The liberal crocodiles are continuing to circle Bill Nye, as the campaign to undermine him from the left continues. First the “March for Science” was displeased that he was too white, male, rich and presumably heterosexual, and wasn’t the best face for their “progressive, inclusive, diverse and nondiscriminatory” march. Now the ultra-liberal New Republic Magazine has their knives out for Bill Nye “Is Not the Right” Guy. In the most recent edition, The New Republic Magazine is asking if Bill Nye is the right guy to lead the climate fight?”
But it’s worth asking: Is Nye really the right guy for the job? He’s not even a practicing scientist; though he has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, he hasn’t worked as an engineer for more than 30 years. Considering the entire span of the 61-year-old’s career, it’s much more accurate to call him an entertainer. After all, he’s called “Bill Nye the Science Guy” because of his eponymous PBS show in the ’90s.
Of course, Bill Nye “The Pseudoscience” Guy isn’t the right guy. The every fact that we are discussing him as a “leader” in the climate change “movement” demonstrates just how absurd this issue has become. The standards, qualifications, and experience the political left demand of their “leaders” is simply laughable.
Stating the obvious however isn’t what made The New Republic Magazine’s article interesting. What is interesting is that it exposes the inner workings of a leftist’s mind. In a previous post, I pointed out that there were no big name scientists or scientific organizations that publicly supported or spoke at the “March for Science.” Real science avoided the overt political event like the plague. That fact was so undeniable that The New Republic Magazine even acknowledges it, but tries to put a positive spin on it.
Tens of thousands of people around the world rallied for rational thought on Saturday, and those who attended the main March for Science, in Washington, D.C., were treated to a lengthy program of distinguished speakers: astronauts, astronomers, neuroscientists, biologists, chemists, and other Americans who—in a truly rational society—would be famous. But only one of them was legitimately famous.
“Our numbers here today show the world that science is for all,” Bill Nye the Science Guy belted to the crowd on the National Mall.
While Michael “Piltdown” Mann may take offense to The New Republic Magazine claiming only one recognizable “scientist” spoke at the “March for Science,” even if we count Michael “Climate Bully” Mann, that makes only two recognizable “scientists” spoke at the “March for Science.” That is simply pathetic by any measure, and I’m sure the Marxist sounding “People Climate March” won’t fare any better. These are laughable attempts of political theater masquerading as legitimate “science.”
In another previous post, I highlighted how Michael “Talking Point” Mann has his focus group tested presentation so rehearsed that he can recite it in his sleep. That post was followed up by a “Rules for Climate Radicals” post that detailed other relevant tactics of the political left, namely staying on the rehearsed talking points and on topic. The New Republic Magazine confirms just how well rehearsed, communicated and understood these tactics are to the left.
“Nye did everything you’re supposed to during a televised exchange of talking points: He spoke in digestible, declarative sentences, returning over and over to concrete examples for his arguments,” Emmett Rensin wrote the New Republic at the time. “More important, he kept his cool … while Blackburn mumbled semi-coherently.” Nye didn’t convince Blackburn that climate change was real, but anyone on the fence would have fallen to his side.
What people have to understand about this climate change movement is that it is being orchestrated by theater majors, not scientists. So much so that the obsess over the finest of details that may influence public opinion. It is all about manipulating public opinion, not the scientific truth. The truth doesn’t win elections, votes do. It is one giant casting call, and as of right now, Bill Nye the Bow Tie Guy has the starring role.
Rensin’s wondered whether “this genial, bow-tied eccentric really the most qualified and effective person for the job,” but ultimately answered in the affirmative.
The problem Bill Nye “the hot-headed” Guy has is that he hasn’t been staying on script. If you don’t learn your lines, and you don’t deliver the lines in a convincing manner, you get cut from the production, and that is what The New Republic Magazine is trying to argue. Bill Nye has simply gone off script too many times.
Nye has increasingly lost his cool. He’s also lost his skill at effectively explaining and defending the scientific evidence of climate change.
The New Republic Magazine went on to give a critical review of Bill Nye’s performance during a CNN interview. It wasn’t a scientific review of the facts, it was a theatrical review of his acting performance.
In a recent debate on CNN, William Happer, the Princeton physicist Trump reportedly is considering to be his top science adviser, argued not only that excessive carbon dioxide isn’t harmful, but that it’s actually good for the planet…Nye’s response should have been easy…But Nye didn’t say any of this. Instead, he pivoted, and scolded CNN for allowing a climate-change denier to speak with the same authority as mainstream climate scientist…he also knows better than anyone that this is how cable news conducts climate change debates. The old Nye would have played along. He would have challenged Happer’s ignorance, and educated CNN viewers on the harms of greenhouse gases.
Two quotes from above deserve emphasis:
This quote highlights how he is selected because he is so polished and rehearsed.
he also knows better than anyone that this is how cable news conducts climate change debates.
This quote is essentially The New Republic Magazine stating that Bill Nye is a washed-up has-been whose time in the spotlight is limited.
The old Nye would have played along. He would have challenged Happer’s ignorance, and educated CNN viewers on the harms of greenhouse gases.
The New Republic Magazine even went so far as to give a suggested script of what Bill Nye should have been delivering, so that all the readers of The New Republic Magazine can have their answers prepared for their next climate debate. The message is clear to all The New Republic Magazine readers, be prepared, don’t be Bill Nye the unprepared Guy. Know your lines and talking point. To add emphasis, The New Republic Magazine included the graphic at the top of this article of the developmentally arrested Bill Nye the Narcissist Guy taking a selfie with a gullible fan. The character assassination is likely just beginning.
Nye’s response should have been easy. Yes, we all exhale carbon dioxide—around 3 billions tons per year—but human breathing is a net zero in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so when we eat plants—or eat animals that eat plants, or eat animals that eat animals that eat plants—we ingest that carbon. When we exhale, we’re simply returning that same amount of carbon to atmosphere. There is no such “closed loop” for the some 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide that fossil fuel combustion adds to the atmosphere every year, which is why the planet is warming.
The New Republic Magazine went on to review another one of Bill Nye’s performances, using terminology reminiscent of a snooty NYT’s food or theater critic.
This was not an isolated case. A few weeks earlier, Nye was a guest on Tucker Carlson’s evening show on Fox News. It was a cringeworthy nine minutes of television.
What is so amazing about this is that The New Republic Magazine didn’t even seem to take issue with something Bill Nye claimed. To quote Bill Nye:
The New Republic Magazine didn’t even grasp that if what Bill Nye said is true, CO2 is the greatest gift man has ever been given. Forget New York flooding in 10,000 years due to global warming, New York would be covered in ice after just a few years of an ice age. Societies collapse and die during ice ages, they thrive during warming periods. Liberals are so blinded by their ideology they don’t even understand how insane their positions are. Possible death 10,000 years in the future due to warming, or certain death during an ice age. Bill Nye makes it sound like the certainty of death and misery during an ice age is preferable to continued warmth.
By the end of the article, The New Republic Magazine admits what we all already knew, climate change is a political movement based upon a political agenda, not science.
The climate fight is, at its core, a fight for public opinion—and science is losing that fight. A Pew Research poll in October found that more than three quarters of Republican voters and nearly a third of Democratic voters don’t think climate change is caused primarily by human activity. Clearly, yelling at the public that “97 percent of scientists agree” that humans are causing climate change—a mantra that the left, most famously John Oliver, has been repeating for years now—isn’t working.
News flash to the scientifically illiterate theater majors reading the laughable New Republic Magazine, science isn’t determined by phony biased polls. If 97% of the scientists claim gravity doesn’t exist, gravity still exists. For The New Republic Magazine readers that really want to know the truth about the real science behind climate change, here are some suggested articles:
Post-Publication Edits: The Atlantic uses the same tactic as The New Republic of telling its readers what to think and say instead of teaching them how to think, reason and deduce. That is how you instill groupthink and maintain a collective consensus. You only tell the readers the information needed to get them to forward the agenda. In other words, you provide the useful idiots talking points to recite in front of every camera or town-hall event. That is how you repeat a lie over and over and over again until it becomes the truth.
The Atlantic explains that “the new climate denial is like the old climate denial”
because “both are excuses for inaction.” Why didn’t Sanders ask Pruitt the obvious follow-ups: “Do you see that lack of precision as relevant to the policy choices facing us?” or “Of course, science is always subject to imprecision, but do you believe we should take action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions?”