Nye is an entertainer, not a scientist.
The author of the paper is blinded by one-sided political views.
The whole thing is a farce.
Bill Nye Does Not Speak for Us and He Does Not Speak for Science
81–85 of 85 posts
Re: Bill Nye Does Not Speak for Us and He Does Not Speak for Science
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
he specifically mentions GMOs https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/10/why_bill_nye_c...
Not exactly the anti-GMO crowd pretty much muddled the distinction between Transgenics and GMOs. On more “scientific” forums including popular science like Star Talk Nye always explained that it was Transgenics that he had concerns about and using GMOs when talking to a crowd which already decided that GMOs only applies to cucumbers which were spliced with chicken DNA was pretty much the only way to go.
Once again even on star talk bill specifically mentions GMOs
Re: Bill Nye Does Not Speak for Us and He Does Not Speak for Science
#83The article is idiotic. Bill Nye is crossing into enemy territory to build bridges so that everyone will be better off, and they have the gall to attack him for that.
When "Scientific American" is being written by idiots you know you're spending too little on education.
Re: Bill Nye Does Not Speak for Us and He Does Not Speak for Science
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
He isn't just doing business with the government, talking with policy-makers, or showing up to make sure his side is represented. He's attending a formal event as the official guest of a partisan politician. They aren't there to talk or work or negotiate. They're there to appear . And Bill Nye has offered his appearance, his own personal halo, to an enemy of science and an enemy of many decent values that scientists…
There are lots of issues other than climate science that need debate. And demonizing the other side for their beliefs doesn't help. It's one thing if you want to be critical of their ideas, but attack the ideas, stop attacking the people.
Demonization is when you generalize from some bad things a person does, such as trying to defund and suppress climate research, and attribute it to the person being an essentially bad person who naturally gravitates towards evil in everything. An example of demonization would be if I said Jim Bridenstine consistently works to suppress climate science, therefore he must like human suffering, hmmm, makes you wonder if he likes rape. That's demonization. Saying he's an enemy of climate science, and also that he has incorrectly cited science as proving that gay couples don't make good parents, and that I think these are horrible things, is not demonization.
As for ad hominem, talking about Bridenstine's politics is not an irrelevant aspect of the debate, like if I said he was stupid or a bad soccer player. In fact, they're the only thing that matters. Bill Nye is attending as Jim Bridenstine's formal guest to a government event, a gesture of personal support of Bridenstine in his capacity as a government official, so what Bridenstine does in that capacity is important for interpreting the meaning of Bill Nye's attendance.
Re: Bill Nye Does Not Speak for Us and He Does Not Speak for Science
#85I've subscribed to Scientific American for the past 40 years. I'm dropping it now.
To claims someone is no longer credible because he accepted an invitation to hear a President's State of the Union speech is outrageous. You know what no longer "Speaks for Science?" Scientific American.