Bill Nye: “I am a Failure”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Bill Nye seems to think he has failed to reach people with his demand for urgent action on climate change, but he blames others for creating the conditions which led to his failure.

Bill Nye on his climate change education efforts: “I am a failure”

“The Science Guy” looks back on his 1990s TV show, and why climate change education has not reflected policy change

Between hosting “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and serving as CEO of The Planetary Society, Bill Nye’s career as a science educator means he is also, inherently, an activist when it comes to combating climate change.

Nye joined Jeremy Binckes on “Salon Talks” to discuss his efforts raising awareness around climate change over the years, and to scoop a new documentary film that chronicles his rise from lively children’s show host to national science defender and advocate.

“I am a failure!” Nye exclaimed when reflecting back on the shows he created over two decades ago about the Earth’s warming.

Nye blamed the fossil fuel industry for creating the schism between climate deniers and believers, saying “they have worked so hard to introduce doubt.” He went on to say that he believed climate change was discovered in the 1970s, “and we’ve done virtually nothing about it all this time.”

Read more:

Every time you read an assertion that people only doubt because the “fossil fuel industry” has created doubt, in my opinion you are seeing first hand the utter contempt climate enthusiasts have for people’s ability to weigh the evidence for themselves.

The reality is climate enthusiasts have destroyed their own credibility, with their outrageous omissions of adverse data, with their barrage of painfully wrong predictions over the years.

How many hilariously broken “end of snow” predictions did the fossil fuel industry sponsor? How many ice free arctic deadlines have come and gone?

If climate enthusiasts want their claims to be treated seriously, they need to start getting things right once in a while.

274 thoughts on “Bill Nye: “I am a Failure”

      • They took it from Syrian government forces apparently. ISIS are funded and armed by USA who want a Christian Leader ASSAD to be ousted in favour of the Muslim terrorists.

      • @Stephen Richards: Assad is an Alawite which is a branch of Shia Islam, definitely not Christian. From there your reasoning continues downhill. You really need to understand the myths and prophecies that ISIS self-styled Caliph Al Baghdadi was attempting to fulfil. No doubt a lot of geopolitical interest is driven by the oil in the Eastern mediterranean; but the US interest in that is considerably diminished now the US is a net exporter of oil and gas and not dependent on the Middle East as it once was.

      • Only somewhat right. This was the Deep State (US intelligence agencies & Media/celebrities, infiltrated loooooooong ago by Russia/Marxists, *), if you will, working under the fawning of Obama & Hillary, in collusion with Russia, to destabilize the M.E. to flow “refugees” to Western States via social media propaganda (this ‘Arab Spring’ was propagated by usage of Twitter, primarily).

        * Just talking about post-McCarthy “was actually right”: MK Ultra (CIA’s LSD doping citizens project) brought forth the ‘counter revolution’ of the late 60s. Media begins trashing anything American made (especially against auto industry. Fiat better than Ford? Eff me.) in the 70s.

        It’s a scary rabbit hole.

      • Carter was put in because we he could be left out of the dark.
        JFK, Nixon & Reagan broke off from the cycles.
        George H. Bush was the new cycle, CIA anyone?

        Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama has really been one, long, puppet show. What I see with Trump is the pro-American military couping the pro-Commie side. He’s just another Carter & Reagan “everyday” person to distract the actual fight behind the scenes.

    • He could begin to atone for being wrong by admitting to the fraudulent altering of results in his “high school science” experiment with CO2.

      • Bill Nye, the science lie.

        Yes Bill you are a failure. You should have remained as a children’s entertainment clown, instead of pretending you actually knew something about science or playing politics.

        Your pathetic attempt to design an experiment to demonstrate the green house effect shows you know nothing and also lack the integrity to recognise what you experiment showed: that you know nothing about GHE.

      • Nye could start with eliminating his condescending insults like “deniers”.

        However it would not help as he is simply wrong. Nevertheless, his proclivity for adding arrogance to his ignorance is deplorable.

      • Mr. Science Guy: I disagree. You ARE a success, but not in the global warming prediction business. No, you are a success as a post career self diagnostician. Congratulations!

      • There was a misprint to his announcement. It should read:.

        Bill Nye on his climate change education efforts: “I am a PHONY”

    • Well when you pull a scam, like trying to show CO2 absorption of LWIR, by using an infra-red source that is at half the Temperature of the sun’s surface, and has a Peak Spectral Irradiance that is 100,000 times that of the earth’s surface LWIR source; then people stop trusting anything you say. It also has a Total Irradiance that is 10,000 times that of the real earth source.

      Why don’t you try your CO2 IR heating experiment again, except use a source close to the real one.

      I suggest a 16 ounce bottle of water out of the cooler, as a very good source of ten micron peak LWIR radiation, and not a bad imitation of a 288K BB radiator. Put that in front of your CO2 samples and observe the Temperature rise due to 15 micron radiation absorption by CO2.


    • I have no idea what no-no button I pushed; but every single item I posted on this thread (and another one) showed up at first, but then magically have all disappeared.

      I should save my breath and go elsewhere.


      • Don’t go we (at least I do) love your well-informed commentary sprinkled with subtle humour.
        It happens to me occasionally, but comments reappear eventually.

      • I’ll explain the above, which was posted by G and NOT by g

        Earth’s mean surface Temperature is 288K, about +15 deg. C.

        So the original condensed surface colored body radiation is some sort of approximation of a 288K black body, with some spectral emissivity lower than 1.
        So the spectrum peaks at about 10.1 microns (on a wavelength based spectral radiant emittance basis.

        And right here I should pause to correct a glaring error I made above.

        I wrote … Spectral Irradiance … and Peak Spectral Irradiance …

        Big misteak; it is … Spectral Radiance, and Peak Spectral Radiance … with units of watt per m^2 per micron of wavelength interval. Irradiance is what land on an illuminated surface … NOT …. what is emitted from a surface.

        So at 288K Temperature (+15 deg. C, or 59 F) a BB emits about 390 W/m^2 over all wavelengths. and the peak of the spectrum is at about 10.1 microns wavelength.

        Now Bill Nye in his much publicized CO2 enhanced heating experiment chose instead of a 15 deg. C bottle of water for an earthlike LWIR radiator; he chose to use an incandescent lamp, which is about 2700-2800 K Temperature; about half of the sun’s surface Temperature .

        So Nye’s source is just 10 times the Temperature of the Earth surface, and since BB total radiance goes as T^4, then the Total Radiance and Total Radiant Emittance are 10^4 or 10,000 times that of a chilled bottle of water out of the cooler.

        But !! The spectral peak of that 10 times hotter lamp is no longer 10.1 microns. By Wien’s Displacement Law, the spectral peak of 2800K BB radiation is at 1 micron, not 10 microns, so the photons are also ten times more energetic: Einstein’s ….. E = h (nu), or h f if you like. I do believe Einstein also said E = mc^2

        So the … Peak Spectral Radiance …. goes as T^5 , not T^4 ; but don’t forget there are fewer microns of spectral bandwidth at 1.0 microns peak spectrum, than there are at 10 microns peak spectrum.

        Chemists like to use a frequency horizontal axis (nu), so their BB graphs are … watt per m^2 per wave number (frequency), so their graphs give a peak at a different frequency, which just happens to be close to the CO2 20 micron wavelength frequency, so it makes CO2 look more ominous.

        So I threw the Peak Spectral Radiance in for effect; 100,000 times sounds more impressive than 10,000 times; so don’t be fooled, a 2800 K lamp is only 10,000 times brighter than the earth but it also is 1/16th as bright as the surface of the sun.

        So yes Bill Nye did cheat; but I suspect out of sheer ignorance, not malice.


  1. For once, Bill Nye is correct. He is a failure, because he has failed to convince the majority of his audience with his lies and falsified data and reasoning. Give up, Bill, before legal proceedings catch up with you.

    • The majority of his audience?
      What audience does he really have (or have left these days)?
      He’s the Pee Wee Herman of science television.
      Maybe Ice Road Truckers is stealing his audience with reality vs failed predictions.
      TV cranks out so many conflicting fantasies and distorted representations of reality that immature minds who’ve had no training in critical thought can get pretty messed up watching it.

      • Go on Reddit and every time Bill’s name pops up there are many comments from people who enjoyed his show. He has a following.

        Reddit is pro alarming…it is very interesting and entertaining to read.

  2. Wow! A paradox. Everything Bill says is either mistaken or a lie. But he says he is a failure, and I believe it, but Bill is always wrong. My head hurts. No more puzzles tonight.

  3. If I could say something to Bill it would be “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” This was the montra he used in his middle school education video on the subject PSEUDO SCIENCE. What ever happened to him?

  4. Aww, no fair picking on poor Bill Nye! He just reflects the belief system of the legacy media, and the social class that they came from. As the great unwashed cannot handle complex arguments, dumbing everything down is the most the elite is convinced the peasant slime can handle. This sort of contempt for the public, their audience, is the dominant world-view of education as well as the legacy media. As Nye did an “educational” TV show, he belongs to both communities.

    • It’s hard being an entertainer. He’s been flailing around trying to keep his career going for a while. His latest effort isn’t helping. link

      I wonder if his climate schtick isn’t just a way to keep him in the public eye.

  5. A good place to start for Bill is with his and ManBearPig’s CO2 experiment failure/dishonesty that Anthony highlights in the Climate FAIL files pulldown.

  6. Anyone want to take bets on how long before the snow line goes further and further south? Sun’s not got spots. Sea ice is expanding. There have been zero box elder bugs this fall, but those odd-looking critters called stink bugs have been everywhere. I’m looking for a cave cricket showing up on my front sidewalk.
    Strangest of all (mostly due to warmer October weather), the usual fall color turn for trees is so late, it may not happen at all. I’ve never been through an autumn during which the color change lasted less than ten days, but this may be a first. The tress are mostly just showing dried leaves and no color change. This is not normal.

    • Sara,
      I don’t know where you live. However, the stink bugs in south-central Ohio are more abundant this year than at any time during the 13 years I have lived here. I don’t have a clue what that means, if anything, though. Perhaps they are cyclical like cicadas. I thought that wooly bears were supposed to be the Winter weather predictor that everyone turns to.

      • Hold it!…..This is not the same variety of “stink bug” that we here in North America have been familiar with for all our lives. This is an invasive species of insect that appears to have arrived in the 1990s per this Wikipedia article:

        Halyomorpha halys, also known as the brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB), or simply the stink bug, is an insect in the family Pentatomidae that is native to China, Japan, the Koreas, and Taiwan.[2] It was accidentally introduced into the United States, with the first specimen being collected in September 1998.[3] The brown marmorated stink bug is considered to be an agricultural pest,[4] and by 2010–11 had become a season-long pest in U.S. orchards.[5] Currently it is widespread in Europe, and recently has been found in South America.[6]

        Its arrival likely has far more to do with the importation of plants…..including vegetables….. from the Far East nations than it has to do with any kind of climate factors.

      • I live in northeastern Illinois, near Lake Michigan.
        The stinkbugs have a shield-shaped carapace and legs with spurs on them. Yes, they’re the Halyomorpha halys, and I find that certain wasps like to eat them, as do spiders.
        I would normally expect to see box elder bugs, the most useless thing ever invented, but not one has shown up since late April this year.

    • Here in the far western UP, on the shoreline of Lake Superior, we’ve had a cool, wet summer so trees were not stressed by summer heat or dryness. Our colors this Fall are running about 3-4 weeks later than usual, and the anticipated Fall colors have been “smeared” over an extended period of time, so there’s really been no “peak color” season. We have a black walnut in our back yard (yes, I know, far out of its native range) and it’s just now beginning to show some color and drop leaves; the black walnut harvest has been great!

    • STINK BUGS: From September 2010:

      And Sara,
      Here on the eastern slopes of the Cascades — the dry side — the colors are near the best we have seen in 25 years.
      But, Clarion PA calls itself the Autumn Leaf Capital of the World. I lived there for many years and know the colors are great there most years. “Of the World” ? Well better than here, but I don’t know a lot about the rest of the world.

    • In response to: Sara October 23, 2017 at 9:04 pm

      Strangest of all (mostly due to warmer October weather), the usual fall color turn for trees is so late, it may not happen at all. I’ve never been through an autumn during which the color change lasted less than ten days,

      Iffen my “remember’er” doesn’t fail me, to wit:

      The fall color change of leaf foliage is “triggered” by the decrease in hours of daily Sunlight. The shorter “daylight” hours terminates the photosynthesis in the leaves and the ”green” chlorophyll disappears …. while at the same time the tree starts “sucking” the residual sugars out of the leaves and transports it to the roots.

      If the weather remains warm and mild (NO frosts, rain, cold, freezing temperatures) then the abscission layer is slow to form and most of said “sugars” are removed and the leaf turns “brown” in color. To have the most vivid “fall foliage” you need a really good “frost” in mid to late September to mid-October, …… depending on the latitude.

      Young Sugar Maples usually produce the most vividly bright fall colors.

      • Do Sugar Maples produce a better sap with colder weather? Citrus in Florida is always sweeter when there is cold weather just before peak ripening,

      • Tom,

        Sugar maples “produce” the most sap when the days are warm and nights are cold (in late winter / early spring). My grandfather used to say the “sap was running” then – flowing up from the roots during the warm days and retreating back to the roots at night. Would only take a day or two to fill a 5-gallon bucket full of sap. Used to hate collecting sap every morning… Ironically, I didn’t even like maple syrup back then. Now I love it.


      • Yes, you do need a good frost, usually in early October and we have never once had cold enough nights for that until now. Some trees still have green leaves because the weather has been so warm with plenty of rain. However, the temps are currently dropping into the 30s at night now. Maybe we’ll have a few days of it.
        Even the geese haven’t seemed motivated to move south just yet.

      • Do Sugar Maples produce a better sap with colder weather?

        Tom in Florida, …… colder weather has nothing to do with the Sugar Maples (Acer saccharum) producing greater quantities or “sweeter” sap.

        Warm days in early Spring causes the sap to flow up the tree trunk to the meristem cells at the end of each branch to facilitate the spring growth of limbs, leaves, buds, etc.. But if the night time temperature drops, then the sap will flow back down to the roots thus preventing it from freezing and causing damage to the “new” growth.

        Thus, freezing nights and warm days are “Maple sap collectors” dream-come-true because they get a rush of sap up n’ down the tree trunk both morning and evening. And the sugar laden “sap flow” of all trees in the temperate zone and above react the same.

        It is that sugar laden sap flow that produces all of the initial Springtime growth of limbs, leaf foliage and blossoms/flowers which occurs 2 to 4 weeks prior to any atmospheric CO2 being ingassed, absorbed or even needed for photosynthesis activity. The trees produce the Spring bloom/blossoms prior to the growth of the leaf foliage ……. so that the “pollinators” can perform their task with the greatest of ease.

    • How old are you, Sara? I remember many autumns and winters this warm. It is typical of a La Nina winter. On December 31, 2004 I bought a brand 2004 350Z convertible. It was warm enough that day that I could drive with my convertible top off until sunset. When I was still in grade school, I remember a very warm November. This was November 28, 1988. Over night here in North Carolina there was one of the worst tornadoes in North Carolina history, an EF4. I well remember how warm it was overnight and how warm it was the next morning. I spent my morning before school watching the news about the tornado instead of my usual cartoons.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about this October. I remember many autumns that were this warm. All you need to do is research weather history to see that seasons like this, while uncommon, are not unusual.

      • Oh, no, they’re not unusual, but we had that blocking omega high while Irma the Windy was blowing her way up the east coast. We had above-average rains in July, causing flooding, and then Harvey flooded Texas and Irma followed. It’s just a disruption in weather patterns, that’s all.
        I was hoping for a frost followed by the two to three days of Indian Summer, but we’re now so near November that we may get snow instead. I do know there was snow earlier today on the weather map in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
        Maybe we’ll have a normal winter for once. That would be nice.

  7. Climate models supposedly reflect what climate scientists know about climate change. The problem is you have to change the coefficients depending on whether you need the models to predict gloom and doom (the hidden agenda) or need to match it to measured results. Bill Nye is who you wheel out as a distraction when the transformation matrix gets exposed.

  8. Bill Nye is right, he is a failure on the subject of “Climate Change”, but not for the reasons that he puts forward.. He is a failure because he failed to investigate the subject intelligently and seek the truth.

  9. “. . . you are seeing first hand the utter contempt climate enthusiasts have for people’s ability to weigh the evidence for themselves.”

    “. . . climate enthusiasts have destroyed their own credibility, with their outrageous omissions of adverse data, with their barrage of painfully wrong predictions over the years.”

    Can’t be said in a civil manner any better, Eric. And the utter contempt shoe is on the other foot now. Generation prior to mine had a saying: “. . . if someone will knowingly lie to you, they’ll also pick your pocket..” Oh . . . wait a minute . . . AGW just came to . . .

      • You can only change your own behavior, not the behavior of others. So playing the blame game guarantees you won’t make any significant effort to do things differently, and almost inevitably fail again.

    • You can only change your own behavior, not the behavior of others. So playing the blame game guarantees you won’t make any significant effort to do things differently, and almost inevitably fail again.

  10. My only relationship with EXXON, Chevron, ARCO, etc. is that I pay them. Photosynthesis is a fact. It requires CO2. It produces Oxygen. What is wrong with our educational system that basic science is ignored by all the Goreons.

  11. This may be the 1st scientifically verifiable fact Bill Nye has uttered in the last 30 years!
    Way to go, Bill!!!

  12. I always get Bill Nye and Pee Wee Herman mixed up. Yes Bill, you are a failure, in so far as your education goes on climate science for kids. I don’t think you should be teaching kids anything, least of all, climate science issues.

  13. As a kid growing up and very interested in science, I was a devoted watcher of Don Herbert, who played “Mr. Wizard” on TV. He had a long career inspiring children to love science, and I don’t remember a single political word, no crusades, no indoctrination, just “hey look at this…”.

    Contrast that with Bill Nye, and it just illustrates one more way our civilization is headed in the wrong direction. What a pompous windbag, and dangerous to boot.

  14. I am sure he still gets paid each time his shows are screened on Netflix or in schools in Australia. My daughter talked about watching one of his shows in school, I don’t recall what the subject was, but it was completely, and demonstrably, wrong.

    Most people see through BS fairly quickly.

  15. It was said of Nye that “He went on to say that he believed climate change was discovered in the 1970s”. Um, I think climate change was realized sometime before the ancient Egyptians, over some 4000 years ago, for example. That’s pretty basic stuff. No wonder he missed on the more complex ideas.

  16. “Every time you read an assertion that people only doubt because the “fossil fuel industry” has created doubt, in my opinion you are seeing first hand the utter contempt climate enthusiasts have for people’s ability to weigh the evidence for themselves.”

    But you also have a direct comparison to what the cigarette industry did to obfuscate evidence.

    It’s no coincidence that the people that supported the cigarette industry now use the same tactics to discredit GW.

    But I am just saying something you all know to be true. So I guess we all agree.

    • O unironic user of Orwell in one’s pseudonym, a more on point parallel is the War on Cancer, another mischieivious bit of pandering Nixon signed onto. Anyone who doubted that industrial chemicals were causing a cancer epidemic were tools of the industry, and should be discounted on that basis.
      While the State of California, with Proposition 65, still adheres to that very expensive scientific and political rabbit hole, there are about as many people admitting to having taken that presumption seriously as admitted followers of eugenics after H i t ler.

    • ….It’s no coincidence that the people that supported the cigarette industry now use the same tactics to discredit GW…..
      Surely it is the Global warming industry using the cigarette company’s tactics. All we ask is that all the data is made available so we can choose for ourselves whether to buy the product or not. Unlike cigarettes we are forced by law to buy this product so we should have right to all data before any “adjustment” especially as a normal engineering quality control exercise results in an equal an opposite adjustment and an actual cooling now instead of a warming. They cannot reasonably demand any data is confidential but equally demand it is used as evidence for forcing us to buy an expensive and very ugly and inefficient product called renewable energy.

    • Nice projection. In reality, you know it’s the CAGW proponents that are using deception and smears instead of evidence. But activists always feel like they’re acting for the greater good, so if they use some underhanded tactics, it’s best to pin those on the opponent lest they lose the moral high ground. ‘He said, she said’ is always preferable to ‘We got caught’.

    • “In reality, you know it’s the CAGW proponents that are using deception and smears instead of evidence.”

      That’s like saying:
      “In reality, you know it’s the anti cigarette proponents that are using deception and smears instead of evidence.”

      Right. How did that work out?

      • Your name exudes “I’m a Progressive” plain as day. A skeptical person you clearly are not. Progressives like to claim exactly opposite of what is the truth. Still fight with bogus straw-man comparisons and not with real data. And contrary to CAGW supporters, it clearly is NOT the oil companies fighting against the Progressive CAGW meme. Oil companies want coal dead so their natural gas deposits double or triple in value within a decade. I see all kinds of oil company commercials on TV spouting the Progressive Green agenda, have never, ever seen one saying AGW is hoax and is not happening.

      • reallyskeptical

        In Europe (including the UK) since the 1970”s there has never been any doubt cigarettes cause cancer.

        As has been pointed out to you, smoking, or not, is a personal choice.

        And Christine Figueres, amongst others, has cited CAGW as a political cause to effect wealth distribution and the implementation of global socialism. The imposition of these principles is not a matter of personal choice, nor even subject to democracy.

        And contrary to your personal beliefs, the world does not revolve around the US so your tobacco comparison is ludicrous.

      • Heck, even you name IS A LIE, a DECEIT.

        You don’t have a skeptical or scientific bone in your body !

        Totally GULLIBLE.

      • Actually, anti-cigarette DID use evidences, not smear and deception, and they didn’t push anti-cigarette business, as CAGW proponent do (wind, solar, expensive cars,…). Everybody knew from long ago that smoking was bad, but, eh, aren’t all pleasure?
        You think you are like the anti-cigarette lobby? No you aren’t. You are like the cigarette lobby: hiding data, smearing, deceiving, and posing as the opposite of what you are (like: skeptical, when you are a true believer impervious of facts)

      • Once again reallygullible demonstrates that lies and repeated lies are the only mental weapon it possesses.

      • It worked out something like this: Big government: Don’t gamble, it’s a sin and it’s illegal. Oh, wait! The mob is making a killing on this. Let’s get in on the act. Loto this loto that loto tax on the idiot masses. Now gambling is a GOOD thing. Same routine for marijuana. Don’t smoke weed. It’s sinful and it’s bad for you. Oh wait! The underworld is making a killing on this. Now buying and smoking weed will be legal in Canada next year. The moral to all this? Where was big government when it KNEW tobacco was harmful? They were busy pimping the profits while admonishing us to stop smoking. They’re still doing it.

    • It’s no coincidence that the people that supported the cigarette industry now use the same tactics to discredit GW.

      You don’t need any ‘tactics to discredit global warming’ when you have muppets like Michael Mann,Al Gore and Bill Nye advocating it.

      your use of an ad hominem rather than a recourse to empirical data and reasoning is noted. And copied.

    • Every time you read an assertion that people only doubt because the “fossil fuel industry” has created doubt, in my opinion you are seeing first hand the utter contempt climate enthusiasts have for people’s ability to weigh the evidence for themselves.

      I could not agree more. Contemptuous and insulting in the extreme.

      reallyskeptical October 23, 2017 at 10:01 pm

      It’s no coincidence that the people that supported the cigarette industry now use the same tactics to discredit GW.

      But I am just saying something you all know to be true. So I guess we all agree.

      Not a single one of those scientists who have demonstrated the fallacies in the CAGW hypotheses (plural because proponents do keep moving goalposts) have had anything whatsoever to do with supporting the tobacco industry that I am aware of. If you know of any, do let us have the evidence, I’d be interested. If you don’t, then this is just an unsubstantiated lie.

      Al Gore, on the other hand…

      • If Heartland receives 1% of it’s budget from an oil company, one year, 20 years ago. Then that’s evidence that Heartland is controlled by the oil industry.
        On the other hand receiving 100% of your money from the government proves that you are incorruptible and never to be questioned.

      • I believe Dr Fred Singer was asked to do a statistical analysis of a study that claimed significant harm from SECOND HAND smoke. It was my recollection that Dr Singer correctly pointed out statistical errors in that paper (why does that sound familiar?).
        Subsequent statistical analysis backed up Dr. Singer’s conclusions. But Dr Singer was (and still is) slandered for the mere fact that his conclusion was not consistent with the current meme.
        Oreskes jumped on that perception and of course used the tobacco issue as a model for how to combat climate skepticism.

    • My Father smoked all his life. He died in his 90s from a gall bladder problem.
      We all know many people who smoked and did not get cancer.
      The assertion that smoking causes cancer is only partially correct.
      Smoking causes cancer in some people.
      Now that’s a statement I could support one hundred percent….but it’s not quite so punchy…is it.

      • The exception to the rule, when investigated by a truly scientific mind and in an impartial manner, will lead to a more comprehensive understanding than willful ignorance of it’s existence.
        We also all knew people who died of lung cancer yet never smoked nor ever lived in a smoking environment.

      • Tobacco use increases the risk of cancer and respiratory ailments. Any stronger claim than that is unsubstantiated.

        Conviction doesn’t automatically mean guilty. Acquittal doesn’t automatically mean innocent. Liable doesn’t automatically mean responsible. Reality is not rewritten by courtroom fiat.

      • If I recall correctly, it was a gene some people carry that causes lung cancer. No doubt there is an increased risk due to smoking but smoking in itself does not cause cancer. It will, however, just about guarantee a long time smoker will end up with other serious lung issues. One of the greatest days of my life was when I quit smoking, March 15, 1979.

      • It is even more correct to only say that smoking cigarettes and using tobacco products is associated with an increased risk of some cancers and certain other diseases.
        If it was true that cigarettes “cause” cancer, then it should be possible to state how many cigarettes one has to smoke to then have cancer.
        As noted, some people live their entire lives as heavy smokers and have no cancer, or any of the other health problems associated with tobacco usage.
        Clearly there is far more to cancer than some would have us believe.
        Not too surprising though, that someone that thinks it is scientific to assert that “CO2 causes global warming”, would also believe it accurate to say “cigarettes cause cancer”.
        For the record, I do not smoke, have never smoked, think smokers should all quit immediately.
        It may be that some set of genetic predispositions prevents cancer in certain individuals, which after all only becomes advanced when several protective mechanisms fail, and the neoplasm acquires abilities that should be prevented from occurring, such as procuring a blood supply, or somehow becoming able to translocate within the body.

      • 3 out of 4 of my grandparents were smokers. 2 were heavy smokers. They lived into their 80s and 90s. My grandfather was an athletic non-smoker and was the only one to die early, and the only one that died of cancer. So there are more exceptions to the rule. Many of the people who broke longevity records were smokers as well. They are also exceptions to the false rule.

      • drednicolson October 24, 2017 at 4:40 am

        Tobacco use increases the risk of cancer and respiratory ailments.

        That’s garbage.

        Just the fact that one is living ……. increases the risk of that person acquiring a cancerous growth via a mutation of one of their body’s cells. To wit:

        DNA mutations

        “We’ve known for many years now that all cancers are due to abnormalities of DNA…that occur in every single cell of the body over the course of a lifetime,” said Stratton.

        “But although we’ve known that, it’s remarkable how rudimentary our knowledge is about what the processes are that cause these abnormalities, these mutations in our DNA.”

        “What we believe…is that sometimes in normal cells…this stops functioning properly and over-functions. It causes too many mutations and the accumulation of those mutations pushes the cell along the line to become cancer.”

        Read more @
        from Reuters @

    • reallyskeptical October 23, 2017 at 10:01 pm

      But you also have a direct comparison to what the cigarette industry did to obfuscate evidence.

      Reallyskeptical, and just how did that mean ole cigarette industry obfuscate the actual, factual scientific evidence that …… “cigarette smoke is a proven cause of cervical cancer”?

      • “A proven cause of cancer” is pretty much an exaggeration in all cases. Oncologists call these things “risk factors” because they are smart enough to know that science does not know what causes cancer. Why the rest of people can’t get that is beyond me.

    • “the utter contempt climate enthusiasts have for people’s NON-ability to weigh the evidence for themselves.”

      We certainly have UTTER contempt for you, little mister TOTALLY gullible !!

      The evidence does NOT support the AGW farce.

      ….. and you KNOW that …

      … or you are terribly dumb and totally gullible)

      • And his family money was from the fossil fuel industry too, no (“Accidental” Petroleum, lol). Hypocrite through and through!

    • ReallyGullible, can you come up with even the tiniest shred of evidence to support your belief that there is a massive campaign by the oil industry to spread confusion and doubt?
      Since we both know that won’t and can’t, what does that say about you?

      BTW, I love it when trolls go about telling other people what they know and believe.
      Just more evidence that trolls are neurotic.

    • Nice try. Labelling something true does not make it true. Which may be why GW lacks science. It’s followers think saying it’s true makes it true.

      Tossing in cigaratte sellers is designed to create a diversion and a very, very false comparison. It’s an act of desperation, rather than showing one actually has a case. Not surprising, since GW lacks a case. It could be a valid move there after all.

  17. He is quite right. He is a miserable failure. The way to convince people is not to preach at them.That way you only get the faithful and they are now a minority that is split between climate change and other faith based cults or religions.
    Had he invited questioning of climate science and been able to show the data and methods were beyond question as claimed and the predictions utterly reliable he could have convinced us.
    They call it science and even school kids learnt to do experiments to verify Newton but do they ever do an exercise to see just how hard it is to measure the temperature accurately to even two degrees? Put a few Stevenson screens or any other enclosure in a garden a mere forty foot or even ten metres square and see how just moving a few potted plants can change results by a very significant amount in minutes.

  18. Yes, Nye The NOT-SO-Sciency Guy IS a complete failure…

    As a “denier”, I’m still waiting for Exxon check, which I’m sure will magically appear once: global temps start increasing at 0.3C/decade, sea levels start increasing at 1 foot/decade, snow will be unseen by our children, ocean pH falls below 7.6, crop yields fall 2/3rds to 1960 levels, severe weather incidence/severity trends start increasing every decade from here on, CH4 levels increase 10 times the current rate, all coral reefs die off, Antarctic land ice starts decreasing at 130 billion tons/yr, ad nauseam…..

    Nye didn’t fail…. the CAGW hypothesis did…

  19. He is suffering from Audiencism: thinking that having an audience and getting paid for it makes you being right. Commonly seen in actors and journalists. Sorry Bill, you’re just an employee, not some kind of prophet.

  20. Actually, if there was any truth, or evidence in their predictions, they might have been believed as ‘prophets’! But, as it stands, there failed predictions stand as testaments to their deceptive behaviour, and confirm their actual standing as ‘false prophets’. No right thinking person follows a false prophet!

  21. Well seen Bill. You gullibility is forgivable. But seeing enemies in natural events and inventing conspiracies to sell your beliefs? Oh boy, that’s bad Heinrich Kramer style. Get well soon Bill.

    • This is a simplified cross section of a jet engine.
      The engines are susceptible to mechanical vibrations at specific resonance frequencies. While working as a mechanical engineer at Boing Bill Nye applied principle of the (sound) ‘quincke tube’ to invent: ‘Hydraulic Pressure Resonance Suppressor’ (possibly section numbered 61-66) first used on Boing 747.

      • vukcevic

        Very impressive. But it’s a racing certainty he didn’t do it alone. Indeed, he is likely to have been amongst a team tasked with developing the technology rather than just Bill applying the principles himself.

      • Could also be accidental, the piece indicated in 61 – 66 resembles an elbow macaroni. Perhaps he was just eating a bowl of Mac n Cheese and a piece fell on his drawing set. Viola…

      • Well it looks like something bent out of a piece of scrap aluminum sheet to me. I don’t see anything resembling say a Rolls-Royce Spey engine out of an RAF F-4H Phantom .

        No wonder it doesn’t work.


  22. I hope he proves to bee a failure and his statements are wrong.
    So far he does not disappoint my hopes!

  23. Bill was on a late night BBC radio show recently, answering questions from listeners about science, he came across as quite nice and normal until someone asked an innocent-sounding question about warming of other planets in the solar system, at which point he turned into a monster, spewing the D-word, and blaming one (unnamed) person in particular, the whole thing to be revealed in this new film about him. So sad.

  24. I don’t think the ‘oil companies’ care a toss about AGW bickering. They might counter sue, perhaps, on which case watch out.

  25. Nye blamed the fossil fuel industry for creating the schism between climate deniers and believers, saying “they have worked so hard to introduce doubt.” He went on to say that he believed climate change was discovered in the 1970s, “and we’ve done virtually nothing about it all this time.”

    So I learn Obama did virtually nothing during his 8 years? Good to know. Also good to know some people don’t believe in climate. Beyond funny.

      • You can’t use the “d” word and not end up in moderation. By now, that should be obvious. Even if you quote the article. Using an algorithm that triggers on words means it doesn’t matter where the word came from.

      • Denier can be typed with skill so it doesn’t trigger work for our host. I just didn’t realise I quoted the word in the first place:-(

  26. How is governments raising trillions in green taxes and spending these trillions on windmills, solar panels and subsidised electric cars considered not taking action? Levels of CO2 emissions haven’t fallen for the simple reason that these things don’t work. All this money could have been saved by listening to those of us who said at the start that they wouldn’t work instead of covering their ears and shouting the ‘D’ word at us. Meanwhile the non problem that all this expensive crap was supposed to prevent continues to be a non problem.

  27. It’s not only Bill Nye who’s a failure. It’s the whole climate catastrophists’ shebang, including Al Gore and the IPCC.

    What remains is a dictatorial imposition on everyone to obey the commandments of CO2-demonization faith.

  28. Who hired Bil Nyed as their spoke person? His paycheck depends on his ability to con as many as he can.

  29. The problem the “science guy” has is the science. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with modeling, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. If CO2 really affected climate one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable change in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture is just too full of holes to defend. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiative greenhouse effect that has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including the Earth. The radiative greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture. Mankind has been unable to change a single weather evernt let alone change global climate.

    • Hi.

      Venus is a CO 2 model Candidate. How much CO2 IS too much? Nice. So all admit that CO2 is climbing and is due to human activity?

      • The high temperature’s at the surface of Venus is a function of the planet’s proximity to the sun, the depth of the troposphere, the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and gravity. Remeber that the surface pressure on Venus is more than 92 times what it is on Earth. The convective greenhouse effect on venus accounts for all of the measured high temperature. There is no additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect attributed to CO2 whicn comprises most of the planet’s atmosphere.

        Yes human activety is causing an increase in CO2 that all fife needs on this planet to survive. Human activity is releasing Carbon that has been locked away by fossil fuesl and making it available to plant life as plant’s supply of carbon. Plant life on this planet will do much better if we can first double athe amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and then double it again to boost CO2 to .16% of the Earth’s atmosphere. There is scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate of CO2 is really zero so that doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will have no effect on climate.

      • “So all admit that CO2 is climbing and is due to human activity?”

        Latest real science has human CO2 contributing about 15% of the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL rise in atmospheric CO2. That is good, because with all the new coal fired and gas fired power stations being built around the world, the atmosphere is not going to be denied much needed extra CO2

        How much is too much? One heck of a lot more than we have now., that is for sure.

        Plants thrive on 1200 ppm.. That would be a nice point for all life on Earth.

        Unfortunately we will probably never reach again.

        You are aware that CO2 has basically ZERO warming effect on our convectively controlled atmosphere, aren’t you ?

  30. He is not a failure. For the generation that is following us has been brainwashed into believing all this stuff. I am at a major university and the average student here believes in climate change. Nyes comment that when the older generation dies off his stuff will triumph is correct. Where he failed is that he wont get to see it, cause that is very important to him. But dont kid yourself. It never was about science, it was only a convenient weapon to push an agenda. We fight on the field of reason and science, but that is not where this is being waged. Because of that, in the end, he will not have failed he just wont be around to see it.

    • You may be correct Joe – the “millennials” are, as a group, by far the dumbest crop we have seen in many generations. They just re-elected the Mayor of Calgary, a man whose public image is still positive – however, I have been in a small meeting with him and he is ignorant, opinionated, childish and vain. Residential taxes here have doubled in just seven years and the millennials apparently think this only affects homeowners, not renters like themselves – but then, like our Mayor, they probably live at home with their mom.

      I wonder what future climate change will bring – my best guess is still what I wrote in 2002 – that we will see moderate, naturally-caused global cooling starting by 2020-2030. One wonders if the millennials will even realize the significance of global cooling in a world where catastrophic global warming has been their constant fear. If and when the boogeyman disappears, will they be too dumb to realize it?

      • Allan,

        “ignorant, opinionated, childish and vain. ” You have just described most of the politicians I have known, even some of the ones I like.

      • JimG1,

        Perhaps most politicians are as you say, but I have met a few who were capable and pursued the best interests of their people. These included:
        Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
        Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed.
        Alberta Premier Ralph Klein.
        Ontario Premier John Robarts.

        The current crop who support global warming alarmism are a typical mix of leftist scoundrel and imbeciles. They have absolutely no scientific competence, are either corrupt or extremely gullible, and do not understand that when they needlessly drive up the cost of energy, they are destroying jobs and they are destroying lives. History will remember them with absolute contempt.

    • Not necessarily. There is always hope. A recent video showed college students getting punked by a reporter who asked them what they thought about Trump’s tax proposal. They all said it was bad. Then he asked them what they thought about specific items from (what he said was) Bernie Sander’s tax proposal. They all loved it. Then he informed them that those items were what Trump proposed. I was pleased (and surprised) to see that they acted like normal people when they realized that they were wrong.

    • I disagree that the next generation are all gullible fools.
      Nothing focuses the attention quite like freezing in ones own home, or having the power go off when it runs literally every single thing that one needs to survive.
      You can lie to people every single day of their lives, and they may have no reason to doubt the veracity of these lies.
      But once they do, and they see that they have been lied to, they will immediately know the implications and see how far it goes, and at that point it will not matter how long they were fooled…they will know the truth.
      Younger generations are never very far from distrusting what they have been told.
      Besides, a lot of what we think these young-uns believe may be what they are willing to say on public…they have been cowed into never going against the herd in public, to be PC when their peers are watching or listening.
      These are thinly held beliefs, and they are like clothes…no one goes outside without them, but it is not hard to change them as needed.
      They evolve every day as it is.

      • That depends on whether they are smart enough to correctly assign blame for the problems they are having.
        What will happen is that the government will blame the evil capitalists for putting profit over reliable power, and declare that the only solution will be for the government to completely take over the power system.
        Then when employers start leaving because of a lack of affordable, reliable power, the government will blame evil capitalists for putting profits ahead of people and jobs, and the only solution will be for the government to start nationalizing employers.
        And so on.

      • By the time they realize they’ve been lied to, it might be too late. Once the “State” gains the power and the people lose their power and freedom, it won’t be easy and may be impossible to get it back. Hopefully, I will be gone when the poo hits the windmill blades.

      • I concur.
        Younger people like to rebel against the norm.
        If environmentalism is the norm, it’s cool to trash it, I’ve tried it several times on high schoolers by criticizing the alarmist drivel in their textbooks and it works wonder.
        What’s amazing is how easy to switch their views when you have their trust, that’s why the marxist teachers want to profit that opportunity window and prey on their students’ mind.

    • Joe Bastardi

      “If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.” Winston Churchill (allegedly).

      We all live and learn, as indeed, I have as I was convinced of AGW until around 5 years ago when I started asking questions, because the things that were promised just weren’t happening.

      And the things that are being promised now, just ain’t happening. And I’m with Allan MaCrae on this in terms of timing. There are a couple of credible predictions by a couple of credible individuals, namely David Dilley and Professor Carl-Otto Wiess, who reach the same conclusion by investigating similar phenomenons with different methods. They both predict a cooling trend beginning in 2019 – 2020, because it fits a pattern of climate behaviour repeated many times in the past.

      In which case, by 2025 – 2030 there will be such a backlash from disillusioned and betrayed millennials, they will be chopping down winmills like there’s no tomorrow; which of course there will be!

      We were all gullible at some time in our lives, but when we wake up, things like Brexit and Trump happen. Europe betrayed the UK and Clinton betrayed America, both were kicked into touch, as will AGW when the millennials wake up. And there are lots of them.

  31. Just came across this post on wattsup, re “50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010”. It did NOT happen, just like every others very-scary prediction by global warming alarmists.

    The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the IPCC and its minions have a perfectly negative predictive track record – NONE of their scary predictions have materialized. That means that the IPCC has NEGATIVE scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything the IPCC or its minions say.

    What is it about the far-left that enables them to simply fabricate huge lies and then repeat them so often that gullible fools believe them and idiot politicians act on them? Goebbels would be proud of his successors.

    Regards, Allan

    The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.
    The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.
    The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt
    The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

    • “What is it about the far-left that enables them to simply fabricate huge lies and then repeat them so often that gullible fools believe them and idiot politicians act on them?”

      Because in spite of all the tech and such advances, humans are still basically gullible fools who love a good “end-of-the-world” threat. Much as Bill Nye did, most people will choose doom and gloom because then their own failures are not their fault. It’s historically the way people have lived for centuries. We can change the surroundings and advance our knowledge, but the basic human being remains unchanged.


      Forgive me if I’m wrong Allan (I’m not a scientist) but I understood the essence of science to be observation, not prediction.

      • Prediction grants one the opportunity to foil the system, to prevent what was predicted from happening.

        Ergo prediction must be impossible !


      • Hi George,

        As Yogi Berra said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” 🙂

        Actually , successful prediction is entirely possible, as proved below.

        RE a successful predictive track record. We published the following in 2002*.

        “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

        We also wrote in the same article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” was already underway:

        “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

        Regards to all, Allan

        * Source:
        PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , The Globe and Mail and La Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.

        • Allan Macrae:

          I disagree.Successful prediction is NOT currently possible as no statistical population underlies today’s global warming models. Arrhenius created the errant alternative to probability theory and statistics that supports today’s global warming pseudoscience.

      • Hi again HotScot.

        I presume you are in the UK, so you may find the following email of interest – sent to Lord NIgel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London.

        Excess Winter Mortality Rates in Britain are MUCH HIGHER than in Canada or the USA, which causes me concern, and should be a matter of great concern for your government.

        Global warming alarmism has greatly increased energy costs in the UK, and this has contributed significantly to Excess Winter Deaths, which especially target the elderly and the poor. “Heat or Eat” is the term commonly used there, Excess Winter Deaths typically total 30,000 to 50,000 per year in the UK, vs 5000 to 10,000 in Canada, which has more than half your population.

        Notwithstanding some unresolved past grievances with the perfidious English, who killed 90% of our men at Sheriffmuir in 1715, blew up our castle in 1719 and later expelled us to Canada, I am somewhat conciliatory towards the UK and am opposed to the cruel practice of killing off your elderly and your poor before their time. 🙂

        Best, Allan


        Hello again Lord Lawson.

        RE my statement below:
        “One key point you might wish to emphasize is the very high Excess Winter Mortality Rate in the UK, which is several times that of Canada and the USA, in part due to your excessively high energy costs.”

        I expect I’ve sent you this reference before, but here it is again

        “Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather”, September 4, 2015
        by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae

        Best regards, Allan


        Your letter to Nigel Lawson did make me chuckle. And yes I am in the UK.

        It’s a pity he didn’t use the details from your letter instead of blathering on about the science of climate change, of which he seems to know very little, when he appeared on the BBC, forcing them to apologise to the alarmists for his ‘inaccurate’ statements.

        A little asides: I was a Glasgow Cop 35 years ago and one of my best mates in the job was Alan MaCrae so I always feel a homesick pang when I see you posting. And I also find your posts interesting, if for nothing else but the opportunity for my 2 brain cells to develop some friction. 🙂

      • Hi again HotScot,

        Actually, I think Lord Lawson is quite well-informed about the subject of alleged global warming – I did not see his interview on BBC but have no doubt that the harsh criticism he received was based on leftist ideology rather than science.

        The BBC, like our CBC in Canada, is so far left that it surprising they even allowed Lord Lawson to speak, and the resulting backlash was not only predictable but inevitable, no matter what he said.

        In Canada, Kentucky Fried Chicken sells a “CBC Bucket” – consisting entirely of left wings and a$$holes. 🙂

        If you are so inclined, drop by Eilean Donan Castle, which was fully restored a century ago, and enjoy your memories of your mate Alan MaCrae in his ancestral home. Some rental apartments were recently added in the castle, or you can stay in the MacRae hunting lodge nearby,

        Here is a picture of the old place.

        Best, Allan

  32. Bill Nye will never live down becoming the any-orifice-is-OK guy. He jumped the shark on that one.

  33. Bill Nye’s “I am a failure!” is classic passive aggressive posturing in an attempt to appear as a martyr for The Cause, which itself is portrayed as the victim, in a stunningly audacious projection. Indeed, perhaps the final Big Lie of Big Climate is to try to appear as small and courageous. Because everyone likes the underdog, right? Mikey Boy is another who employs this tactic. It is pathetic.

    • It’s how they rope in the university kids, too. The campus is portrayed as an island of reasonable people in a sea of ideology, with anti-intellectualist barbarians always at the gate. The precise opposite of the usual reality — an island of ideology in a sea of more or less reasonable people, where the barbarians are kings of the castle.

      • And the poor kids end up living their parents basements.

        Bill Nye’s kid’s science show seemed to be based on the premise that kids have a short attention span. It was all short, wiz-bang presentations. It didn’t teach them much and it surely didn’t help them increase their attention span. Teach them to hold a thought long enough to actually think about it?
        Mr.Wizard, on the other hand, held kids attention by presenting things that held their attention.

      • Sheri

        My daughter, a recent BSc Zoology graduate, now studying for her Masters, is a healthy sceptic of everything.

        I made sure of that.

  34. It’s guys like Bill Nye (who wants jail time for “deniers”…look up Lysenkoism), DiCaprio and Gore who have continued to erode the false foundation laid by Hansen and Mann. It wasn’t their intention, but it’s been the outcome. The rest of us should take the opportunity to make sure our kids are inoculated to the propaganda they learn in school about the anthropogenic portion, and set the path for finding the truth amongst the agenda-driven barrage. True science welcomes skepticism. Hopefully I’m doing my part.

  35. I can see a Warmists Anonymous group forming: “Hi. My name is Michael. I am an FFI (fossil-fuels induced) climate failure.”

    • If there was a magic lever to pull to prevent earth from going through another ice age what person in his right mind would not pull it?

    • jpatrick


      That’s the best Nye can do? What happened in 1750 to change the climate so much? The industrial revolution, usually cited as the start of rising CO2, didn’t start until 1900 or so. Bill Nye has introduced another stunning revelation none of us new about? 150 years earlier something happened, so what is it that happened?

      • “The industrial revolution…..didn’t start until 1900 or so.”!!!
        5 minutes down the road from me is the original Ironbridge built 1779, iron cast at Coalbrookdale just around the corner. Not that I support the notion of CO2 having much effect on temperatures merely adding a piece of industrial revolution dating info.

        • John, UK.

          I happily accept that, and of course you are entirely correct, including that we were burning considerable amounts of coal before 1900 or so. Which almost entirely contradicts the contention that CO2 began rising after the industrial revolution (IR). The IR is credited with beginning in the 1700’s but as far as I can gather there is little evidence of increasing atmospheric CO2 until 1900 or so, which is most often cited as the beginning of the IR.

          The whole subject is like an ever changing shoreline used at the alarmists convenience to prove any point they care to make.

  36. Nothing unusual. Socialist always fail. If they’re still alive to observe their failures, they always blame others. Dr. Phil should get involved with Nye since they can console each other on the socialist agendas they push. Who know, maybe they can get Hillary and form therapy group?

  37. After some of his recent performances, I’m reminded of that TV talent show where the wannabe stars faced a jury where each member had access to the “fail” button, to dismiss them and summon the next candidate.

    As the talentless performers saw one of the potential executioners stretching forward to do the deed, they often became increasingly frantic and desperate, changing their act and saying anything that might save them, though it rarely did.

    It was cruel in some ways, but Nye’s erratic behaviour would have fitted in very well.

  38. But wait,

    He was very successful in helping get the full sized Ark constructed near the Creation Museum. His debate with Ben Ham resulted in millions of dollars being donated toward the construction of the Ark. So all is not bad news.

  39. Isn’t it funny how they always say it’s the billions of dollars fossil fuel industry and never mention that their own side is also a billion dollar industry?

    Back at the end of the 80’s when it didn’t look like we were heading into a mini ice age the scientists who had put themselves out on a limb also fought against the change. The only difference between then and now is we have more information about the climate and solar cycles and back then we didn’t have a bunch of hucksters pushing a scam (warming and carbon credits) that they make huge amounts of money from.

    • Delusional much? That “climate report” merely represents the dying gasps of a failing ideology/industry based on total lies. If this schlock is the type of crud the GAO churns out, then perhaps it time for Trump to tell them “you’re fired!”.

        • If one wants a reliable source on what the received wisdom of the Democratic Party and the federal bureaucracy is, the GAO is authoritative. If one is concerned with minor little things like objective reality, they are about as reliable as Alex Jones.

          • I, at least, know that I do not know the details of UK or Polish politics. Going to Wikipedia on any controversial subject has a very high probability of being preaching by one side.
            The Democrats in the US are a very loose coalition, mostly united by their considering themselves the party of the government, which they mostly have been since the 1930’s. Not really leftists, but unprincipled bureaucrats and their enablers.

          • You made two comments, and the GAO is the voice of the bureaucracy, which is dominated by the Democratic Party. So noting the GAO spins Democrat just skips a step in the chain of argument.

          • Ivan, you cited the GAO as an authoritative source. Telling you why that is either profoundly ignorant or deceptive seems to annoy you.

      • LOL…did you seriously just recycle the “The debate is over” meme?

        What next…a hockey stick graph?

        You so funny!

      • Anyone else notice how ivanski operates.
        Make a blatant assertion.
        When challenged posts a link to a propaganda site.
        When challenged declares that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is an idiot and a d#nier.

    • Translation:
      “I get all of my scientific book learning from government bureaucrats and accountants, and so should you.”

    • From your link,Ivan is this worn out tripe:

      “The US has seen billions of dollars in damage from hurricanes and wildfires this year, which experts say climate change exacerbated”

      The amount of wildfire impact are far less than 100 years ago,Except for the Atlantic basin,the rest of the world was below average in number of Tropical Storms and Hurricanes. The 12 year category 3+ landfalling storms drought came to an end,which you already overlook.

      The Atlantic coast along with the Gulf of Mexico,built their large cities on flood and Hurricane prone coastlines,that is why the cost of damage is high.

      The IPCC themselves do not make such unfounded claims of increasing storminess.

      You are as usual lying to yourself.

    • LOL. I didn’t think it was possible, but you climate trolls have actually gotten dumber and dumber over the years.

      • ivankinsman

        “Most of the major corporates are now factoring in climate change mitigation into their future business strategies.”

        Because they are encouraged to by governments offering tax incentives. And if they don’t, they go out of business because all the others are gobbling up the tax incentives to drive down costs and prices.

    • The Government Accounting Office is a science office? Who knew? And from “fake news” CNN, no less? The standards for science have certainly changed.

      • Most of the major corporates are now factoring in climate change mitigation into their future business strategies. Why should they be any more ‘science office’s than the GAO?

      • No, the GAO is not a science office, they get their climate change information from outside “experts”. Apparently, the GAO only gets one side of the story: The Alarmist side. Somebody ought to tell them there are experts on both sides of the debate, and they should probably consult all sides before reaching conclusions if they want to get to the truth of the matter.

      • Whoops…….posted to the wrong post earlier.


        “Most of the major corporates are now factoring in climate change mitigation into their future business strategies.”

        Because they are encouraged to by governments offering tax incentives. And if they don’t, they go out of business because all the others are gobbling up the tax incentives to drive down costs and prices.

    • ivankinsman : “Breaking news! The climate sceptic debate in the US is over”
      “Breaking” what??? Check your clock, buddy, Gore already said that two decades ago. Your ignorance is tiresome.

  40. Science instruction via media sound bites. Great way to turn the people into sheeple. We stemmed the onslaught a bit but they could yet win the war.

  41. For once I agree with this alarmist warmista jackass.
    My suggestion to him is to learn the principles of the scientific method and how to apply them to critical thinking.
    Also, learn about logical fallacies, and then stop using them as arguments with serious people…or anyone else for that matter.
    And most of all…if you are going to present yourself to the world as an “expert”, acquire some expertise in the relevant fields of knowledge. A montage of worn out talking points from various political speeches and panic-mongering headlines is not knowledge, it is foolishness.
    Yes, you have failed Bill Nye…failed to sway people with your horseshit and lies.
    So cut the crap and stop lying.

    • Nye exaggerates so much it’s probably a degree in tractor repair from the Cornell’s 2 year College of Agriculture. (Like Keith Olbermann’s degree in “Journalism”)

  42. From the perspective of indoctrination, yes, Bill Nye is a failure. He has done pretty well for himself, though, on the subject of personal income and asset accumulation.

    Bill Nye, in typical fashion, has not correctly identified the primary source for his failure. It is not the opposition. It is now, and will continue to be in the future, the very people who try to propagate the religion.

    News flash, Bill Nye; Your overreaction to current events, your unwillingness to live in the manner in which you tell everyone else to live, your fantasy love for model predictions and your unwillingness to engage with real data is the reason why no one pays attention to you.

    CAGW proponents are their own worst enemy.

    Me, if I truly believed, if this was really something I wanted to dedicate my life to, the very first thing I would do is change my personal lifestyle – completely sell out. Instead of doom mongering and concentrating on forcing compliance to draconian lifestyles, I would find positive, convenient and inspiring ideas to show people what we could do instead and then provide financial encouragement to people, not companies or entities.

    I would live as carbon free as possible and find a way to do it that is encouraging and positive and make it so that others want to be like me. I would find key stakeholders in neighborhoods and communities and get them behind me and I would tell the government to stay out of it entirely.

    See, alarmists and CAGW faithful are morons. They think a top down draconian government policy will get the job done, mostly because they are drawn to this approach because of their statist, fascist political inclination.

    If they tried a bottom up approach, with minimal government involvement, or even better, active government attempts to stifle, they would have much better success. But they don’t even have the comprehension of how to do this…so, failure.

    So yes, he is a failure, not necessarily because of their message, but because their message is just an obvious tool of their intent, which is command economies and an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful state.

    We’re not stupid, you know. We see the man behind the current.

    • To a leftist, the solution to every problem is a government program that will force other people to live the life you aren’t willing to live.

    • It’s okay as long as he now preaches the sermon of AGW. Same for Gore. One can actually work for oil and as long as one supports wind turbines and solar panels, it’s okay. It’s not about oil, it’s whether you agree or not.

      Oil supports and profits mightily from renewables—they build NG plants with the savings from the PTC. However, AGW believers just cannot let go of the “oil industry fighting us” claim. I’m not sure how people that actively participate in the ruse are fighting it, but logic and rational thought was never part of this whole AGW political thing.

      • Laughably, I believe the oil industry is a minor contributor to CO2 emissions compared to the coal industry.

        The alarmists can’t even pick the right ring to get into never mind win the fight.

      • “Big Oil” was portrayed as the “boogeyman” for other reasons a decade or more before CO2 and “coal trains of death” were an issue.

  43. an engineer who can’t even make a controlled lie in a box work for him is not someone I would want to trust…

  44. Does anyone ever ask Bill (and others using the same excuse) specifically what the fossil fuel industry did? We know what the other side did. We know about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the IPCC, EPA, NASA and NOAA, all to try and convince us that a crisis was coming. We know about the countless headlines in the media. Never has any ‘science’ had so much support in the mainstream media. We know about the infiltration of public education with programs and text books designed to inculcate our youth. We know about the massive grants to scientists who are willing to toe the climate crisis line and become spokespersons for the cause. We know about the exotic vacations (conferences) rewarded to bureaucratic defenders of the imaginary climate crisis. We know about the documentaries, TV ‘science’ specials and Hollywood themes, all designed to convince everyone that the climate crisis is real! We are well aware at the huge effort that has been made, almost entirely at tax payers expense, to convince the world of looming climate crisis!

    What I don’t know is what the oil companies did to counter all of that? Bill Nye? reallyskeptical? Anyone? And please…don’t say “The oil companies sowed doubt.” I want specifics. How did they ‘sow doubt’? Did they write reports that no one ever read? Pass out flyers? Offer 10 cents off a gallon if you publically denied a climate crisis? What did they do that countered the trillion dollar effort of the climate crisis believers?


    It appears that a significant part of the climate crisis paradigm is a belief that it is perfectly acceptable to make outrageous claims without any proof, if it seems to advance the ‘noble’ cause. Hey Mr. Nye…maybe that is the real reason you aren’t getting the traction that you think you deserve. It’s not the oil companies. Its that you are incredibly unconvincing.

  45. Next time try not to exaggerate with idiot “save the planet” nonsense and grabs for wallets and freedoms. You POLITICIZED it. You demonized political opposition with it and claim it’s all for “the children” and attack the American way.

  46. Bill Nye is a failure, but it’s not the fault of the fossil fuel industry.

    It’s the fault of the entire world, for failing to warm up like the Nyes and Gores of the world predicted. It’s the fault of the Atlantic Ocean which didn’t produce enough hurricanes. It’s the fault of the Arctic Ocean for refreezing in the winter when it shouldn’t have. It’s the fault of East Antarctica for growing ice when it should be melting. It’s the fault of Nature which pulls 47% of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans out of the air. It’s the fault of all those trees and plants which grow faster with more carbon dioxide in the air and produce more food. It’s the fault of ice which consumes 334 joules per gram that melts. It’s the fault of the polar bears for refusing to die when summer melts their ice and makes prey easier to find, so they get fat instead.

    Nature just doesn’t obey Gore and Nye and the IPCC. Too bad for them, and that’s great for the rest of us.

    And that EEEEEEVIL fossil fuel industry, which had the nerve to start fracking and produce sweet crude oil in Texas and North Dakota and natural gas in Pennsylvania and Ohio, instead of paying a fortune for sulfur-laden Arabian Heavy to Middle-Eastern dictators! How DARE they produce cheaper energy in America rather than subsidize foreigners?

  47. Venusian trolls! How much CO2 will you admit is due to you? So how much C O 2 is too much? No limit? Workmanlike approaches, aye, they may suggest the answer. Science is a good method. Now, both earth and venus are co2 unlimited. Admit it, you are part of the co2 problem and methane as well. Nye warned you of same and so do I!

    • Bwuhahahahaha!!! Oh noes, we’re going to end up like Venus. Ostiarii, thou art a drive-by troll, I doubt we will see you again. But just in case, why don’t you post a step by step explanation for how Venus used to be JUST like Earth and because of CO2 is now a runaway hothouse.

      You will probably want to start with explaining how Venus moved from Earth’s orbit to its current orbit. Or how we know it was covered with deep oceans. Oh and explain CO2’s exact role.

      I will be waiting patiently.

  48. “How much CO2 will I admit is due to me?” Not enough!

    “How much CO2 in the atmosphere is too much?” Not .sure. But I do know that there isn’t enough accessible carbon in the ground to reach that limit. We are still a whole lot closer to the ‘to little CO2’ point, than the ‘too much’ point.

    “Science is a good method.” Yes, I look forward to the day when science returns to the study of climate change. Especially that part were scientists rethink their theory when is continuously fails to make accurate predictions. I miss that part so much!

    “Admit it, you are part of the co2 problem…” No, I am part of the CO2 solution. There is no problem at all with the gas in the atmosphere. The CO2 problem is that there is a group of people who are demanding that everyone else on the planet do as they say, and they are using CO2 as their excuse for their power grab. That’s the real problem.

  49. His statement is a projection of his own thinking process. He is fully convinced of a subject become someone told him what to think. Now he’s accusing us of doing the same.

  50. According to Bill Nye, we would have the same climate now as 1750, and be heading into an ice age, if not for man-made global warming. And he wonders why he can’t get more people to hate CO2.

  51. No, no keep going Bill Nye. You’re almost there in producing the opposite public opinion, one false argument and faked CO2 science experiment at a time.

  52. One has to wonder if Carl Sagan knew he was leaving the debate and knew he lost it, so he planted someone he knew would fail in his position of Climate Warrior. His background would give anyone opposed to the climate orthodoxy a wide opening, and his stupidity would finish him off.

  53. If you ever watched any Monty Python stuff, you know what absurdism is.

    Watching inflexible mopes like Nye and Mann, who are guarding their bank accounts as well as their turf, is like watching someone dig his hole deeper. Whatever will they do when people stop listening to them? Oh, wait – that’s starting to happen, isn’t it?

  54. Bill Nye will never change even if the world drops into a “little ice age”. It would destroy his world view.

Comments are closed.