This was unexpected. Alarmists are starting to eat their own over Trump. From “Scientific American”, a once great magazine.
Bill Nye Does Not Speak for Us and He Does Not Speak for Science
By attending the State of the Union with NASA administrator nominee Jim Bridenstine, the Science Guy tacitly endorses climate denial, intolerance and attacks on science
By 500 Women Scientists on January 30, 2018
Tonight, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” will accompany Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), Trump’s nominee for NASA Administrator, to the State of the Union address. Nye has said that he’s accompanying the Congressman to help promote space exploration, since, he asserts, “NASA is the best brand the United States has” and that his attendance “should not be … seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and the scientific community.”
But by attending the SOTU as Rep. Bridenstine’s guest, Nye has tacitly endorsed those very policies, and put his own personal brand over the interests of the scientific community at large. Rep. Bridenstine is a controversial nominee who refuses to state that climate change is driven by human activity, and even introduced legislation to remove Earth sciences from NASA’s scientific mission. Further, he’s worked to undermine civil rights, including pushing for crackdowns on immigrants,a ban on gay marriage, and abolishing the Department of Education.
As scientists, we cannot stand by while Nye lends our community’s credibility to a man who would undermine the United States’ most prominent science agency. And we cannot stand by while Nye uses his public persona as a science entertainer to support an administration that is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.
…
The true shame is that Bill Nye remains the popular face of science because he keeps himself in the public eye. To be sure, increasing the visibility of scientists in the popular media is important to strengthening public support for science, but Nye’s TV persona has perpetuated the harmful stereotype that scientists are nerdy, combative white men in lab coats—a stereotype that does not comport with our lived experience as women in STEM. And he continues to wield his power recklessly, even after his recent endeavors in debate and politics have backfired spectacularly.
Wow, harsh. Read the full excoriation here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/bill-nye-does-not-speak-for-us-and-he-does-not-speak-for-science/
h/t to WUWT reader Clyde Spencer
The left’s collective head is exploding. Nye is one of their own.
i just can’t understand how scientific american won’t stand by the butt-stuff guy…
maybe hot whopper can tell me?
Who exactly are all of those White Guys expounding the anti-virtues of high density energy?
Keith Briffa (may he rest)
Phil Jones
Michael Mann
Ross McKitrick
Mike Hulme
Gavin Schmidt
Kevin Trenberth
John Cook
Stephan Lewandowsky
etc. etc. etc.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com should not be on your list
I was looking him up for another reason and somehow his name wound up on the list, unfortunately I have no way to update/alter the post
Bryan,
I had no idea that Keith Briffa, the discoverer of the most important global-warming tree in the world at Yamal, Siberia, had died in late 2017.
This is pretty typical.
Unless you are with us 100%, you are part of the enemy and must be destroyed.
It’s typical that radicals will start a popularly supported revolution. Once the old regime is defeated, the population can’t get its crap together and a tyrant takes over. People don’t realize how special was the American Revolution. (I realize it wasn’t completely smooth. My ancestors were on both sides and some had to flee for their lives.)
Googling on the words, left eats its own, produces a wealth of hits. Here’s an amusing quote about what happened when Margaret Atwood (a hero of the left) attempted to advocate fairness:
Some of these folks make the Red Guard or the Hitler Youth look moderate. (Yes, I know about Godwin’s Law.)
All too true, proven by the Left doing ALL they can to destroy the right.
Labeling them racist, anti science, hate speech mongers, etc.
That’s because independent thought cannot be tolerated where groupspeak is the orthodoxy.
Also typical is the idea that they can judge anyone by the company they keep. Apaprently one cannot simply know someone or even discuss with anyone the totalitarian lefty mob don’t approve, even if you’re one of their priests…
“… and sometimes even if you are 100% with us, if we change our stance and you do not.”
“Emotional Intelligence” is an oxymoron, and it’s all they’ve got.
Bill Nye: The Climate Change Trotskyite!
Odd, he gets thrown into the alarmist media rubbish container with Judith Curry, John Christy, Roy Spencer, John Coleman, Bob Carter, etc ad nauseum. Things are getting really bizarre.
Bang, bang
Stalin’s sickle and hammer
came down on Trotsky’s head
Bang, bang
Stalin’s sickle and hammer
made sure that he was dead
Trotsky was killed by an ice pick to the forehead. Kind of ironic if you think about it.
A prominent member of the 500 women scientists is Sarah Myhre, so Bill Nye as a guy is not one of their own, no matter what he thinks, says or does.
From https://500womenscientists.org/who-we-are/
“500 Women Scientists is a grassroots organization started by four women who met in graduate school at CU Boulder and who maintained friendships and collaborations after jobs and life took them away from Boulder. Immediately following the November 2016 election, we published an open letter re-affirming our commitment to speak up for science and for women, minorities, immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQIA.”
So ‘500 Women Scientists’ is really only four liberal bimbos with science degrees, closed minds, and big mouths. Geez, Scientific American falls to new lows month after month.
And before anyone blasts me for calling Sarah Myhre a bimbo, check out her twits first:
https://twitter.com/sarahemyhre?lang=en
It’s cool Louis, we know there is a world of difference between highly intelligent and highly educated. Sarah Myhre is absolutely the latter.
That she has spent a lot of time at a place of “higher learning” is not sufficient to prove that she is highly educated.
Are they trying to de-Nye the ‘science’? I thought that was bad.
+10!
Punny, but accurate…
Typical behaviour of a narrowing ideological / religious sect movement. The net gets tighter, they bite each other. Maybe soon we will see Maoist style self-indictments, with offenders kissing the hockeystick and promising to mend their carbonic ways.
😀 If only – but could we instead have them finally doing the honourable thing and falling on their hockey sticks?
Already happened.
this is an honor killing, obviously
The only thing being assassinated is his character.
What character?
Let the circular firing squad begin…
Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
(Sorry, meant that for below.)
The main problem with Bill Ney… and any other Ney’s problems …it is simple
“Bill Nye “The Science Guy”
Bill…or the Bill Ney happens to be the very untithesis of a “science guy”…period, and simple as that…
cheers
…”a science entertainer….” That must hurt! Why didn’t they tell us that before?
Delicious.
Andrew
Wait…
“But by attending the SOTU as Rep. Bridenstine’s guest, Nye has tacitly endorsed those very policies, and put his own personal brand over the interests of the scientific community at large. Rep. Bridenstine is a controversial nominee who refuses to state that climate change is driven by human activity, and even introduced legislation to remove Earth sciences from NASA’s scientific mission.”
So, Nye is endorsing someone who doesn’t endorse Nye’s Climate Change Agenda, and 500 Women Scientists (who apparently do endorse Nye’s Climate Change Agenda) are not happy with him?
The do know he isn’t a scientist, don’t they?
Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
The real science deniers are those who, unfamiliar with thermalization and quantum mechanics, have been deceived into believing in AGW and that it is caused by CO2.
Bill Nye, the Science Guy. There’s also a Piano Guy who used to appear on TV. He said it was simple to learn how to play the piano, but he wasn’t exactly Beethoven and his technique advanced me to the Chopsticks level, but no further. I’d like to be some kind of “guy” too. Is The Denier Guy taken yet? Just asking.
How many MORE people are there running around out there who claim the “title” of scientist while at the same time having a pathetically deficient “knowledge” of physics?
It is way worse than that.
These are people that learned, rather poorly in all likelihood, a thing or two once upon a time, and now claim to be authoritative sources of information for anything they feel strongly about.
It really is all about emotions for this sort.
They “cannot stand by” while some minor detail of another persons life is not strictly in accord with some idiotic view of how everyone must constantly comport themselves.
Or of the Scientific METHOD!?!
Hell, these tribalists sound more like the Medieval Scholastics than the scientists of the Enlightenment.
“Scientific American, where did your science go? You sound like Nancy Pelosi, that famous non-scientist.
“And we cannot stand by while Nye uses his public persona as a science entertainer to support an administration that is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.” Instead of “standing by” let’s see you questionable humanoids provide some semblance of evidence for your slanderous lies. We’re still waiting. I was apparently unaware that being a scientists involves ranting, with flimsy, silly personal attacks on the person our country elected and supports. This is what’s wrong with science these days – it get involved in a sphere (politics, personal behavior) in which, to judge by this nonsense, it has no qualifications. And I further clam that your logical failure in equating sitting in an audience to hear the state of the nation implies approval of everything the speaker says or does. Apparently the social scientists at (Junk) Scientific American have parted ways with the original science – philosophy/logic.
Perhaps those 500 women have phobophobia.
There is no special name for their condition. It’s just called idiocy.
It’s called ” being so comfortable and well off due to the numerous fossil-fuel energy benefits of modern civilization that they can become armchair critics so far removed from the reality they criticize as to be blind to their own hypocrisy.”
… a bit of venting here:
I’m plain sick of women who bash men, and sick of all other sexual orientations who bash straights, especially women of all other sexual orientations who bash straight men. I’m sick of cries about “racism”, “inequality”, “xenophobia”, etc., etc.
I’m especially sick of people who want to recognize NO differences and who view recognizing ANY differences as acting with prejudice.
But I guess that makes me prejudice, … or … , no, … it makes these sorts of people distinctionphobic.
just a bunch of Old White Women of the Whine Generation venting as usual!
Whats good enough for the Ganders is good enough for the cackling Geese!
Its called a backlash !.
Robert Kernodle you might find the book I just finished reading very interesting, Called Infidel it was written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and autobiographically lays out her internal struggle and recognition of her religions inherent inequity as she became an apostate of Islam.
Most notably the hostility she faced from supposed friends and family as she dared to question her former-truths and the reaction from the left for her daring to state openly an opposition to social and cultural traits which, through lack of questioning and a refusal to face facts by the left, effectively empowered brutality and cruelty.
she’s stunned by her left friends as she leaves the left and joins the right, the sheer hostility and blind defense of the left even from people who agree with her, simply because she lay on the ‘opposite side’ politically.
Started by FOUR women with no indication of any more than those four. Unlikely they represent 500.
I cancelled my subscription to Scientific American 15 years ago, when it devolved from “science” into politically correct fraudulence. The masthead of the magazine should say ‘ “Scientific” American’, with scare-quotes around “Scientific”.
And scare quotes around “American”
and a question mark following American:
“Scientific American?”
I cancelled my subscription about about 15 years ago also. Since I was busy at work I asked my wife to call them and cancel it. They asked her why and she had a very succinct statement “too much politics not enough science”. I would not have managed to be that polite very very direct. After reading the irritating article that finalized my view, i probably would have crafted a scatological incantation that would have left a blue haze still visible over Lake Michigan. I miss the old Scientific American.
I like
“Scientific?” “American?”
Here you go:
I like the question-mark idea too, which I also thought of, but … one layer of parody at a time. (^_^)
Really?
For you it’s about Scientific American, and if not that then it’s Bill Nye. But no-one mentions congressman:
“who refuses to state that climate change is driven by human activity, and even introduced legislation to remove Earth sciences from NASA’s scientific mission. Further, he’s worked to undermine civil rights, including pushing for crackdowns on immigrants, a ban on gay marriage, and abolishing the Department of Education.”
An anti-science, anti-rights, anti-education zealot? If the story is not about the substance of this guy’s character who is – actually making decision on the behalf of others – then all this sneering at Bill Nye; just because of his reported support for him, surely that is nothing but gratuitous mud-throwing.
Their problem is twofold. They are no longer scientific, and no longer American (sold to a German publisher).I cancelled my subscription at the time of the sale.
Ken Mitchell,
What took you so long. I quit subscribing almost 30 years ago.
I quit Scientific American about 30 years ago, too. Global warming this, global warming that, until I finally got tired of getting angry every time I opened the magazine and read such blatant speculation.
I couldn’t understand how they could hype CAGW without ever producing any proof of it in their magazine. Just claim after claim after claim with no evidence to accompany the claim. What kind of science is that? Not something I’m going to pay for.
They did the same thing for Global Cooling back in the day, but happily the cooling didn’t last long enough to get exercised about, and didn’t end up costing us TRILLIONS of dollars to try to mitigate.
Same thing for “Science News”. I quit them about the same time I quit Scientific American. And for the same reason: Lots of CAGW claims, and no evidence the claims were true. Nothing has changed in all this time. We still have lots of claims but no evidence has ever been provided.
zazove, Canada seems to be doing just fine without a federal Department of Education.
“scientism American”
I finally ended my subscription to National Geographic; let it run out and while it was running out watched to see if far-left sociology was an exception or the new normal. Well, it’s new normal. Not much National and not much Geography. It was a sad parting since I’ve been a subscriber since 1973.
A very long time ago, when Scientific American still contained science, not politics masquerading as science, it published an article that stated that the Earth would remain very close (within a few degrees) of the current temperature, even if there was no life on it.
When did opposition to illegal immigration become the equivalent to opposition to all immigrants?
I too was more dismayed by the present incarnation of Scientific American and that it would deem it appropriate to publish such an article.
Scientific American seems to have devolved into junk periodical status.This article would be more appropriately placed in a tabloid op/ed piece.
If this is what passes for science these days we are indeed doomed.
They are a business and are desperately trying to do anything that will drive subscriptions. In that regard, they are like Nye, whose career is stumbling and in need of a reboot. It reminds me of how fading rock stars will do outrageous things in an attempt to keep their names before the public.
I agree. I started reading SA almost 60 years ago as a teenager. About 30 years ago I noticed they seemed to be more into shoveling left-wing politicrap than publishing science and stopped subscribing. It’s a shame as they were once a great magazine.
There’s an old saying: Any organization that is not explicitly right wing, will over time become left wing.
After reading the January 2002 Scientific American hit piece on Bjorn Lomborg, I canceled my subscription. I don’t necessarily agree with Lomborg, but the attack on him was completely unjustified. Lomborn’s position was supported by government data–not that those government data were valid. However, Scientific American’s position was/is pure fantasy.
I consider “climate science” to be an oxymoron. There’s no way to print what I think of Scientific American.
Jim
same here
I used to read both Scientific American and National Geographic, until they started getting way too political… let my subscriptions to both lapse years ago. Once-great magazines ruined by lefties and warmists.
The left has over played their hand…not smart enough to realize or recognize it….stupid enough to double down
….is anyone stupid enough to want them running this country
The left never had or will ever have a hand except junk one they use as a prop in the ‘bluff poker’ of activism.
Still, they are showing more and more that they are not terribly interested in science or even politics at this point. This lashing out at any deviation is more likely to drive supporters away than draw support. Especially if they are willing to go so viciously after a children’s television entertainer for such a small thing as attending a speech with the head of NASA. We are talking French revolution levels of hate here.
“We are talking French revolution levels of hate here.”
The Democrats are the party of hate.
TA, both Democrats and Republicans are AMERICANS neither of which comprise a party of “hatefulness.” You have a sick perspective of politics. I feel sorry for you.
CPP, Being an American means you can’t hate?
Or do you mean that it is hateful to tell the truth about other Americans?
PS: If you want an example of left wing hatred, just re-read your own post.
It takes the radical right to balance the radical left. Historically, the US never put either of these groups in charge of anything….until 9 years ago.
The left is now acting like a bunch of 3 year-olds who can’t seem to understand why their toys were taken away. It because they were about to break everything it took us 240 years to build. Now they need to go to their rooms and shut up.
And pick-up their rooms or no dessert tonight!
“Now they need to go to their rooms and shut up.”
———
And get to accept a long quite peaceful argument and engagement with “Hannibal Lecturer’ , when at it…and hope for a VIP clausole treatment… hopefully…at the end of the day…as it always will include some kind of brain vamping…:)
cheers
whiten
January 31, 2018 at 1:17 pm
At the very least.
dam1953
I really don’t get this radical right and radical left thing.
The radical left (communism) has been responsible for millions of deaths, due to political incompetence and ideology, in Russia and China (at least) whilst radical right in the Western world has largely been responsible for prosperity and peace.
In America, the left (Democrats) brought the world the Klan, whilst the right brought the Republican party devoted to fighting slavery.
The extreme right (me) believes in working with the best people for the job, irrespective of their colour, ethnic background or religion.
The left believe in promoting women into positions of authority just because they are women; or ethnic, and gender characterised individuals.
Instead of leaving nature to determine our progress, the left deem it necessary to interfere, manipulate, and micro manage everyone’s lives, whether they like it or not.
I have grown to despise the left for their manipulative, controlling behaviour. Like most of the planet”s inhabitants, I am a decent, socially minded, community spirited individual. I don’t need nasty left wing dictators to force me to care for others, I do it of my own volition.
The whole idea of a radical right is somewhat suspect to begin with. The standard line is that extreme leftism results in communism and extreme rightism leads to fascism. My opinion? Well, I like Jonah Goldberg’s formulation which demonstrates that fascism is essentially derived from the same roots as communism. Namely, that both originate in the leftist ideal that the state, the collective, is more important than the individual. This philosophy leads to such absurdities as the one expressed by the Scientific American blog post.
Like hotscot, I’m more interested in the state preserving the rights and inviolability of the individual, rather than sacrificing the individual for the sake of the state. And for that I’m an extreme rightist? Please.
(Note, I’m not directing this at dam1953, but rather at the pervasive propaganda from the left which, I feel, seeks to demonize for my very normal and natural opinion.)
rip
I think you are working with a different idea of the “right” than those people. Your concept of a “radical right” is a silly as a “radical agnostic”. There’s only so far one can go in that direction.
Politics is not a sliding scale from left to right. You have multiple axes. The popular version of the “radical right” includes religious authoritarians such as the Iranian regime as well as Kingdoms and other such authoritarian regimes. That’s a reasonable group to fear. Finally, given our current definitions, the Klan as it was initially formed would have been a conservative “right-wing” group, while the Republicans at that point were the progressive “Left Wing”. It was not until FDR that the parties cemented themselves in their current role.
At least part of the problem is that everyone is working with different definitions, and every last person seems to twist those definitions to make themselves into the hero of this story.
The main difficulty of definition is that “Left” and “Right” originally had little to do with political philosophies. In the formation of the French Republic, those who wanted to change everything sat to the left of the Speakers chair and those who were for more cautious change sat to the right.
My personal belief is that the whole Left/Right thing is hogwash. The true spectrum is from Anarchy (0% government control) to Totalitarianism (100% government control). This puts the Nazis, the Stalinists, Pol Pot and the Theocracies side by side as they should be.
The vast majority in a democratic nation are in the middle, wanting their freedoms with enough government to keep them safe and the nation ticking along. The only real difference between moderate left and right is that if there is a problem, the “left” will tend towards a government controlled solution, so they are a little bit more towards the government end of the spectrum. So the moderate right is at 49% and the moderate left is at 51%.
And as it turns out, Trump’s immigration plan is pretty much exactly the same as that laid out by Bill Clinton in his 1995 SOTU. How strange.
“whilst radical right in the Western world has largely been responsible for prosperity and peace.”
There is no radical Right. Unless you consider wanting less government control over your life to be radical.
Calling the Right radical is just the Left’s attempt to demonize the Right.
Laughable. If there is anything “anti-science,” it is the assumption based, confirmation bias polluted, dishonest “climate change” meme.
….well “Stupid is as Stupid Does”
His crime was in appearing out of character and sane. 40 lashes with a cane
I love it when the left eats their own like this. It truly makes my day.
Just another example of how climate alarmists enforce their fake consensus!
It shows why so many researchers (over 70%) when surveyed will neither endorse or refute the CO2 meme, fearing similar retaliation and mindless personal attacks for straying from the company line.
500 women scientists say the administration “ is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.”
But every single one of their links goes to Jim Bridenstine’s Congressional blog. None point to any policy of the Trump administration.
And yet 500 women scientists accuse the *administration,* not Rep. Bridenstine, of being “xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.”
Every single one of those accusations relies strictly on hostile tendentious inferences of malappropriate evidence. None of those accusations against the administration rests on actual facts.
I’d say these 500 women scientists have a hard time parsing data. Their evidence (Jim Bridenstine) is completely disconnected from their conclusion (the administration).
Their unjustified and violent accusations against the administration (against Donald Trump, in reality) are deliberate character assassination. The “true shame” is on them.
Their careless thinking and pejorative violence in the name of science further tars a reputation already damaged by 30 years of unjustifiable climate hysteria.
To the left, disagreeing with any part of their agenda proves that you are evil.
The only thing left to do is to determine which labels apply to you.
Silly Mark, the Left NEVER try to determine which labels apply to you.
“xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.”
Once you’ve been marked by the Leftists as an enemy, you are given ALL the labels. It doesn’t matter if there is no evidence for one or even ANY of them, once you are an enemy of the Left, you are automatically guilty of ALL the evil.
~¿~
Good call Pat!
After perusing their links I had the same thoughts.
Way to go there, reinforcing your confirmation bias and acting in most non-dispassionate manner possible. /sarc (directed at the “women scientists” [sic])
Remind me to never trust any “scientific” conclusions this group reaches.
Thanks, ripshin. They do seem caught in group-think, don’t they. Not a good pedigree for a purported creative thinker.
Given the shallowness of their case, I wonder if they would have given Nye a pass if he had the charisma of George Clooney?
You made me smile, Roy.
500 women scientists? All Climatologists. I presume? You’d have a hard time finding 500 people anywhere on the planet who were qualified in a single discipline (#metoo aside), let alone climatology.
Ad hominem is science now. 500 women scientists say so.
“Their unjustified and violent accusations against the administration (against Donald Trump, in reality) are deliberate character assassination.”
Oh, definitely. And they are not just smearing Trump, they are smearing everyone who is on the Right. This “expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.” is exactly how they look at all those who are conservative or Republican. This is the stereotype they have in their minds, and way too many of them really believe this stufff.
Believing that “stuff” must have them scared to death. I don’t think those on the Right realize how deeply the Left is immersed in these delusions. Many on the Left really believe Trump is the worst person in the world, and that must frighten them very much and causes them to display what we would consider to be bizarre behaviors.
They are ridiculous people.
They said and thought similar things about GW Bush, although they now regard Bush as “not that bad”, at least not compared to Trump.
But they have said exactly the same thing about every conservative leader who acquired any real power or ability to get anything done, and similarly have relaxed their attitude once that person was no longer in such a position.
They are forced into this silliness by cognitive dissonance: Obviously everyone that they oppose cannot be the Devil, Hitler, and the personification of every bad thing on Earth, all at the same time. So it is a form of revolving vilification.
Trump himself was never any of the things they now call him, not until the day he announced he was running as a Republican, at which time he became the Worst Person To Ever Live.
And the really weird thing is that Trump echoes policies which were central positions of every liberal President and candidate in the very recent past…things such as the wall, deporting illegals, ending chain migration, simplifying the tax code and cutting taxes on the middle class…
The list of inconsistencies is literally endless.
Having had many of these sort as lifelong friends and as family, I can tell you that it is all words and virtue signaling. If we had on tape the worst things each of them has ever said, every one of them would be disowned by each of the rest.
And the evidence for this last observation is everywhere one looks: Just note who are the ones discredited by the #metoo movement?
Why, it was many of the most vocal and strident critics of the supposed awful behavior or Trump!
What I call the Jimmy Swaggert Effect.
Well, with the constant, science-fantasy, Armageddon-style overstatements guys like Nye and his ilk have been blathering for over a quarter century, you have to think their credibility is at stake – something that anyone with a shred of honesty ought to be concerned about.
Science – and worse than that, ‘truth’ – seems to be among the first ‘victims’ of Global Warming.
What is exactly “attacks on science”. Science is exactly supposed to be “attacked”. The more it is attacked and resisted, the better science is. Those that do not think this way are not scientists, are Priests.
“Test all things. Hold fast to that which is true”
…that which remains true.
“Rep. Bridenstine is a controversial nominee who refuses to state that climate change is driven by human activity..”
Um, why would he state something like that?
I know lots of women scientists and they would never make that statement.
It is opinion pieces like the one above that convinced me that Scientific American has lost its way, and so several years ago I sadly let my subscription expire. I made the right call.
Hoo boy, the clash between Climatism on one side, and rabid anti-Trumpism combined with feminazism. Not pretty. Still, just one more example that the Climatist movement is imploding.
Bill Nye The Science Guy; Catastrophic Ice-Age Averted, Man-Made CO2 Saved Mankind
The conventional wisdom/consensus is that man-made/anthropogenic CO2 was/is driving the earth towards catastrophic warming. According to Bill Nye the Science Guy, however, the truth is just the opposite. According to Bill Nye The Science Guy, man’s production of CO2 has prevented/delayed the next ice age. To put it another way, CO2 has saved mankind. “In other words, humans … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/bill-nye-the-science-guy-catastrophic-ice-age-averted-man-made-co2-saved-mankind/
Is there a lesser penalty for being seated in the back row or volunteering at a local food pantry instead?
Since none of the claims are ‘Scientific’ I think the magazine needs a name change.
The Scientific Enquirer springs to mind!
Pseudo-Science Enquirer would be more accurate.
Jim
I like “Scientologic Enquirer”, although that just freaked out the spell-check…
“Friends of Lysenko”
A man so clearly out of his depth, there are fish swimming around him with little lights on their heads.
They have great big teeth, too! The pressure at that depth must be crushing.
The evolution of Leftists follow a predictable pattern. What is predictable is their dictates on political correctness and identity politics ultimately ensures they eat their own. Liberal college profs everywhere are now finding that out as the students turn on them because they have so few conservative Prof targets.
Perceived sleights against the orthodoxy become grounds for protest and ex-communication, such as what happened to Roger Pielke Jr for his minor transgressions against the climate faith.
About the only thing Nye can do now to avoid ex-commincation is prostrate himself before Pope Gore and beg forgiveness for his sins of being seen with a Republican.
Scientific American is a double oxymoron. Not scientific. Not American. They are Putin’s puppets.
CG, where is there any indication of his involvement?
He doesn’t need to incite these tabloids, their owners do the whipping while guys like him watch with glee.