findings? (science, and in this case-- the message of 99% of the world's climate scientists.)
3)
"Release XXX from prison so they can (euphamism for harm) Bill Nye!"
Seriously? You advocate physical violence and harm to silence a message you find disfavorable? For real? No wonder the world is so fucked up, if you actually think killing the messenger makes the reality of the message go away. That is some premium magical thinking you have going there!
4)
"Bill Nye is a known shill/hippocrite! Everything he says is a lie!"
From whom exactly does he accept money in exchange for his activism (since he is "known" to be a shill, this should be easy.) and in what respects is he a hippocrite? Because he uses electricity? (There are carbon neutral means of generating it, and he has expressed a preferrence for this. How then is his message hippocritical here?) Because he drives a car? (There are some very nice looking electric vehicles these days. I dont know for sure if he drives one, but I would expect that he would prefer to use one over a destructive internal combustion vehicle, given his rhetoric. Unless you have proof he drives a gas guzzler, this isnt hippocricy either.) Seriously, where does this come from? Hopefully it isnt imagination land.
5)
"He and Al Gore........"
Guilt by association and bandwagon fallacies. Try to be intellectually honest here folks.
I grow tired of hearing all these absurd rationalisms for denying the realities happening all around us, just so we can pretend that everything is OK, when all the data shows it most certainly is not.
You misunderstand.
The problem isn't that these people are ignoring the problem. The bad thing is that they're ignoring the evidence in front of their eyes for ideological reasons and pretending the problem simply doesn't exist.
The trouble with people like that is that they might pretend any or all of the problems that you think are important don't exist because of the contradiction with their ideology. Those bigger fish you're talking about: they are quite capable of closing their eyes and flat-out claiming those fish simply do not exist.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The Democrats aren't fielding any competitive candidates, which makes a President Trump win even more inevitable.
Just to be clear, the Republicans aren't fielding competitive candidates either.