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.
They can't fix what they think isn't broke. It's simple really.
You don't even need a degree to call yourself a scientist. At least in engineering you need to show something.
... and Republican doesn't give a flying fuck. The End.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
His Bill Nye the Science Guy TV Show is still available on Amazon... he may not have much of a research credential but he's still a TV teacher.
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.
Other than the fact he seems to take himself way too seriously nowadays. I liked him better when he was doing science-y stuff for the Almost Live New Year's episodes (the Amazing Vortex of Science!).
Here's the way I look at it: Bill Nye has been teaching science for a long time. He sees how people who may become president misrepresent what he loves and has taught. So he speaks out. If you were a PE teacher and some candidate misrepresents the importance of exercise, would you say something? You may not due to your own preference but Bill Nye's preference is to speak.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The three-way race in the Republican side, plus the dead-heat tie in the Democratic side means that both nominations are going to be up for debate at the conventions.
The Democrats allow non-directly-elected "super delegates" to vote, meaning it must be wide margin in the primaries in order for the nomination to be locked up in advance. The super delegates are not bound to either candidate, and will be enough to overturn the popular vote.
The 40-30-30ish split in the Republican primaries means that one of the lower two candidates could throw their support over to the other one creating a 60-40 win upending the current leader. This could lead the the third place candidate becoming the nominee. despite the popular vote.
Votes matter, but it's politics that decide the winners.
Relevant: http://fee.org/articles/18-spe...
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.
Nye started as an actor on Almost Live, a Seattle-based series that wound up on Comedy Central. His "Science Guy" character demonstrated basic science-is-fun ideas. This turned into the PBS/Disney series "Bill Nye the Science Guy", and he was surrounded by ideas from teachers all over the place. His latest book is about creationism vs. evolution.
For whom does he get paid to shill?
The lizard-men of course and their allies in the illuminati. But mostly the lizard-men.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... from weather modificaiton conspiricists makes it clear that Global Warming is real, anthropogenic, and that climate denialists are coveirng up the truth about AGW AND Weather modification programs*.
(*OK but is this argument about "weather modification programs" any more crazy than what the average denialists says?(.
Which over-qualifies him to debate climate change deniers and flim flam artists like Sarah Palin.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ad hominem. None of the predictions from your side have ever come true.
My 'side'? You mean science right?
Also, you clearly have no freakin' idea what an ad hominem is.
If they had, we would have all been dead 25-30 years ago.
You mean, without science, you would have died 25-30 years ago - which is probably true.
Well, he also doesn't know what he is talking about either. John Kasich has publicly said that humans contribute to climate change but he doesn't agree with the approaches to it with the EPA. Hardly a denialist.
I think Bill Nye is desperate to grasp some sort of spot lite and knows global warming is a hot button issue that can get his the attention he desperately wants. It's sad really. Sort of like child actors who become irrelevant and fall into drug induced troubles with the law. I wonder how long until he follows this path.
Saw an editorial in WaPo today by George Will, about how progressives are so authoritarian because they want climate deniers to shut up. And he quoted an NSF (IIRC) paper about all the uncertainties in the science. A paper from 2001! Sheesh! 15 years ago, I was cautiously skeptical myself, but since then ALL the science keeps coming up the same, no matter how the questions are asked. Skeptics have long since been convinced, only ignorant fools are still arguing--fools like him who have to go back 15 years in order to find any reputable organization questioning it.
that climate change is pure bunk. And he further claims that everybody who claims otherwise is only do so to make money.
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
> Richard Lindzen, the famously discredited global warming skeptic . . .
> Lindzen received $2,500 a day to consult with coal and oil interests here and abroad in the 1990s, a fact Lindzen does not refute.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/richard-lindzen-global-wa_b_19010.html
Some believe Richard Lindzen to be an industry shill
> He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.
> When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen
Neither are the vast majority of scientists that denialists like to cite. The difference is that Nye isn't claiming to have knowledge that the vast majority of scholars in the field don't have; he's agreeing with the people who do have the credentials to have an opinion worth citing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.