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.

14 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Billy Nye slams Republicans... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... and Republican doesn't give a flying fuck. The End.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  2. Re:"Science Guy" by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:I've got nothing against Bill Nye by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  4. Re:I've got nothing against Bill Nye by KeensMustard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:"Science Guy" by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Boring by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  7. I see the petro-boys are out in force... by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I see the petro-boys are out in force... by harperska · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is funny how laying out a rational argument with valid counterpoints to several talking points is somehow being a "troll". It used to be that the fastest way to get yourself modded troll here was to be pro-Apple, or pro-Microsoft. Now I guess it's being pro-science.

      I wonder why climate change in particular gets people so worked up around here. You don't get insta-modded troll by calling out creationists or anti-vaxxers, and the willful lack of science literacy required to maintain a particular worldview is quite similar among all three.

      Not posting anonymously as I am proud of being pro-science and I have karma to burn if the anti-science brigade is still out there.

  8. Re:Immediate issues by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Competitive candidates by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Competitive candidates by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe he doesn't have the support of the Republican elite, but the average people of America absolutely love him.

      Donald Trump, as of a March 29th poll, has a 62 percent UN-favorability rating. That means, by definition, that the "average people of America" do not absolutely love him. In fact, the average people of American see him about the way they see the stuff that collects under their refrigerator.

      The best favorability poll for Donald Trump ever taken, by the most pro-Trump polling company, only has him at about 32% favorability.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Competitive candidates by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Europe here. We would really LOVE Trump as your prez. He should be even more entertaining than that last monkey you put at the helm.

      Seriously, what is it with the US and electing duds for the office of president? It's kinda amusing to be honest, it really seems you're trying to find the most useless person and put him in the most powerful seat as if that whole thing was some sort of entertainment show rather than politics of a country that pretty much commands hegemony of the planet.

      I mean, don't get me wrong, we are absolutely FOR that. To be honest, a competent president that can actually act sensibly in foreign politics and stops you from being seen as the schoolyard bully of the world, coupled with the economy you have, that would probably put a serious dent in our chance on the world's market. Right now what allows us to pretty much take over economically internationally is that nobody wants to deal with you if they don't really, really have to. If that wasn't the case and anyone on that planet actually liked you, we'd be in a far, far worse situation.

      Fortunately that's not going to be a problem. It would be a little tougher if Clinton made it, but even she's slippery enough to be unlikable. And Sanders is fortunately history. That guy really got us worried for a moment.

      So, in closing, allow me to declare my absolute support for your new president Trump. And if you really love us, could you reelect him in 4 years? That would really be awesome!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:Thought he retired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    He is the CEO of the Planetary Society, a non-profit group that advocates for planetary science. The organization was formed in 1980 by Carl Sagan and others.

    He and the organization actively advocate to Congress, the President, and NASA to help raise funding for science. That gives him a lot of cache in my book.

  11. Re:Thought he retired... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bill Nye he isn't a science guy. He has a Bsc in engineering

    He doesn't ever claim to be a climate scientist. All he is doing is repeating what the climate scientists say. That is why he doesn't have to be qualified because he is not trying to claim that all the experts are wrong. He is not trying to say that he knows better than all the people who can be considered to be experts in the field.

    The reason why the deniers are so obsessed with Nye's lack of academic qualifications is that they can't actually prove that what he says is wrong.