Bill Nye (center in bow tie) is everywhere these days, and he’s out to “save the world.” He’s a frequent talking head on CNN, FOX, NBC, PBS, etc., usually on the supposed need for draconian regulation of humanity to stave off imminent global-warming apocalypse. On April 22nd (Earth Day) he led the March for Science in Washington, D.C., an event that drew thousands and inspired hundreds of copycat marches in cities across the country and around the world. And of course, there’s his new, sensational platform, Bill Nye Saves the World, on Netflix.
Nye and Netflix, no doubt, will insist the title of the new series makes use of obvious hyperbole for over-the-top cheeky humor effect, but the episodes released thus far reveal an aging social justice warrior (SJW) and wannabe hipster with a messianic complex who is peddling an authoritarian ideology/religion under a camouflage of pseudoscience.
Bill Nye the Science Guy has transmuted into a screechy, preachy ubiquitous presence who wants to penalize you if you have more than two children, jail you if you disagree with his global-warming catastrophism, and stigmatize you if you don’t adopt his transgender views or embrace his dogmatic religion of evolution. Even many of his liberal-left comrades are expressing concern that Nye’s strident, condescending new persona is annoying and alienating, and suggest that maybe he’s not the ideal candidate to be the public face of the climate-change/environmental movement. Besides noting that he has failed miserably in television debates, many of his allies acknowledge that Saves the World substitutes ideology and pseudo-science for real science, and that the program is replete with cringe-inducing segments that are embarrassing to watch.
“Bill Nye Is Not the Right Guy to Lead the Climate Fight,” declares the title of an April 27 article critiquing the would-be savior in the New Republic. A review at Gizmodo.com entitled “Bill Nye Spends Most of His New Netflix Show Yelling at the Audience” is by Maddie Stone, a fellow climate alarmist who says “Nye and I are on the same team,” but nonetheless finds Nye’s program to be “patronizing,” “excruciating,” ”bombastic,” and “angry.” Even a generally positive review of Bill Nye Saves the World at the leftist-progressive Vox.com admits “his approach could use some refinement,” and dings him for “condescension,” “meanness,” and a “scathing and dismissive tone” taken toward those who disagree with his views.
Bill Nye The Steve Martin lookalike contest winner turned “Science” Guy is back with a new Netflix series, humbly titled “Bill Nye Saves The World”, and one particular episode is causing an uproar for parents on one side and transgender people on the other.
Given that Nye is a die-hard liberal with a mechanical engineering degree, what would be more natural than to have the television personality teaching our children about the birds and the bees, right? After all he already claims to be an expert in climate science, religion, and social science (he believes that Jews have brought European antisemitism upon themselves).
The bow-tied buffoon covered probability in his new Netflix series using clips from his old broadcast television series “Bill Nye The Science Guy,” taken from an episode also about probability.
One of the segments that aired in the original version explained:
“Inside each of ourselves are these things called chromosomes, and they control whether we become a boy or a girl,” the narrator explains. “There are only two possibilities: ‘XX,’ a girl, or ‘XY,’ a boy.”
That’s how I learned it in school. But not how it was edited for Netflix.But in the new version of his probability episode, Nye demonstrated that both sex and gender choice are non-binary. That is to say that a person’s sex selection and the gender to which they identify, appear on a scale as opposed to in a check box labeled “male” or “female”.
But that’s not scientifically correct. Gender choice may be non binary, but normal sex selection is based on either XX or XY chromosomes. Gender is a social construct, not a scientific one, it may be caused by legitimate parts of people’s consciousness, and society may recognize a person’s gender selection– but it doesn’t change the fact that sex is based on DNA.
Warmist Revolt! Bill Nye has become ‘cringeworthy’ – ‘He Is Not the Right Guy to Lead the Climate Fight’
BY EMILY ATKIN
April 27, 2017
Tens of thousands of people around the world rallied for rational thought on Saturday, and those who attended the main March for Science, in Washington, D.C., were treated to a lengthy program of distinguished speakers: astronauts, astronomers, neuroscientists, biologists, chemists, and other Americans who—in a truly rational society—would be famous. But only one of them was legitimately famous.
“Our numbers here today show the world that science is for all,” Bill Nye the Science Guy belted to the crowd on the National Mall. “Our lawmakers must know that science serves every one of us. Every citizen of every nation in society. Science must shape policy. Science is universal. Science brings out the best in us. With an informed, optimistic view of the future, together we can—dare I say it—save the world!”
This speech, the Washington Post declared, “was a significant moment—for science, for William Sanford Nye and for the masses who have followed him for decades, from fuzzy TV screens in their middle school classrooms to the grounds of the Washington Monument at Saturday’s March for Science.” But Nye’s inspiring words were also, perhaps, a plug for his new Netflix show: Bill Nye Saves the World.
It seems that years of political debate have made him too jaded, exasperated, strident, and partisan to be the face of the climate change fight. Worse, he’s unwittingly feeding the conservative narrative that the left’s reverence for science is all just a political performance.
A few weeks earlier, Nye was a guest on Tucker Carlson’s evening show on Fox News. It was a cringeworthy nine minutes of television.
“To what degree is climate change is caused by human activity?” Carlson asked.
A simple question, but one that gave Nye pause. “To a degree that it’s … that it’s a very serious problem in the next few decades,” he said.
“But to what degree? Is it 100 percent? Is it 73.4 percent?”
“The word degree is a word that you chose, but the speed to which climate change is happening is caused by humans.”
“But to what extent is human activity is responsible for speeding that up? Please be more precise.”
Carlson said Nye looked annoyed—and he was right. Nye then tried to change the subject, asking Carlson why he doesn’t consider climate change a problem.
Right-wing media has had a field day with Nye lately. …
But we are not all guilty of doing “a lot of emitting.”
Even though they have one of the highest fertility rates in the world, the good people of Niger, according to Rieder, are totally awesome because they “are doing almost no emitting.” Yes, these amazing people emit only “0.1 metric tons of carbon annually,” while we American pigs emit “160 times” that amount.
Oddly enough, though, what Nye and Rieder fail to tell us is that Niger is a hellhole of humanity that ranked as the country with the world’s worst standard of living in 2009, a standard that has only gotten worse since. The “absolute poverty rate” in Niger was 61% and climbing in 2012.
But when his guest mentioned Niger, Nye said approvingly, “They burn some charcoal [only] now and then.”
Well, when all you own is a wooden bowl, an old blanket, and herd of bed bugs…
Anyway, things then got super-creepy….
Billy Nye: So, should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?
Travis Rieder: I do think that we should at least consider it.
Bill Nye: Well, “at least consider it” is like “Do it.”
Travis Rieder: One of the things that we could do that’s kind of least policy-ish is we could encourage our culture and our norms to change, right?
2) Niger has an infant mortality rate of 71.2 deaths per 1000 live births — one of the highest in the world. America’s infant mortality rate, which the left-wing Washington Post called an “embarrassment,” is only 6.1 per 1000.
Gutfeld criticized Nye for saying on a CNN panel that the network should not have allowed a global warming skeptic to join the debate.
“You can’t even have one scientist on to question a comedian who got his degree in mechanical engineering,” he said.
“He’s mocking skepticism which is the spine behind the scientific method.” Gutfeld added.
Gutfeld said the Earth Day marches held over the weekend would be better described as “march[es] for silence” rather than “march[es] for science.”…
Bill Nye: The Perfect Talking Head for a March Against Science – ‘He promotes science as a close-minded ideology’
Bill Nye may not be a scientist. But he used to play one on TV. Now he is an honorary co-chair and speaker for the “March for Science” in Washington D.C. and elsewhere on April 22.
The choice of Nye as one of the faces of the March is revealing. March organizers have paid lip service to critical thinking and “diverse perspectives” in science. However, Nye is a good example of someone who promotes science as a close-minded ideology, not an open search for truth.
He attacks those who disagree with him on climate change or evolution as science “deniers.” He wouldn’t even rule out criminal prosecution as a tool. Asked last year whether he supported efforts to jail climate skeptics as war criminals, he replied: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”
Scientists disagree on far more issues than the March organizers admit.
Real science encourages debate. It doesn’t insist that scientists march in lockstep. Or that they speak with one voice. In fact, scientists disagree on far more issues than the March organizers admit.
Models Vs. Evidence
Take global warming. Many marchers will wear their belief in climate change on their sleeves. On their signs, too. They, like Nye and others who claim to speak for science, equate belief in man-made climate disaster with science itself. If you disagree, you’re “anti-science.”
Yet there are strong reasons to doubt the so-called “consensus” on warming. But the popular media rarely cite them.
From 1890 to 1990, records show only a .45 degree C rise in global temperature as measured from near-surface thermometers around the Earth. Yet about 75 percent of the increase occurred before World War II, while most of the increase in human produced greenhouse gases occurred after World War II. So, human industrial activity doesn’t really correlate with the main effect of interest. Meanwhile, after a few warmer than usual years in the early 1990s, global temperatures have flat-lined. They show no net increase over the last two decades.
‘March for Science’ invokes God, Hitler, Gay Marriage, Racism, Sexism – Blames GOP for making climate worse
Climate Depot’s Round Up of Coverage of the alleged ‘March For Science’
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Having spent the day in DC on April 22 interviewing the marchers, it struck me about how this is first and foremost a march for endless government funding, ideology and in support of a no dissent policy. (Another new study gives plenty of reason to dissent: New Climate Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’) The Trump administration can help make science great again by resisting these pay up and shut up demands for taxpayer research money.” See: Bloomberg News: Obama ‘stashed’ $77 billion in ‘climate money’ across agencies to elude budget cuts
Watch: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer criticizes ‘March for Science’: ‘It is sort of a religious belief for them’ – Dr. Will Happer on Fox News: Asked about more government funded science? Happer: “We’ve had 8 years of very highly politicized so-called research on climate. It’s not what most of us would recognize as real scientific research. Something where the outcome was demanded before the funding was provided. We should tend to real environmental problems and fix them and stop chasing these phantom problems that are really just religious dogma.”
Pictures and reports about the ‘March for Science’
‘March for Science’: Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ – The early claims of 97% ‘consensus’: In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
Climatologist Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr: “If there was any doubt the “March on Science” is political – The march is explicitly a political movement” See full article
The March is over:
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best they can come up with …
By Tony Heller – Real Climate Science
Had Bill ever actually looked at the data, he would have known that the frequency of February 70 degree days has actually declined since 1920. The warmest February was 1976, which came immediately before the three coldest winters on record in the US.
Less than one year after the warmest February in 1976, it was snowing in Miami
The warmest February temperature on record in the US, was 104 degrees at Rio Grande City, Texas on February 26, 1902. The average warmest February temperature at all 1,218 USHCN stations is 78 degrees.
It is painfully obvious that Bill is unfamiliar with both the data and the authorities he claims to represent. He is a junk science guy, and because of his influence on trusting children, his disinformation campaign is a threat to both science and civil society.