One time when I was in college (you are impressed) I was walking with a friend who I had known for three years, and somehow the topic of global warming came up. And he started talking about how he didn’t believe in it and was reading a book about how it was all BS. And it was the weirdest thing? Because I guess he always dressed like someone who probably didn’t believe in global warming, particularly the human influence on global warming, but also he was a jazz bassist so I figured he thought the same kind of normal things that the rest of the people I knew thought. But nope! I didn’t really know how to react so I just kind of pretended like I didn’t have an opinion either way. Oh well. Did not save a mind that day. 13 to 17-year-old punk Kelly is very disappointed, I’m sure.

Luckily Bill Nye is not like me in that scenario (all other scenarios TBD).

Hahah. GOTCHA BILL NYE. “It’s not like we’re up on the moon using hairspray and driving MOON cars. And yet.” Great point, Jon Scott. The roof is blown off of the climate change conspiracy and it is all thanks to you and your thoughtful questioning. Ten points for gryffinduh. (Via The Uniblog.)

Comments (84)
  1. Bill Nye also wears the superior neckwear. In your face, yellow tie.

  2. Bill Nye’s experience in talking to young children serves him well in a variety of formats, it seems.

  3. I want to subscribe to the Bill Nye comparing the moon to a cupcake podcast

  4. Speaking as a climate change skeptic, shut up Jon Scott.

    • Speaking as a climate change modeling scientist, shut up Godsauce

      • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

        • haha. you didn’t make an argument in the first place. you walked into a room and announced “I’m a “climate change skeptic.”"

          Not a lot of info there, so ain’t much to say to that. One could say “I don’t know and will never know which of the millions of facts involved in climate science you have learned and what about your personal politics and psychology have led you to be a unsolicitedly-self-proclaimed climate skeptic. BUT – I am both shallow and completely without experience in dealing with people that say things like that and then act like it is COMPLETELY UNFAIR that they be judged by people who don’t know EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM THAT THEY DIDN’T SAY. ALSO, I don’t know enough about this subject not to accept a “belief/nonbelief” dichotomy as appropriate here, and as if it were between equally reasonable sides. So I will just also make an unsolicited announcement that I am a climate change skeptic/not a climate change skeptic. I didn’t judge you, so that makes me tolerant. yay.”

          One could say nothing – if that person is not a “climate change skeptic,” this is the mild conundrum Kelly described above.

          One SHOULD say “I object to the idea that a long complex ever changing natural process about which there are millions of volumes of research is EVER discussed as if it has anything to do with the concept of “belief.”"

          One could start at the top with “CO2 was at holding steadyish at ~280 ppm for 10000 yrs until the last 200 yrs, and since then it has climbed to ~390 ppm.” Everyone on earth that got past 5th grade should already know that of course. But the purpose there is not just that fact; it is that that fact alone should end the discussion between any two reasonable people about whether climate change is something that it is actually possible one could be “skeptical” of. Of course it’s not. It’s a process that can be either be understood or not understood, but not believed in or not believed in.

          One could think that even though this “climate change skeptic” is, by definition, an unreasonable person, maybe they are smart, and therefore close to becoming a reasonable person someday. One might then decide that it is worth their time to ask the “skeptic” what their starting point vaguely is on the subject, and then help them with some facts they don’t know yet.

          In this case, you might have thought you were showing yourself to be worthy of that kind of benefit of the doubt, since you dismissed this dude Jon Scott for being a TOTAL idiot. But in reality, nobody gets any credit just because they maybe understand that everything on Fox News is propaganda for some set of corporations that own Fox (I don’t even care anymore which ones) so of course the idiots they hire lie about this, and of course they should shut up. That’s a given. What you said in your comment was not proof of “nuance” or “moderation” on your part – it was just that you understand ONE of the givens. An easy one of them.

          I don’t know what else to say right now man. Whatever your starting point is, being a self-proclaimed climate skeptic is an unacceptable ending point, and that’s not intolerance to say that.

          • “I love the new Climate Change debate forums here on Videogum! Best place to have a discourse on Science or politics, or even better…Religion!” – nobody ever.

          • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

          • You seem to have made a lot of assumptions about my position based on very little information. I suppose that the term “climate change skeptic” is imprecise and loaded enough to imply certain things, but it was also a concise way of saying that I am not unwilling to entertain alternate theories and ideas. That definition of skepticism is crucial to all scientific investigation, especially investigation into complex systems, and it is all that I meant by the term.

            My point was that even a person not closed off to the notion that there might be other explanations for observed changes in Earth’s temperature can recognize the idiocy of Jon Scott’s statement. Your point seems to be that you will accept no dissent from orthodoxy, however slight, and that your presumed authority on the matter should silence all who dare to even suggest disagreement. This is not science.

            Your hypothetical counterarguments above are inane, mainly because there was no call for you to respond at all. I congratulate you on finally finding an issue where being rude to a person seemingly in disagreement with the prevailing sentiment has garnered you a degree of approval, but I have no interest in engaging you further.

          • HEY BACKWAXER, you can agree WITH SOMEONE without being A DICK, YOU fucking DICK.

            And don’t YOU FUCK with THE GODSAUCE!

          • AH, shit. I MEANT disagree. SORRY, WAS too distracted AND ENRAGED by your fucking ASSHOLENESS.

          • Do you think we should bring back Bookgum?

          • “Sorry, I guess what I should have written was ‘I do not love this new Climate Change debate forum at all, in fact, I prefer the new “Fuck you/Shut up” forums where we tell each other to shut up and fuck off because we’re upset about climate change or something that has everything to do with what Videogum stands for’” – Everybody

          • Hey guys, I’ve got a really quick question. I just recently lost my barf somewhere and I was wondering if anyone’s seen it. Thanks.

          • Nevermind, found it.

          • Godsauce the last time we interacted on here, I actually thought it went pretty cool. You said I was too angry at Louis CK, I objected and said I was the right amount of angry at Louis CK, you got sarcastic, and I called you an “asshole” for getting sarcastic when I was expressing something sincere… but then, weirdly, you started listening to me. And you conceded a point or two, and you made some points I couldn’t object to. It turned out to be the best we’ve ever gotten along, and I actually liked you a lot more at the end of it. While you were fighting it out you were actually listening and thinking. Cool. Facetaco has never interacted that way – he just jumps in, fucks with me, and jumps out.

            Considering the way we’ve interacted around here, I didn’t think it was that far out at first to ape your joke about Jon Scott, and just tell you to “shut up.” You put an opinion out there, one you probably knew wasn’t gonna be popular; I said “shut up,” but that aint that bad. And in contrast to what you are now saying (“there was no call for you to respond at all”) notice that your initial reaction could definitiely be seen as a challenge, if not invitiation, to talk more about this; I actually thought you were going to appreciate me talking to you just now dude. And, by the way, scan my comments for rudeness – worst word in there is “idiot” and it was directed at Jon Scott.

            And THEN the thing is, for a climate scientist, I didn’t say a lot that my “presumed authority on the matter” vouches for. Instead of getting into climate science, I got into what anyone’s options are when ALL they know is that they are dealing with someone who is (albeit vaguely and incompletely) broadcasting an ideology they strongly disagree with. Kind of Kelly’s point too. So in contrast to “making a lot of assumptions about your position based on very little information,” I started from exactly that place and said “I know I have very little information about what you think; but here is what I disagree with about the ideology you are claiming part of.”

            I’m not going to argue that much more about what is wrong with “climate change skepticism.” But I am going to defend myself and say that my position has nothing to do with being “unwilling to entertain alternate theories and ideas.”

            Here’s a hypothetical. Before you try: I’m NOT suggesting an equivalence between these two issues.

            What if I’d said “Whatever your starting point is, being a self-proclaimed racist is an unacceptable ending point, and that’s not intolerance to say that.”

            You wouldn’t have followed that up with “Your point seems to be that you will accept no dissent from orthodoxy, however slight, and that your presumed authority on the matter should silence all who dare to even suggest disagreement.”

            You know there are some things we can actually say about the world. So stop saying things like “You’re trying to silence me!” If you don’t want to be silenced, SAY SOMETHING! And stop saying things like “Your problem is you come into every argument just thinking that you are right!” It’s a ridiculous cover instead of actually arguing. Of course I think I’m right – if I thought I was wrong I would CHANGE my opinion. Here’s something else – YOU think YOU’RE right too. And It’s YOUR assumption that I have never thought about other viewpoints until we’re arguing. An assumption which is wrong!

            I’m an adult dude. I’ve been around. I read one of Bjorn Lomborg’s idiotic climate change skepticism books. I’ve watched Barack Obama concede everything liberal left in the country based on the idea that both sides should have something to contribute. And I don’t believe that stuff, cause I thought about it and I SHOULDN’T believe that stuff.

            It is not an unwillingness to entertain other viewpoints, or bad science, or intolerance, or whatever you think it is, that allows me to say that the idea of “climate change skepticism” is a joke. Climate change skepticism ACTUALLY IS A JOKE!

          • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

          • Please do not respond to me again. I do not accept your interpretation of this discussion or of any discussion that we’ve ever had. I could go through your post and and explain how my interpretation of things differ, but I do not believe that you would hear me. It is, therefore, pointless and fruitless to engage. To put it simply, interacting with you makes me unhappy. I do not come here to be made unhappy. If you disagree with something I say, kindly keep it to yourself, and I will do the same.

          • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

          • djfreshie – this is weird. I just went back to look at the Louis CK thing where I got a million downvotes but thought a productive conversation ended up happening…

            And YOU were the other main dude then that actually stuck around and peacefully debated shit with me until we sort of just got peacefully tired of debating things.

            At the time I disagreed with most of what you said, but not all of it, and I thought you were cool then just for being willing to talk about it. Later I thought about things more and thought some of the things you said that I thought were wrong at the time were a little more right.

            You even came in that time excited to see a debate, while these regular boring people like That One were playing their same “oh boy, everyone calm down” roles.

            You probably don’t care but I liked you more when you were interested in shit then, than when you were just shitting on everything today.

          • “whoa, hey, they have a little comment section down here for people to chat, i’ll scroll down here and check out what’s… oh god” -me

          • We’re fine with debate, Backwaxer. As long as you’re not a patronizing jerk about it.

          • aw fuck. alright Son of Gabe, I guess now we’re going to have to get all fucking sarcastic with each other also, cause 1. you know it’s a patronizing, jerky move to call someone a patronizing jerk, 2. you’re belittling the honest effort I went to yesterday to have a discussion about this shit, and 3. you’re wrong

            look at what I did:

            Godsauce angrily and sarcastically accused me of flippantly dismissing him, and I decided, “ok, he’s angry and sarcastic and doesn’t really have a point, but since he accused me of being short with him, I’ll have an honest discussion about what I could have done there.” So I made a ton of effort to write something that explored what I could have done. It was in tone with 2 things: 1. the fact that I wasn’t exactly sure what I was supposed to be doing in response to an angry sarcastic accusation that I had been too flippant, 2. the real world where lies about climate change are so rampant that I deal with people every day that have come to some backwards uninformed conclusion about this issue instead of being reasonable and learning something about what the scientific consensus is on the issue.

            It’s not patronizing to treat a sarcastic adult like a sarcastic adult. It’s not jerky to be honest about how backwards it is to skip over or actively reject a scientific consensus like you know better. In THAT context, I was being perfectly normal, and I was being nice just by engaging the dude. You’re accusation that I was being a jerk is wrong and jerky itself.

          • Backwaxer – I guess the difference then vs. today is that I felt there was a valid defense of Louis CK, who I respect, to make. Especially considering that he is a human being who, despite being in the public arena, is as flawed and human as everyone else. And I thought, along with Tracy Morgan, he was being unfairly attacked for something. I find it interesting how quick we are to judge one another, and the debate felt somewhat at home on a website that spends a lot of time with, well, TV shows and movies and such. That debate was related to videogum.

            But where it comes to personal belief, its not the same thing. Plus its one of those classic internet arguments that don’t end. I can spend all day on a youtube page reading about climate change debates and evolution debates and atheists claiming religion is the worst, and religious people claiming abortion is the worst – It’s all the worst because nobody on the internet is actually good at debating anything.

            Not even me, really, I tend to come off like an asshole sometimes, which I’m actually not in real life, so I try to back off and not do it if I can avoid it.

            Anyways, Videogum is the only place I’ve found where politics are generally avoided if they can be, and what you’re left with is just peeps trying to be funny, which is good because I get the sweet content upstairs, and then I get more sweet content downstairs. And then even better is I can participate in the sweet downstairs content (thatswhatshesaid)

            So my point is, this is cool place to chill out during otherwise dull or stressful workdays where there isn’t a lot of judgment going on, and the odd Tide Fashion but whatever. It’s nice here.

            Tl;dr

          • well, thanks for writing back.

            In this case I wasn’t writing about things not related to Videogum or personal beliefs. That’s true because:

            1) The post was about Fox news and the way they promote climate change skepticism propaganda ridiculously.

            2) Kelly was funny in the way she was being ridiculously judgmental, but she wrote something that has much more to do with the personal style of people that tend to be climate change skeptics than I ever have: “I guess he always dressed like someone who probably didn’t believe in global warming, particularly the human influence on global warming, but also he was a jazz bassist so I figured he thought the same kind of normal things that the rest of the people I knew thought…”

            3) I actually wasn’t really writing about facts about climate change or people’s style. I was responding to what I saw as an accusation that I had unfairly jumped in and dismissed someone without any reason or explanation. The main gist of my comment was the question “What did you want me to do considering we have very different ideologies and I don’t even know the 2nd thing about yours?”

            4) That comment took me a long time to write, I liked what I wrote, and in seconds you dismissed the whole thing.

            My first message back to you was “If you don’t want to read something, don’t read it.” But then I thought that would be passive agressive and off point, cause of course you knew that you could do that, and the point of your comment was to purposefully shit on my honest effort. I decided it was much more straightforward and fair to you just say “fuck you” to let you know that I got it, I didn’t like it, and I’m smart enough to know that there is no reason not to let you know that I didn’t like it.

            The last thing, again, is that climate change has nothing to do with “personal beliefs.” There is no “belief” involved. The reasonable thing to do is to learn what the scientific community knows about it, like you do with almost everything you learn and then get to have an informed opinion about. The unreasonable thing to do is to accept information from people outside of accredited science who have no credentials and other agendas. Your own personality, politics, style, superstitions, and anything else you “believe” for any weird reason is nothing like it, and has no effect on it. It’s a set of facts. Learn it. know it. live it.

  5. Guys, I did a couple number moving around, and it turns out Fox News is full of shit.

  6. “Wait, are you telling me that the moon has gravity? Look, Mr. Science, we aren’t up driving cars on the moon, so why is there Global Warning? I rest my cases.”

  7. “Okay, Bill, so the moon doesn’t have any more volcanoes, I’ll give you that. But let’s say it were made of spare ribs. Would you eat it?”

    • “Bill Nye, let me ask you this – if you had to choose between being the top scientist in your field or getting mad cow disease, what would it be?”

    • “Hey! Bill! What’s your favorite planet? Mine’s the Sun, because it’s like, the king of all the planets!” – Jon Scott, probably.

  8. Maybe the volcanoes aren’t exploding anymore because we stuck an American flag in them?
    FOX NEWS RUN WITH THAT

  9. “Volcanoes are not connected to the burning of fossil fuels.”

    “No, but-”

    NO BUT WHAT? What the hell was he going to say?

  10. I think Bill Nye missed the bigger point: How DID the moon get up there?

  11. Bill Nye did a guest lecture for my college (ladies) Astronomy class, it was the best 50 minutes of my academic tenure, possibly the best 50 minutes of my life.

  12. My favorite part has got to be when Bill Nye closes his eyes and pauses momentarily before explaining that volcanoes aren’t in fact related to the burning of fossil fuels.

  13. What the fuck is with the horrible woman jumping in at the last second to make a reference to the fucking debt issue? ‘You know, maybe we should him to uh, you know move some uh, numbers, uh, take care of that uh, that uh, whole debt crisis. Thing.’ Shut the fuck up. God, these people. Love Bill Nye, though, which is kind of a huge duh (which would of course take more time to cool than a small dud).

  14. America can, should, must, and will blow up the moon.

    • We’re spending all this money, millions of dollars, to blow up the moon, when there are so many things here on Earth to blow up … Mount Everest, the North Pole, et cetera. We’re earthlings, let’s blow up Earth things!

  15. “If the moon had erupting volcanoes a few years… uh, a few million years ago, however you want to put it…”

    HOWEVER HE WANTS TO PUT IT?!!!!!

    Methinks Fox News literally doesn’t understand that there are indisputable physical, scientific facts that simply are what they are and can’t be changed by just having the entire network take a different position.

    (RANT: How can we be at a time in history where there are more actual facts at our fingertips than any

    • (To make the way my comment ended seem less awkward, lets all pretend I blew a blood vessel ranting and bled out all over my keyboard. Goodbye, cruel world…)

    • Well, it’s possible the simple idea of time extending back millions (not to say billions) of years is deeply antithetical to that man’s ideology…

  16. Volcanoes on the moon? What does that say about global warming? You can’t explain that!

  17. Global warming is not, and should not, be used as a political chess piece.

    The earth has been heating since about the 70s. Believe it or not…it was cooling from around 40s-70s. There was a global cooling scare in the 70s believe it or not. What does all this mean?

    Nothing…because in the life of a 4.5 billion year old planet, these sample sizes are laughably small. For a 100 year sample to be statistically significant, the change would have to be unrealistically large.

    All that said…Bill Nye is super awesome and Fox News suxorz obviously…

  18. I love your point that its a matter of understanding, rather than one of belief. I’ll be using that the next time someone tries to Fox news me.

    • This was supposed to be a reply to a comment up above by Backwaxer, even though he’s being responded to pretty handily already.

    • “Congratulations, You Got Foxed in the Ass!”
      -Fox News’ original slogan (ultimately rejected on the grounds of “too many syllables”)

  19. Can we close the debate on Global Warming now? If Bill Nye says it’s real, it’s real. End of story.

  20. Wait, I’m not sure there was any real debate in the clip at all. The host made some incoherent comment about volcanoes on the moon (there aren’t any), made a dopey remark about the period when there MIGHT have been volcanoes on the moon (“A year ago, or a million years ago . . .”),

    Nye asserts (correctly) that volcanism on earth isn’t the source of carbon dioxide on earth (almost true, they’re a negligble source), mentions the carbon dioxide spike beginning with the Industrial age (didn’t mention that but mentions the increase) … and then went on to discuss somewhat scattered arguments about the truth of science and comparisons with other planets.

    Perhaps a decent correction, but not a gripping FOX television debate. And for the record, I strongly believe in anthropogenic atmosphere change.

  21. Oy, how many ways can you possibly explain that something smaller holds less heat and thus cools faster than something bigger? That was like, the majority of the video. I wonder if Bill remembers how to explain things to adults anymore. Although to be fair, Jon Scott’s brain seems barely developed. His douchebag smirk however, very well practiced.

  22. The correct response to “speaking of the climate change debate” is “there is no climate change debate.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.