Whoa! Scientific American excoriates Bill Nye

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,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

Advertisements

275 thoughts on “Whoa! Scientific American excoriates Bill Nye

    • 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.

      • 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:

        Atwood attempted to defend someone targeted by sex crime vigilantes, which is somewhat like trying to take the dead rabbit from a pack of starving wild dogs. link

        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.

      • 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.

      • 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

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. “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.

      • 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.

    • 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”.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • Scientific American seems to have devolved into junk periodical status.

        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

    • 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.

  6. 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.

      • 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.

      • “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

      • 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.

  7. Laughable. If there is anything “anti-science,” it is the assumption based, confirmation bias polluted, dishonest “climate change” meme.

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

    • 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.

    • “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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. “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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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/

  15. Is there a lesser penalty for being seated in the back row or volunteering at a local food pantry instead?

  16. A man so clearly out of his depth, there are fish swimming around him with little lights on their heads.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. Wow, name calling is allowed in a “Scientific” Journal? Are you kidding me? What a joke.

    There is more truth to this satirical post that I care to admit:

    Ban on Fracking is Causing California’s Earthquakes
    Best Practice #6: Appeal to the Social Justice Warrior Safe-Space Seeking Liberal Arts Educated Pavlovesque Millennials. Claim that the ban on fracking is racist, sexist and homophobic.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/ban-on-fracking-is-causing-californias-earthquakes/

  20. At least they’re correct in stating “his recent endeavors in debate and politics have backfired spectacularly.” I’d have to agree with that.

    I find it amusing that people are expected to be upset over the removal of Earth sciences from NASA’s charter. Aeronautics and Space. Not Earth, Aeronautics and Space.

    I’ll also add that some ado has been made of him being a Mechanical Engineer, rather than a “scientist”. I’ll state that having a degree in engineering doesn’t make one an engineer, just as having a degree — or multiple degrees — in physics, makes one a physicist. Good engineers understand and practice the scientific method in their work. This was taught in engineering school, back in the day when I was there. This is why you earn a Bachelor’s in Science in Mechanical Engineering, rather than, say, a Bachelor’s in Arts. Bill Nye is no more a Mechanical Engineer than I am a ballerina (I’m not – trust me!). You can take classes and get passing grades, write theses — whatever — but this doesn’t make you either an engineer or a scientist. A ditch digger can be a scientist if said digger practices the scientific method. A person possessing a PhD in physics is not a scientist if said PhD does not practice the scientific method.

    • Meant to say “just as having a degree — or multiple degrees — in physics, doesn’t make one a physicist”.

    • In the climate wars, I find the easiest way to identify a pseudo-scientist climateer is by their assertion that the CO2-CAGW hypothesis should be regarded as the null hypothesis in the rejection of natural variation as the principle cause of the late-20th century warming trend.
      The climateer-hypothesis inverter completely disregards the fact that natural variation (whether solar, ocean cycle, orbital changes) was causal of 4+ billion years of Earthly climate change and that it magically ceased in/about 1950 simply because they say it did to promote their belief.

      The scientific method is inconvenient for the climateer and their acquisition of grants and public notoriety.

    • I think it is idiotic and redundant for an agency dedicated to “aeronautics and space” to do “earth science” work when the U.S. Geological Survey exists.

      • The cross-over confusion is somewhat caused by the tools used to conduct the research. Because they are studying earth… from space… using satellites, NASA has assumed the primary mission role.
        The USGS should be responsible for geologic studies with NASA only providing services. Currently most people only think the USGS produces topographical maps.

      • rocketscientist,
        The USGS was responsible for the launch, maintenance, and data processing of the original Landsat satelites. NASA has elbowed its way into joint responsibility for processing in recent years. I think that the lines of responsibility should be drawn between hardware, and data processing and analysis.

      • “he USGS was responsible for the launch, maintenance, and data processing of the original Landsat satelites.”

        I didn’t know that.

        I used to have some big picture books of Landsat photographs. I really enjoyed looking at all the pictures of the Earth. They were the best pictures we had at that time.

      • I understand the point of it maybe being in NASA’s realm based on the use of satellites for data gathering. But oddly enough, I don’t believe NASA GISS uses the satellite data in the construction of their published temperature series. My understanding is that NASA GISS (part of the Earth Sciences dept) uses data from the traditional ground-based thermometer records. I think it’s NOAA and University of Alabama – Huntsville folks — not NASA — who reduce the satellite data. Perhaps I’m mistaken with this, but the best I’ve been able to find, this seems to be the case.

      • Don S

        NASA-GISS uses satellite data from another set of light-sensing satellites to approximate the coverage of US cities near temperature stations, then (adjusts (corrects, modifies, rewrites, updates or corrects) each days (months’ ) average temperatures based on the regional night light amount recorded – for its records going back as far as the 1920’s. This is supposedly to correct for the Urban Heat Island effect – but I fail to see how today’s light levels (which are assumed equal to population density and thus urban heat islands) can be used to adjust temperature records written down by hand prior to last month. But that is Hansen’s agency.

    • I totally agree Don. I scientist is a person who uses the scientific method to analyze a problem or theory. It definitely does not require a scholastic degree in anything.

  21. The women said: “xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That’s funny. They left off antitransgender. What a bunch of bigots.

  22. Scientific American publish this howler,

    “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.”

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

    Yeah riiight, have yet to see any such evidence for the smears leftists make. Meanwhile Nye is actually trying to help promote NASA space exploration, which I see as a positive but it is a contradiction because another part of NASA promotes a hysterical narrative on Climate topic, which he also supports.

    Nye doesn’t really understand how valid research is done.

    Propaganda doesn’t promote a lasting legacy for you Billy.

    • “Science entertainer”! That’s an EXCELLENT description of both Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. And Carl Sagan.

      • Yikes, I wouldn’t lump Sagan in with them, he at least held up the scientific method and the BS detector from his more worthy predecessors like Popper and Feynman. He let himself a victim of the worries generated by the alarmists of his time and ventured out of his realm of expertise just like the folks you associate him with, but my intuition is that had he not died young he would have become a skeptic in old age.

      • How about Hawking? Is he a wild-card for the media to pull out, or what?
        Seems like they could make him say whatever is convenient, given his circumstances.

      • Pop Piasa, I doubt anything Hawking supposedly “says” actually comes from him — not for a long time. That’s his close “handlers” speaking. Hawking is being used……

      • sagan was the holotype for the rockstar noble liar. he’s what the manns and gavins of the world wannabe.

  23. 500 Women Scientists makes as much sense as 500 short scientists or 500 scientists with curly hair.

    Science with a non-scientific qualifier just makes science less scientific.

    • That’s true. “Science” has nothing at all to do with what’s between your legs; it’s what’s between your EARS that counts.

      • Ah, but the brain chemistry is different. Sometimes referred to as “can’t understand normal thought” by their frustrated male soul-mates. Emotion counts in the post-modern scientific clique, mostly due to the presence of properly diverse and indoctrinated personalities cranked out of academia.

  24. The leftist “knowledge class” or “expert class” are the worst. Nobody else’s values matter. Just let them dictate how you should live and thank them for it. Insufferable.

    30 years ago when I was in college I read about how the Khmer Rouge executed their intellectuals or sent them to work in the fields like peasants. I didn’t understand it. Seemed crazy.

    I still think that is nuts, but I can at least begin to appreciate the peasant revolt against the intellectual class.

  25. “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. The mission of 500 Women Scientists is to serve society by making science open, inclusive, and accessible.”

    So why is it not called “4 women friends”. They sound blatantly dishonest to me.

    • somebody suggested that multiple personality disorder was the explanation for individuals adopting the first person plural- but that’s way too plural.
      i doubt the explanation, tho- seems more like they just want to wave their we! we!
      so this would be weness envy.

    • Bigger question: why are they (and so many other people) using the NOUN “women” as an adjective? The appropriate ADJECTIVE is “female” (acceptable as a noun or adjective). These women have graduate degrees, yet they are using incorrect words in the name of their “organization”.

      Biggest question: what in the world does being male or female have to do with being a scientist? I am a scientist who happens to be female. My femininity is unrelated to being a scientist. My sex has nothing to do with how I act as a scientist. Men and women are different, and tend to perceive the world differently, but that does not affect HOW true scientists carry out their work. We all use the scientific method, we all study natural processes, etc. In a country where women truly are not considered or treated as equal to men, it might be important to emphasize and promote the reality that female scientists are just as capable as male scientists, but the U.S. is not such a country. Plenty of ignorant idiots live here, but the majority of people do not subscribe to the idea that one’s sex determines one’s competency or value.

      I do not need the existence of a special organization of female scientists to make it possible for me to express my views as a scientist. There is no reason I cannot do it on my own or through a coed (gasp!) organization. This is just self-indulgent nonsense designed to make people feel like they are somehow “special” and better than the average person.

      Here is an idea: do ACTUAL scientific work and let IT show how capable a scientist you are. And if someone asks you to comment on some aspect of being a woman in science, look at them like they are crazy and ask them why they think that your sex has anything to do with working as a scientist.

      • Very true. The females among the research faculty I supported were just as astute in their specialties as the males. But, they were often much less patient about mechanical problems at the facility (which was my specialty) than their male counterparts, who had a broader knowledge of mechanical systems. Other than that point, there was no gender related trend in my career experiences.

      • AllyKat,

        This is so right! Who would ever dream of naming an org “500 Men Scientists”? Ugh. Painful to even say.

        And, yeah, it looks like the idea is truly dead that the product of one’s labor is more meaningful than the group identity one ascribes to.

      • Allykat: Dr. Judith Curry is an excellent scientist who happens to be a woman. I suggest you study her views on climate change.

    • seems to me theyre doing the opposite, cetainly NOT open or inclusive makes me remember why i always hated the word feminist as well, i saw and heard enough of this in UNi tours that drove me as far as possible away…from considering going to uni or any forms of higher ed.
      having to put up with this sort of idiotic people while trying to actually learn anything was just more than i was willing to do or pay for the so called priveledge.embarrasses me as a female to read this sort of cr*p still ongoing/worse than ever

  26. the Science Guy tacitly endorses climate denial, intolerance and attacks on science

    Not done yet, they go on:

    administration that is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science

    How very tolerant of them. How very inclusive. Oh my.
    then they decry harmful a stereotypes but go on to describe the target of their venom as a “nerdy, combative white man”.
    Hmmmm, would that not be both racist and sexist? Inquiring minds want to know.

    But this stereotype is beyond the beyond:
    nerdy, combative
    In all my years in the scientific community, I have seen science majors run down as nerds and geeks on college campuses all over the country, and for decades. But combative, combative?
    *Never*.
    TDS writ large. (Trump derangement syndrome)

  27. Religions have always attacked heretics with far more force than unbelievers, so this exactly what you expect and there have been plenty before who have found out what happens should they step on foot away from the path of ‘pure’ AGW dogma .

  28. George Orwell famously said, “Journalism is printing what somebody else doesn’t want printed. Everything else is public relations.”

  29. “By 500 Women Scientists” that letter just set feminism back 100 years.They just destroyed the credibility of women scientists.

  30. Ha! Follow the links and you’ll discover that this political piece wasn’t written by 500 women scientists, it was written by an organization that is merely named ‘500 Women Scientists’.

    For all we know there might not be a single actual female scientist in the organization. It might be more accurately named ‘500 Women Activists’.

    I feel embarrassed for SA.

    • At the Anti-Trump March last year (it was marketed as the “Women’s March” by people without the courage of their convictions, but let’s call it what it was), there was a picture of a group of women holding signs with the name of this organization. I think there were less than 20. While it is rare to see 100% turnout, one would think more would show up – if they existed.

      I doubt there are strict requirements for joining, other than ideological purity and a poor grasp of parts of speech.

      P.S. I appreciate your correct usage of “female scientist”. :)

    • “….xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science….”
      Was it Winston Churchill who said ” I never trusted a man who did not have at least one vice that I admire “?.. of course there were far fewer vices to chose from back then!
      I rather admire ‘ableists’ myself.
      Cheers
      Bahamamike

  31. If only there was a single shred of evidence that supports CO2 impacting climate, but alas there isn’t.
    Give it up you lying fools, the average Joe has worked out your scam was all part of the rivers of funding flowing from the climate gravy train.

  32. Note that the ad in the article linked states. “Scientific American–The Antidote to Anti-Intellectualism–Act Now.” When they have to sell it, they aren’t. They started to publish crisis articles in the 1980s with selective photos. How do 500 scientists have time for this?

    • It really tanked when a big German media company bought it. Same people own Nature. Same people own Merkel.

      Recall that this UnScientific UnAmerican rag published a full tilt political attack on Lomborg when he dared to ask logical questions about their lucrative doomsday stories in his ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist.’

      This is just more of the same. I guess the next step will be to declare that any criticism of a female scientist’s work will be sexist bullying or something like that.

      In the meantime we have ‘scientists’ like K. Hayhoe, perhaps best known for the Permanent Drought of Texas which ended some time ago.

  33. I’m sorry but they seem like a bunch of angry, man-hating, progressive females who happen to have have a science background. The “Science” in their name is secondary to their real goal of marginalizing men. Sarah Myhre is a “leader”, that should tell you all you need to know about these folks. I bet every one of them wore a pussy hat during the Women’s March.

    • Agree with your basic point about this particular pack of complainers but in this case I do agree with them:

      “Bill Nye Does Not Speak for Us and He Does Not Speak for Science”

      My only quibble is with this constant use of the word “science” as though it was a thing, not a process.

  34. I’m afraid I got stuck trying to picture 500 women all typing the article at the same time. I can’t imagine anything less scientific than hiding attribution behind such an obviously bogus nom de plume. Is the author (or authors) ashamed to sign her name? (Oh, and is that pronoun supposed to now be “xir”?)

  35. The Opinion piece (called an “Observation” in SciAm) is from the organization 500 Women Scientitists. The authorship is not given in the SciAm post — leaving one to believe that 500 women scientists actually sat down and wrote the piece. Obviously not true — signing the piece 500WomenScientists is just another way of saying “Anonymous” but from our advocacy group.

    What do they object to? That Nye is Male, and White, and Famous. That he has not expressly supported their (well, that of the real author of the Op-ed) radical-left identity-politics positions.

    They (all one of them) is mad because he is attended the SOTU address at all — which should be boycotted because we (500WS) do not support our democratically elected government — and worse that he should attend with a ticket accepted from the next NASA Administrator — who should be officially shunned because “we (meaning “I”) don’t like his politics”.

    500Women say it is BAD for “a science entertainer to support an administration that is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.” By support, they mean attending the SOTU address (to which they were not invited) and by anti-science, they mean “not agreeing with us and other consensus-driven science identity advocates”.

    Yet another small group of radical advocates acting as if they represent their entire implied membership.

    • Yep, it’s the “all or nothing” intransigence of identity politics, in which there is no middle ground. You either follow lockstep with their totalitarian demands/expectations, or you’re the devil.

    • “What do they object to? That Nye is Male, and White, and Famous.”

      They object to Male and White. The Loony Left is now objecting to Patrick Kennedy III giving the response to Trump’s State of the Union speech because he is male and white, and in this case, rich.

      Nancy Pelosi is afraid Trump is trying to make American White Again, with his immigration policy, she said the other day. I guess Nancy doesn’t know that America is already white, white’s being about 65 percent of the population, the last time I checked (although I haven’t checked since Obama opened the gates).

      The radical Left would be delighted if all the whites, male and female, just disappeared from the face of the Earth. They think that would be Utopia because they consider whites to be the root of all evil in the modern world. Their delusions are strong.

      • Hank Johnson or Maxine Watters would have been much better respondents, but they might have tipped over the fourth time they said “impeach”.

    • There’s actually only two of them, operating out or a caravan parked at a crossroad. They copyrighted the 5 zillion angry Phlegminist scientist thing and registered as a “doing business as”.

    • I would guess this group includes some ‘scientists’ like this:

      “Imagining body size over time: Adolescents’ relational perspectives on body weight and place

      Jennifer Dean [PhD!!!]

      ABSTRACT
      The author contextualizes the social construction of body weight among 31 adolescents living in low-income neighborhoods in Southern Ontario, Canada. Theoretically informed by critical “obesity” discourse and the temporal turn in youth geographies, this article explores the ways in which participants defined acceptance and risk of fatness, the fluidity of their own body weight, and the connection between body size and place. These constructions gathered through in-depth and go-along interviews are interpreted through the lens of relational geographies that account for multiple spatial-temporal experiences of place. Temporality plays a significant role in three thematic areas emerging from the data: pausing the present, recursive fatness over time, futurity of body weight in place. The author concludes with a discussion of bringing temporality to the forefront of youth fatness and childhood “obesity” discourse to shift the narrative away from risk. In addition, the author emphasizes the power of story and imagination in shifting the cultural understandings of body size among adolescents. Finally, the author responds to a broader call to action that advocates for a more relational approach to the study of “obesogenic” environments and place. Temporality in general and futurity in particular are important areas of future investigation for the study of young fat bodies in/out of place.”

      http://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21604851.2017.1372994?journalCode=ufts20

      For more laughs – and weeping at how tax dollars are spent – check out this site (where I found this one):

      • Oops. Was just trying to post the link to that site and all this popped up with it. In any case, gives you a good idea on what’s there.

        I’m guessing China, with its foolish focus on producing engineers and the like, is way behind on this kind of vital research.

  36. I’m fairly certain I posted this yesterday before anyone else commented on it, regarding the left eating their own. But alas since I’m not so status quo statist like most of the commenters, even though I’m anti CAGW, my posts are removed. Nice.
    Glad to see that my comments don’t meet the muster because they aren’t identical in allotment with other anti-CAGW commenters

    Moderating like the left?

    • honestliberty,
      RE: “Moderating like the left?” Probably not….
      I’m not a lefty socialist and about 1 in 6 of my comments here have some glitch. Usually the ‘glitch’ comments just take 10 minutes to hours before they appear in the comment queue. Rarely, they do not appear at all. Others have complained of similar glitches… it does not appear to correlate with politically oriented perspective. Hang in there!

      (Honestliberty,J Mac and Clyde Spencer, I went through the trash bin for the entire month of January and the spam list is empty none of you have anything missing in the last 30+ days) MOD

      • I am the one who alerted Anthony to this SciAm article, and I have had comments disappear regularly. Some never do show up. I think it has something to do with quantum spin states.

      • MOD,
        This month I don’t recall any comments that ‘disappeared’ permanently. My recollection is I have had 5 or 6 that did not show up right after hitting the ‘post comment/post reply’ buttons. These showed up in the comment queues 10 minutes to hours later. I’m not griping in the least, just informing a frustrated fellow commenter that these glitches are not politically oriented censure.

      • I have posts disappear on a regular basis. About one in every 15 or 20 posts. Sometimes they show up later, and sometimes they don’t.

      • Ok excellent, and like I said if I was wondering my sincerest apologies. Therefore, I sincerely apologise.
        I want to reiterate my praise and thanks for all who add to this site

      • MOD (Charles?),
        I did complain about a recent missing submission and you said you were traveling but would try to take care of it. After A couple days, I notified Anthony and he took care of it. It seems that things disappear less frequently than formerly, but it still happens.

    • “Moderating like the left?”

      Absolutely not. Anthony and crew are the most accommodating, laissez-faire hosts I’ve ever encountered. If there’s censorship going on, it’s WordPress’ doing. Sometimes lags between post and publish happen for some unexplained reason. Happens to us all.

      • The only times that I’ve had a post stuck in moderation was apparently when I used verboten words while posting in a less than cheerful mood. (As far as I can tell there are only a few of those triggers and the reasons are understandable.)

        And one time when, after wondering what I had said wrong, I realized that I had forgotten to click the post button. That will do it every time!

  37. It’s a bummer because I even thanked Anthony for the great work but the post doesn’t go through?
    Maybe my phone isn’t working right and if so my sincerest apologies

    • Apparently, there’s some quirky stuff about WordPress that sometimes tosses our comments into the cyber dumpster. Demons? I don’t know, but I’ve learned not to take it personally. Happened to me just yesterday.

      • Ok, I thought maybe my messages were considered off topic.
        But I’m glad this article got the coverage. This site is a Godsend. Now, if only these believers would investigate the evidence and use reason. There msm press is strong propaganda though

      • They seem to come in clusters as well. Months with no problems, then all of sudden every third post disappears for a day.

  38. There is no “crackdown” on “immigrants”, only those who are illegal. Why do these presumably intelligent individuals not embrace a merit-based immigration policy?
    “Ableist”? Really?

  39. The long list of things that the 500 women accuse Nye of being reminds me of the funniest piece of slogan graffiti which appeared on a long stretch of wall alongside the circle line of London’s tube. Passengers were able to read a long piece of feminist script which (I don’t remember the exact text) went something like “ Women rise up and resist the opppressive male capitalist fascist state and break your chains”. In big capital letters.
    At the end some naughty person had added the postscript “yes dear”.
    Everyone I ever saw read it smiled.

  40. Every time Nye blunders his way into the news, it makes me long for the days of Don Herbert… Mr Wizard taught real science. Today’s youth audience needs another Don Herbert. The adult audience, too.

  41. Everybody knows that the best way to convince people of your point of view is to completely have nothing to do with them, their friends, family, dogs, or houseplants…

    And its super effective to also alienate anyone that tries to pass on your views as well.

  42. The Non-Science tv personality Performed by Bill Nye has no credibility to lend to NASA and NASA’s Climatoid branch has less to spare.

    These lefty hate mongers with their “anyone who disagrees with us is a racist bigot homophobe poopyhead and really icky and deserves to DIEDIEDIE” attitude are so amusing.

  43. “…… 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…..”.

    Aw c’mon ladies. Don’t hold anything back. Let it all out…..

    • …..and the statement from the 500 women scientists demonstrates how deeply that they have embedded themselves in politics, although I have no problem seeing them raking Nye across the coals. I have the been around the block enough times in life to seriously suspect that politics is every bit as good at corrupting science as it is everything else. When (not if) we see this happen, science has a very serious problem and has lost its way.

      When and how this can ever be corrected is perhaps not something that is not easily answered. Maybe getting govt tax $$$ out of science would be a start, but the howls of objection to it would probably make the idea difficult to implement.

  44. The article is authored by : 500 Women Scientists
    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. The mission of 500 Women Scientists is to serve society by making science open, inclusive, and accessible.
    Recent Articles
    • It’s Time for Science and Academia to Address Sexual Misconduct

    Another Open Society astroturf?

  45. The department of education should be abolished, it’s become completely overrun by regressive socialists, a modern fork of Marxism which is some twisted hybrid of Communism and Fascism.

  46. If you dig the web on them, they turn out to be, surprise surprise, an activist group, not just random scientists signing a petition.

  47. I saw this earlier and thought about forwarding it to you. These days, it’s not only what you say and believe, but also with whom you associate. This is a good lesson for Bill.

  48. Interesting trivia re. 500 Women Scientists. Their website states founded by 4 women friends in November 2016. Then it lists the co-founders: Kelly Ramirez and Jane Zelikova. Only 2 women? What happened to their two other friends? They quit after only a year? LOL
    Reading their article here, I see why. The two quitters are probably more sensible and don’t want to be associated with these people.

    “500 Women Scientists” vs. 2 women scientists (Judith Curry & Sallie Baliunas)
    Kelly and Jane, will you debate them on global warming?

    • The credentials:

      Kelly Ramirez
      PhD in Ecology, University of Colorado
      Postdoc Netherlands Institute of Ecology

      Jane Zelikova
      BS Ecology
      Fellow AAAS

      Judith Curry
      BS Geography (cum laude), North Illinois University
      PhD Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
      Professor & former Chair of School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech
      Professor of Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
      Co-author of textbook, Thermodynamics of Atmospheres & Oceans
      Co-editor, Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences
      Henry G. Houghton Research Award from AMS

      Sallie Baliunas
      MS Astrophysics, Harvard
      PhD Astrophysics, Harvard
      Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
      Professor, Tennessee State University
      Director, Mt. Wilson Observatory
      Board Member, Marshall Institute
      Donald E. Billings Award in Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
      Langley Abbot Fellowship, Smithsonian Institution
      Bok Prize, Harvard University
      Newton Lacy Pierce Prize in Astronomy, American Astronomical Society
      One of America’s outstanding women scientists, Discover magazine
      Wesson Fellow, Stanford University

      Kelly and Jane, debate or chicken?

  49. From the article: “ableist”

    Well, I learned a new word. Never seen this one before today. Apparently an ableist discriminates against those with disabilities.

    It’s hard to keep up with the wordsmiths on the Left. They are always coming up with new ways to claim Republicans are discriminatory.

    You know the Left is losing when they start playing the race/discrimination card against the Right. That’s where we are at now.

    • I am so many “ists” that it would exceed even wordpress generous quota to list them all. I’d much rather have an aircraft pilot with functioning eyes, ears, hands and feet than to be missing any of these parts and abilities.

  50. Scientific American’s accelerating decline started about when Martin Gardner retired “Mathematical Games”. Sad!

    • Looks like only 6 of them got the T-shirt.

      My bet is they have diplomas from a community college in the social sciences and work at Starbucks.

      Now don’t be condescending – everyone has value – “you are a child of the universe”, etc.

  51. While I agree that Bill Nye the Anti-Science guy is a clown, this group is no better. “500 women scientists”??? This was a letter written by one or two persons, debatable whether they were scientists at all. In fact, they simply proved the old joke about 500 monkeys with typewriters…

  52. Is Bill Nye the Turncoat Guy leaving the sinking ship USS Global Warming?

    “When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats.“
    – Claude Swanson (1862 – 1939)

  53. and put his own personal brand over the interests of the scientific community at large

    The funny thing is, they seem to think this is the first time he’s done that. If they only knew…

  54. Hoist by his own petard. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. Aren’t these loony lefties truly nauseating..?

  55. Scientific American excoriates Bill Nye

    Anthony, I think you should not say “Scientific American”, as it is an anonymous blog hosted at the Scientific American site.

    It could be best said that the responsibles at SciAm have given a platform to extreme orthodoxes, thus passively promoting these extreme views. It is notable, that much of the far side extremism resides in blogs, columns and other soft sources. While they are much quoted and thus modify the opinions of big-green supporters, we must remember at the second they are proven harmful to alarmists, they become back solitary opinions that they are.

    Bill Nye of course can not speak for scientists, as he’s a TV performer, not a scientist, but this is not the point. The point is that Bill Nye did something that the orthodox SJWs don’t want to accept, and exactly because Bill Nye is a card-carrying member of the alarmism house, along others like Al Gore, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael E Mann, James Hansen, he is immediately being attacked for any deviation. Any sign of compromising cannot be accepted by these people. Talking to Bridenstine is not allowed. This is the time to get to arms, not to talk, right?

    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.

    Every time I read these, I tend to wear my far-side spectacles.
    * crackdown => I think these is a missing word there, referring to seriously unlawful actions at the border control.
    * gay marriage => While I have a transsex person in family, I think calling it marriage is basically just a way to insult some people. I wish my cousin-in-law happy life with his spouse.
    * abolishing => right, it appears somebody wants to stop some harm done by government. I’m interested, because usually you can both save money and get rid of annoying bureaucracy by abolishing a government department. It is seldom you have a chance to do that.

    Oh, it could be Bridenstine is doing something wrong, no doubt. But overselling it makes me think he’s probably the right man doing some important stuff.

    • What I missed from this account is why a GOP politician would bring Bill Nye as his guest to the SOTU address in the first place. Normally “guests” are present to make a point (e.g. Dems brought illegal aliens to gain sympathy for their opposition to DJT’s immigration control proposals).
      What was the point to be made by Nye’s presence? Has he promoted NASA or a like agency recently?

  56. I have been reading “SA?” since 1977 and it has given me a lot. In later years just getting the plastic cover off have seemed like a waste of work. I (beeing very patient) ended the subscription this year.

    Does anybody have an alternative? A magazine wit SCIENCE as their priority.
    I like to read from paper.

  57. “He Does Not Speak for Science”

    In truth, nobody “speaks for science”. The reason they have reached this lamentable state is because they pay lip service to the idea that science can have political representatives who must be taken notice of above others they oppose for purely political reasons.

  58. For crying out loud…. Bill Nye is just a clown…. No really. He is a true clown. He dresses in strange loud costumes with funny bow ties to entertain children…. That’s his job. Why anyone thinks he’s a scientist is akin to thinking Bozo the Clown is a Philosopher….. The freakin’ guy is just an entertainer for children. That’s it. That’s the extent of his expertise.

    Stop talking about him. He’s irrelevant.

  59. Once again the American political left throws one of its own onto the tracks. I have a hard time imagining a more UN-scientific statement than “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”.

  60. “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. ”
    No, as activists.
    Scientists deal with science, not politics.

  61. Interesting story about Mr. Nye. He helped fund the Ark Encounter Museum. How. He challenged Ken Ham, a Creationist scientist to a debate on is Creationism a viable scientific origin of life. The debate was held and millions around the world watched. While scientists agreed that Mr. Nye won the debate, more people became interested in the theory after the debate and money started coming in from all kind of sources. Mr. Ham had wanted to create a life sized Ark and the funding for that was flowing in thanks to the debate. The debate was not the only reason for the Ark Encounter becoming a reality, but it was one of the key reasons.

    Mr. Nye toured the Ark after it was completed with Mr.Ham and just kept repeating that the encounter was being used to brainwash our children. I like this sentence that is included in an article on his visit “Nye said the exhibit encourages visitors to trust faith over science and thereby undercuts their ability to engage in critical thinking.” This is rich coming from a man that has bought into man made climate change hook line and sinker.

  62. Seems to me under this logic, if I dedicated my adult life to helping impoverished and poorly educated children in Africa, but missed one of the points in the Progressive playbook, I would become a bad person. Seems pretty self-defeating. Go figure.

  63. Oh no it’s Politics again in well everything! A coin has a head and a tails but it’s still the same coin.

    A circle has a left side and right side, a top side and bottom side, split down the middle we have a good side an evil side. (Ying Yang)

    yet it’s still the same circle.

    You have a left hand and a right hand both are attached to the same body.
    Both respond from the same mind which is both evil and good.

    [Although the point of this comment eludes the most fervent scrutiny, it has been approved. -mod]

  64. Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin were also in attendance at the SOTU. So can we throw them out of the party as well? They were certainly supporting everything the POTUS said.

    • “Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin were also in attendance at the SOTU. So can we throw them out of the party as well? They were certainly supporting everything the POTUS said.”

      Ha-ha! Supporting by example, not by approbation.

  65. In Britain, the left is expelling hard core feminists because they won’t support “women with dicks.” Here the left science nerds are trashing popular left-leaning science nerds. They are eating their own. The new generation of leftists are so stupid that they don’t even know what side they are on. Which, as far as I am concerned, is excellent news.

  66. “Labeling them racist, anti science, hate speech mongers, etc.”

    Only one of those things is not true about the current right. And I think they just got lucky on that one. They might be on the correct side, but they do not understand *why* they are correct. They only believe it because it’s the opposite of the current left.

  67. I’m no fan of Bill Nye, but the post referred to is nothing but a series of rude activist ad hominems alleging guilt by association. It’s pure felgercarb.

  68. I see that the women who wrote the opinion piece for Scientific American are not very good at verifying evidence. To call President Trump all those hateful names without proof is irresponsible – and VERY political.

  69. Let’s not forget that John Cook, occupation prior to jumping on the AGW bandwagon (and creating the bogus 97% concensus) was being the author and artist of some Sci-Fi parody webcomics, including Sev-Trek, and pretty much blatantly copying “The Simpsons” art style. Hasn’t done any new comics since circa 2002 when he launched his ‘skeptical science, site.

Comments are closed.