Business, Economics, Education, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Bill Nye The Fascist Guy

56 Comments

And NASA isn’t covering itself in glory here, either.

I was in the same room with Nye a couple nights ago, at a reception. I felt like I needed a safe space.

56 thoughts on “Bill Nye The Fascist Guy”

  1. Let me just say that anyone who decries the dangers of climate change and then boards a jet should be tarred and feathered.

      2. Bob,

        Nothing but vaporware. Plans to reduce…. blah, blah, blah.

        Oh, you can send money to “verified carbon offset programs.” I’m sure that will help, just like the hippie/yuppie woman who drove an SUV with a Terrapass bumper sticker.

        Just ridiculous.

  2. If scientific illiteracy is a prosecutable offense, Neil deGras Tyson is in for a really bad time… Or have we finally redefined “scientifically literate” to mean, “Capable of agreeing with an ‘expert’ and gaping when someone pours molten copper on a Big Mac.”

    I wonder if this is a principled position or if it applies in general.

    For example, what if someone were to advocate, say, building cylindrical solar cells with taxpayer dollars. We could use a play on words to name the idea “Solyndrica” or something. Should they be jailed for proposing such a childishly stupid, scientifically illiterate idea? Suppose they had spent 1/2 billion this stupid idea, what then? What about people who think this idea needs to be funded to determine whether or not is will work? It only takes high school math and 5 minutes of thought to show it won’t work so should they be prosecuted for advocating criminal waste?

    Hillary recently advocated getting to the bottom of UFOs. How many resources as she planning to apply to an idea that Democrats apparently do not regard as scientifically illiterate?

    1. And while the U.S. President has to fight tooth and nail with a congress to get 3 billion for solar, the chinese watch that stimulus bill and instead of investing 3 billion for solar they up it to 43 billion. GOSH solyndra couldn’t sell panels after that chinese move man what a total surprise.

      1. They couldn’t compete on cost or quality? They just needed more government money to be successful?

      2. No one who understands high school math was shocked when Solyndra failed.

        It had nothing to do with China and everything to do with understanding the difference between a circle and a line.

    2. I amazed that the Democrats don’t see the insanity of her statement. Suppose she looks into Area 51 and the aliens. Why do they think she’d tell us anything about it when Bill obviously didn’t tell her anything about it?

      “Hillary, why don’t you ask your husband about Area 51 in between one of his trysts with underage sex slaves? In theory he should know something, because he said the same thing about the aliens when he ran back in ’92.”

  4. I think Bill should be using his engineering degree to find an alternative to fossil fuels that can compete in the marketplace.

    It’s too bad he’d rather just pontificate over a cocktail glass.

    1. Several years ago when Google announced their “clean energy cheaper than coal” initiative I washed them luck. Apparently they didn’t have nearly enough luck. Remove government interference and coal is still several times cheaper than “green” renewables.

    2. Bill stopped doing anything real with regards to science and engineering when he became a performer on a sketch comedy show called Almost Live. His Bill Nye the Science Guy thing was actually character on the show. So no, I don’t take the guy seriously and neither should anyone else.

      1. So it doesn’t matter that CO2 levels, global temperatures and the sea level keep rising, because someone somewhere (you don’t even say who) made a bad prediction?

        1. We don’t know what any of this means in the context of the earth’s history. When scientists stop being catastrophists, maybe they’ll be taken seriously with their predictions.

          1. We don’t know what any of this means in the context of the earth’s history

            We know that we are headed towards a time (if we aren’t there already) with CO2 levels and temperatures that have never before been experienced by modern humans. There is only one major political party in the entire developed world that doesn’t consider that a cause for serious concern.

          3. There is only one major political party in the entire developed world that doesn’t consider that a cause for serious concern.

            You mean the Democrats who opposed fracking, which turned the US into an exporter of Natural Gas and allowed the US to be the only nation to meet the Kyoto Protocol levels of emissions?

          4. never before been experienced by modern humans.

            I don’t think that is true. Pretty sure the Eemian was warmer and humans were modern then. That period of time was pretty good for humans, plants, and animals. Heck, we still had Neanderthals and Denisovans then.

            Warmer weather and higher sea levels do not mean there has to be an apocalypse.

            It’s the ice ages that are bad. The Eemian lasted about 15,000 years. When did the last glaciation end?

          5. It’s incredible, Wodun. Those warm spells used to be called climate optimums. It is utterly surreal that the world is getting its knickers in a twist over something that, were it happening, could only be considered good.

          7. The evidence indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was global. It’s how Greenland got its name. You believe in historical/scientific fantasies that serve your political agenda.

          8. The evidence indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was global.

            Views differ. But the MWP isn’t getting any warmer, while we are. If global temperatures haven’t yet exceeded the MWP peak, it’s just a matter of time.

          9. The MWP got warmer, until it didn’t, and started to cool back down. There’s no particular reason to think we won’t do the same, even if you believe that we’re currently warming (on which the evidence is actually mixed).

          10. I should have written “human civilization”.

            What exactly do you think allowed humanity to flourish over the last 14,000 years? Could a warmer climate after the retreat of glaciation played a role?

            Here is another one. Why do you think humans were migratory hunters and gathers for much of our existence? Could a constantly changing climate and environment played a role?

            There is a very real chance that a warmer climate will be very beneficial not only to humans but all life on the planet. It is something to be enjoyed while it lasts.

            Its one thing to say the Earth is getting warmer, another to say its all caused by humans, yet another to claim it has to be an end of days apocalypse, and the height of arrogance and stupidity to claim that making sacrifices will change the climate. None of the proposed “solutions” will do what they claim and the argument of well its for the best regardless of whether it works or not is magical thinking.

        2. Here you go:

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/the-dr-david-viner-moment-weve-all-been-waiting-for-a-new-snow-record/

          IPCC also claimed less snow: The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.”

          http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

        3. Hate to break it to ya, but the earth is an oblate spheroid. Its climate is different and changing at every point.

          Understanding should precede actions. That’s what’s missing from the climate ‘consensus.’

        4. That kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking is such a primitive throwback to the pre-Enlightement era. Not a little shocking and utterly depressing to see it in 2016.

        5. So it doesn’t matter that CO2 levels, global temperatures and the sea level keep rising

          How much are they rising again, Jim? Use numbers and you’ll see one obvious rebuttal to your concern. Namely, that the numbers are too small for the level of concern.

          1. Hell, even the numbers he is using are farcical. How long have we had worldwide use of thermometers accurate to +/- 0.005 degrees C? For most of the time we’ve been recording temperatures, the thermometers were accurate to +/- 0.5 degrees F. Most of our recorded temperatures were measured to the nearest degree Fahrenheit or later to the nearest degree Celcius.

            You cannot have higher precision in your results than you have in your measuring equipment. Stuff like that is drilled into your head in first-year Physics. We’ve only had the higher-precision numbers available for a couple of decades, at most.

          2. You cannot have higher precision in your results than you have in your measuring equipment.

            Yes, you can, if you take multiple measurements and errors are uncorrelated.

          3. Yes, you can, if you take multiple measurements and errors are uncorrelated.

            How long has that been going on? Does it even happen now?

          4. “Yes, you can, if you take multiple measurements and errors are uncorrelated.”

            There is so much fail here I hardly know where to begin.

            If you have 100 thermometers, all accurate to plus or minus 0.5 degrees C (That is, the markings are all at integer degrees C), and the actual temperature is 10.47 degrees, can you get more accurate in your measurement than 10 degrees? Show your math.

          5. And here’s part B of the question:
            If the temperature drops by 0.38 degrees to 10.11 degrees, then can you see any difference in your measurements using the same 100 thermometers, or do they still all say 10 degrees?

    2. I guess that explains why the ice caps are gone as predicted.

      What if we are moving toward a climate optimum and not pockylips? Why are people who have made the same failed end of days predictions for 30 years going to be right this time?

      Nothing can stop the climate changing, no matter who or what you sacrifice or how hard you dance.

      1. Nothing can stop the climate changing

        Is that supposed to be an argument? No one can stop cancer and heart disease from killing people, either. But millions of people will live longer, healthier lives because 1) scientists discovered the risks of tobacco smoking and 2) governments took collective action against tobacco use (education programs, taxes, public smoking bans, etc.). Should we have just thrown our hands up instead?

        1. Is that supposed to be an argument? No one can stop cancer and heart disease from killing people, either. But millions of people will live longer, healthier lives because 1) scientists discovered the risks of tobacco smoking and 2) governments took collective action against tobacco use (education programs, taxes, public smoking bans, etc.). Should we have just thrown our hands up instead?

          It’s monumentally stupid to compare climate to cigarette smoking.

          1. A total red herring. Along with post-hoc, ad verecundiam, ad ignorantiam, ad populum, and now from Nye, ad baculum, among many others. The entire AGW farce is a veritable potpourri of logical fallacies. It’s all they’ve got.

        2. No one can stop cancer and heart disease from killing people,

          Actually, you can stop those things but you can not stop the climate from changing. The climate will always be changing. The climate has always been changing.

          In order to actually believe in AGW from a scientific perspective, you also have to recognize that there is, always has been, and always will be natural climate change.

          That’s what always gets me about those who believe in climate apocalypse, they often don’t admit that the climate changes naturally.

          1. On Saturday I ran into someone who believed that lung cancer is only caused by cigarettes. Which of course isn’t true — there’s always been lung cancer, and many lung cancer victims have never smoked. But the prevalence of smoking has a huge impact on the incidence of lung cancer.

            Maybe there are people who think climate change is only caused by human activity. If there are, they’re wrong — the climate has always changed. But human activity has a huge impact on the direction and velocity of climate change.

          3. We don’t know whether or not it is “huge.”

            We know that adding 120+ ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere traps a huge amount of heat that otherwise would have been radiated into space.

          5. Jim, people are saying we can stop the climate from changing. That is the driving claim of the movement. We can’t.

            All of the proposed “solutions” are about stopping climate change and not mitigating the fact that we have an uncertain climate future.

            What we are witnessing is the tendency for humans to believe in religion. Its the rebirth of some of the earliest human concepts of the supernatural and nature.

        3. millions of people will live longer, healthier lives

          Jim, if you really believed in this as a standard you’d be opposed to the climate fraud which is all about money and power. Instead, you are the fraud.

    3. If you check the history of the GISTemp data, you’ll see that 0.38 C is within the margin of error. Data goes back to 1880, yet maintains a .1C accuracy even that far back, even though monthly data wasn’t even collected until 1981, which is to say that there was no way a standard device and process for measuring temperature was developed prior to 1981.

      And oh yeah, the GISTemp data is mostly massaged managed by Hansen, whose 1986 and 1988 predictions didn’t happen. Since then, he’s gone from predictions within a decade or so, to predicting 25meter rise in sea level by the end of the 21st Century. That way, we have to wait 80 years to have the evidence to show how wrong he is.

      1. Hansen left NASA three years ago. The two hottest years in the GISTemp record have come since then. This year will almost certainly join them in the top three. Plus, GISTemp has been consistent with the other global temperature measures.

        Surface temperatures are going up, Hansen or no Hansen.

        1. Obama has staffed the federal government at all levels with activist Democrats. We need impartial civil servants for them to be trusted not radical ideologues with extremist viewpoints.

  6. I too have interacted with Nye professionally.

    Didn’t much care for him. He doesn’t seem to be as smart as he thinks he is, but certainly has a high opinion of himself.

  7. Here’s your average environmentalist:

    “The Earth is in a pristine, near perfect state of natural balance and we as human must completely leave it alone.”

    What about the climate?

    “Oh we’ve got to do everything we possibly can to stop it……”

Comments are closed.