NT's "Bill Nye Saves The World" review

[NeuroTypical]

I enjoy going into the enemy's camp and learning what they learn.  I've done it for decades: Participating on countercult forums and evangelical reachout places, seeking out friendships with pagans and atheists and liberals.  I've watched hundreds of YouTube videos produced by folks on the other side of many fences, talking to favorable audiences.  

So there it is: Bill Nye Saves the World - a Netflix original.  And I decided to watch them all.  Here's my brief outline review of the first episode.

Subject: Climate Change

General show atmosphere: 
He's performing in front of a live audience - science/magic act with the lights and music and stuff - laughter, and whoop-whoops, and lovely shapely model lady assistants, etc. He's an ok comedian - witty, 'old guy acting cool', does a half decent imitation of a valley dude accent.  It's an entertainment show with an agenda, like his original show, but for an adult audience.  And the agenda isn't 'learn science', it's 'learn what I think about this or that topic'.

 

Quotes to remember: 
- "I guarantee you people, that 2010-2020 will be the hottest decade on record."

- "The world is gonna be in serious trouble if we don't do something about it.  And by that I mean everybody who lives on coastlines, everybody who likes to eat, or breathe."

Turn-offs:
- "Proof" - Venice is flooding!   NO talk of Acqua alta, subsidence, astronomical/geophysical/meteorological components.  Blames flooding pretty squarely on man-made climate change, even though it's a yearly seasonal thing, first recorded in the year 589 AD. 

- "Bill Nye needs a minute" - Basically a scripted emotionally charged rant against the climate change deniers.

- Show end, with a guest celebrity joining in a second rant that includes teaching a chant to the audience.  Let's all hate the "anti-science politicians"!

Not a single mention of:
- Favorable impacts of climate change, like the Northwest passage or vast tracts of the world (Siberia, etc) become new paradises, or increased biodiversity as stuff changes.  Not a single freaking positive, or even neutral impact.  It was all negative.
- Cost/benefit analysis of the various options (the solar/wind dude just made sweeping statements about how it was totally possible and doable)
- Climate change on mars
- Climate change as a natural phenomenon that has occurred since the dawn of time
 

Stuff I have to admit:
- Yeah, I get it - we're worried because the rate of change is faster and bigger than ever before in recorded history.  

Finding something nice to say:
- The nuclear power guy got to state his case, kinda, for like 20 seconds. (Not much of a hooray, but at least the subject got brought up, even if the next 10 minutes was spent debunking him.)

- I learned something new: We all know solar and wind have problems - they generate when nobody wants it, and don't generate when people do.  One solution - use the excess low-demand generation to pump water up, and then it runs back down through turbines as it's needed.

Overall score: 10/10 ideological blinder-wearing preaching to the masses.  2/10 for balance.  meh-I-guess/10 for being mildly entertaining.

 

[Sunday21]

Two points

1) As a former atheist....ahem. We are people too! Could we please have a little less pagan/atheist basing? We are not zoo animals, we are your bros/sis's. Love would go a long way. Atheists do convert and a snotty attitude is not helpful to the process of conversion. You do want to convert atheists right? Not snigger while they burn, right? Could I point out that just as people are raised Christian, many people are raised as atheists. 

2) Why is a warming earth an atheist point of view? Do you not believe that temperatures are rising? D you not believe that the rise is attributed to human activity? Neither  of these points of view precludes being religious.i am religious. I have looked at the data for my country. The temperatures are rising consistently. The markers associated with 'human activity linked to temperature increases' are also rising. No, this correlation is not proof but my country needs to start thinking about our polar bear population. I do not see what this has to do with my religious beliefs. 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think @NeuroTypical's post either dehumanizes atheists/liberals, nor denies the existence of human-influenced global warming.  What he does do, is take issue with Nye's demagoguery and Nye's characterization of the scope and possible solutions to the global climate change conundrum.  

To the degree that progressives have deemed Bill Nye the man--and everything that comes out of his mouth--as sacrosanct; that's a big part of why he needs to be publicly scrutinized and disputed.   

Progressives are rapidly becoming everything they claim to abhor about dogmatic religionists.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

9 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

1) As a former atheist....ahem. We are people too! Could we please have a little less pagan/atheist basing? We are not zoo animals, we are your bros/sis's. Love would go a long way. Atheists do convert and a snotty attitude is not helpful to the process of conversion. You do want to convert atheists right? Not snigger while they burn, right? Could I point out that just as people are raised Christian, many people are raised as atheists. 

1) Hi Sunday21 - are you talking about this?  

I enjoy going into the enemy's camp and learning what they learn.  ... seeking out friendships with pagans and atheists and liberals...

I'm not seeing the bashing.  Maybe I should have used words other than "the enemy's camp".  Basically, there are many fences on which I'm on my side, but I really do enjoy going over to the other side of these fences and seeing how people live/think/etc.  

The only thing I'm saying about atheists (or pagans, or liberals) is that they're on the opposite side of my various fences in many ways.  And so is Bill Nye's latest Netflix series.  That's all. 

 

Quote

2) Why is a warming earth an atheist point of view? Do you not believe that temperatures are rising? D you not believe that the rise is attributed to human activity? 

I never said it was.  Hopefully I've been able to clarify.
Yes I do.
I believe it's entirely possible that it's partially due to human activity.  Absolutely, temperature has been fluctuating since there has been a planet.  Climate change is a thing whether or not there are people.   You know that, right?
 

 

[Sunday21]

Yes climate change is a thing whether or not caused by humans. Perhaps, we should focus our efforts on dealing with the effects of climate change. Our polar bears will need feeding! Apparently our polar bears are coming inland further and further. Our towns built on permafrost are in trouble as well.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Yes climate change is a thing whether or not caused by humans. Perhaps, we should focus our efforts on dealing with the effects of climate change. Our polar bears will need feeding! Apparently our polar bears are coming inland further and further. Our towns built on permafrost are in trouble as well.

Agreed.  There is some very troubling data showing that something is going on with the climate.

At this point, I see climate change denial like evolution denial- there is a mountain of scientific data you will have to ignore if you want to argue that climate change is some kind of hoax  (sadly, this is a mainstream view here in Texas).  The difference between the two is that evolution is theoretical, and climate change has some real world consequences.  This goes doubly so for some of the world's most populated regions (e.g. India) which are going to eventually be hit the worst by climate change.

We definitely need to learn what we can from the data and prepare the best we can for the future, whether that is making changes now to slow down climate change, preparing people to cope with climate change, and the like.

Edited May 13, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[JohnsonJones]

The problem is on both sides.  There is some evidence, but the problem is that there is also IGNORED evidence.

Many point to sea levels rising as evidence...Miami has installed pumps to supposedly deal with this.  An island chain that is an inch above sea level 30 years ago...well, that Island chain still exist and is STILL an inch above sea water.  It is an uncomfortable fact that is pushed aside and ignored.  A rising ocean should have that island or at least those portions, under water at this point.

Manhattan harbor has less then 10 years to be under water (according to Al Gore, though the original timeline said it could happen as soon as 2014 I believe...and...what do you know...it's not underwater presently).

The Artic Circle has had it's ice melt EVERY YEAR for the past...well...since we started recording...so people using that as evidence is actually relying on people's ignorance of history.

There are data points that show Global warming, but unfortunately, many ignore the OTHER data points which show something else may be happening.

A Majority of Scientist feel that human activity has some influence on what is occurring with Climate Change (and the change of the term itself was due to some being uncomfortable with people constantly claiming Global Warming when that may not even be accurate, hence ONE reason for the name change).  I think that percentage is 97%.

HOWEVER, that percentage does NOT equate how many feel it is DUE to human activity, or is being CAUSED mostly by human activity...merely that humans have some sort of influence on what is happening to the climate and environment around us.

The reality is we do not really know what is going on, or even if it's a causation effect or merely a coincidence (something that has been brought up in the past) in regards to certain things happening when other things happen. 

Like many things in politics (and Climate Change is more a political tool these days than a scientific one...unfortunately), rarely is it one side or the other.  Normally more truth is found somewhere in between the two extremes, rather than at one pole or the other.

[person0]

I believe the world was created for us with the intent we would use all of its resources to our advantage, including fuel and other substances that are touted to negatively affect the global climate.  I understand the general need to use physical evidence and data in the secular world to combat flawed ideologies and to establish what the world views as objective truth.  However, regardless of whether or not climate change is real, and whether or not it is significantly affected by man, do those of us who are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim really need to care?  For those of us who believe in the Second Coming, or at least a version of it, why would we need to be concerned in the least bit by such a thing?  It is one thing to be responsible and to teach to recycle, that in my mind is a wise use of our resources, but if we are truly in the latter-days, aren't we expecting the coming of the Lord fairly soon?  Do we really believe that if the Lord will come, whether for the first time or the second, that He will first let the human race go extinct?  To whom would he return?

Once the scientific data is irrefutable and model-able with near 100% accuracy 100% of the time, we can effectively use the data to act appropriately.  Until that time, I will listen to the prophets and apostles of the Lord, expecting that He will reveal to them what we need to know to be prepared.  Right now that revelation includes a one year supply of food and water in addition to other items for preparation.  Aside from that we are counseled to lead righteous lives which will help enable us to hear and be prepared to act on future revelation.

As it stands prominent climate change advocates fit my idea of those preaching 'another gospel'.  I see no need to take any additional measures at this time, aside from continuing to research, but without bias.

[Sunday21]

Some adjustments will need to be made as the climate warms up: feeding polar bears, relocating populations that otherwise would affected by flooding, northern towns that lose permafrost will be a swamp.

[yjacket]

46 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

A Majority of Scientist feel that human activity has some influence on what is occurring with Climate Change (and the change of the term itself was due to some being uncomfortable with people constantly claiming Global Warming when that may not even be accurate, hence ONE reason for the name change).  I think that percentage is 97%.

One of the things I find really disingenuous is the 97% thing.  What they are really saying is that 97% of the scientific articles published in major "accepted" journals, say climate change is a thing.  Well that's really disingenuous for a couple of reasons. #1) How many scientist publish more than one article?  Lots, so to really find 97% you have to take all the scientist, not just those that publish or those that publish the most. #2) What is the process for publishing articles?  Well it takes time and money to publish an article-you have to first a topic to publish on, then do the research and then write it, then send it in, then it has to get accepted.

So who pays for the scientist time and effort doing the research? Somebody does . . . it comes from grants from the government or from some entity.  Those grants have a topic area and in order to get funding you have to find out what appeals to the entity giving money and write a proposal like "We propose to study the affects of climate change on the African swallow".  EPA gives money to Dr. Joe. Dr. Joe then conducts research on that topic area and then as part of the grant writes an article to be published like "Climate Change affect on the African Swallow" in the ABC Scientific Journal.

Once the article is written and submitted then a panel of other scientist determine whether the article is approved or not. That panel is generally really informal of only 3-4 other scientist, who read the article and say approve, approved with changes or reject.  Now if the majority of the panel is climate change believers it is highly unlikely that an article against climate change will pass through.

So you see, it is really one big self-licking ice cream cone in an echo chamber full of group think.  All designed by the government to promote one world-view.  You see when you have the EPA believe one thing "climate change is a fact" then every piece of funding they have will be geared towards a confirmation of that ideology. And if you are a scientist, you don't dare buck the trend so you can actually get promoted and have a career.

Let's you think I jest, read and weep: https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)."

Edited May 14, 2017 by yjacket

[bytebear]

Steven Crowder "Louder with Crowder" pretty much speaks for me on this topic.  look him up on YouTube.  He specifically counters Nye in several commentaries.

[NeuroTypical]

Episode 2 - fake medicine!  Nye redeems himself here a bit in my eyes.  

Quotes of note: 
"It's an 'alternative medical treatment', which means it's an alternative to actual medicine!"
"This is what we call 'exercising our critical thinking skills'". (Dang, I wish there had been some of this in the prior episode about climate change.)

Turn-offs:
- I would have loved to see more Amazing Randi-esque stuff, where these fools are invited to prove their stuff in controlled conditions, and fail miserably.   Instead of the plain old 'lying about intentions to get cameras into the guy's office who thinks he'll get some free publicity'.  True, the guy was claiming to heal through sound, and yelled at the lady's stomach.

Wow - one of the show's writers basically gets away with a racist rant.  I mean, I basically agree with the overall point of the show, but how on earth do you get away with harping on white people, then Asians?

- The overall tone of mocking dismissiveness.  I know, I've shown little else when it comes to my own posts about anti-GMO nonsense and other things.  Maybe I need to look at myself.   

Hooray!
- Magnets don't heal you. 
- Double-blind studies are good things.  Neither the test giver, nor the one being tested, know which one is the placebo.
- People fall for alternative medicine claims because they don't know any better, and learning a few things is a good way to not be an ignorant dupe.

Overall score: 10/10 For supporting science, identifying red flags of fake claims, talking about double-blind studies.  squat/10 for not mentioning the stuff yjacket is now going to fill us in about. 

[NeuroTypical]

Episode 3: Machines take over the world

Good bunch of info about how we're creating learning machines.  

Good raising a bunch of upcoming issues and discussing upcoming and current moral dilemas. 

No "Bill Nye needs a minute" divisive rant in this one.  

No demeaning swipes against people who think differently.  Nye's take is there's no problem.  But there was no poo-pooing other points of view. The alternative viewpoint was well represented in the table of experts, 

Final score: 0/10 Trumps were harmed in the filming of this episode. 

[Guest Godless]

33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Episode 3: Machines take over the world

Good bunch of info about how we're creating learning machines.  

Good raising a bunch of upcoming issues and discussing upcoming and current moral dilemas. 

No "Bill Nye needs a minute" divisive rant in this one.  

No demeaning swipes against people who think differently.  Nye's take is there's no problem.  But there was no poo-pooing other points of view. The alternative viewpoint was well represented in the table of experts, 

Final score: 0/10 Trumps were harmed in the filming of this episode. 

I saw a documentary on this topic once. I think Arnold Schwartzenegger was in it.

[NeuroTypical]

I heard he was coming back.

[NightSG]

On 5/12/2017 at 10:08 PM, NeuroTypical said:

- Yeah, I get it - we're worried because the rate of change is faster and bigger than ever before in recorded history.  

And there's the issue; recorded history is minuscule on the global scale.  It's like trying to extrapolate what the weather will be like on Christmas purely from data collected yesterday and today.

[NightSG]

On 5/14/2017 at 0:17 PM, NeuroTypical said:

- Magnets don't heal you. 

You mean I've been building this Iron Man arc reactor for nothing?

- Double-blind studies are good things.  Neither the test giver, nor the one being tested, know which one is the placebo.

Yes, but we're starting to suspect Bill is the placebo scientist.  After all, Don Herbert stayed out of politics, religion and pretty much everything else except cool, well documented and well established science stuff.  Bad form to run the groups so far apart chronologically, though.