Bill Nye, The Not-So-Nice Science Guy


Adding to the list of man-maders who just can’t seem to keep their proverbial foot out of their proverbial big mouth, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” now says that you’re “almost unpatriotic” if you think some of these recent huge snowstorms are proof that global warming doesn’t exist.

Now, I’ll be honest and say that I’ve joked about all these snowstorms and said things like “Boy, how do you like this global warming!” All joking aside, though, I don’t think one snowstorm or even a small series of them proves or disproves anything and I don’t think most people believe any such thing, either.

Anyway, how does the fact that one disagrees with the man-maders make you “almost unpatriotic”? Explain that one to me. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be just an isolated phenomenon as it isn’t the first time I’ve heard us “flat earthers” referred to in this unfortunate light.

The other thing I noticed is that though Nye disagrees that one single major storm like this or a small series of them can be considered evidence against his pet theory, it’s still okay for him to cite other similar instances in support of that same theory. Bill, come on now. If you want to disallow that argument for others, you can’t turn around in the same breath and use it yourself. That’s called “hypocrisy” and it certainly doesn’t do your position any justice.

Come on, Bill. You’re supposed to be a scientist. How about using that big brain of yours to put together a coherent argument for your cause instead of resorting to rhetoric and name-calling?

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. […] Bill Nye, The Not-So-Nice Science Guy […]

  2. Wow, you don’t understand much, do you?

    “Anyway, how does the fact that one disagrees with the man-maders make you “almost unpatriotic”? Explain that one to me. ”

    Simple. A lot of the denial about climate change is to protect personal business investments at the expense of the future of the nation.

    As far as him saying one snow storm doesn’t prove or disprove anything, you TOTALLY misunderstood.

    He was saying ONE thing doesn’t prove the whole thing, but a WHOLE BUNCH of things suggest a trend… it’s like, if I made a three pointer and declared myself a great three point shooter, that would be a bit of a stretch since it could have been sheer luck. But what if I make 8 in a row? And mind you, the trend is but one part of the whole climate change thing…

    Like Bill said, you trust climate scientist for other things. If they tell you there’s a massive hurricane coming and you should evacuate, would you stay? Or figure they have some shadowy conspiracy interests? Then why do you seem so keen on assuming poor faith when it comes to things which are politically or economically inconvenient to you?

    • Wow, you don’t read or comprehend very well, do you?

      The same argument you make about protecting business investments can be made in spades regarding the man-maders and their HUGE investments in both money and time that they’ve put into pushing their agenda with both big business and government. They’ve got a whole heck of a lot more invested in making sure government especially pushes their agenda forward. Do some on the other side have an agenda also? Sure but it’s nowhere near the power and money at stake for the man-maders. Heck, even some of the big oil companies have a lot of money at stake in the climate change business.

      Anyway, part of what I was saying is exactly the point you bring up in your comment. One event here or there proves nothing either way. That’s what I was saying when I said the following: “The other thing I noticed is that though Nye disagrees that one single major storm like this or a small series of them can be considered evidence against his pet theory, it’s still okay for him to cite other similar instances in support of that same theory. Bill, come on now. If you want to disallow that argument for others, you can’t turn around in the same breath and use it yourself. That’s called ‘hypocrisy’ and it certainly doesn’t do your position any justice.”

      As a point of clarification and if you’d bothered to read any of my other posts on this topic, I don’t deny the possibility that man can have some impact on the climate. That being said, I don’t think Bill’s and other mad-mader’s rhetoric helps much when moronic statements like accusing people of being unpatriotic if they don’t believe man is the ultimate cause of climate change. It’s as intellectually dishonest as Republicans who call anti-war Democrats unpatriotic or Dems who claim conservatives want people to die in the streets if they don’t support government-paid healthcare for everyone.

      Do me a favor and try putting at least two functioning brain cells together the next time you come in here attempting to throw down the ad-hominem attacks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: