I put this post under Arts, Entertainment & Fun Stuff because I don't believe Bill Nye is a "Science Guy" He's an entertainer that masquerades as an authority on topics like climate change, cosmology, evolution, and most recently politics.


Bill Nye is a skinny entertainer that has a BS degree in engineering, and nothing more.
The extent of his professional involvement in a scientific field was limited ASSISTING with the development of a small sundial that was used in the Mars Rover Expedition.
He has a patent for ballet shoes (yes, ballet shoes) and for a magnifying glass that's essentially just a balloon filled with water.

Nye has a few "honorary degrees" that of course are not the equivalent of an academic degree of any kind.

He was a contestant of Dancing with the Stars He suffered a quad injury that science wasn't able to patch up good enough for him to continue impersonating a dancer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#Scientific_work


Bill Nye is a professional mascot.

Chris OConnor wrote:http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/palin- ... -bill-nye/

What a hoot. Now it seems ant is endorsing the following comment, from a great scientific authority bimbo who questions Nye's credentials.

Sarah Palin wrote:Nye is using his position of authority to harm children by teaching them that climate change is real and man-made.

Chris OConnor wrote:http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/palin- ... -bill-nye/

I've read this already. About 4 days ago.
I certainly was not asking anyone to compare his scientific credentials to Palin's

Here's his credentials, according to factcheck.org.

Nye has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell. He also has six honorary doctorate degrees, including Ph.D.s in science from Goucher College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

He has one degree, and it's a BS in ME.
The remainder are "honorary degrees" which are far from being the same thing as a degree.

Here you go:

What's an honorary degree?

An honorary degree or a degree honoris causa (Latin: "for the sake of the honor") is an academic degree for which a university (or other degree-awarding institution) has waived the usual requirements, such as matriculation, residence, study and the passing of examinations.

There are a few comedians that have honorary degrees, and some ex professional athletes.

Bill Nye: the corporate fraud and slut science guy

http://www.naturalnews.com/052503_Bill_ ... fraud.html

from the article:

"Genetically mutated Frankenfood has been shown to kill baby lab rats in one month."

and

"So, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to forget about Nye. He's a corporate fraud science guy, all buddy-buddy with the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Jon Entine (who committed domestic violence and child abuse, by the way). They're a trio of science propaganda liars."

Bill Nye is not particularly qualified to comment on the GMO issue, and I always think people should do their own research rather than rely on "personalities" for information, but Nye's change of stance with regard to GMOs arguably reflects a more a reasoned, scientific view.

There's nothing inhererently wrong with GMOs, regardless of what one thinks about Monsanto's tactics over the years. The anxieties over GMOs are widespread and based almost entirely on misinformation. This particular article you quoted is itself very uncredible, using scare tactics and emotional-laded language such as "frankenfood" rather than factual information. Where is it shown that GMOs have been shown "to kill baby lab rats in one month"? It's a highly dubious claim. This is the danger of using Google to support a specific agenda—in this case to attack Bill Nye. the article is the epitome of the kind of junk thought that the internet breeds.

The reason you dislike Bill Nye so deeply is because people view him as an authority on matters of science, and I agree this is troubling. But people also look to Jenny McCarthy to feed their fears about child vaccinations. I think you're trying to shoot the messenger when it's a general lack of critical thinking skills that should be addressed.

Never said there was anything inherently wrong with them.
Strawman.

geo wrote:The reason you dislike Bill Nye so deeply is because people view him as an authority on matters of science, and I agree this is troubling. But people also look to Jenny McCarthy to feed their fears about child vaccinations. I think you're trying to shoot the messenger when it's a general lack of critical thinking skills that should be addressed.

Just to clarify, I think Bill Nye is vastly more credible than Jenny McCarthy. He is trained as a scientist and has made it his life's work to understand and communicate scientific ideas to a lay audience. Still, in areas where he has no specific knowledge, it's a shame that he has become a sort of spokesperson for "science." I don't think his very public debate with creationist Ken Hamm accomplished anything except to put on a show. And I happen to disagree with the tone he uses with climate science as well. He oversimplifies the science and blurs the area between science and politics, which only polarizes the issue further. I don't believe he's doing much good by being so intolerant of the so-called "deniers." There are deniers, but much of the reaction against climate change is inspired to some degree by the evangelism of the pro-climate-change crowd and the political solutions that they espouse. The science and politics has been hopelessly muddled in that respect. Climate science is not nearly as simple as it is often put forth. But that's another argument for another day.

Nye has said he's going to revise the chapter on GMOs in the next edition of his book, UNDENIABLE (where he was originally critical of GMOs). Some anti-GMO groups have accused Nye of taking a bribe from Monsanto, but such accusations are completely unwarranted (without evidence). If anything, changing your mind and admitting you were wrong actually shows intellectual humility.

Here's an interview with Nye. Read the man's actual words and judge for yourself whether his change in stance is based on anything but the fact that he's now better informed.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/was-bill ... to-gmos/2/

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.

Sometimes you can find accurate critiques in places you normally dismiss as too biased:

Nye has joined with 47 “scientists, science writers, and other experts” who issued a statement “taking the media to task for using the phrase ‘climate skeptic,’ saying that the word ‘denier’ is more accurate.” From their statement:

Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
So they smear all critics of the global warming theory as anti-science dogmatists. But then they try to walk this back a bit:

Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.
All right, so who are the “deniers” and who are the mere “skeptics”? Will this committee issue us a list describing which objections to the global warming theory are scientifically valid, and conversely telling us which critics are the “deniers” to be blacklisted? Because that’s the only way the media can actually comply with their demand.

And some irony:

Now here’s the twist on this story. It turns out that Bill Nye is himself a “skeptic” challenging the established scientific consensus on another issue: genetically modified organisms. This is described as being “much to the dismay of the plant science community,” and the justification Nye gives is more than a little vague: “although you can know what happens to any individual species that you modify, you cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem.” So to the “consensus” that says GMOs are safe, he replies with a vague wave of the hand: who knows, maybe you’re wrong.

Apparently, when he does this, it’s “skepticism.” If you or I or Senator James Inhofe do it, it’s “denial.”

Nye's a piece of work, isn't he?


http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/17/mee ... ience-guy/