Latest

Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ Says Climate Change Deniers Should Face Jail

Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' says that all climate change deniers should go straight to jail

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” has said that he believes that all climate change deniers should be locked away in prison, sharing the same views expressed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr in 2014. 

Kennedy said that he would favor giving climate diners “three hots and a cot at the hague with all the other war criminals” – an idea that Nye appeared to agree with in a recent interview.

Offthegridnews.com reports:

“Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?” Nye asked. “Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive and so on? And you think about in these cases — for me as a taxpayer and voter — the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen.

“So I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussion like this.”

Climate Hustle, which takes a skeptical look at climate change, will appear in theaters nationwide for one night: May 2.

Kennedy had also said that politicians and business people who deny climate change are “selling out the public trust.”

“Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exist,” Kennedy said. “They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under.”

  • eric

    what a loser tool.

  • zuch

    Your problem is that Nye said NOTHING of the sort. Do you need lessons in English comprehension?

    • jwclark

      Don’t you recognize the politicians shuffle when you see it? Aren’t we trained to look in, around, and between the words? Goodness. JWC

      • zuch

        You’re allowed context. Context here is he says that Enron were fraudsters and should be locked up. And that Big Tobacco’s hired ‘doctors’ were bought quacks and should be prosecuted. Do you disagree? He says if the same pertains (” we’ll see”) here, we ought to do similar. No word about locking up all deniers. You’re not allowed to just make that up.

        • jwclark

          So, just which actual “DENIERS” did he actually label? If there were NONE then it was ALL–elementary deduction my dear Watson. JWC

          • zuch

            Not quite. He said that those that perpetrate knowing frauds (as did the Big Tobacco ‘doctors’ and their buddies [and guess what!, our friend Steve Milloy is at it AGAIN with climate denial, funny how the same names keep popping up]) might well be considered for prosecution. That is specific … and not “all”. If you’re just an ignoramus or too lazy to do simple Google searches, and not in the pay of Big Oil, you’re OK (but probably in need of re-education camps *wink* *wink*). But what have we here? Lately we find that Exxon has known about climate change ways back: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding Imagine that!…

          • jwclark

            If human caused climate change is not a proven theory, and it is not, then Exxon cannot have known about it “way back” as anything but a theory. That’s pretty simple.*

            And one more thing, since science is the new religion, (read, “Darwin On Trial”) if we want to look for a new Inquisition it would be logical then to look for it in the fields of science.
            And as soon as those who like Carl Sagan denounce the entire ancient world are given political power, it is a short step to the Inquisition and the Thought Police who will enforce all scientific dogma–the dogma, of course, of those scientists who have been put in charge of official knowledge. It’s pretty straight forward historically. Nye looks like Mr. Roberts, but he stinks of the Grand Inquisitor. That’s my view. JWC

            *P.S. the primary issue is about a responsible use of the earth’s resources, not about climate change which is an ongoing issue/debate. That said, the oil and nuclear industries are rife with crimes against the earth and humanity. And, in my view, “climate change” is just something that is used to distract from those real ethical and criminal issues. And the Republic cannot continue to exist without freedom of conscience and the speech that expresses that! That is a given.

            And the scientists who tweak the data from those industries, Oil, Nuclear, Tobacco, are as guilty as the bosses who give them their orders. But there are many many who have no relationship whatsoever with the power industries that are not at all convinced that global warming is proven science!

          • zuch

            If human caused climate change is not a proven theory, and it is not, then Exxon cannot have known about it “way back” as anything but a theory.

            More of this “it’s just a theory bulltwaddle that both Creationists and AGW Denialists keep flogging. Evolution is a theory and a fact. Relativity theory is s theory and a fact. The theory explains the facts. This theory does so better than Newtonian mechanics for non-trivial speeds.

            You are mimicking the Creationists, always demanding more ‘evidence’, ignoring what you’ve been given, and carping that what is there is not “proof” enough for you. The Creationists keep asking for transitional fossils, and whenever one is produced, they then say, “Oh. Now you have a new species midway in between. Now there’s two transitional fossils you’re missing, not just one.” Anyone with any intellectual integrity will see that this is nonsense; that it is absurd.

            The AGW Denialists busy themselves throwing stones at the AGW theories (many times on manufactured bases or misunderstandings), but they haven’t produced their own “theory”, much less “proved” it in the same fashion that they demand of the climate scientists (a fault that Creationists share as well). If they actually were scientists instead of carpers and critics, they would present their own theory. They don’t.

            And one more thing, since science is the new religion, (read, “Darwin On Trial”) if we want to look for a new Inquisition it would be logical then to look for it in the fields of science.

            I’ve read it. I know Philip Johnson (he was my CrimLaw prof) and have had many discussion with him. He’s full of himself, and he is not a scientist (his knowledge of biology comes out quickly in any discussion of such with him).

            But there are many many who have no relationship whatsoever with the power industries that are not at all convinced that global warming is proven science!

            There’s many Creationists that don’t have a financial stake in the outcome. But they know the outcome they want, nonetheless, for ideological or psychological reasons, I don’t know. So they dismiss the stuff that disagrees with that and see only what they want to see. “Confirmation bias”, it’s called. Happening in the AGW debate too. The mark of a bad ‘scientist’ (or not a scientist at all).

          • jwclark

            This and you are not sincere. By.

  • jwclark

    The trend is so pervasive today that these public figures are no longer afraid to take postures that previously would have been immediately labeled “Thought Police.” I mean either we have a free and open debate, and freedom of conscience and the ability to speak that conscience, or we do not. Freedom smacks of the absolute, when you start tinkering with it pretty soon it is not freedom at all but the opposite–of course masquerading as “freedom.” If you put him in a room with John Adams, or a man like Franklin, the guy would probably wet his pants.
    And his analogy between citizens who have doubts about science (a science that does not seem to be willing to factor in either the sun or the larger cycles of the entire solar system) and the CEOs of Enron and the Tobacco industry who lied under oath, (i.e., broke existing laws) is not just weak but intellectual gobbledegook, or even outright dishonesty.
    If it walks and talk like an Inquisitor, it probably is an Inquisitor.
    But we already have reams and reams of data on the foolishness of placing scientists who can’t even account for the existence of ethics in charge of ethics and teaching it! They just give themselves a pass and never look in the mirror.
    Carl Sagan was a great example of this. It is no wonder then that his chapter on “Scientists and Sin” was the shortest in his last book, “Demon Haunted World…” which was more debunkery than a piece of concerned apologetics.
    P.S. And by the way, if this IS a flag, it’s meaning is that the Thought Police are actually on their way. And people are going to have to make a decision when that comes. So, you all better gird up your loins and get ready–otherwise you will fail yourselves and your Republic. JWC

    • zuch

      Freedom smacks of the absolute, when you start tinkering with it pretty soon it is not freedom at all but the opposite–of course masquerading as “freedom.”

      So you propose a First Amendment defense for against charges of fraud, eh? Why, the Konstitooshun sez I can say ANYTHING I want. Freedom of speech! Freedom of speech! Someone else could have told that old lady I was a snake oil salesman. But they didn’t. So there!

      If you put him in a room with John Adams, or a man like Franklin, the guy would probably wet his pants.

      Projection. And you’d be right to be afraid. Franklin (and Jefferson) had no tolerance for charlatans. They actually believed in the scientific method. Not
      Creationism uhhh, sorry, hucksterism.

      And his analogy between citizens who have doubts about science (a science that does not seem to be willing to factor in either the sun or the larger cycles of the entire solar system) and the CEOs of Enron and the Tobacco industry who lied under oath, (i.e., broke existing laws) is not just weak but intellectual gobbledegook, or even outright dishonesty.

      There is dishonesty here. The dishonesty is your ‘analogy’. You made that up. Nye didn’t. As for “a science that does not seem to be willing to factor in either the sun or the larger cycles of the entire solar system”, that has been addressed (and refuted). See here, here, and here, for instance.

      But we already have reams and reams of data on the foolishness of placing scientists who can’t even account for the existence of ethics in charge of ethics and teaching it!

      Hmmm. I think I need to quote your prior language: “… not just weak but intellectual gobbledegook, or even outright dishonesty.” WTF are you talking about?!?!? What “reams and reams of data”?!?!? Showing exactly what?!?!? Cite appreciated.

      Carl Sagan was a great example of this. It is no wonder then that his chapter on “Scientists and Sin” was the shortest in his last book, “Demon Haunted World…” which was more debunkery than a piece of concerned apologetics.

      WTF does this (whatever it is, and assuming arguendo it actually true) have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?!?!?

      P.S. And by the way, if this IS a flag, it’s meaning is that the Thought Police are actually on their way. And people are going to have to make a decision when that comes. So, you all better gird up your loins and get ready–otherwise you will fail yourselves and your Republic.

      Haloperidol can help with that. Ask your doctor about Haloperidol.

      • jwclark

        First of all you misrepresent me. I explained what I meant by freedom and used English well within a long history of an exchange of ideas. I did not say freedom is absolute, period! And I explained my self. Only a fool, to use the language of an old intellectual tradition, confuses “freedom with license–i.e., as a license to commit crimes!” And then, with that as a given, we talk intelligently about the nature of freedom as it relates to our real world.

        And everything else I wrote is well within the realm of comprehension of people who have studied, read, and thought on these topics. ‘Nuff said. JWC

        • zuch

          I don’t misrepresent you. You said: “Freedom smacks of the absolute”. All I said is that this means that you can cry “fire” falsely in a crowded theatre, you can defraud people with false claims and offers, etc. Which I think is really not a very good idea, your ideological penchants notwithstanding. Which is to say: I maintain that freedom isn’t an absolute; that any ‘absolute’ is if fact reductio ad absurdum (and I gave several examples of why this is a sound conclusion).

          I explained what I meant by freedom and used English well within a long history of an exchange of ideas.

          Nope. You engaged in bafflegab (as you continue to do right here), not bothering to explain what it is you are trying to say, much less back it up with concrete facts or quotes from anyone else.

          This:

          when you start tinkering with it pretty soon it is not freedom at all but the opposite–of course masquerading as “freedom.”

          is sheer bullsh*te. Almost sounds like the “interpenetration of opposites” (which is also bafflegab). You do know where that comes from, don’t you?

          And everything else I wrote is well within the realm of comprehension of people who have studied, read, and thought on these topics.

          Everything you have said is not responsive to my comments and criticism above.

          ‘Nuff said.

          Sez you, But that assumes that you don’t want to actually convince anyone of anything.

    • cascadian12

      It isn’t about their THOUGHTS; it’s about their ACTIONS, which effectively stopped any progress on climate change mitigation. Fossil fuel companies spent millions to catapult the propaganda. As a result, the world is getting cooked. If that isn’t a crime of unimaginable proportion, I don’t know what is.

      Just like religion, which is what climate change denial is. You can believe anything you want; just don’t violate other people’s rights to life and security.

      • jwclark

        You are not having a conversation here Cascadian. You are lobbing your opinions over the barricades at your supposed enemy.

        That said, I know something about the power companies, their history, and their sins, perhaps more than you yourself do, and I think its people are all sold to the Devil. And I know the story of science, its method, and its limitations, and ITS sins as well!
        But you associate me (and other neighbors) with them and liken my position to unthinking practitioners of pulpit Christianity–both serious insults to a thinking man.

        This is no way to start or have a serious and sincere conversation.
        If you can’t tell the difference between a thoughtful sincerity and the unjustified opinions of blind faith, then please don’t bother me again. Thank you.

  • Astro

    But people aren’t making money off of denying climate change, so how can that be compared to the people denying that cigarettes kill you?