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

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Doug

The left’s collective head is exploding. Nye is one of their own.

gnomish

i just can’t understand how scientific american won’t stand by the butt-stuff guy…
maybe hot whopper can tell me?

Bryan A

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

Bryan A

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

Jan Christoffersen

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.

MarkW

This is pretty typical.
Unless you are with us 100%, you are part of the enemy and must be destroyed.

commieBob

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.)

Bryan A

All too true, proven by the Left doing ALL they can to destroy the right.
Labeling them racist, anti science, hate speech mongers, etc.

Richard

That’s because independent thought cannot be tolerated where groupspeak is the orthodoxy.

MarkMcD

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…

Sarge

“… 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.

Fred Brohn

Bill Nye: The Climate Change Trotskyite!

Pop Piasa

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.

Mumbles McGuirck

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

James Woodard

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.

Louis Hooffstetter

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.

Louis Hooffstetter

And before anyone blasts me for calling Sarah Myhre a bimbo, check out her twits first:
https://twitter.com/sarahemyhre?lang=en

Mark - Helsinki

It’s cool Louis, we know there is a world of difference between highly intelligent and highly educated. Sarah Myhre is absolutely the latter.

MarkW

That she has spent a lot of time at a place of “higher learning” is not sufficient to prove that she is highly educated.

Extreme Hiatus

Are they trying to de-Nye the ‘science’? I thought that was bad.

J Mac

+10!

Pop Piasa

Punny, but accurate…

Henning Nielsen

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.

MarkMcD

😀 If only – but could we instead have them finally doing the honourable thing and falling on their hockey sticks?

knr

Already happened.

gnomish

this is an honor killing, obviously

zazove

The only thing being assassinated is his character.

MarkW

What character?

coaldust

Let the circular firing squad begin…

Pop Piasa

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Pop Piasa

(Sorry, meant that for below.)

whiten

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

douglascooper

…”a science entertainer….” That must hurt! Why didn’t they tell us that before?

Delicious.
Andrew

JohnWho

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?

Pop Piasa

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.

Trebla

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.

thomasjk

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?

menicholas

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.

Sharpshooter

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.

Tom in Florida

Perhaps those 500 women have phobophobia.

rocketscientist

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.

ROM

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 !.

Karlos51

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.

Michael 2

Started by FOUR women with no indication of any more than those four. Unlikely they represent 500.

Ken Mitchell

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”.

Jer0me

And scare quotes around “American”

rocketscientist

and a question mark following American:
“Scientific American?”

EE_Dan

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:comment image
I like the question-mark idea too, which I also thought of, but … one layer of parody at a time. (^_^)

zazove

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.

Clyde Spencer

Ken Mitchell,
What took you so long. I quit subscribing almost 30 years ago.

TA

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.

Karlos51

“scientism American”

Michael 2

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.

Hivemind

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.

MarkW

When did opposition to illegal immigration become the equivalent to opposition to all immigrants?

rocketscientist

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.

commieBob

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.

Choey

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.

MarkW

There’s an old saying: Any organization that is not explicitly right wing, will over time become left wing.

Jim Masterson

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

Don

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.

Latitude

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

Komrade Kuma

The left never had or will ever have a hand except junk one they use as a prop in the ‘bluff poker’ of activism.

Ben of Houston

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.

TA

“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.

MarkW

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.

dam1953

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.

rocketscientist

And pick-up their rooms or no dessert tonight!

whiten

“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

whiten
January 31, 2018 at 1:17 pm
At the very least.

HotScot

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.

ripshin

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

Ben of Houston

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.

John B

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%.

Jeff Alberts

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.

TA

“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.

AGW is not Science

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

ResourceGuy

….well “Stupid is as Stupid Does”

ResourceGuy

His crime was in appearing out of character and sane. 40 lashes with a cane

Klem

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.

Pat Frank

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.

MarkW

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.

schitzree

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.
~¿~

ripshin

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.

Pat Frank

Thanks, ripshin. They do seem caught in group-think, don’t they. Not a good pedigree for a purported creative thinker.

Roy W. Spencer

Given the shallowness of their case, I wonder if they would have given Nye a pass if he had the charisma of George Clooney?

Clyde Spencer

You made me smile, Roy.

Trebla

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.

Billy

Ad hominem is science now. 500 women scientists say so.

TA

“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.

menicholas

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.

Joel Snider

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.

JN

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”

Pop Piasa

…that which remains true.

Klem

“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.

Bruce Cobb

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.

co2islife

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/

ResourceGuy

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

El Duchy

Since none of the claims are ‘Scientific’ I think the magazine needs a name change.

Fred Brohn

The Scientific Enquirer springs to mind!

Jim Masterson

Pseudo-Science Enquirer would be more accurate.
Jim

Pop Piasa

I like “Scientologic Enquirer”, although that just freaked out the spell-check…

jorgekafkazar

“Friends of Lysenko”

EternalOptimist

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

Pop Piasa

They have great big teeth, too! The pressure at that depth must be crushing.

joelobryan

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.

Curious George

Scientific American is a double oxymoron. Not scientific. Not American. They are Putin’s puppets.

Pop Piasa

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.

co2islife

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/

kakatoa

Another icon may be moving on as well:
“California Academy of Sciences Executive Director, Jon Foley, explains why he doesn’t think Bill Nye, Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio are the best messengers on getting the word out about climate change.”
http://climateone.org/video/jon-foley-bill-nye-and-bruce-springsteen

Don S

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.

Don S

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

joelobryan

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.

Don S

exactly!

AllyKat

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.

rocketscientist

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.

Clyde Spencer

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.

TA

“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.

Don S

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.

Clyde Spencer

TA,
Do an online search for “EROS Data Center.”

Matt Bergin

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.

Pop Piasa

It’s a school of thought, more than a thought of schooling.

jorgekafkazar

Even so, it will take me at least a day to get this image of Don in a tutu out of my head.

Hokey Schtick

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.

Michael Cox

Out-loud snort-laugh! Perfect.
+100

More Trump Derangement Syndrome.

gnomish

stephen miller actually put words to it:
trump has revolutionized reality tv.
with a cast of millions! on a budget of zero. that’s ROI baby!

Plus many. Consider that putdown ‘borrowed’. Trump really is living inside progessive heads rent free.

gnomish

and manspreading
one need only hint at the anatomical explanation to induce moar shrivelment.

TA

“Trump really is living inside progessive heads rent free.”
Mass hysteria.

Sunsettommy

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.

Ken Mitchell

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

Pop Piasa

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.

Pop Piasa

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.

beng135

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……

gnomish

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

Chip

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.

Ken Mitchell

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.

Pop Piasa

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.

Scott

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.

Go Home

“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.

gnomish

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.

AllyKat

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.

beng135

+100

Pop Piasa

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.

ripshin

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.

Trebla

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

ozspeaksup

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

TonyL

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)

ozspeaksup

nye always comes across as a limp wristed effeminate goof…makes their aspersions even funnier

jorgekafkazar

Tony-san: Combative in this context means “has an opinion different from mine.”

knr

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 .

gnomish

the words for which you grope are heretics and apostates.

co2islife

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

co2islife

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

J Mac

But, but… only one of them had web connection!

Klem

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.

AllyKat

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”. 🙂

MarkW

They seem to have a weak grasp when it comes to parts of the body as well.

William

Mark W:
I see what you did there!

Mike

“….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

Scott

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.

GP

I think the problem is fundamental. “500 Women Scientists” is only 4 people.

Reg Nelson

Nye must be a Russian operative. That’s the only logical explanation.

JohnWho

I believe you just insulted Russian Operatives everywhere.

Sparky

He does appear to be on a mission to discredit the left. CIA ?

rocketscientist

No, just left. The left is amply capable of discrediting themselves.
“Never attribute to malice that which is easily explained by incompetence.” Napoléon Bonaparte

HDHoese

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?

TDBraun

Scientific American hasn’t been any good since Martin Gardner retired back in the ’80s.

Extreme Hiatus

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.

ResourceGuy

I wonder what the indulgence payments are going to look like after this.

Sam B Deakins

This shud disqualify Bridenstine as NASA lead.

lunaticfringe01

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.

Extreme Hiatus

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.

jorgekafkazar

Processes are things.

MarkW

I question whether more than a tiny fraction of them actually have a “science background”.

Arthur

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”?)

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.

Extreme Hiatus

I disagree!
Yours truly,
501 Triggered Scientists

jorgekafkazar

Perfect.

icisil

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.

TA

“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”.

Would these ‘500 women scientists’ be real, physical science researchers or simply ‘political scientists’? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Dougie MagaClean

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”.

Sound more plausible, as getting 500 real scientists to agree on anything would take a lot longer than 48 hours.

Extreme Hiatus

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):
https://twitter.com/realpeerreview

Extreme Hiatus

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.

Now that is a sample of world class gobbledegook. Perhaps this is an area where more Trump inspired funding cuts might be useful.