Reason’s Nick Gillespie catches Bill Nye in act of being a total asshole when, in a discussion regarding climate change, he “explained” why fear of jail time ought to be a necessary part of scientific inquiry, at least for climate change “deniers”:
“In these cases [cases where people say things that Dr. Bill disagrees with], for me, as a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of extreme doubt is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen. So I can see where people are very concerned with this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this [discussions, presumably, about making it a crime to introduce “extreme doubt” into public discourse].”
Nye apparently made the comments in a video chat with extreme scientist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., well-known for claiming that vaccines can cause autism, in an article for Salon titled “Deadly Immunity”, which is still posted on Kennedy’s website. Salon, however, has taken it down. Former Salon editer in chief Joan Walsh explained that “I regret we didn’t move on this more quickly, as evidence continued to emerge debunking the vaccines and autism link. But continued revelations of the flaws and even fraud tainting the science behind the connection make taking down the story the right thing to do.” So if we’re going to start locking people up for bad science, maybe we ought to start with Bobby.
Afterwords, Part I
Nick has more about the recent efforts of several state attorney generals to harass extreme skeptics like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil with legal actions intended to punish them for disturbing Dr. Bill’s quality of life (and, probably, to squeeze some extreme cash out of ExxonMobil). The case for significant anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. The case for investing/wasting trillions of dollars in “renewable” (i.e., inefficient) energy sources, stunting economic growth for the entire planet and condemning perhaps a billion people to a life of preventable poverty, is not. But “scientists” like Dr. Bill can’t tell the difference.
Afterwords, Part II
Over at the Washington Post, Stephen Stromberg takes apart leftie darling Bernie Sanders’ “thinking” (I use the term advisedly) on environmental policy. Both Stromberg and Sanders are in favor of a carbon tax, which would, of course, make “bad” forms of energy like coal and oil more expensive. For Stromberg, this would let the market decide which alternative forms of energy are best, whether it be nuclear power or fairy tears. “But Sanders does not want to get out of the way [of the market]. It is not enough simply to reduce greenhouse emissions. The country must transition the way he wants it to. No nuclear power. No fracked natural gas.” No, only “virtuous sources” are to be allowed. Enviros like Bill Nye and Bernie Sanders see the whole world as a vast morality play. It’s not a question of efficiency. It’s a question of virtue. And the whole reason for the passion of the enviros is that they see climate change as a cause that proves scientifically that they should run the world and tell us all what to do—a “passion” that is, of course, entirely unscientific and in fact a wonderful argument for not allowing them to tell us what to do.
