Many skeptics who once bite and twice shy away when they hear “follow the science” have learned that they should probably follow the money. Or maybe it's power.
Or both.
This probably brings to mind the news that TV “scientist” Bill Nye is following Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. In fact, Nye says, “Science is not partisan, so you should vote for her.” That's patriotism. ”
Rolling Stone magazine reported on the matter as follows:
As the race for the White House turns into a close race in key battleground states, America's favorite scientist Bill Nye (or is he Neil deGrasse Tyson?) takes to social media to warn Americans about climate change. He urged people to vote for clean energy. Champions.
Wearing a powdered wig and recalling the U.S. Constitution, Nye emphasized that Article I, Section 8, Section 8 states that Congress shall “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.”
He said the nation's founders “looked at the future and knew science was essential to it,” but during this campaign “one side could drill, scrape, and burn coal. “We live in an imaginary world of the past.” Ancient swamp oil has no effect. ”
“They are so intent on ignoring science that they are blinded by the overwhelming evidence of climate change, fires, floods, ice loss, and record heat,” he continued, adding, “Do something. Let's vote. Science isn't partisan. It's patriotism.”
Mr. Science, who will you vote for?
Of course, literally speaking, science is not about being patriotic or not. Oh, people can argue about whether patriotism is a moral obligation. But one thing is for sure: you can't put principles and morals under a microscope in a petri dish. Science is just a means to an end. This may seem like an obvious and picayune point. But ironically, Nye's use of science in his partisan efforts to support political parties and presidential candidates is worth mentioning.
More importantly, with deeper government involvement, “science” has become highly partisan in recent decades. The response to the coronavirus is a case in point, as official medical pronouncements have been shaped more by politics than by science. Naturally, they were often wrong and sometimes fatal. And interestingly, they always seemed to promote the agenda of only one major party.
But whatever his scientific concepts, he is certainly not the “Bill Nye of community centers.” After all, as is often the case today, he cited a provision of the Constitution but then cut it down in order to misrepresent (or expand) its scope. So Articles 1, 8, and 8 actually look like this (Nye's parts are quoted in italics, parts are bolded and omitted):
Promote scientific progress and useful art by securing to authors and inventors, for a limited time, exclusive rights to their works and discoveries.
In fact, this is literally known as an “intellectual property clause” or a “patent and copyright clause.” That's because that's all that's relevant. It does not give the federal government unlimited license to pursue all its (pseudo)scientific fantasies. MSN commenters also alluded to this reality in response to the Rolling Stone article.
“The Founders would have been appalled by the size, scope, and unfettered powers of the federal government,” he wrote.
“That's exactly the kind of thing they fought for.”
What is Nye fighting: Rising temperatures — or reality?
Nye may have “graduated” from “Science Guy” (is it Fauci now?) to “Bill Nye Saves the World,” as the divine-sounding title of his Netflix show suggests. I don't know. But critics may say he should stay sane.
He can start by thinking that the Earth's temperature may have been quite high in prehistoric times. It has also been slightly higher in more recent pre-industrial history. Also keep an eye out for predictions that the climate will actually get colder in the coming decades.
Secondly, there is a point made by geologist Professor Ian Primer, among others. “No one has shown that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming,” he said in 2022 (video below). In fact, according to Primer et al., increases in CO2 are accompanied by, rather than causing, increases in temperature.
Most recently, scientist Bjorn Lomborg silenced climate change commentator Bill Maher (video below). Debunking the idea that global warming is “destroying” the Great Barrier Reef, he pointed out that the reef has grown significantly over the past three years.
But perhaps the most persuasive argument for concerns about climate change lies in the realm of reason. Ask believers:
What is the ideal temperature for Earth?
They don't always have the answers. But without knowing this, how can we know whether climate change, whether naturally caused or man-made, is good or bad?
After all, we can't know if it's moving us closer to or farther from that ideal temperature.
Nye's Lowlights
Returning to Nye, his history shows that he may not be the person whose advice we should follow. Consider some of his past statements, courtesy of the Daily Caller (quotes are by Caller).
Nye once asked a bioethicist: “'Should developed countries have policies that penalize people for having extra children?'” Nye's TV show features a series of cartoons depicting different sexual identities as different flavors of ice cream. Nye once introduced a strange rap song called “My Sex Junk'' on his show. “Last year, he suggested in a video interview that it was an understandable and perhaps wise idea to put global warming 'deniers' in prison.” Nye once said that pro-life advocates are “mostly scientific “He's an ignorant white man,” the Caller reported. Nye also spoke out against genetically modified organisms in agriculture and the issue of chromosomes determining a person's sex.
But hey, the past is the past. Bill Nye is a scientist and he has a world to save.
