Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Is Bill Nye Really The "Science Guy?"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Although the TV series "Bill Nye The Science Guy" was only created for 5 years---1993 to 1998---100 episodes, millions of kids have knelt in front of a TV screen learning the lessons of science--- thanks to reruns---from the "Science Guy."

The reruns remind some they are no longer the little kid they once were in the 90s, while the little kids of 2015 continue to be charmed---and educated, by Bill's wit. He's funny.

But is he right?

Is he really the "Science Guy" or is he a highly motivated, very effective advocate?

Science Guy Nye has made it abundantly clear over the years, and in recent statements and debates, he does not believe that God created, well...Creation.

Last week he spoke to the grown up kids at Rutgers University. It was their Commencement.

He told the kids, "There's no such thing as race" because "skin color is a consequence of ultraviolet light, latitude and climate."

He also told the students to "Challenge those who dismiss climate change. The scientific consensus on climate change is as strong as the consensus that smoking causes cancer."

Are you sure about that, Bill Nye the Science Guy?

Along with talking about climate change and the need to all work together to reverse the climate change, Nye challenged students to vote, reminding them we are all the same because, "There really is no such thing as race. We all came from Africa. We are all of the same stardust. We are all going to live and die on the same planet, a Pale Blue Dot in the vastness of space. We have to work together."

That, of course, is the alarm anthem of secular progressivism.

He said we all must be focused on the doom's day possibilities if we do not find a way to stop climate change, claiming, "Climate change is a real deal. So, hey deniers---cut it out, and let's get to work."

Otherwise, he said, "Rising carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere will create a "no-way-out overheated globe."

Well, that's a motivator, but is it true? And just how overwhelming is the consensus among scientists that what he, Al Gore and others, are saying about human caused climate change and carbon emissions are generally accepted as true?

Among the far left progressives and well funded scientists, there may be a pretty strong consensus. In fact a good number of scientists believe the outcome of climate change research may well have been pre-determined to support the green movement and the money, including taxpayer money waiting to be "invested" in it.

Global Warming Policy Foundation is so concerned, they have announced they are launching a wide-ranging review of the data underpinning claims on global warming.

Dr. Benny Peiser, who heads up the Foundation, says, "Temperature readings from the Arctic and Antarctic used to estimate the effects of global warming are nothing more than guess work."

The review is being launched primarily because of concerns by scientists regarding major discrepancies between weather data gathered from weather stations which marked 2014 as the hottest year on record, and data gathered from satellites, which showed no warming for over 18 years.

The scale of the discrepancy led to accusations that weather station data had been "adjusted," thereby exaggerating the effects of global warming---thus the review.

Dr. Peiser, who heads up a large and diverse group of scientists, says, "There's a lack of clarity, a lack of transparency and a growing concern about what is going on. Given these concerns, we thought there must be a better way of answering these questions."

Some scientists who have advocated for global warming, aka., climate change are already admitting there has been "some" altering of records.

Dr. Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, is admitting some temperature records have been altered, but argues the changes were "insignificant" and don't change the trends.

Data adjustments are not the only issue raised so far by the review.

Another issue is the practice of "infilling" data where a lack of weather stations means no real world readings are being taken. Without gathering real world data, these data points are nothing more than guess work, the Foundation says.

There is also an issue with the siting of weather stations. And issues arising from the differences between technologies used. Different technologies will produce different readings, simply because the technologies have changed and that has not been taken into account.

They are also going to be studying "whether the adjustments are all going in one direction or are they balanced."

Freeman Dyson, an award winning British scientist and retired professor of physics, is telling our National Public Radio that the science on climate change isn't "at all clear," in fact, humans are actually helping the planet.

He told NPR, "I would like to emphasize that human actions have very large effects on the ecology, but have nothing to do with climate. Carbon dioxide is what we're producing in big quantities and putting into the atmosphere."

He said, "It happens to be very good fertilizer for all kinds of vegetation, good for wildlife, good for agricultural production--So it has many benefits."

In regards to climate change, the 91 year old highly respected professor says, "I'm skeptical, because I don't think the science is at all clear, and unfortunately, a lot of experts really believe they really understand it and maybe have the wrong answer."

His comments to NPR are a particular problem for the secular progressive fathers of "climate change" because they have often quoted him as a leading physicist and ecologist.

He told NPR, "I would say climate is not the most urgent problem" we have to deal with.

This is not a new issue of concern. Way back in 2007 when Al Gore began pressing the panic buttons which led to making hundreds of millions of dollars off his books, documentaries and speeches, some of note were questioning.

The New York Times, in March of 2007, quoted Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham: "I don't want to pick on Al Gore," he told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, "but there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."

So, is Bill Nye really the 'Science Guy?"

To borrow a phrase:

I don't want to pick on Bill Nye, but there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.

Nye is wrong on Creation.

Wrong on race.

And he also appears to be running with the wrong crowd on global warming/climate change.

He told the Rutgers graduating class, "Wear good shoes in a thumbtack factory and don't try to smoke in the rain."

I think he is barefoot in the thumbtack factory, and I'm not sure what he is smoking.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Blessed.


  1. I was volunteering at a middle school when they replayed a re-run of his evolution episode. He was going on about giraffes evolving 'taller and taller necks' in order to reach higher leaves.

    I found that one pretty amusing as giraffes have a special valve that keeps their brain exploding when they bend down to drink water. If they started with shorter necks, when did they evolve the valve? It certainly wouldn't increase chances of survival for theorized 'shorter neck' giraffes. And 'taller neck' giraffes would have died off without the valve. Reaching more leaves doesn't trump death. Nor is developing such a valve a simple matter of one or two mutations. Most practical changes like that would need 40 or so concurrent 'mutations' - something random evolution simply cannot support, no matter how much time you give it.

    That has been my experience with teachings on 'evolution' all throughout my own school years as well. Assumptions taught as un-questionable truth, the scientific method shunned (One geologist teacher in college actually called scientists daring to do a study that might test assumptions of evolution 'crackpots), dissension silenced by shouts of consensus, etc.

    As for Bill Nye's claim of "Rising carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere will create a "no-way-out overheated globe", perhaps he should actually look at the NASA Satellite data.

    1. More recent data from the University of Washington shows a serious data calibration error in the Alabama study you linked to. UofDub says that when this calibration error is corrected, the results actually do fall in line with the other records and climate models. . Surface temps are not the big symptom right now anyway, it's rising ocean temps and those are well documented.

    2. 1) What this graduate professor and student are proposing is a theory that they think will 'reconcile' the data. This is not a proven system, just a possible 'explanation'. They propose a 'calculation' to fix the perceived discrepancy. Note that their theory starts with the goal (making the data fit their preconceptions), proceeds on assumptions, and concludes with their goal in circular fashion.

      2) There is no real 'disagreement' between the various satellites. They all show lower temperatures and more heat being shed than the land data and 'models' predict. However, 'corrections' to satellite data are often made [Such as to SCIAMACHY, NIES-GOSAT, and ACOS-GOSAT] using the ground data and model simulations to do a 'correction' of the negative deviation, to make the results 'line up'. The problem of disagreement is chalked up to 'instrumental calibration error'. This is circular reasoning.

      3) There is no reason that the satellite data has to match the land data in temperature or trend, since they are measuring different things. One is measuring the surface temp of the land, the other is measuring the atmosphere. The only reason to try to 'reconcile' them is if one is starting from the premise that the predictions/global warming models are 100% true, which is contrary to how science works. (Predict, then test - don't assume your conclusion and modify the test to fit).

      4) The discrepancy in the satellite data from the predicted models leads to a few options, of which one or all may be true:
      A) The land data is corrupted or biased (As supported by documents such as Harry_Read_Me, and land changes over time)
      B) Measured warming over the past fee decades has not been primarily driven by CO2
      C) The hypothesis/models predicting a runaway greenhouse effect are incorrect

      5) A rising and warming ocean is nothing new. This has been going on for centuries, and is part of the natural weather cycle of earth. The deep ocean (beyond 6500 ft) is not warming. As for the surface ocean (less than 2,300ft), it warmed twice as much between 1850 and 1960 as it did between 1960 to the present.

  2. Follow the money, it's as simple s that...

  3. I'm not much into science. Most of what I learned in school I must have forgot. But I heard that CO 2 is heavy compared to other gases in our atmosphere, and should settle to the lowest parts of the earth.

    Anybody know anything about that?

  4. Rising ocean temps are cyclical. Even Bob Ward has said that, and Dyson has said it repeatedly.

  5. They say the sky is falling to keep people oppressed, keep the energy economy slowed down and the cost high. This makes them feel like they are in power.

    We need politicians who do not serve themselves but rather serve the people in godly fear, serving others how God would be pleased to see them do.

  6. Politicians in a power struggle will do anything. If they can not control the temperature of the oceans, they will imagine that they can.


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.