BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL!!!!
I agree with this but the problem is, Bill Nye doesn’t support nuclear energy as a solution to our environmental crisis, which is unfortunate because it truly is the only viable answer. Wind and solar will never be efficient and cost effective enough to be a real answer, but it’s all Bill ever advocates for.
@StoneFarb, every single person that complains about climate change and doesn’t advocate nuclear is a virtue signaling prick.
@Hotchkiz, ikr? It’s way easier to point out problems than to actually help solve them.
@StoneFarb, that’s really not true at all. The world has a rising energy need, and when accounting for building, maintenance, and disposal, nuclear is far too expensive; however, the cost of renewables is always going down. The new nuclear plants being built in the US are all behind schedule and way over budget and costing tax payers a lot in subsidies. It will be years before they become worth it. Even in places like China, where building is faster and nuclear is growing, renewables like wind and solar are growing exponentially faster. Nuclear really isn’t that efficient.
@griffinstorme, while the cost of nuclear is vastly higher than renewable, the output from even tremendously sized wind and solar farms makes such a small dent in energy needs that people are having to resort back to coal to supplement those needs. Nuclear may be difficult to establish, but the massive energy output more than makes up for it. It’s been almost a century since the solar panel was invented and the energy efficiency of it is still embarrassingly low. Windmills may not have massive costs, but the energy spent in construction and upkeep is about the same as the energy produced by it.
@StoneFarb, but again, not only is nuclear not sustainable, with rising energy needs, there’s not time or money to build enough nuclear plants. However, efficiency of renewable sources is rising. And it’s just untrue that wind energy output is a 0 sum. Several EU countries are predicting up to 50% of their energy will be from wind in the next 5-15 years.
@griffinstorme, yeah, and the other 50% comes from burning coal and shït, which undies the entire gain. Wind and solar are not enough.
@I Are Lebo, yeah... currently. That’s why We improve technology and build more solar panels ya goof.
Finally, a solution to all of the world's problems! Just let it burn...
@brathosan, every day this sounds better and better.
@brathosan, and here we...... go!
@brathosan, I read final solution at first
Aight bill then riddle me as to how you think you'll get the chinese and Indians to stop polluting so much?
@M0RT0S, "are any of them free? No of course not you ducking idiots"
@M0RT0S, attacking their coal plants and threatening to nuke them unless they stopped putting plastic in the ocean would be a more effective solution than any amount of “green activity” the west can do.
@Hotchkiz, yeah threatening to nuke them will be so much better for everyone. Sure.
@M0RT0S, are you suggesting that the basis for every policy decision we have should be China or India?
@SeussAlmighty, do you have any better ideas
@eleven, yeah, literally anything else than trying to start a nuclear war
@A Blunt Object, no, but if this is as big as the climate alarmists say it is wouldn't the mere fact that they're not slowing down at all be a humanitarian crisis? If we truly have 12 years before we "die" then we need to stop these people from killing all of us. The worst part would be under this mindset it be considered a humanitarian war. Because they would see all the pollutants as humanitarian crisis, because they are literally killing all life on earth.
So, in review, no we shouldn't make policies based on other countries. And we should make policies surrounded by power-hungry Doomsday cults. We bring China and India up as a counter because no amount of US law will affect either of them.
@That one lurker, not sure I’d classify scientists that collect actual data that has been peer reviewed as a “doomsday cult”, but whatever floats your boat.
Your “but China does it” argument is about as effective as effective as my 4 year old wanting to do something his friend does when I already told him no. True my parenting won’t affect his friend, but hey maybe my kid will grow up better for it.
The weird thing is that when our country is the “leader of the free world”, every now and then we need to do something before anyone else does, and actually lead...
@That one lurker, Bro, I'm old enough to have died like 3 times from climate change. They only call it climate change now because global warming was disproved as an issue by actual Climatologists and it's a safe buzz word. This is just a politically disingenuous religion who want control over people. The US has been lowering its emissions continuously for almost 20yrs; France and Canada (who mocked us for leaving the Paris Agreement) are reaching record levels of emissions every year (France has mostly nuclear energy btw). When Paris isn't clouded in smog and China/India actually bother to control themselves, I'll begin to care. Though temp talk is alarmist speak when higher temps have made Earth greener and are no where near dangerous enough to fear.
@ JCLEMZ, I cant tell if you’re serious or not
@averagesizedtoaster, About what exactly? Because I'm serious about all I said.
@ JCLEMZ, alright lol I was just wondering. I just don’t agree with you but I also don’t feeling like arguing so I wanted to ask if you were serious about your statements.
@averagesizedtoaster, I mean it's not a case of agreement or not. Everything I've stated is backed by historical and scientific fact. I can even point you to people who've actually done the research and have stacks of resources they've used to prove it. Even GreenPeace's founder himself debunks much of these hyperbole climate change positions.
@A Blunt Object, it may not even be worth anything to respond to you. You're uncharitable at best, with making these strawmen that are genuinely ignorant.
If we're going purely literal the scientists are doomsayers while the dnc is the cult leader. Gaining power through getting the date wrong three other times.
Second point your kid analogy is rather bad. It only works if removing the usa from the equation to solve anything, it won't. If the doomsayers are right then there won't be an earth. Let say your sons to friends was building a bomb under your house, you son came to you to worn you, and your reaction is to not kick out the kids to defuse the bomb but instead to tell your kid he's not allowed to play with them anymore.
We are the leaders of the free world, China's slipping back into a communist dictatorship again and India is coming up with new renewable energy which produces a lot of waste products. We sometimes need to treat the laceration before the paper cut.
@ JCLEMZ, I mean the climate is changing. You won’t die from it because that not how that works. The planet however is dying from it which in turn will kill you if you live long enough to see it. We can’t say global warming bc it’s periods of warming and cooling. Just like how winter lasted a lot longer this year. It’s not a religion it’s scientific fact. The US has definitely not been lowering emissions for 20yrs and I highly doubt France/Canada are at a record high. Paris is beautiful and easily has less smog than California or China (I’ve been to all three in the last two years). I just don’t understand how people can disregard this. Even if it is false wouldn’t you want to make sure that the planet is safe?
@averagesizedtoaster, No one ever said climate change itself doesn't exist as a natural phenomenon. If that's the impression you got from me then I apologize; I was referring merely to the myths about it espoused commonly by the religiously devout climate theorists these days.
And yes, we are lowering emissions every year while others aren't. https://capitalresearch.org/article/u-s-achieves-largest-decrease-in-carbon-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/ This is one of many resources that prove we continue to lower emissions while others don't.
And what does your last sentence have to do with anything? Ignoring for the fact such a question is abhorrently baity, if climate change is just a natural phenomenon with people contributing minimal impact on it, why would we be suddenly less safe today, tomorrow, or 12yrs from now with no proof to back that up? Al Gore's calling and he wants his alarm bell back.
@That one lurker, so let’s take this point by point.
A strawman argument is arguing against something you didn’t state, which isn’t the case here as you used used both the “cult” analogy and “but China” argument in your previous post.
Let’s talk about the bomb now. If 10 people are making it, and I can get less people doing it it takes longer to make. That also gives me more time to remove others from that activity.
Renewable energy creates more waste? That’s a new one, but your all or nothing mentality is never the way complex issues get solved.
They get solved by working and trying new ideas, but they never get solved unless someone starts...
@ JCLEMZ, so you believe in climate change but you don’t think we have any impact on it?
@averagesizedtoaster, Read the last paragraph again. I clearly state human activity has minimal impact on the climate.
@ JCLEMZ, I did read it, I meant to put any greater impact on it, apologies. I’m just trying to figure out your stance properly. Because you talked about smog and emissions which is an impact on the climate but then you said it has minimal impact.
@averagesizedtoaster, That's because they don't have as large an impact as alarmists say they do. In fact, our CO2 never leaves the lower atmosphere and is sucked up by plant life (hence the greener Earth statement before). There are things we do plenty of that need to change (like that recycled plastic tech breakthrough a week or two ago), but this "We need to drop our emissions in 2yrs or we die in 12!" is fear mongering fake news that doesn't help clean oceans of trash or make our emissions any less.
@ JCLEMZ, alright now I understand where you’re coming from and you are correct about that but in all honesty i don’t really see the lower emissions mongering that you’re referencing but yes I do agree that we have a lot more to worry about. Such as planting more trees to help with CO2 control. The only reason I agree with things like this video is because people don’t listen unless there’s a present problem and even them some just don’t seem to care because it’s not their problem or they won’t be around. But I agree it should be about fixing everything not just emissions
@ JCLEMZ, you're quoting from a strongly biased site. Just looked up the name of your site and the first word to follow in suggested words was bias. Another 3 sites all then said your site had the same bias to the far right. Try to find a .edu or .Gov source because those have little bias .orgs are privately owned and can say almost anything. Most college papers I have to turn in dont give credit for .org and .com citations. Also the climate is being affected by us. No shjt we have lowered emissions we've done that just by making more efficient things world wide. Nuclear is one of the cleanest forms of energy available to us.
Personally I don't care if a site suggests bias unless it didn't back its writing with resources, which the site I linked did (and I merely picked the first link on the list too); if it didn't provide any or lied, then of course they should be mocked as fake news. But fine. Above is from the Environmental Protection Agency and proves the United States has decreased its emissions.
And if your college only accepts government resources, then I worry for that institution. .org sites aren't the only places which hold bias.
@ JCLEMZ, I didn't say they wont accept them but some professors wont give you points from unproven sources or sites with strong biases as there are often conflicting studies a lot of .org or .com stuff is not peer reviewed. Theres a whole other area of .edu to draw from as well.
I never argued that the US hasn't reduced its emissions yeah we have but it wasnt really from policy.
I stated that humans are causing the climate to change. It is not natural at the rate it is going at.
@A Blunt Object, 1. Unless you think that scientist are trying to gain power through politics they were not who I was talking about. Because you conflated my doomcult talk to mean specifically the scientists that's what made it a straw man argument.
2. You're adding people to the analogy, you maybe willfully ignoring what I say for convenience.
3. Lithium batteries produce a lot of waste in manufacturing. This is one reason why Germany, one of the greenest country in the world is actually producing more pollution then us.
4. By new ideas are you speaking of Canada's carbon tax? The carbon tax hits every one, but the government pools the tax money and gives it back to the people. Lower income family's get more then they put in, to disincentivize down from unnecessary purchasing of fossil fuels. Does this sound as a reasonable solution?
@That one lurker,
1: “scientists are the doom sayers the dnc is the cult leader”, and you politicized this by bringing the DNC in unprompted. Honestly, you met the definition of a strawman argument right there, and then you tried to sell it as something I was doing.
2: Adding people to the analogy would help your math. If I take 1 away from 10 it’s 10% of the labor. I’ll gladly say 50% by taking one away from 2 and give myself even more time to remedy.
3: Batteries do not create energy, and as such are not a renewable source of it. Your argument was about renewable sources of energy being wasteful.
4: The Canadian legislation is a pretty good starting point, and I would support similar legislation, even if China and India aren’t doing it...
@A Blunt Object,
1: "climate change" has always been political. That's why the only solution to the Democratic caucus is to give government more power. Listen to them it's always platitudes and give me power while they fly around in their private jets. You can tell this from the gas lighting done in the after math of the green new deal.
2: your math is flawed, we're not producing as much as either of the other two. Should we crack down on Germany? Germany makes more pollutants then us. So why not find ways to get a green country like Germany to cut back before we do?
3: where will you be storing this new found energy? Renewable energy is predicated on the storage system that you use. That's why it's important, because of lithium batteries are bad for the environment.
4: so you want government command over wealth distribution. If you think I'm pulling your leg, go back and read what I put, if it still sounds good, then I understand what the problem is and we're not seeing eye to eye.
@A Blunt Object, no, he’s suggesting that no matter what we do, we won’t actually make a difference unless China and Indian make similar changes.
@That one lurker,
1: Climate change is not political, it’s peer reviewed science. You can dislike the evidence, it doesn’t make it any less factual, and if you believe facts are political then there’s the root cause of our disagreement.
2: Your analogy included 2 behavioral drivers, and that’s what I used. 1 is 50% of 2, no matter how you slice it. Your issue is with your poor choice of an analogy, not my math.
3: I’m curious as where we store fossil fuel energy now? Oh wait we don’t, so I’m still not getting your battery point here as many clean energy sources, like fossil fuel sources, don’t require battery storage to work effectively.
4: What I want is investment from the private sector in alternative energy sources. That usually requires an incentive to start. A carbon tax that incentivizes movement away from fossil fuels while not penalizing a family that struggles to pay their heating bill isn’t a bad idea...
@big freedom, so do nothing and exacerbate the problem? Sound logic...
@A Blunt Object,
1: "climate change" is political doublespeak for this very reason. I agree that weather changes and I agree that man is causing the earth to get warm because of emissions. "Climate change" is a catch all term that means all of that and non of that at the same time. If you believe in what I just said, you believe in "climate change". If you don't believe that "climate change" will kill us on this specific year on this specific day at this specific time then you're against the facts and must be a science denier. It's always been politicized.
2: I'm somewhat worried on how you think we can take one out of the equation.
The analogy was for improper punishments that do nothing. The USA has been on a downward decline in pollutants, while these are the two countries keep rising. And your idea was to double down at on the USA as an example. That was the analogy.
3: we can store fossil fuels. Where do you store Wind, where do you store the Sun, where do you store the Waves?..
@A Blunt Object, oh my god you’re such a fûcking douche. That’s exactly what I said. “Do nothing”. You are the king of the straw man argument.
Or... we don’t completely spend ourselves into oblivion over something that we don’t have control over. We balance jobs and economy AND environment. Dolt
@That one lurker, .. Batteries. We have no other way of storing Pure Energy, and as a way of storing Pure Energy batteries are really not efficient. Making an abundance of batteries has a lot of wasted by products. This Wasted by products is bad for the environment. Germany has the most solar panels for a country in all of Europe, and is still the biggest polluter. Mostly because of the batteries.
4: The carbon tax proposed was a Trojan Horse to bring in socialist redistribution. It is literally a socialist policy to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have nots. It is borderline communist, stealing from the private sector and giving it to the public. Literally doing the inverse of what you just stated and what you're advocating for.
@big freedom, hay man keep it civil. Everyone grows out of their edgy socialist phase eventually. We're just talking to a late bloomer.
@That one lurker,
1: Facts aren’t political, and if you agree that man is causing the earth to get warmer that’s what the science is saying. There’s not a specific this is when life will end date, it’s what is the average temperature going to be, and what detrimental issues that causes.
2: You seem to take issue with your analogy again. I’ll give you a redo on it. To answer your other question the US has lowered its emissions, yet it still has almost 3X the CO2 emissions per capita that China has. So yes, there is still work to do.
3: You don’t store those examples, but hydro-electric can be produced on demand as can nuclear. Both are cleaner than fossil fuels and can be supplemented with wind and solar.
Btw the ocean current, which I’m guessing is “the waves” in your comment also doesn’t go anywhere.
@That one lurker, he’s really not that bad, and who’s being socialist? If having factual evidence makes me that, I got some bad news for you friend...
@big freedom, classy friend, as always.
BTW a strawman argument would be me arguing against something you didn’t say, not something you did.
@That one lurker, oh there’s more! Fun.
4: It’s not, it’s promoting investment through penalty. The fact that it gives folks that would be most hurt by it the money back isn’t a bad thing.
Since we’re stretching to call this a “Socialist Trojan Horse”, what are your thoughts on a tax code that has you paying more dollars in taxes than 60 Fortune 500 companies this year? Is that not a socialist redistribution of wealth as well?
@A Blunt Object,
4: what are you even trying to say? Just because the bill doesn't state that the economy will now be run as if it was socialist. Cancer doesn't spread that way.
So we make up a tax that hits everyone initially then we pay "low income families" money from the aggregate. That's not reinvesting, that's not putting money towards projects, it's purely done to give more money to people on welfare. Further cementing them in poverty.
First off which 60 are we talking about? 500-440? Oh, will we be choosing the 60 that dumps all their money in offshore accounts?
Secondly you need to show me where in the tax code it states that the taxes I pay will be redistributed into these companies, them getting tax breaks is not the same as me paying them with my taxes, that's why it's not socialist.
Finally I don't want the people of Canada to go through the same things at every other socialist country in this world has gone through. Socialism in all its forms are failures.
@That one lurker, so if we stated that the low income folks were getting a tax break it’s no longer socialism to you?
Just to be clear, your contention when Amazon has a negative tax liability on profits of $11.2 billion that’s good old capitalism, but if a poor person does the same thing, look out it’s socialism? The hypocrisy of that argument is quite staggering.
@A Blunt Object, low income families do get tax breaks. It's not socialism. Because they get to keep what little money they've earned, you should not earn an income for being a citizen of a state.
I don't know what you think you know but maybe double check your verbiage. I'm not in favor for either of them to pay taxes that they don't need to pay. A negative tax liability can show a myriad of positive as well as negative things for both a company and a citizen. You are not rewarding either of them for having a bad year. You're just not taxing failure.
I was gonna jump in here but I’m just depressed that people are so anti-science and pro-selfishness that they’ll ignore all the evidence and major catastrophes are literally gonna come in my lifetime because of these a-holes.
@griffinstorme, I’m more depressed at how many people would rather virtue signal and take a stand against actually honestly addressing the issues to browbeat anyone who doesn’t fall in line.
Fearmongering doesn’t help solve problems, and when their hyperbole involves the literal end of the world and they and people like them have been making these wild claims for nearly half a century, with EVERY one of their predictions failing, it removes their credibility. They’re hurting their own cause with stunts like this.
Note how Bill says “this COULD happen”. Not this will happen, or is likely to happen, just “can” happen. This is dishonest fearmongering propaganda from Bill Nye.
@I Are Lebo, what was it. I forget who brought this idea to me, but it was around the time when those kids was trying to morally grandstand against nancy pelosi. Regurgitating all the same talking points, she stood up for herself thats was really good. But the comment was something to the effect, that if teachers propagandize their students to believe that there's only 12 years left before the world's ending, then why should the kids suffer through school. It was one of the flash points to let me know this was all political.
@I Are Lebo, “virtue signalling” is nonsense that’s essentially an ad hom argument so whatever.
And scientists and leaders have tried being nice. Al Gore made a movie. So now we have to try being aggressive. Yes. These claims have been made for a while. The rate at which humans produce greenhouse gasses is unsustainable and will cause environmental damage. And now we’re seeing effects with severe extinction, bad tropical storms, wildfires etc.
Are you honestly denying climate change in general. Yikes.
@griffinstorme, honestly, I've spent a little to much time on this thread. I could have been more sunsync, but you live and learn. Did you have any data point that would have made this go smoother?
@That one lurker, I’m not a climate scientist, I’m a linguist. I work in the pacific and I know that there’s a lot of concern over rising sea levels and pacific island displacement. I’m sure anyone can google that. Or heck, just google meta study on climate change effects. It’s not that hard, and the data is there for anyone to access.
@That one lurker, you didn’t read my comment.
Taxing failure is not what I stated, taxing profit is, and allowing a company to get back more then they paid on over $11 billion in profit (not revenue) is a failure of the system.
It’s the very definition you just used, they’re keeping more money than they earned.
A negative liability on an individual filer is the same as one on a corporation, and the result is that they get more than they paid.
So again the question is, why is it ok for a corporation to be paid for operating here, but for an individual it’s socialism? It’s one and the same. At least be consistent with your beliefs...
@griffinstorme, Al Gore made a movie predicting that Florida would be underwater by now. The pseudoscience behind their fearmongering is clouding the real issue.
As for your as hoc about virtue signalling, virtue signalling is the act of calling attention to yourself to broadcast your virtuous nature by outlining a problem without actually contributing to the conversation in any meaningful way towards solving that problem.
“My thoughts and prayers are with you” are an example of virtue signalling. A dismissal is not a refutation, and calling something nonsense doesn’t make it so.
This is why it’s a political nightmare. Because you and people like you take ANY argument against your stance as being completely scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists. There’s a massive middle ground you’re leaping over, and purely for ideological reasons.
@A Blunt Object, you're conflating tax breaks with giving money to people. You're as bad as the young turks, not the genocide regime, the propaganda network that's funded by Qatar and the dnc.
Or is it that in your mind since we use us legal tender the government owns all our wealth. That's the only way I can figure you can keep your ideas consistent. Or is it that you keep throwing consistency back into my face is because I care about consistency.
@That one lurker, keeping you on track is quite the challenge, I’ll give you that.
I fail to see the difference between giving someone money that they didn’t earn either as a gift or as a tax break. There’s a reason it’s called corporate welfare, because that’s exactly what it is.
You keep trying to label me a socialist, because I feel that a tax designed to spur private sector innovation shouldn’t impact the working poor. That’s quite a leap there, and what seems like your 10th strawman attempt.
The free market is an excellent tool to solve problems, but it prioritizes efficiency above all else. Sometimes you need to introduce inefficiencies to spur the market into action, which is exactly what a tax does...
@griffinstorme, thank you, by the way, for demonstrating an example of someone who would virtue signal and browbeat any opposition rather than actually address the issue.
@I Are Lebo, Gore Never Said that Florida would be underwater to my knowledge, he said that we could see arctic ice free summers by 2014 (which admittedly is a bizarre claim). Don’t lie. What he did do was bring attention to climate change.
And again, virtue signalling is just some nonsense that you like to throw at anyone raising awareness. There really isn’t middle ground to cross here, and climate denial is a conspiracy theory. Governments are literally already putting plans in place to combat climate change. Coastal cities are planning for rising sea levels. My country is already discussing the potentially 200,000 people in the pacific that will be displaced from 2050-2100 due to climate related migration. We’re already seeing the effects in natural disasters... I don’t really know what else to say here, so I’m gonna check out. Best of luck to you, I’m gonna continue being politically and socially active—- oh sorry, I mean virtue signalling.
@griffinstorme, I suggest you double check, because the flooding of Florida was in fact one of his predictions in An Inconvenient Truth.
Virtue signalling is a real thing, and while I can’t stop you from denying it, it’s just as meaningful as denying that the earth is round.
The entire problem I lined out is that there is a massive middle ground between denying that climate change is occurring, which is readily apparent, and accepting the wild claims of proponents of climate change, who regularly make doomsday predictions that do not come true. Arguing against the populist lunatics like AOC who peddle nonsense like the world ending in twelve years is not climate denial.
You’re not virtue signalling with this response, but you are being dishonest. You’re dishonest with your approach to the issue of climate change, you’re dishonest with your debate practice, and you’re dishonest when you conflate political activism with virtue signalling.
@griffinstorme, you know what else is a great example of what I’m talking about? This gif. The world is not “on fücking fire”, and Bill is being a part of the problem, NOT part of the solution.
I used to love Bill. It’s hard to like him when he’s so entirely and completely full of horseshït, though.
@A Blunt Object,
1: facts can be politicized. So you agree that you was projecting about saying I dislike evidence. And yes there is, that is what the climate alarmists have been screeching about.
2: no, I just had to explain it to you like you were a child and so now you're trying to put it back on me saying that I did something wrong, grow up and admit when you're wrong.
The CO2 levels that you're looking up, are between the times of 1970-2013. If you go by the aggregate that includes 2014 you'll see China has produced nearly double our CO2. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?end=2014&locations=CN-US&start=1960&view=chart&year=2014. If we measured work by what is left to do then we will never be done.
3: politically speaking the left has tryed to kill the debate for nuclear. Just admit that you didn't know about the harms of over producing lithium batteries.
It’s great to see someone actually get mad about this
And Bill the not actually a science guy is an actor...
@butthole bread, he has a degree in mechanical engineering, as well as five honorary doctorates, including at least two doctorate of science degrees. He's a published author, a member of The Planetary Society, and helped develop a sundial for the Mars missions.
@Fac3pa1m, 5 honorary doctorates... so you are saying that they just gave them to him. Kind of like how celebrities are given things all the time to seem elite when they haven't earned it.
@butthole bread, so he's a "celebrity" now, not an "actor?" At least you're moving in the right direction.
@Fac3pa1m, I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Bill on being a bad scientist. It’s his activism I take issue with. That’s where we have started getting idiocy from him. It’s ideologically motivated idiocy.
@A Blunt Object, Miss labeling something is the starting road to lunacy. Calling the Sun the Moon does not force nocturnal creatures out and about, so to would it if I called you a capitalist.
I attempt to answer you succinctly, but the words don't make it past your biases, as if you are speaking to a foe. I'm no hostile, I just ask for you to step away from the edge.
In your secound paragraph you did it again a tax break is not money. In the new York deal to bring Amazons operational base to the nyc. They were going to give Amazon some tax breaks to incentivize them in staying and setting up shop. If the deal had gone through would that be New York City giving money to Amazon?
Daily reminder that Bill Nye is a self-proclaimed socialist. That’s right, children! Giving the government more power and more of your money is the only way to save the planet! Just trust us!!
Oh boy, let’s see where this one goes. Someone get the popcorn.
@TheRatMan, I will defend Bill to the last *draws blaster*
@TheRatMan, Dolph Lundgren aka Ivan Drago is more of a scientist than he is though but Bill makes a good point
@Velocitaptor, hey you gotta respect the fact that he told us all to wear our Personal Protective Equipment. Also; I came from the Mr. Wizard era but I completely respect Dr. Nye’s credentials.
@Admirable Ackbar, I understand nostalgia grips people hard, but could we agree that bills comments on jailing "science deniers" to be far to extreme to defend.
Reference video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xlk4Lt__Sn0
@Admirable Ackbar, me with my BA in biology are leagues more qualified to talk about what Bill talks about, he's a fraud that has as much to do with environmental science as does Kim Kardashian.
@Dudeliness, Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in engineering, nowhere close to a doctorate.
@Venturingbud, he has five honorary doctorates
@Velocitaptor, does Dolph Lundgren disagree with Bill Nye regarding climate change?
@ Seductive Cheeto, I’m so outrageously sick of people saying that Bill Nye isn’t qualified to make appearances like this because the degree he earned 25 years ago (from f#cking Cornell) was only a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering, despite studying physics and astrophysics throughout under Carl Sagan, whose Planetary Society (which does incredible scientific research and discovery, the kind of stuff that qualifies you to be called a scientist) he is now CEO of, and has always been hands-on in their work. Those fields of study can absolutely include climate change if that is what you are passionate about. And, even if he was some homeless guy who dropped out of high school, demonstrations like these are both helpful to society in getting people’s attention and do not spread misinformation that is not backed by actual scientific research.
@Admirable Ackbar, but he has spread misinformation in the past for political reasons AND money, even going as far as signing away copyrights to remove parts of his old shows that don't agree with his politics today.
I don't care if he works with a company that does scientific research, he doesn't do the research, he's still just another untrustworthy celebrity that has shown money and politics are more important to him than scientific research.
Also what is informative or helpful about this? He just bjtches about climate change and says a basic common sense truth, offering 0 solutions or even possible solutions to the problem, but I bet you he still got paid several tens of thousands of dollars for it.
@ Seductive Cheeto, How is he political? He doesn't endorse any parties or politicians. He's not running for any offices. He advocates his policy positions, and that's not the same as being political. He removed parts of his old show because his views changed when presented with new information. That's how science works. That's not politics, that's growth. He was also opposed to GMO crops at one time, but after further study he changed his mind. It's also entirely possible to argue against someone's positions without questioning their motives.
@ Seductive Cheeto, but, Saint Bill is confirming my bias. I can't have you sullying his good name or questioning the legitimacy of his information.
@Fac3pa1m, here is he is getting political for the left: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/04/22/politics/bill-nye-the-science-guy-climate-change/index.html
here he is getting political for the right: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/bill-nye-does-not-speak-for-us-and-he-does-not-speak-for-science/
here he is getting political for the left again: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/bill-nye-scientism-guy-propagandist-left-wing-politics/amp/
here is a BUNCH of times he got political: https://newrepublic.com/article/142260/bill-nye-not-right-guy-lead-climate-fight
You just don't keep up with Bill Nye buddy, he's just another C-list celebrity playing any angle to keep his fame and make money
@Fac3pa1m, btw the part of his show that was removed, the fact that men have XY chromosomes and women have XX chromosomes, has not been disproven by science in any way at all. He pushed pseudoscience stating that biological sex is a spectrum, when in reality it's Male or female in the human species. He did so to get brownie points with liberals, and get media praise and attention with virtue signaling.
@ Seductive Cheeto, you've become so cynical that you honestly believe anyone with a position MUST be political. The Scientific American article even convinced you he was being political for the right for simply showing up to the SOTU.
@Fac3pa1m, do you... Do you know what politics are?
@ Seductive Cheeto, You're arguing that having an opinion on a topic is inherently political, and I disagree. And also, you should have asked, "do I know what politics *is*?" In this case it's singular, given that you're referring to politics as a general concept. It's only plural if you're referring to a specific set of political beliefs, e.g. "Do you know what so and so's politics are?"
@Fac3pa1m, you’re being very dishonest. If you are running a public broadcast show purporting to be about science while using your reputation as an educator of basic scientific facts to push an ideology that is scientifically baseless while also suppressing your own previous acknowledgements to the contrary, that’s political.
Specifically, it’s political propaganda.
I refuse to let Bill Nyes recent activity ruin my memories of bill Nye the science guy
Populist little prick
Can’t stand Bill Nye the Shjtfaced Guy
Ok Bill, you're being a bit dramatic.
@Doctor Yak, Americans dont respond to standard logic and wording
@Doctor Yak, not a bit dramatic the world is ending
@Canadian wolf , I mean, if you take him at his word it is, but I guarantee you the world will be fine, regardless of what we do to it.
@Doctor Yak, true, we may or may not be here but the earth will go on until the sun engulfs it, dies, is reborn and forms (possibly) another iteration of earth
Bill Nye swearing is the best thing I’ve ever seen
Slightly over dramatic. I get the message but the planet isn’t on fire Bill.
I'm totally on board for PG-13 Bill Nye.
Say whatever u want about his credentials or whatever, but hes not wrong. I learned about this stuff and it's solutions in 2 years of college.