ant wrote:I think it's a stretch, a loooooong stretch, to claim someone is trained as a scientist when the only academic credential they have is a bachelors of science in engineering. That's more of a technological tradesmen with two years more of academics than someone with an associates degree.
But something is keeping you from acknowledging that Nye is more of a rehearsed mascot than anything else.

I do not dislike Bill Nye "deeply"
I see him for what he is - a phony authority figure.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, Ant, although I think there are shades of gray here. There are degrees of credibility and as I said Nye is much more credible than, say, someone like Jenny McCarthy. Having written a couple of books about science, he is a science communicator of some repute. Academics isn't everything. There are some quite credible figures who have achieved mastery over their subjects without having stellar academic credentials. The problem I see is that gullible people will make an authority figure out of celebrities. Nye is riding that wave to some extent, but I would tend to blame those who would put Nye on a pedestal as much as much as I would blame him. I don't feel as strongly about it as you do obviously.

The bottom line is that celebrities tend to have more credibility than they deserve simply by virtue of their being famous. Oprah Winfrey is a good example of that. And Donald trump may just ride that famous wave to the presidency, which is pretty scary.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:I think it's a stretch, a loooooong stretch, to claim someone is trained as a scientist when the only academic credential they have is a bachelors of science in engineering. That's more of a technological tradesmen with two years more of academics than someone with an associates degree.
But something is keeping you from acknowledging that Nye is more of a rehearsed mascot than anything else.

I do not dislike Bill Nye "deeply"
I see him for what he is - a phony authority figure.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, Ant, although I think there are shades of gray here. There are degrees of credibility and as I said Nye is much more credible than, say, someone like Jenny McCarthy. Having written a couple of books about science, he is a science communicator of some repute. Academics isn't everything. There are some quite credible figures who have achieved mastery over their subjects without having stellar academic credentials. The problem I see is that gullible people will make an authority figure out of celebrities. Nye is riding that wave to some extent, but I would tend to blame those who would put Nye on a pedestal as much as much as I would blame him. I don't feel as strongly about it as you do obviously.

The bottom line is that celebrities tend to have more credibility than they deserve simply by virtue of their being famous. Oprah Winfrey is a good example of that. And Donald trump may just ride that famous wave to the presidency, which is pretty scary.

Most anyone with the proper support can author a book.
Repute bestowed by pup culture as it relates to enormously specialized fields of study like the sciences is insignificant.

I agree Nye is more informed than someone like Sarah Palin. But I took her comment as having value when placed in a more proper context.
His scientific hands-on experience by means of publication is zilch. His BS degree grants him less.

With the proper teleprompter in place even youkrst could sound like he knew what he was talking about.

ant wrote:With the proper teleprompter in place even youkrst could sound like he knew what he was talking about.

I can't help but feel that ant's propaganda in support of climate denial involves some concealed motives.

Of course all so-called "climate skeptics" are denialists. They are either directly malevolent evil liars, or are fooled by the wolves in sheep's clothing who are funded by the fossil fuel industry to smash biodiversity in the name of corporate profit. Climate Denial is as evil as Holocaust Denial. The impending death of all coral reefs and the risk of economic destruction and conflict from the heedless burning of fossil fuels requires immediate steps to reduce the amount of carbon in the air.

I agree though with Geo's excellent point that the environmental movement has not established a clear story about how emission reduction could stabilise the climate. This is a major problem, but discussion is not at all helped by odious malignant baseless smears such as ant has mounted here against scientists like Bill Nye.

Im not a climate denier, Robert.
I accept the trends indicative of a warming planet but remain reasonably uncertain if it is largely due to mankinds carbon footprint. I suspect we are considerable contributors, but not necessarily 100% entirely and unequivocally responsible.

I also support reasonable and efficient action that leads to a reduction in emissions.

You may continue to use you totalitarian demonizing language. I do not mind in the least.

Thanks for your relpy and concern for our planet.

By the way, Bill Nye is certainly not a scientist. He's a celebrity and a fruad.
You and I both know that in our hearts.

ant wrote:I accept the trends indicative of a warming planet but remain reasonably uncertain if it is largely due to mankinds carbon footprint. .

That statement could only come from a Climate Denialist, a moron, a complete illiterate or someone with their head in the sand.

Take your pick.

Here is Mr. Nye linking climate change to terrorism.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... attacks-a/


His engineering degree helps him build these spectacular bridges, no doubt about it.

Robert Tulip wrote:

ant wrote:I accept the trends indicative of a warming planet but remain reasonably uncertain if it is largely due to mankinds carbon footprint. .

That statement could only come from a Climate Denialist, a moron, a complete illiterate or someone with their head in the sand.

Take your pick.

Robert's found a Denier, everyone! Quick! ARREST ME!

No ant, I prefer to think you are a useful idiot for the fossil fuel industries.

Nye explains that climate change causes economic impact which causes a rise of tension and conflict. That is quite simple causal logic to anyone of a sceptical turn of mind.

Unfortunately denialism/climate scepticism has nothing to do with real scepticism. The so-called climate sceptic movement is solely a religious/economic ideology aimed at spreading disinformation.

Ant's attack here on Bill Nye is baseless. Ant's best arguments come from Sarah Palin and make about as much sense as someone asserting that creationism is science.

It is much more motivated by both poltical and religious ideology, Robert.
It has nothing to do with thirst.

Sorry, Robert, but you are stretching far too much here.