FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Bill Nye or Patience in the Face of Stupidity (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Bill Nye or Patience in the Face of Stupidity
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://crossfire.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/06/bill-nye-climate-change-is-our-most-urgent-number-one-priority-right-now/

Enjoy

[ May 07, 2014, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: GaalDornick ]

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh, gods! scientists are bullying us
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And the bullying isn't working. They need to try a new method other than educating, err I mean scaring people into believing them.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Grumble]
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think what the commentator from the Heritage Foundation is trying to get across (albeit poorly) that taking tornadoes in Oklahoma, hurricane Sandy, and droughts in California are not a good way to come at Climate Change education. It's the easiest because people are scared of nature out of control. But the fact remains that if our green house gas mix was exactly where scientists believed they should be (bear in mind the cost to do so would be enormous, and many developing countries would offset our attempts) all three of those things would continue to happen regularly.

Are warmer climate related weather phenomenon really on the rise? Can we say their frequency is statistically significant compared to the start of the industrial revolution? If they are rising, how much can be ascribed to human activity since it's incredibly obvious that this planet goes through climate change like teenagers go through phases.

So lets say they are rising, and an enormous chunk of it is man's fault, how do you concretely prove it? We certainly can't predict what the weather will do outside a "Natural disasters will happen with greater frequency, much more than our Earth normally experiences such phenomenon" but we can't even say that with any degree of confidence apparently

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Statistics.

Statistics were designed for people to count a group of random events (say, number of hurricanes in New England), and answer the question of whether the number that were counted indicative of some sort of underlying change or just dumb luck. You *can* flip a coin and get heads 100 times in a row, but statistics tells you that doing so is unlikely enough that you probably don't have a fair coin. You have to use stats across pretty much every scientific discipline, and the rules of statistic don't change with your field. You put your numbers in, and stats has your answer, whether you're a biologist, astronomer, social scientist, or climate scientist.

The American Heritage foundation can ask how scientists are sure about that sort of thing, but they're just being jerks. To think that scientists can get away with making long term climate predictions or stating that, say, the temperature has averaged out to be a wee bit warm lately and X could be the cause WITHOUT proving it via some sort of statistics just doesn't get published.

Last September, it was really really rainy in the semi-arid place where I lived. It rained more in September than it did in at least a third of any of the given *individual years* over the last hundred plus years the NOAA had data for in my city. It was called a thousand-year rainfall. Sure, you could see one of them in your life time it happens. If we see another one any time soon, that's probably a good sign something is up. As an planetary scientist, a good rule of thumb, is that we almost never see an extremely rare event by accident, and we aren't in a very special place or time.

And it's not like the folks studying climate are not trying to get as much data as they can get their hands on to extend their history of "normal" weather as much as possible. Here's a story about the effort to digitize ship http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121022_oldweatherprojectlaunch.html

The fun part about ship logs is that they are extremely biased. They are well filled out during boring weather, and during the exciting weather, the guy who wrote that stuff down had better things to do (puking?). And all the logs that weren't filled out during REALLY bad weather are at the bottom of the sea. :-(

[ May 08, 2014, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To answer your question about developing countries: by putting in the R&D to find he cheapest ways of doing things without burning fossil fuels or coal, we are helping developing countries help themselves, and ultimately, us-- we maky money off the cleaner technologies. And once a country gets its act together, it will prioritize the longer lifespans and smaller health bills of its citizens. And come shopping.

Currently, it's the USA who is one of the worst offenders in terms of consumption, waste and energy usage. One of the side effects of a world where half of all people live in extreme poverty is that they do not consume very much resources. Why not be a model at home.

Climate change issues aside, from a pollution-hurts-the-people currently-alive-and-that-burden-goes-to-the-taxpayers-not-the-ones-selling-it standpoint, reducing the amount of electricity that comes from coal, and the amount everyone uses is a fantastic idea.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. I haven't seen that show before. I'll make a point not to.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://i.imgur.com/rk63k7j.gif
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the problem with the current education strategy is that it doesn't affect a person's day to day life.

Ice Caps melting? Meh, doesn't really affect my day today.

Ocean levels rising? I live in the mid-west, no big deal.

Hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornados? Meh, They have been happening for millions of years, I know how to deal with them.

It's getting hotter? I live in Las Vegas, it's been 110+ degrees in the summer every year since I was born. I'm used to it.

Colder winters? Snow is snow. I'll shovel the snow and get to work, if it's too bad, I'll get a snow day.

Most people don't see the effects in their daily lives.

The government has tried to regulate to help with climate change, but it is often done with taxes and considered government over reach.

Then there is California, who is considering a "per mile driven" tax. Why? People are buying more fuel efficient cars, so they are losing tax revenue. So for doing the right thing, you end up getting penalized. The car we bought a year ago was a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I'm scared to death that Nevada is going to start considering a similar law. I get around 24 miles to the gallon in the thing, which isn't bad for a mid-sized SUV that can seat 7. Having to pay 2 cents per mile driven would effectively raise my gas bill by .48 a gallon.

We do need to be better about taking care of our planet. I'm just not sure the current method of regulation and taxation helps. People don't look at it as helping the environment, they look at it as government interference.

On a local level here in Las Vegas we have the same kind of issues. There has been a huge push over the past 20 years to reduce our energy and water usage, as we are in a very long draught. The community has done a great job at reducing consumption during this time. My next door neighbor installed solar panels to help power his house. I have solar panels heating my pool instead of electricity. Many people are reducing their power consumption in a variety of ways. The result? The energy company and water district complained that they were not making as much money as they used to because people weren't consuming as much, and asked for massive rate increases. The city approved them, and many people's power bills skyrocketed. I just found out they are asking for another 24% rate increase for January 2015 for single family households.

Education is important. Some regulation is necessary. Punishing people for doing a better job at conserving resources and protecting the environment becomes a deterrent.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I understand why power companies are trying to charge more for less consumption, because the cost of the hookup isn't necessarily paid for with use.


My city is trying to condemn the local utility in favor of government ownership, and since the city council is overrun by environmentalists, they say that their need not to make profit will allow them to incentivize less consumption. Apparently our for-profit utility makes tens of millions per year in profit (and spent an incredible amount of money fighting the local municipalization effort), so I wonder if your utility was trying to keep themselves out of the red, or their profits merely consistent.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I understand why power companies are trying to charge more for less consumption, because the cost of the hookup isn't necessarily paid for with use.

power companies usually have an incentive handed to them with regional monopoly and they are acting, rather naturally, on this incentive.

much like the rest of the pile of human and market tendencies that we seem unable to shed, it's part of a larger set of affairs that lend me to believe that we won't really be doing anything to effectively combat global warming until such time as the effects are presently and economically dire.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Somebody still has to pay for the roads.

Somebody still has to pay for the power grid.

Gas taxes are probably the most efficient form of direct taxation in the world because they proportionally tax people who drive the most and thereby use the roads the most. Yes, gas taxes will have to go up, not just because consumption is down (which is still good), but because it hasn't been raised in more than a decade. The National Highway Trust Fund is going broke.

The power grid requires billions in upkeep and billions more to upgrade. I read a great article awhile back about how solar power has an incredible cumulative effect. Every person that signs up for solar makes it more expensive for non-solar, which pushes more people to get solar, and it keeps spiraling until everyone has shifted.

But even after everyone goes to solar and the old power company goes bankrupt, someone still has to maintain the grid. So they can raise your payroll taxes and do it directly, or they can take it right from your power bill as more of a dedicated levy.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And on the OP, I actually don't thin Nye is very good in these situations.

He's great in a room of reasonable people who are there for an HONEST discussion.

But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.

And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
The car we bought a year ago was a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I'm scared to death that Nevada is going to start considering a similar law. I get around 24 miles to the gallon in the thing, which isn't bad for a mid-sized SUV that can seat 7.

The point of such laws is to pressure not you, the consumer, as much as the manufacturer who has convinced you, absurdly, that 24mpg is somehow approaching acceptable.

Tax-Per-Mile will hit consumers, but there will be plenty of slack in the law for legacy vehicles (probably), and the end-result would be a lot of pressure on manufacturers to introduce cars that meet certain exceptions to the law, ie all-electric, or plug-in hybrids, which would be granted tax exemptions. Taxes are the stick, the exemptions are the carrot.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:


But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.

And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.

I disagree. I think anyone with more than half a wit would find Cupp's behavior disgraceful and idiotic. Nye's rational approach was correct.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As always XKCD sums it up nicely.

Cold

Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see any justification for a per-mile tax, as opposed to a gas or carbon tax. Why would they do that?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And on the OP, I actually don't thin Nye is very good in these situations.

He's great in a room of reasonable people who are there for an HONEST discussion.

But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.

And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.

nye is actually a tremendously strange person and a completely horrible ass. i don't recommend him as a face or an icon for important causes because he's just not a good person and sometimes his utter strangeness leaks through.

but if he wants to entertain himself harmlessly providing a platform of "debate" to mentally and scientifically bankrupt things like creationism, fine by me

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samprimary: You're the first person I've heard offer that opinion on Nye. What makes him weird/terrible in your opinion?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
I don't see any justification for a per-mile tax, as opposed to a gas or carbon tax. Why would they do that?

Probably because it sucks telling someone, "Great job at reducing your gas consumption per month from $100 to $50 by getting a more efficient car! Except now that you're buying less gas we still need money from you so we're going to raise gas taxes so that your monthly cost will be $100 again."

The mile per driven tax at least looks a little different.

Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A per mile tax is a great way to steal from the middle class. Horrible idea. Lower income families tend to live close to work, or take public transportation. Upper class can afford it. The middle class would be screwed with long commutes from where they can actually afford to live.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's the only person with a halfway sane perspective getting media coverage. He has a schtick, yes, but think of this -- he's normal. Everybody ELSE is crazy.

Wow.

And he's a lot more humble than Neil deGrasse Tyson. That guy....

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
The car we bought a year ago was a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I'm scared to death that Nevada is going to start considering a similar law. I get around 24 miles to the gallon in the thing, which isn't bad for a mid-sized SUV that can seat 7.

The point of such laws is to pressure not you, the consumer, as much as the manufacturer who has convinced you, absurdly, that 24mpg is somehow approaching acceptable.

Tax-Per-Mile will hit consumers, but there will be plenty of slack in the law for legacy vehicles (probably), and the end-result would be a lot of pressure on manufacturers to introduce cars that meet certain exceptions to the law, ie all-electric, or plug-in hybrids, which would be granted tax exemptions. Taxes are the stick, the exemptions are the carrot.

The manufacturer didn't convince me of anything. We needed a larger vehicle due to family moving in with us from Albania, and none of the vehicles we looked at had good gas mileage. With an increased cost in our electric, food, gas, and water bills due to having 3 (4 when our baby was born) more people living in our house, we needed to find a vehicle that not only would fit everyone, but not drain our wallets.

That vehicle just happened to be the Highlander Hybrid.

Exemptions won't do a thing. We were told for decades that more fuel efficient cars would bring our costs down AND be better for the environment.

Now you are saying that introducing exemptions for electric cars or plug in hybrids would work.

The problem is that introducing exemptions like this as a carrot effectively does the same thing as the push to more fuel efficient vehicles. As more people adopt, fuel tax intake continues to fall, and we are right back in the same place we are now.

That and I don't know of an electric vehicle that can travel from Las Vegas to Disneyland without having to be charged 4 times. Those electric cars that CAN go 200-300 miles on a charge (The Tesla-S) are at a price point most cannot afford ($71,000). GM supposedly has a 200 mile electric car they are currently working on, but it is expected to be a small car like the volt. Not enough room for a family.

There is a better solution to public transportation that would completely eliminate traffic fatalities, our reliance on oil, and the need for constant road work. The problem is I don't think the government would ever want to implement the system, since they would claim too many people would lose their jobs in trucking, transportation, and road work.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
He's the only person with a halfway sane perspective getting media coverage. He has a schtick, yes, but think of this -- he's normal. Everybody ELSE is crazy.

Wow.

And he's a lot more humble than Neil deGrasse Tyson. That guy....

And now I have to ask you the same thing I just asked Samprimary. But about Mr. Tyson.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.

Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, to be fair, what's there to "debate" about religion? It's a load of crap, but you aren't going to convince anyone by talking to them about it.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists on the grounds that he is a famous person, and no matter how poorly it goes for the creationist, believers' minds are not swayed, and it gives more publicity for the creationists as well as something to put on their CV.

As for Tyson, he refuses to debate a lot of people-- Alan Stern, PI of the NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto that arrives in 2015, is trying to reopen the planet-hood debate, and Tyson is having none of that.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.

Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.

What is this record, and what are his exact words?
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: You're the first person I've heard offer that opinion on Nye. What makes him weird/terrible in your opinion?

Bill Nye can be pleasurable when he's having a good day, but often he's a fairly horrid person to anyone who tries to interact with him ... or anyone he's interacting with. The cruelest of his interactions are usually stories involving him being an ass to cashiers and clerks, or even just kids. He's apparently really bad to kids, for some unknown reason. He was especially nightmarish to his crew and there are even some stories out there from people who dated him at some point or another.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.

Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.

I don't feel Mr. Tyson is obligated to debate anybody on any topic. From what I've heard he's only indicated he doesn't feel religion should be the lens by which science is viewed in public schools. That's fine by me.

I vigorously proselyted for Mormonism for two years, and still do so to some extent today. Doesn't mean I'm chomping at the bit to debate an atheist in a promoted setting.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.

Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.

So...a refusal to engage in an obligation you think he has makes *him* arrogant?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: You're the first person I've heard offer that opinion on Nye. What makes him weird/terrible in your opinion?

Bill Nye can be pleasurable when he's having a good day, but often he's a fairly horrid person to anyone who tries to interact with him ... or anyone he's interacting with. The cruelest of his interactions are usually stories involving him being an ass to cashiers and clerks, or even just kids. He's apparently really bad to kids, for some unknown reason. He was especially nightmarish to his crew and there are even some stories out there from people who dated him at some point or another.
Any sources for this? Or have you heard all of this personally from these people?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's easy to find people talking about this. Just google "Bill Nye is a jerk".

However, after reading a few such sources, I have concluded that Bill Nye is a guy that would prefer not to be bothered by strangers, and that he sometimes gets annoyed by adolescent behavior in crowds of people he is speaking to. In other words, he's pretty normal, and just lacks some of the skills/pretenses that celebrities normally seem to use to be nice to highly annoying people or in highly annoying situations.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
It's easy to find people talking about this. Just google "Bill Nye is a jerk".

However, after reading a few such sources, I have concluded that Bill Nye is a guy that would prefer not to be bothered by strangers, and that he sometimes gets annoyed by adolescent behavior in crowds of people he is speaking to. In other words, he's pretty normal, and just lacks some of the skills/pretenses that celebrities normally seem to use to be nice to highly annoying people or in highly annoying situations.

You pretty much just described me. [Big Grin]
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're a celebrity? I DEMAND YOUR KINDNESS FOR AS LONG AS CONVENIENT TO ME.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:


But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.

And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.

I disagree. I think anyone with more than half a wit would find Cupp's behavior disgraceful and idiotic. Nye's rational approach was correct.
Clearly you aren't the people out there who still require convincing.

I almost want to believe that Cupp was engaging in a piece of Colbert-like performance art media criticism. Because she told Nye directly that what he's doing isn't working, cold logic, reason and analysis isn't doing the trick because there's a gap between the danger and the perceived danger. So even while being a schill for climate change deniers, she made an incredibly insightful point for those who want to do something to fight climate change:

Facts, on their own, don't work.

And that's why Nye is a failure as a face of climate change, science, and anything political. He's not good at arguing, no matter how smart he is, he got absolutely nowhere with them to anyone watching who wasn't already on his side.

I think that's a key difference between him and Tyson. Tyson is much more savvy, aware, and understanding of regular people and the American zeitgeist, and he knows how to tap into it. He never really goes full bore, it's more of a dangle your feet in the water sort of actor in this, but even when he does that he's still much more effective than Nye, who takes the bull by the horns and usually gets gored.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: You're the first person I've heard offer that opinion on Nye. What makes him weird/terrible in your opinion?

Bill Nye can be pleasurable when he's having a good day, but often he's a fairly horrid person to anyone who tries to interact with him ... or anyone he's interacting with. The cruelest of his interactions are usually stories involving him being an ass to cashiers and clerks, or even just kids. He's apparently really bad to kids, for some unknown reason. He was especially nightmarish to his crew and there are even some stories out there from people who dated him at some point or another.
Any sources for this? Or have you heard all of this personally from these people?
yeah individually i have heard stories directly from

1. a person whose sister dated bill
2. a person who was working retail when bill came in and was a tremendous asshole to her for no reason
3. a guy in media who closed an interview with nye early because he was verbally abusing children on set
4. a person who had bill come to her school and he was a buttlord to everyone at said function

additionally there is a recounted event by a child star on set of his show confirming the rumors of his interpersonal... issues ... being true.

if you want tales, they abound on reddit in particular.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.

Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.

He rejects the label of atheist, and self-identifies as agnostic. He's said plainly that he's not interested in the slightest in the atheist vs. religion debate, he thinks atheism as a categorization is bizarre, which is sort of revealing about his views on religion as a normative national value.

And even if he was an atheist, he'd be the most polite atheist in the world. He goes out of his way to not say that he thinks there's no God, he goes out of his way to discuss science in a way that leaves the door open for God, he goes out of his way to be respectful of all views.

He just doesn't want religion inserted into, or confused with, science.

If you think that's controversial, then I think you have a problem.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:


But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.

And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.

I disagree. I think anyone with more than half a wit would find Cupp's behavior disgraceful and idiotic. Nye's rational approach was correct.
Clearly you aren't the people out there who still require convincing.

I almost want to believe that Cupp was engaging in a piece of Colbert-like performance art media criticism. Because she told Nye directly that what he's doing isn't working, cold logic, reason and analysis isn't doing the trick because there's a gap between the danger and the perceived danger. So even while being a schill for climate change deniers, she made an incredibly insightful point for those who want to do something to fight climate change:

Facts, on their own, don't work.

And that's why Nye is a failure as a face of climate change, science, and anything political. He's not good at arguing, no matter how smart he is, he got absolutely nowhere with them to anyone watching who wasn't already on his side.

I think that's a key difference between him and Tyson. Tyson is much more savvy, aware, and understanding of regular people and the American zeitgeist, and he knows how to tap into it. He never really goes full bore, it's more of a dangle your feet in the water sort of actor in this, but even when he does that he's still much more effective than Nye, who takes the bull by the horns and usually gets gored.

Agreed. But the host of the show had it backwards. She was accusing scientists of using fear tactics, not facts, to convice people. Fear tactics and exaggeration of realities would probably work better than simple facts. Maybe if scientists started telling people that the larger of a carbon footprint you leave behind the longer you have to stay in a special purgatory when you die, people would be more environmentally friendly...
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
narrativium
Member
Member # 3230

 - posted      Profile for narrativium           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
buttlord

Hmmmmm, that's a new one.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Buttlord GT is like, what, a decade old by now?
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
You're a celebrity? I DEMAND YOUR KINDNESS FOR AS LONG AS CONVENIENT TO ME.

Depends on how you define celebrity. Among a certain group of people engaged in a certain endeavor, my name is instantly recognized and maybe even admired. Unfortunately that group is comprised of only about 1000 people worldwide. [Big Grin]
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Relevant xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/200/

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.

Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.

He rejects the label of atheist, and self-identifies as agnostic. He's said plainly that he's not interested in the slightest in the atheist vs. religion debate, he thinks atheism as a categorization is bizarre, which is sort of revealing about his views on religion as a normative national value.

And even if he was an atheist, he'd be the most polite atheist in the world. He goes out of his way to not say that he thinks there's no God, he goes out of his way to discuss science in a way that leaves the door open for God, he goes out of his way to be respectful of all views.

He just doesn't want religion inserted into, or confused with, science.

If you think that's controversial, then I think you have a problem.

boom. read this ten times if you have to. the debate format is also staggeringly useless for scientific affairs, too. rejecting a public debate is the right option.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Herblay, my understanding is that Tyson has been the subject of a lot of vituperative coverage by right wing religious outlets, with the "he's so arrogant" approach being commonly used as a way of dismissing what he's saying. Is that a part of the media that you're tuned into?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All I know is my experience.

I saw a series of at least six or seven clips where he'd discussed how ridiculous religion is. Then, I saw a clip where he states that religion is beside the point and that he's uninterested in discussing it. Even though I'd just been inundated with media of him being belligerent.

I guess I could give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he became uninterested in discussing religion because some of his comments about it had become widely disseminated. It just seemed to me that bagging on religion because it was for the plebes was his schtick.

I'll acknowledge that -- at least from the outside perspective -- he comes off as being extremely arrogant. But again, I've only seen clips and sound bites.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tyson's frequently restated position is that he actually doesn't care what people believe (and actively resists being pigeonholed as an 'atheist evangelist' by people who try to frame the religion/science thing under a system where science is 'just another belief'

it's when people take not science and try to wedge it into actual science and science education that he objects and fights back against it.

quote:
Tyson: Ö The problem arises is if you have a religious philosophy that is not based on objective realities that you then want to put in a science classroom. Then Iím going to stand there and say, ďNo, Iím not going to allow you in the science classroom.Ē Iím not telling you what to think, Iím just telling you in the science class, ďYouíre not doing science. This is not science. Keep it out.Ē Thatís where I, thatís when I stand up. Otherwise, go ahead. Iím not telling you how to think.
quote:
in 2009, Tyson said: "I can't agree to the claims by atheists that I'm one of that community. I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care."[52]

In March 2014, philosopher and secularism proponent Massimo Pigliucci asked Tyson "What is it you think about God?Ē Tyson replied "I remain unconvinced by any claims anyone has ever made about the existence or the power of a divine force operating in the universe." Pigliucci asked him why then did he express discomfort with the label "atheist" in his Big Think video. Tyson replied by reiterating his dislike for one-word labels, saying "That's what adjectives are for. What kind of atheist are you? Are you an ardent atheist? Are you a passive atheist? An apathetic atheist? Do you rally, or do you just not even care? So I'd be on the 'I really don't care' side of that, if you had to find adjectives to put in front of the word 'atheist.'" Pigliucci contrasted Tyson with scientist Richard Dawkins: "[Dawkins] really does consider, at this point, himself to be an atheist activist. You very clearly made the point that you are not." Tyson replied: "I completely respect that activity. He's fulfilling a really important role out there." [53]

You would probably find the same consistent pattern across said clips. Tyson is fairly reliable that way, in how he promotes his agenda.

If that's arrogance, his arrogance is plainly a virtue.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
All I know is my experience.

I saw a series of at least six or seven clips where he'd discussed how ridiculous religion is. Then, I saw a clip where he states that religion is beside the point and that he's uninterested in discussing it. Even though I'd just been inundated with media of him being belligerent.

I guess I could give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he became uninterested in discussing religion because some of his comments about it had become widely disseminated. It just seemed to me that bagging on religion because it was for the plebes was his schtick.

I'll acknowledge that -- at least from the outside perspective -- he comes off as being extremely arrogant. But again, I've only seen clips and sound bites.

So what you're saying is that your experience, in this case, is extremely limited, very disjointed, lacking in context, and chosen by whoever created the clips to show Tyson at his most confrontational. Chosen by you, too, since you watched them.

Well, that sounds like a solid basis for forming a sweeping opinion if I've ever heard one. Not in the least bit arrogant, either.

Ok, enough with being harsh. Let me add some context for you: I've listened to at least three dozen of his podcasts, and if religion comes more than once-briefly-an episode it's unusual. If you select your samples from discussions and debates and reactions to reactionaries, then yes, by all means, he might sound arrogant. Until you realize he's likely responding to something about the Creation Museum, or someone advocating 'Intelligent Design' in public schools, financed by tax dollars.

That's about the time you realize he's reacting to religion as though it were any other topic, stripped of its usual untouchability.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
I'll acknowledge that -- at least from the outside perspective -- he comes off as being extremely arrogant.

So you're acknowledging what you'd previously asserted?


quote:
But again, I've only seen clips and sound bites.
Who was it excerpting the clips and soundbites from the larger context? What media outlet is it that is presenting these things to you?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Codeô is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2