Bill Nye Makes A False Claim About The US Constitution — Again

Bill Nye the “Science Guy” tried to claim the Constitution supported the concerns of thousands of scientists and environmental activists who took to the streets on Earth Day to protest the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts to federal agencies.

“If you suppress science, if you pretend climate change isn’t a real problem, you will fall behind other countries that do invest in science, that do invest in basic research,” Nye told CNN Saturday as the “March for Science” took place.

The march took place in dozens of cities across the world, and the main march took place in Washington, D.C., Saturday. Nye spoke at the rally where thousands carried signs deriding skeptics of global warming and cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other bureaucracies that fund or conduct scientific research.

“And it is interesting to note, I think, that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the progress of science and the useful arts,” Nye said.

“Useful arts in 18th Century usage would be what we call engineering or city planning or architecture,” Nye said.

Nye’s used the argument before to underscore how “unpatriotic” it is to not have the federal government hand out billions of taxpayer dollars to universities, corporations and research institutions.

“Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts,'” Nye told Vox in 2015 — Vox didn’t correct him or fact check his claim.

“So if you’re a politician looking to derail the progress of science, I think you’re not doing your job,” Nye said.

And, like last time, he’s 100 percent incorrect.

Nye is referring to the Constitution’s Copyright Clause. The clause is one in a laundry list of Congress’s enumerated powers.

It reads: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

The Copyright Clause has nothing to do with government-funded science, but everything to do with establishing a legal framework to protect intellectual property rights.

Read rest…

Comments (4)

  • Avatar



    What the Right call progress might be called regress by the Left. Progress is in the eye of the beholder. Climate Change policy helped sink the Democrats to their current status, barking mad losers.

  • Avatar

    R. Johnson


    I have no respect for Mr. Nye; he’s simply a shill for the “climate change cult”. His rhetoric reveals he has little or no understanding of the scientific process; let alone the constitution. In reality critical examination of a scientist’s theory is welcomed because it reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Nye revealed in a CNN interview that he views all science as political; wrong– the application of science to government policy is political.
    Liberals in our government have politicized “climate science” since the late ’80s when they decided to work with globalists to micromanage the world. Why not spend a few billion per year to buy total control over the citizenry? H. L. Mencken said it best “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” We’re supposed to agree to economy killing policies that have no measurable impact on “climate”, really???

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover


    Going around wearing a silly bow tie with that rather blank eyed look like a zombie Bill Nye the Mad Sceinists Guy needs to have his head examened our founding fathers had better things to think other than inanimate trees and rocks and critter they never saw or heard about

  • Avatar

    David Lewis


    Just for the sake of argument let’s assume that the Constitution called for the advancement of science. If that were the case, the climate change movement goes against the Constitution.

    A fundamental concept of science is to compare the data to the theory, and if they don’t match, either change theory to match the data, or scrap the theory. Since the data doesn’t support the IPCC models and the climate alarmist theory in general, they have been changing the data to match the theory. Rather than the advancement of science, this sets science back well over 100 years.

Comments are closed