Climate Change

Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics

"There is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good."



Bill Nye, called "The Science Guy" after the kids' show he hosted for PBS back in the 1990s, is up for jailing people who question climate change.

Asked about environmental activist Robert Kennedy's assertion that climate skeptics should be tried as war criminals, the TV personality mused, "We'll see what happens."

In a discussion of the case being brought by various state attorneys general against ExxonMobil—an action that has led to subpoenas of free-market think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)—Nye had this to say:

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 they're pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this….That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good.

More from The Washington Times here.

You don't need to be a flat-earther to think this sort of attitude is necessarily all to the good. Science works best when consensuses are reached via evidence and broad agreement, not political and legal threats.

Reason's science correspondent, Ronald Bailey, notes that CEI subpoeana—which seeks 10 years' worth of internal correspondence and private donor information—proceeded directly from a conference hosted by Al Gore and featuring many state-level attorneys general. Their main target is ExxonMobil, which they claim has lied about environmental science. But as Bailey, who doesn't actually agree with CEI on many climate-change issues and policies, notes, "to outlaw disagreements over how to interpret science heads down the perilous path toward Lysenkoism, in which only officially approved science is allowed to be practiced and discussed."

And as Glenn Reynolds, the University of Tennessee Law professor who runs the popular Instapundit site, wrote in USA Today, the subpoena of CEI is meant to punish the nonprofit for having taken money from ExxonMobil and will almost certainly chill its ability to raise money from donors. All because it doesn't subscribe to what politicians say is the proper way to think about and act on climate change.

Prescribing such orthodoxy seems to be just what they have in mind. Their approach is — and I use this term quite deliberately — thoroughly un-American. In pursuing this action, they are betraying their oaths of office, abusing their powers and behaving unethically as attorneys…. free speech advocates are already talking about a Virgin Islands tourism boycott. And voters everywhere need to ask themselves: If these government officials have such contempt for others' constitutional rights, who might they target next for "unacceptable" speech?

NEXT: Last Dem Debate Recap, Congress Considers Sex-Selective Abortion, The Czech Republic Is No More: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


    And in late breaking news, water is still wet!!’

    Film at 11!

    (Please, Bo trolls, bring up flag burning from the 90’s!!)

    1. He’s not just a leftist. He’s a leftist actor who looks like a stereotypical nerd. So he must be an expert, even though his background in science is that he once took a class taught by Carl Sagan.


        All you need to know.

        1. Duh, his nickname is “Science Guy”. What more do you want?

          1. I expect someone who claims to love science to act like he loves the unbiased open inquiry of science — and not act like a medieval religious fanatic from Holy Inquisition — seeking heretics and apostates to burn at the stake.

            What is it with the anti-science left anyway…? These people have blinders on. It was not so long ago when *Nye* was the “denier” of the “scientific consensus” on GMOs — and almost surely influenced scores of people to develop in irrational fear of bio-technology.

      2. He does have an engineering degree. Which doesn’t make him an expert in anything, but does mean he has some kind of sciencey background. I thought he was pretty OK as a science popularizer for kids.

        That said, if he’s going to spout this kind of idiocy, fuck him, he’s given up on any pretense of scientific objectivity and is officially a total asshole.

        1. still a screaming douche whatever his “academic” qualification …

          1. I think you can probably omit the scare quotes on an ME degree from Cornell.

            But yeah, screaming douche.

            1. Engineering =/= science. Getting a degree =/= doing science. Doing science =/= being able to confidently expound on areas outside of any even vaguely related expertise.

              1. The scare quotes were not about “science” but “academic”

              2. Good thing I didn’t claim any of those things were true. All I meant was that an engineering degree from Cornell can probably be safely referred to as an academic qualification without the scare quotes.
                Of course he’s not an expert, he’s a TV presenter. But it is dishonest of him to pretend that he speaks with any authority on climate science.

                1. he IS speaking with authority on climate science. Kind of his job definition (the climate part being optional). Knowing anything about science wouldn’t disqualify somebody, but isn’t necessary either.

              3. Dr. Tyson called, he wants to talk to you about the inflaton field.

        2. The exact technical term for sellout presstitutes who once earned a science degree is “ex-scientist”

        3. Well, not completely fair.

          He has a bunch of honorary degrees, too!

          1. Honorary = Unearned.

      3. He’s the “I Fucking Love Science!” crowd’s favorite “scientist.” Kind of fitting that he’s not an actual scientist, but only a Mechanical Engineer by training.

        I have an Aerospace Engineering degree, so I guess that means I’m every bit the scientist that Bill Nye is.

        1. No, but he also wears a bow tie! Do you wear a bow tie? If not you can’t be a scientist because you aren’t nerdy enough.

          If people who don’t wear bow ties start doing science, that might break the stereotype. And then non nerdy people who just happen to be smart might think they can do science to. And you know what that means. Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, cats and dogs living together!

          1. And yes I am aware of the irony that I, the absolute dictionary definition of a nerd, complaining about perpetuating nerd stereotypes.

          2. You know who else wore a bow-tie?

            Cotton Mather

            1. I trust witch burners in bow ties. It’s definitely American.

        2. I have three engineering degrees, so I’m three times the scientist Nye is! And equally qualified to comment on public policy and criminal justice.

          1. You’re only qualified if you agree.

        3. It shows, all understatement aside.

    2. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great m0ney. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I’ve been doing ???????????? Open this link

      1. But do you wear a bow tie?

      2. But do you wear a bow tie?

      3. But does it involve CO2?

    3. Did Bill Nye make the “Enemies of Freedom” list from a couple of years ago?

      Does he now?

    4. Water isn’t wet; it just makes other things wet.

      You scienced it wrong.

    5. my buddy’s aunt makes $71 every hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 8 months but last month her check was $17207 just working on the laptop for a few hours. view it now???????

  2. Everyone expects the climate change inquisition.

    1. Which really makes me want to start an American Inquisition, even though I’d have to convert to Catholicism and subvert the 1st Amendment…. Then we’ll see who produces the most carbon climate scientists!

      1. You’re going to get Eddie all excited.

    2. I expect the trials to beheld in Salem and a revisiting of spectral evidence.

    3. Nye and his ilk would have been calling for death by fire for actual scientists like Galileo.
      The scientific consensus must be open to challenge, or it’s not scientific, just a consensus.

      1. Also known as dogma, which is where we move right into “punish the heretics” territory. Bring the scales and a duck.

        1. They crossed into ‘punish the heretics’ territory a while ago. They’re just moving from social punishment to legal punishment now. Fairly certain I know what’s coming next, and it isn’t good.

    4. Turn it around: ask proponents of climate communism HOW MUCH POWER water vapor and other greenhouse gases are trapping instead of letting escape into space. Given that number, engineers could work out the diameters of orbiting mirrors needed to deflect that many Watts of incident sunlight. Furthermore, if the political demands of revealed faith were to change from a warming to a cooling panic, the mirrors could simply add to the incident flux. It therefore follows, as night follows day, that number will be produced only after this year’s version of the Millerites again provide the exact date of the impending Rapture and Second Coming of some mythical prophet.

    5. This will prolly start over at the Real Science blog. There is nothing pseudoscience looters hate worse than being reminded of their past published prophesies and Revelations.

  3. “When someone describes themselves as a taxpayer, they’re about to be an asshole” – Demetri Martin

  4. Bill Nye the Fascist Guy?
    Bill Nye the Jong-Un Guy?

    1. Bill Nye, The Silencer Guy!

    2. Bill Nye, the Pseudoscience Guy

      1. Bill Nye, the screaming douche guy?

    3. Bill Nye the I hope he gets AIDS guy

      1. Now that’s just mean! (I like it too)

      2. Two from my middle school days:

        Bill Nye he’s gonna die.
        Bill Nye he’s not a guy.

    4. Bill Nye, the Shat Pants Guy?

    5. Bill Nye, the Witch Hunter

  5. Nye is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a U.S. non-profit scientific and educational organization whose aim is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.

    Nye holds several United States patents, including one for an educational magnifying glass created by filling a clear plastic bag with water.

      1. So he’s, like, *contributing* to global warming?

    1. And has been previously established by groups such as NESS, they are not skeptical about global warming. In fact, they are religious about CAGW and are among the first to scream Apostate! when anyone even questions the orthodoxy.

      CAGW is to “Skeptics in Skeptical Society” as Mohamed being The Prophet is to ISIS.

    2. Nye holds several United States patents, including one for an educational magnifying glass created by filling a clear plastic bag with water.

      That was a patentable idea? The fuck?!

      1. So he need only patent the evaporation of raindrops and disallow it. Once water vapor is gone, the remaining “greenhouse” gases are cow farts and small poatoes.

    3. Funny how “skeptics” nowadays are skeptical about everything except Climate Science.

      1. Many are not very skeptical about the powers of government, either.

        1. Sometimes I wonder if progressives and statists genuinely believe that the government is some benevolent entity that works to make our lives better, or if they just pretend because they know the bureaucracy is on their side and want to crush people who they disagree with.

          1. Or worse still: a True Believer out for revenge – with governmental approval.

  6. I’ve heard him talk this way before, this is not an anomaly. There is a broad consensus in the far-left wing of the skeptic movement that people who disagree with them are evil Luddites who want to destroy the world.

    In a way I suppose I can understand how that attitude could develop. The roots of the skeptic movement lie in debunking charlatans who purported to contact dead relatives or move things with the power of their mind. So they have a cultural background of being right and saving folks from people who meant to do them harm. They used the tools of critical thinking and the scientific method to demonstrate the inability of the bad guys to perform as claimed.

    Fast forward 30 years and along come people like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse-Tyson. They expand the credibility of their science communicator role into their atheist-skeptic world view, which can be a real weapon for good. But a certain level of hubris goes along with it. Authoritatively repeating things you heard from others can give one a false sense of intellectual superiority. It doesn’t help that they are often battling people who truly haven’t got a clue, like the good folks over at the Discovery Institute.

    So when faced with something like climate change they no longer have the tools to participate in a debate. They’ve been preaching from the pulpit so long that anyone heckling from the congregation is an apostate.

    1. The problem is that they have gotten lazy and too used to appealing to authority. Even in the case of fighting against the Discovery Institute, the have overplayed their hand. It is not that they are not correct in their criticisms. They for the most part are. It is that they have adopted the very unscientific position that they can never be wrong and thus anyone who questions evolution or asks deeper questions about the origins and structure of the universe can immediately be dismissed. Sorry, it may be a pain the the neck to have to constantly go back and reprove your theory , but it has to be done. You can never say for certain that one of those kookie criticism might have a point unless you go down time after time and prove to the other side and yourself it doesn’t.

      They stepped on the slippery slope of “the science is settled” in the evolution debate. They then decided they liked it so well that they fell right down it when it came to global warming. Once you start just dismissing things out of hand by appealing to authority, you find it is pretty fun and a whole lot easier than thinking.

      1. Yeah, that’s where I was going. And they have something of a point. They even have a name for the debate tactic used by people like the Creationists. It is the Gish Gallop. They toss out a torrent of erroneous claims that can each be refuted, but doing so would require more time than is available.

        It is a sort of variant of moving the goalposts, but instead of moving them one location at a time, you just pile on the moves all at once. It should be familiar to folks who are married – the “list o’ complaints” in response to one small point in an argument.

        But years of dealing with that as a culture has lead to some of them resorting to “appeal to authority” for every little argument, with Bill Nye being the most visible and vocal of the type. There are leaders in the community who are trying to teach proper communication techniques (like Steve Novella), but the most public face is becoming increasingly blowhardy with folks like the Science Guy.

        1. But if only the other side wasn’t so *unreasonable,* these well-intentioned skeptics wouldn’t have had to resort to logical fallacies!

        2. Even in the evolution debate, they ignore the problem of the existence of numerous mathematical constants in the universe. There is nothing that requires these constants to be what they are. Yet, if they were even slightly different, the universe would no longer be hospitable for intelligent life. The creationists come along and say “look, we only exist because these constants are what they are and when you consider the incredibly slim chance that all of these constants would be this way out of chance, that is fairly strong evidence some intelligent force set them that way for the purpose of the universe being what it is”.

          Now that is not a necessarily ridiculous argument. It is the old teleological argument only this time backed up with real observation. The watch found in the field is no longer metaphorical. Indeed, it is a troubling enough argument that cosmologists started positing the existence of an infinite number of other universes to explain it. (if there are an infinite number of universes, then one that is hospital to intelligent life must exist and we necessarily live in it).

          It is a pretty interesting question. Sadly, guys like Ney never ask it because they are so used to just appealing to authority.

          1. the problem of the existence of numerous mathematical constants in the universe

            Not a problem at all. The universe (ie everything) has existed for infinite time. Thus it may have evolved through an infinite number of variations. The current one is the one into which we came into existence, and is all we know. Thus anything we find is ‘suited to us’ because we came from it, not because it was built for us. We could not have been formed in the prior embodiments of the universe because they were unsuitable for us.

            1. The constants don’t evolve. That is why they are constants. The chances of all them lining up perfectly like they are are astronomical. That doesn’t mean they were created that way of course. But it is really fucking weird.

              1. This seems to assume that life is only possible as it currently exists now. I don’t see why we should accept that assertion.

                1. It is more than that. Most of the potential values for the constants would not only make “life as we know it” impossible, they would eliminate the possibility of most anything. Lots of combinations don’t result in stable matter. Or in a short-lived universe with a big crunch. Or matter that does not form compounds. Or baryons that don’t interact.

                  You get the idea. Only a relatively small percentage of the potential configurations would result in a universe that has the ability to form complex molecules.

                  So yeah, like John said. Weird.

              2. The constants don’t evolve.

                You completely missed my point. The universe has gone through stages, the current one starting with the Big Bang at which point the current constants were fixed. The stages before that could have been immensely different, with a different set of ‘constants.’ Maybe some stages only lasted a second, maybe trillions of years. We just don’t know.

                1. The way that we were discussion the constants paradox was more in terms of the multiverse, rather than the constants changing over the history of the universe we live in.

                  It is a way of dealing with the “special place” problem. If there are an infinite number of universes (or a reasonably large number anyway) then those universes that happen to have the appropriate parameters will all “feel” special, in the same way that the guy who hits the lotto feels special. With a multiverse model, we exist because the conditions here allow it. It seems “finely tuned” to us because of that fact, but in reality we are in a tiny island that allows us to exist in a vast sea of incompatible universes.

                  You could line those instantiations of universes up linearly through time… except all current evidence indicates that our universe will not end in a “big crunch”, but will continue expanding at an ever-accelerating rate until all matter has decayed away to nothing. So there would be no subsequent universe.

          2. It’s an interesting question and I agree not necessarily a ridiculous one. But it is also not a scientific question as it is not falsifiable.

            And if we should find actual evidence that an intelligent designer exists, that designer would still be subject to scientific inquiry about its nature and origins.

            1. If you could find evidence of other universes, then it would be explained.

              1. I’ve been watching some lectures about this sort of stuff lately. There are some fascinating ideas about how the universe may have ended up as it is without having to assume we are somehow special. At this point it is hard to imagine how any of the theories could really be tested. You never know what people come up with, but I expect it will remain well beyond what science can actually test at least for our lifetimes.

              2. Universes ?

                If there’s an Intelligent Designer, how do you explain Liberty University

                Do you seriously believe apes are descended from Oral Roberts, or will we have to wait on evolution ?

          3. The creationists come along and say “look, we only exist because these constants are what they are and when you consider the incredibly slim chance that all of these constants would be this way out of chance, that is fairly strong evidence some intelligent force set them that way for the purpose of the universe being what it is”.

            That’s not related to evolution, though. That would be related to abiogenesis and the possibility of life, correct?

            1. It is a “therefore there is a creator” argument. Related to creationism/evolution by the presence of a creator.

          4. Yet, if [universal constants] were even slightly different, the universe would no longer be hospitable for intelligent life.

            99% of the observable universe by volume is empty space, with only a few atoms per cubic centimeter. 99% of the observable universe by mass is the plasma of stellar furnaces, far too hot to support the chemistry of life.

            Of the eight planets in the solar system, only one has developed and sustained life. Even within that lone sphere, 78% of the planet’s surface is water and thus uninhabitable; of land, we cannot adequately farm about one third for being desert and about one quarter for being mountainous. So even on the planet where we evolved and live, merely one tenth of the total available surface is easily habitable by humans.

            What were you saying about a ‘hospitable’ universe again?

          5. The watch found in the field is no longer metaphorical.

            A problem for the “the watch requires an intelligent designer” claim is that we have experience with intelligent designers (people) creating things like watches, but we have no experience of intelligent designers designing and creating universes, universal constants, or living beings. Intelligent design doesn’t appear to be capable of managing such complex projects. (If we only had the right Top Men!)

            Based on our experience, then, the complexity of the universe does not appear to be the result of intelligent design.

            1. All True. That just means it is not definitive proof. It doesn’t mean it is necessarily untrue.

            2. Anybody with knowledge of our genome knows that at best it was an unintelligent designer on LSD.

              1. Just look at the platypus.

          6. I believe that it IS a ridiculous argument, because the odds are irrelevant. The only situation in which we would exist, in which our human consciousness would even be able to perceive a universe, is one in which all those constants are as they are. It’s as if a bunch of cadmium atoms are marveling at how the star they were just ejected from had to be “designed” with just the right mass and chemical makeup to nova/collapse precisely enough to fuse them out of other elements. “What are the chances?” they muse to themselves, and immediately begin a church.

            It’s not that all the constants had to line up in order to create our perception of them. It’s just that without them set as they are, there would be no perception. Therefore, there isn’t an infinity of possibilities for us; there’s just this one.

            “Isn’t it amazing that all triangles have angles totaling 180 degrees, man?”


            1. How expensive would a church made out of cadmium be?

        3. Novella is part of NESS and is a true believer. He burned whatever “science” credentials he had years ago when he was defending people that were challenging Mann’s Hockey Stick.

          1. Oh yeah, they are all progressives and true believers at the SGU.

            But Novella is really evangelical about how to go about communicating. He tries very hard to be circumspect and polite. More than that, he specifically argues that the manner in which you engage people is important.

            He’s right about that. And there are a lot of others in the movement who have lost that notion.

      2. I think you are spot on in your analysis but have a quibble.

        Sorry, it may be a pain the the neck to have to constantly go back and reprove your theory , but it has to be done.

        Once you start just dismissing things out of hand by appealing to authority, you find it is pretty fun and a whole lot easier than thinking.

        The best scientists are the guys who don’t find having to revisit theories a pain in the neck, but enjoy it. I can’t find it online, but Richard Feynman tells a great story about getting into an argument in a diner with a housepainter.

        The painter was insisting that a particular combination of paints would make some third color. Feynman thought the painter’s claim was incompatible with what Feynman knew about the nature of light. Feynman didnt’ get upset; he got excited! Maybe this painter was going to teach him something new!

        So Feynman ran out to a nearby shop, got the appropriate paints, and then returned to have the painter demonstrate the phenomenon. And the painter was unable to make the mixing work.

        That’s how the process of science works, and the best scientists are the ones who take great joy in executing that process.

        1. The point being that it is one thing to have the conversation ten times. It is entirely different to have the same conversation every day for 35 years. At some point everyone is human. Everyone can get burned out.

          And being a public spokesman for an issue is vastly different from doing science. So the best placed people to engage in the debate (the scientists) are usually very ill-equipped to engage the public debate. Particularly in this era of sound-bite driven talking-head news shows. Feynman is among the all-time greats, but his tactics would have failed miserably on Fox News or MSNBC

          1. Oh do fuck off, you’re basically covering for an asshole claiming that arguing with people is so inconvenient that they need to be put in jail.

          2. Oh do fuck off, you’re basically covering for an asshole claiming that arguing with people is so inconvenient that they need to be put in jail.

            1. Just to put a point on it, there is no excuse for Nye and associates’ would-be fascism.

              The sub-topic at hand was science communication in general and then even more narrowly the problem of trying to have a reasoned debate with thousands of unreasonable people. An interesting side-topic that in no way diminishes the idiocy of suggesting folks get shipped off to the gulag for engaging in wrong-think. And no, you don’t need to tack on an argument about whether the “science is settled” or not. Even if the “denialists” are 100% wrong, there’s still no excuse for the attitude expressed by Nye.

              But we had progressed beyond “fascist nutters are bad, m’kay” as an argument hours earlier.

        2. Bill Nye and Neil Degrease Tyson wouldn’t be caught dead talking to a housepainter in a diner.

        3. Feynman was simply the best at explaining what science actually is and does. Some of his essays should be required reading in all intro science courses.

        4. I’m guessing the initial paint colors weren’t saturated enough in his experiment. You can combine paint colors to make different combinations than what occurs in the rgb system, but they will always be muted. If the initial colors aren’t bright or concentrated enough you’ll have grey or brown. There’s a whole book about it by an engineer/artist called “Blue and Yellow don’t make green”

          1. paint is reflective, your typical rgb device is emissive. the additive color rules are different for light than they are for pigments. the emissive primaries sum to white, the reflective primaries sum to brown.
            saturation is the strength of tint, unrelated to the resulting hue.

            1. And with paint there can also be chemistry …. depending on the types of paint you are mixing. I could see two brands combining and reacting to form a yellow that did not exist in either paint.

    2. “They expand the credibility of their science communicator role into their atheist-skeptic world view, which can be a real weapon for good.”

      Wait, *what* can be a weapon for good?

      Can you give an example of positive change resulting from weaponizing the atheist-skeptic world view?

      And isn’t there a bit of tension between politicized atheism, on the one hand, and true skepticism, on the other?

      1. Yes. Having a recognizable and credible spokesman who is able to argue in favor of things like science based medicine, scientific basis for regulations, etc. is a powerful force for good.

        Right now, that’s where the real action is – not just here in North America, but around the world. One would have thought that magical healing went the way of the Dodo back in the 70’s as James Randi and crew debunked a ton of them. But the appeal of the placebo is strong, and today we have huge corporations cashing in on the “alternative medicine” scam.

        But instead of having prominent and credible voices to fight Walgreen’s and Target and Boiron, we get Dr. Oz throwing gasoline on the fire.

        There are lots of folks at skeptical societies around the world trying to educate people on the dangers of imaginary medicine, but their voices are but a whisper in the wind.

        And yes, any fervently held core belief can derail your objectivity. That’s one of the core tenets of skepticism. People are really, really good at motivated reasoning.

        1. The only problem with all that is that placebos really work for a lot of people.

          1. Yup. And they can end up getting people killed too.

            These guys have spent years collecting stories that answer the question, “what’s the harm?” They claim to document over 350k deaths due to reliance on “woo”.

            So if you want to see a holistic healer for your recurrent bladder infections…. prolly you’d be OK since current evidence seems to be leaning toward “don’t treat”. But only probably. But getting that THC oil rub for your stage 3 melanoma? Yeah, that’s not likely to work out so good for you. And if by some miracle your body happens to spin out a T-cell that can kill your cancer, it won’t be due to the ginkgo-biloba extract.

            So go ahead and wear magnetic bracelets for your arthritis. Placebo can work pretty darned good for chronic pain. (many pain killers are truly only marginally better than placebo – which is a scary proposition to me. You’d think they’d have to be at least a couple orders of magnitude better) But let’s not pretend that the “charged metal” is what is precipitating the effect.

      2. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot

      3. “Wait, *what* can be a weapon for good?”

    3. So they become that which they hate. Pretty sure I’ve seen warnings about this before….

    4. When saying they were right about evolution, it is only by comparison to creationism. Evolution is far from settled in terms of details. For example, it has been found that many lizards and amphibians reproduce often without a male or without male sperm–supposed to be impossible. It also turns out that genes and be turned off or turned on during your life and this affects your offspring–it is not Lamarkian in the sense of new genes but in the sense of life experience affecting the next generation. So the “lesson” of evolution is false: science in the details is constantly changing and the climate change issue wants to shut down debate when not a single model agrees with any other model on any detail of the model or on any model output. “settled science” my a**

    5. Apostate: “What is the definition of energy?”
      Prophet of doom: “Guards! Beat and expel this denier!”

  7. It will be amusing if Trump wins and puts all the warmists in jail.

  8. How anybody can see trump as a bigger danger than the left right now is beyond me. I mean, I am disgusted by trump but these fucks are trying to destroy society

    1. From within, as predicted. Khrushchev is looking down from the great collective in the sky with warm cockles in his heart.

      1. Khrushchev was wrong when he said “your children will be communists.” Instead, it was the grandchildren who became Bernie Sanderistas.

    2. Not necessarily bigger, but certainly in a different type of way. Trump might provoke a war with someone like Russia. Clinton will definitely start some type of war, but probably in a small country. Sanders wouldn’t start a war, even if someone fucked with us, which they will inevitably do given the weakness he projects. Pick your poison.

      1. Would that be the same Trump who has refused to engage in the same old saber rattling with Russia that every other politician has?

        On every think tank score, Trump
        usually comes in second (behind Sanders) for being the least belligerent candidate on foreign relations.

      2. Sanders wouldn’t start a war, even if someone fucked with us, which they will inevitably do given the weakness he projects. Pick your poison.

        He wouldn’t start a war, but he’s already verbally committed to his share of Allies should WWIII break out in the ME.

        If Saudi Arabia and Qatar said they’d lead in a fight against ISIS (which would probably carry a hefty rider about them ‘mowing the grass’ in Yemen) Bernie has said he’d support them. Of course, Iran won’t sit back and watch this happen and whatever components of ISIS are in Syria could draw Russia in by proxy…

      3. Unfortunately, Clinton’s small country has (or recently had) Russians fighting there for their only Mediterranean port, and some Iranian forces too.

    3. I’ve given up on ranking evil statist assholes. I don’t want any of it at all. People are going to do what they are going to do.

    4. Yyyyup.

      Pretty much.

      Actually, the process has begun but I cling to the notion it can be reversed. There will be carnage and damage for sure, but in the end people of proper sound mind will regain the upper hand as it ought to be.

  9. You don’t need to a flat-earther to think this sort of attitude is all to the good. Science works best when consensuses are reached via evidence and broad agreement, not political and legal threats.

    To what does “this sort of attitude” refer? I can’t see any referent other than Nye’s statement. But then the following text makes no sense.
    Disclaimer: I’m on the west coast and recently got out of bed.

    1. That line didn’t make any sense to me either, and I’ve had my morning caffeine infusion.

  10. Oh man, now commenting is being turned into an auction house where people can pay to have their own “promoted comments”. Awesome. I bid seven quatloos.

    1. Meh. Just ignore those.

      1. The free market will find a way.

    2. The only way to beat Fist.

      1. I’m only biding my time, gathering my points so that I can have ALL the promoted comments, too!

  11. You don’t need to a flat-earther to think this sort of attitude is all to the good.


    1. My dead grandmother spoke to me through my Oiuja board and said it meant “You don’t need to be a flat-earther to think this sort of attitude is not all to the good.” But then she also said something about a bologna-powered muskrat harvester bicycle so I might have misunderstood what she was saying.

      1. Yes…you misunderstood…no need to try patenting that, just leave it out there in the ether for someone who will recognize the potential.

  12. And so it begins; if this actually flies, expect to proceed to those who advocate for the 2nd Amendment as holding dangerous views contrary to public health. And of course there will be expanded criminal redress for those who violate “hate” speech, whatever that may mean.

    The outcome is that we will all shut up and keep our criminal thoughts to ourselves or off to the gulag. “Minor” 1st offenders will be sentenced to re-education along the lines of Khmer Rouge. But get out of line and there will be a blue plastic bag for you.

    1. The really funny part is that they think people who disagree with them can’t just satirize them by fake worship and subservience. That part will hopefully make them incredibly uncomfortable, and they won’t be able to a damned thing about it.

      1. …they think people who disagree with them can’t just satirize them by fake worship and subservience. That part will hopefully make them incredibly uncomfortable…

        No it won’t. These people don’t get satire. They’ll assume that all the people faking subservience are sincere and are really super stoked on them.

        1. Like the mystics donating to the Landover Baptist Church website and defending Pastafarianism from the Inquisition?

  13. Nye is trying to stay relevant…his time in the sun is gone and he needs it back.

    I actually encourage the warmists like this because it turns people off.

  14. “Ronald Bailey, notes that CEI subpoeana?which seeks 10 years’ worth of internal correspondence and private donor information?proceeded directly from a conference hosted by Al Gore and featuring many state-level attorneys general. Their main target is ExxonMobil, which they claim has lied about environmental science.”

    Going after “Big Tobacco” was also about whose research they were funding, their influence over the public debate, and it ended with the tobacco companies’ First Amendment rights being destroyed in every possible way.

    Just like the state-level attorneys general initiated the process by which “Big Tobacco” was effectively taken over and heavily regulated by the FDA, so they’re going after “Big Oil” under the pretext that they supposedly lied about how bad burning fossil fuels is for our health. Anybody who doesn’t see where this is heading is being willfully blind.

    1. So they have their precedent to apply to oil and climate change, and then on the guns, “hate” speech, dangerous economic views…just as Nikita predicted.

      1. “Beginning in late 1994, the troika’s political and regulatory assault on cigarette makers, buttressed by the lawsuits of 40 state attorneys general, triggered the fall of Big Tobacco. Fearful of bankruptcy, the tobacco barons agreed last summer to settle the suits at a cost of $368.5 billion. Now they must convince persuade skeptical lawmakers to accept the broad legal protections included in the deal.

        But the tobacco companies know that getting congressional Republicans and Democrats to agree to a complicated deal means substantial input from the White House. And that means their fate could well be back in the hands of Al Gore in the next weeks.

        Whether distracted by the Whitewater investigation or merely eager to bolster Gore’s prospects in 2000, Clinton has increasingly deferred to his vice president on the subject of smoking”…..cco31c.htm

        —-“The Fall of Big Tobacco” Washington Post, 1998

        “Big Tobacco” was Al Gore’s issue back then. You know what his other issue was?

        You’re absolutely right. This tactic is well rehearsed.

      2. just as Nikita predicted.

        Look, Khrushchev was a violent socialist who helped advocate militant black nationalism in this country. No matter how coincidentally predictive or descriptive his writings or teaching may be on the subject; he was racist and we should purge his works from our consciousness lest we taint our consciousness with the shadowy specter of notions of violence or inequality.

        /The Reason Staff

    2. And “destroyed in every possible way” includes being forced to fund speech designed to run you out of business and which is not held to any standard of accuracy or fairness. Meanwhile, having a nice logo for your product is verboten. You know… because kids.

      1. They want to regulate when, how, and if oil companies drill for and distribute oil. They want to siphon off hundreds of billions in profits for the government. Arguing that the companies abused their free speech rights is the justification they used to put the tobacco companies and their profits under government control.

        I mean, the abuse of their First Amendment rights was bad in itself, but it was really just a stepping stone to something else. They want the EPA to regulate every aspect of oil production and distribution like the FDA regulates tobacco, and they want the oil companies’ profits for themselves. They want to ration and squelch the use of fossil fuels-just like they did with tobacco.

        1. They want to siphon off hundreds of billions *more* in profits for the government.

          The fuel tax already comes to tens of billions annually.

          1. And profits are a hell of a lot more than that.

            1. Yeah, not disagreeing. Just rebutting (e.g.) spqr2008 below. Hundreds of billions are already being siphoned off every few years for decades on end. It’s earmarked for infrastructure that we don’t (necessarily) need, many don’t desire, and don’t want; so it gets spent on even more frivolous shit.

              The idea that they would take a huge chunk and nobody would notice/care is totally believable as it’s already largely occurring without anyone really knowing/caring and, moving forward, given a generation that cares less and less about who’s driving and what the car is fueled by.

            2. Oil companies already pay far more in taxes than their shareholders gain from profits. From the 2015 ExxonMobil income statement, for example:

              Income taxes $5.4 billion
              Sales-based taxes $22.7 billion
              Other taxes and duties $27.3 billion

              Total taxes $55.4 billion

              Net income $16.2 billion

              Of course, government begrudges the fact that shareholders get $16.2 billion, so they tax the distribution of their dividends as well, at 15-20% of $12.1 billion of dividends, for another $0.2 billion in taxes.

              1. errrrr, another $2 billion in dividend taxes.

                Government gets around $57 billion in taxes.

                Investors net around $14 billion in after-tax cash and retained earnings.

                It’s not fair, I tell ya, and government needs to shake the oil industry down to pay its fair share.

            3. No, big oil profit margins are in the 4% range, compared to 15% to 29% for companies like Avon and Apple. State gas taxes vary but run around 10x the profit component in the price of a gallon of gas.

              1. I’m sure margins narrowed as the price of WTI dropped to $40 a barrel, and I’m sure those margins would rise if prices were back above $90.

                Regardless, there’s still a lot of crude in the ground, and I’m sure the government would just as soon have all of that money to spend rather than just what they can skim off the top. No matter what they’re getting in taxes, they’d rather have a bigger share of the profits.

                And, anyway, the point of the environmentalists is to ration the use and squelch the use of oil–just like activists wanted to squelch the use of tobacco. But more money for the government doesn’t sound bad to any government officials that I know of–except for maybe Rand Paul and company.

                I don’t think any attorney general is likely to lose his bid for governor specifically because he sued the oil companies and got a big payout for their state government. Maybe you don’t want to brag about doing that in Texas, North Dakota, or Alaska. Most everywhere else, oil companies are about as popular as cigarette manufacturers. . . . except when the price of oil goes up–then the oil companies are just slightly more popular than Al Qaeda.

        2. To this I say good luck, because a far far larger percentage of the population uses Fossil Fuels including oil than ever smoked, even in the heyday of big tobacco. If you try and increase oil prices artificially, eventually people will catch on, and at that point, your political career will maybe amount to a Congressional seat.

          1. We’re talking about using the undemocratic courts to force a settlement and following up on the settlement with legislation to protect the oil industry from lawsuits.

            You know how much scientific data there is out there linking the use of fossil fuels to the suffering of everything and everybody.

            1. “You know how much scientific data there is out there linking the use of fossil fuels to the suffering of everything and everybody.”

              Unless you are talking about military use, not a bit. It seems to be a common mistake to confuse agitprop with scientific data.

              The war on “fossil” fuels and nuclear energy is a war on prosperity. Nye wants to be a general.
              Nye, Gore, Obama,, Holdren, Hansen, McCarthy and hundreds more of the authoritarians and charlatans who are poisoning the minds of children by promoting the incredibly stupid and insidiously deceptive nonsense like “CO2 = Climate Change” or the “greenhouse gas” myth, should be tried as war criminals, and if convicted, sent to Guantanamo.

              Enough rant. You can watch Nye lie and show off his ignorance about climate and energy on you tube.

              If you read the comments, you’ll see he’s not the only one who has a bow tie [ ; )X.

              1. My comment was in reference to anybody that wants to join a class action in suing oil companies for the damage caused by climate change.

                That’s the way they drove the tobacco companies to accept total capitulation. And as I linked above, it started with 40 attorneys general suing the hell out of the tobacco companies using scientific data.

                There is a ton of scientific literature linking global warming to every form of suffering you can imagine, from asthma and extreme weather events to wildfires that destroy homes and the spread of mosquito borne illnesses like the Zika virus.

                That plaintiffs’ attorneys who initiated class actions against Dow Corning eventually took the company over shouldn’t be forgotten–and silicone breast implants were never proven to be associated with cancer. You don’t need to win a civil case beyond a reasonable doubt–just by a preponderance of the evidence as understood by a jury.

                1. That the plaintiffs attorneys who initiated class actions against RJ Reynolds, et. al. for tobacco took over that company shouldn’t be forgotten either, but that was peanuts compared to what the state attorneys general initiated against the tobacco industry. This is the same process they’re now initiating against the oil industry, and whether the scientific literature is accurate is likely beside the point.

                  The fact is that the preponderance of the evidence blames the oil industry for everything from the spread of viruses that deform babies to houses burning down and flooding. Why WOULDN’T environmentalists and the government use the scientific consensus to take over the oil industry?

    3. You’d think somebody might be interested in checking Exxon-Mobil’s financials to see who has benefitted the most from these dirty, dirty profits they’ve scammed off the public. Who gets the biggest fattest checks from Exxon-Mobil? I’d bet they get them on a quarterly basis and it’s the same group of thugs and ne’er-do-wells in Washington, DC that get the biggest fattest checks from every other evil corporation in the country. Maybe we should sue not only Exxon-Mobil but the people who have profitted from their wrong-doing.

    4. Al Gore? Wasn’t he joined at the hip to about eleven pissed off massage parlor girls?

  15. Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse-Tyson really aren’t that bright. Once they got a taste for the money in broadcasting they ceased to be scientists. I don’t listen to either of these preachers.

    1. Actually both men are exceptionally bright, but yeah. More’s the pity.

      1. “exceptionally”….I do not think this word means what you think it means.

        1. Well, Neil DeGrasse Tyson has three post graduate degrees in scientific fields…

          Not liking someone doesn’t mean they’re stupid.

          1. Tyson is definitely a gifted scientist. But he is also a partisan political hack. The latter seriously debases the former.

            1. On what evidence do you call him a “gifted scientist”???

              To me a gifted scientist has furthered the field they work in, expanding the knowledge base for future generations. to my understanding, he has never really worked in his field. He is a PR guy who managed a planetarium.

              1. Being a science communicator is an important part of science. And he has been immensely effective in that role. Enough that he gets kudos based on that.

                But no, I’ve never heard him lauded as a groundbreaking astrophysicist.

          2. Tyson is as much of a scientist these days as Krugman is an economist.

            1. Actually, now that you’d mention it, I’d draw parallels between him and Stossel. John Stossel is never going to go down in history as a great libertarian philosopher, but he has a knack for presenting ideas in a way that is accessible to a mass audience. So he has been very important to the movement, despite his lack of bona-fides as a theorist.

          3. He’s more machine than man, twisted and evil.

          4. A degree does not correlate to intellect…..and two of those are Masters. Its not like he is a dual-PhD.

            There are a huge number of post graduate degreed scientists that are blithering idiots. I know many many personally. now, that’s not to say anyone with a graduate degree isn’t already in the top 1% of the drooling masses that is humanity, but when talking about science chops, Dr. Tyson is very weak.

            He never really practiced science in the traditional sense and as far as I’ve read, has not furthered the field. It’s not my field, but it seems like his chops in astrophysics are almost negligible.

            I think the best description of him is as an over-credentialed PR guy.

    2. Nixon signed the anti-libertarian campaign subsidy law of 1971 for “good” reason, and now you see what that reason was: National Socialism is back, only with altruist environmental purity and sacrifice instead of altruist racial purity and sacrifice.

  16. I agree, but only if jail time is an option for free speech deniers who wear bow ties and have the upper body strength of a fifth-grade girl.

    1. Admit it, Crusty: Just writing that sentence gave you a woody…amirite?

  17. De-legitimizing and de-humanizing those who disagree with you is the prelude to the final step to broad-based and quite bloody civil war.
    Now, sides are being formed. The more the become solidified they more power they give to a future martyrdom or savior figure.

    oh joy….just want we need.

    1. And if you think it’s bad now, just wait until harpy Hillary gets to appoint the supreme court justice who essentially erases the first amendment from the constitution. You’ve seen absolutely nothing yet.

      1. Awwww… The Apocalypse is Nigh, therefore ignore the LP.

        1. The Apocalypse is Nye.

    2. Yeah, the civil war will be bloody, but the libs don’t have guns, remember. The military will likely split, with the majority of them actually living up to their oath and defending the Constitution.

  18. You don’t need to a flat-earther to think this sort of attitude is all to the good.

    I do not think that means what you think it means.

  19. Glad to see 2 points you make, Nick.

    Subpoenas, and their chilling effect, indeed. Sadly, Bailey supported subpoenas of scientist’s emails at NOAA. Of course, that was at the behest of denier Lamar Smith, so what else would a libertarian be if not selective about government overreach.

    And you say this: “. Science works best when consensuses are reached via evidence and broad agreement, not political and legal threats.”

    Indeed. And with evidence gathered over decades, a consensus has been reached among scientists, as proven by broad agreement among ALL major science organizations in the world. None disagree.

    So well done.

    1. Don’t be dense. Congress has direct oversight of NOAA. It is a friggin government agency and thus nowhere in the realm of “government overreach” to want to know what those in the employ of the fuckin people are doing with our tax dollars.

      1. Not dense, dishonest.

        1. Government overreaches most, when it regulates itself.

          Yes. Der. Derpee derp.

      2. Look. They’re not real scientists unless they work for a government. If they work in the private sector then they are tainted by profit motive, and thus cannot be trusted. Only government scientists can be trusted because they only look out for the greater good. So what if their funding is dependent upon them giving results that further the agenda of the politicians who hold the purse strings? That doesn’t matter. They can be trusted because government can be trusted. They are angels, devoid of sin. Unlike those profit-seeking capitalist pigs who deny the Truth.

      3. And don’t be obtuse. In New York, where the Exxon suit originated, the Martin Act is broad. In 1926 the highest court there ruled it includes “all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty.”
        It’s purpose being to protect the public and investors.

        1. Did anybody say that New York’s fishing expedition was illegal?

          1. You expect Jack yo use the same goal posts twice? Not on your life!

        2. In 1926 the highest court there ruled it includes “all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty.”

          If that were true New York would have been forced to dissolve the state government.

          1. Corruption is how New York gets stuff done. Just ask former Assemblyman Silver.

        3. Do you not understand common language? I was calling you our for crying “hypocrisy” over the NOAA supeonas. I said nothing about NY and Exxon. I frankly don’t care, because I’m sure both parties are more corrupt that I can stomach.

    2. Bailey supported subpoenas of scientist’s emails at NOAA.

      Bailey =/= Gillespie, you fucktard.

      Also, those NOAA emails were produced by government employees on the taxpayers dime, and therefore property of the taxpayers. See the difference?

      1. The only difference I see is that libertarians love to defend oil companies. Government subpoenas are all well to the good of its protecting them.

        Kinda like eminent domain utilized by private companies. If it’s an oil company using it, no problem.

        1. Did Bailey argue that they should be thrown in jail if it turned out they’d lied about something?

          Oh, what’s that? He didn’t? So that’s completely different than what Bill Nye said?

          1. Actually, Nye didn’t call for that either. Kennedy did.

            1. And Nye said “yeah, we should really look into whether or not we should jail these people.”

              If someone said ‘kill all the gays’ and Trump said ‘yeah, let’s look into that, I understand where you’re coming from’ I suspect you wouldn’t be spinning this hard on his behalf.

              1. Actually he said “We’ll see what happens.” Hardly an endorsement.

                But good try at the quote.

                1. Pretty tepid disavowal there. I hear you’re trying to diddle the preteens you invite into your apartment for wine coolers and porn while their parents are at work. “We’ll see what happens.”

                2. Hardly an endorsement.

                  Hardly saying “No,” either, is it?

                  But, good try at the quote.

                3. You really are a dishonest little shit, aren’t you joe?

                  1. Why yes, yes he is.

        2. Someday someone is going to need to tell me how non-libertarians get to criticize libertarians for failing to be consistent libertarians when libertarians are faced with dilemmas dipshits like you created in the first place.

          1. Joe is pretty sad. He clearly reads an enormous number of Reason articles just to try and catch people being hypocrites, but he can’t even do that right.

            1. He clearly reads

              That’s not clear at all.

        3. Jackand Ace|4.15.16 @ 9:58AM|#
          “The only difference I see is that libertarians love to defend oil companies…”

          That’s because you’re both a dishonest piece of shit and an ignoramus.

        4. Kinda like eminent domain utilized by private companies. If it’s an oil company using it, no problem.

          Which libertarian argued for eminent domain that can only be used by oil companies? I’ll just wait here for a cite.

          1. Here you go. Libertarian John Stossel

            “Eminent domain can be wonderful if it’s put to important public use, say, claiming land for highways, railroads or a pipeline. ”

            As stated right here on Reason.


            1. Thanks for your reply.

              Are you calling me an idiot for not knowing that? Sorry, I don’t read every word printed by Reason or Stossel.

              I can’t think of another libertarian in favor of ED, but again, maybe I’m just an idiot as you pointed out. Stossel also sees a large role for the government in environmental protection, so he may be somewhat of an outlier on government force interfering with property rights relative to other libertarians.

            2. “Kinda like eminent domain utilized by private companies. If it’s an oil company using it, no problem.”

              “Eminent domain can be wonderful if it’s put to important public use, say, claiming land for highways, railroads or a pipeline. ”

              Your quote doesn’t match your claim, but you probably already new that, you lying piece of shit.

            1. Shitbag, I have a hint. Stossel’s opinion is not the universal libertarian opinion.
              But as a slimy piece of work, you probably knew that. Why would you ever be honest?

              1. Jackoff Ace ascribes to the “one drop” rule. If one person said it, then all libertarians must agree.
                Do you know who else thought just a little meant a lot?

        5. Of course you don’t see a difference between the government and companies.

          Everything for the state, nothing outside of the state, eh joe?

        6. The only difference I see is that libertarians love to defend oil companies.

          I doubt you were being honest here…but if you were, it really doesn’t speak very highly of your intelligence. “Public vs. Private” is a concept small children are capable of easily understanding, recognizing and considering.

    3. “Indeed. And with evidence gathered over decades, a consensus has been reached among scientists, as proven by broad agreement among ALL major science organizations in the world.”

      If this consensus was reached despite the efforts of the oil companies, then why would you cite that as a justification for threats to imprison people for what they say and the resulting chilling effect?

      Do you just want to implement aggressive solutions over any objections and discourage dissent among everyday average Americans?

      I’ve got news for you, there isn’t a scientific consensus on how much we should be willing to sacrifice for climate change because how much we should be willing to sacrifice for something isn’t a scientific question. It’s a political question, and it’s a question of ethics–and the chilling effect you seem to be applauding here will no doubt spill over into the debate about the politics and ethics of making those sacrifices, too.

      1. You don’t get it, Ken. It will literally be the end of the world if we don’t repent our industrial ways and be one with Gaia. No sacrifice is too great to prevent the end of the world. Why do you side with capitalist pigs who want to make a buck while causing the end of the world? In doing so you are helping to cause the end of the world. But if you join hands with the environmentalists like JackAss, you can prevent the end of the world. It’s the end of the world that we’re talking about, here. So, just to be clear, we’re trying to prevent the end of the world.

        1. The worst outcome is if we make huge sacrifices in our standard of living, but it isn’t enough to make a difference so we get the worst of climate change anyway.

          Even the alarmists should understand that making not enough sacrifices can be worse than making no sacrifices.

          1. You’re trying to be rational here. But we’re not talking about anything rational. We’re talking about a religion.

      2. Thats right. The consensus from science is that man is changing the climate, with potential disastrous results. Bravo, Ken.

        Sadly for you, the concensus in the world (see Paris) is that we must limit CO2 emissions. So I would suggest getting on with it, maybe listening to Niskanen and their call for a carbon tax. No one cares anymore about libertarian screams about a conspiracy. Although, Trump may just carry that water for you.

        1. Jackand Ace|4.15.16 @ 10:07AM|#
          “…So I would suggest getting on with it,…”

          Agreed. Please make the world a better and more intelligent place: Commit suicide.

        2. There’s no conspiracy per se. Just mass delusion and demagoguery. Just rent-seeking and Malthusians.

          And if you think for one second that global warming is true and as bad as they say it is, then you also know that a carbon tax won’t work.

        3. You are right, sir! A majority of people has never been wrong about anything! We should immediately halt all economic development in India, China, and Brazil, so that our dear leaders can continue to fly around the globe in private jets to lecture us about how we should ride bikes instead of drive!!!!

          1. Incidentally, talking about consensus in China because the Chinese government assented to something is an absurd use of the word “consensus”.

            The people of China don’t have much more input into Chinese policy than I do. That’s a repressive government speaking for 1.2 billion people who have no control or input into their government.

            One of the excellent criticisms of the UN is that it gives dictatorial regimes a false veneer of democracy. When the Chinese government concedes to something, it’s speaking for a few out of 1.2 billion people. It does not represent the will of 1.2 billion people. It is not a consensus.

            1. Dissent in China can get you thrown into a political prison, but somehow, their government represents the will of the Chinese people.

              This is what Bill Nye wants–a chilling effect that brings about “consensus”.

        4. Full of shit, as usual.

          Are you not aware of the Oregon Petition listing over 31,000 skeptics of global warming? If that is only 3%, where are the 970,000 climate scientists of the “consensus”?

          The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a petition urging the United States government to reject the global warming Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and similar policies.[1] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[2][3] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[4]

          According to Robinson, the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,[1][2][3] mostly in engineering.[5] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.

          1. Those scientists don’t count because they’re not real scientists. If they were real scientists then they would agree that if we don’t end all industry and extinguish capitalism, ushering a totalitarian world government where everyone lives on subsistence farms, then the planet will become Dante’s Inferno. All real scientists believe this. If someone doesn’t believe that, then they’re not a real scientist. All reality-based people know this.

          2. It is patently untrue that 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases spells doom for the planet. True, something like 97% of climate scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have increased its presence in the atmosphere, and that this change in atmospheric composition would cause some increase in global temperature if all other things remain unchanged. But even something like 97% of the most skeptical of deniers also agree with those facts. This was demonstrated by a show of hands at a well-attended climate skeptics conference in Las Vegas a couple of years ago.

            The magnitude of the effect of anthropogenic emissions upon climate is largely unknown. That’s why the climate models use a range of climate sensitivity factors.

            But the benefits of using climate change hysteria to growing the state’s size and scope of control are well understood.

            BTW, in a recent survey of 1800 meteorologists, just 52% attributed global warming to “mostly human” causes.

          3. You sure Robinson and Singer didn’t write both the letter and the NIPCC foreword ?

        5. “Sadly for you, the concensus in the world (see Paris) is that we must limit CO2 emissions.”

          Talking about consensus in regards to Paris is ridiculous for a number of reasons.

          For one, Obama won’t even submit it to Congress because he knows they’d vote it down.

          For another, even if there were consensus on doing something, there isn’t a consensus on how to make those sacrifices in the agreement treaty–it’s left up to each country to devise their own.

          For another, the agreement treaty is non-binding, so how can you say the consensus is for sacrifice?

          For another, the only democratic country we’ve seen implement big sacrifices for climate change was Australia, and those sacrifices became so unpopular the moment the were implemented that it chased the Gillard government out of office–and out of politics. The first thing the new government did was rescind those sacrifices.

          Your belief that there is a consensus for sacrifice in this country or elsewhere in the world is ridiculous. There may be a scientific consensus, but the people of the world have hardly weighed in on how much they’re willing to sacrifice yet. And those who have soundly rejected you.

        6. Science isn’t done by consensus, moron. It is done by hypothesis, prediction, testing, and observation. The climate models that were based on the hypothesis that man-made CO2 was causing rising temperatures have all failed. That means the hypothesis they were based on has been falsified. So the contention that any recent temperature rise has been caused by man and not natural cycles has failed to be demonstrated scientifically. Fucking idiot you are.

          1. The consensus proves that the scientific method is wrong. Duh.

            1. This is why we need to teach “womyn’s ways of knowing”.

          2. WTF, you’re right.

            Correlation is not proof of causation, as we all know. But anti-correlation IS PROOF of lack of causation. That’s why the plateaus from 1940-1975 and 1998-2016 are so powerful and so loudly shouted down by the high priests of AGW.

        7. I thought the Paris consensus was that we chain smoke Gauloises and not shower for a month…

        8. Hey fucktard, the US has already lowered our emissions to below Kyoto levels.

          I look forward to you backing off the idea of the US reducing it’s carbon emissions even more. And your support of fracking.

        9. And 50 years ago, the consensus among scientists was that homosexuality was a mental illness

          100 years ago, The consensus among scientists was at eugenics was valid science, and that “inferior” people should be involuntarily sterilized to protect the nation’s gene pool.

          Good thing we never, ever question the scientific consensus.

          1. Yeah, I’m on board with science being a consensus.

            It’s just that a) the consensus can and should change as old evidence is reevaluated and as new evidence becomes available and b) whether and how much people should be willing to sacrifice to save polar bears, etc. aren’t scientific questions. Those are political and ethical questions with qualitative judgments attached to them that can’t be quantified by scientists and can’t be falsified by scientists either. Whether polar bears (or whatever) are more important than our standard of living simply isn’t a scientific question.

            With those caveats, yeah, science is a consensus. So what?

    4. assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf?vsmaid=398

    5. All major scientific organizations =|= most scientists.

      Do you think just because the ABA takes a position on something that means there is a consensus among lawyers? I guess if you’re retarded you believe that.

    6. “A Climate Falsehood You Can Check for Yourself”:


      1. Damn, should have finished reading all of the responses to JackAss.

    7. And folks, here we have noted lefty twit to prove how dishonest lefties can be:

      Jackand Ace|4.15.16 @ 9:43AM|#
      “Glad to see 2 points you make, Nick.
      Subpoenas, and their chilling effect, indeed. Sadly, Bailey supported subpoenas of scientist’s emails at NOAA”

      Note how, through plain stupidity or mendacity (or both) the shit bag Jack conflates a government subpoena to discover private funding with one those to discover data derived from taxpayer-funded research.
      Jack is truly a slimy piece of work.

    8. http://daviddfriedman.blogspot…..k-for.html

      What was that about consensus?

    9. Fuck off you lying Jackass.

      You back this shit, then you’re the fucking enemy of everyone posting here.

    10. NOAA and NASA measurement techniques are daily examined over at the Real Science blog. The specialty is pulling back the curtain and exposing the Wizard of OZ

  20. Sure, let’s throw climate deniers in jail… along with those who think that GMO foods are harmful.

    1. Let’s add socialists and people who oppose nuclear energy to that list, while we’re at it.

      1. Can we add the people who think that vaccination causes autism?

      2. The definition of causing a health hazard is doing stuff that lowers the population’s life expectancy (increases the death rate). Antinuclear luddites struggled to do exactly that by blocking access to the very energy conversion that produces the most power per death and disability (and lights up cities). The Work-Energy Theorem works for using energy to work for a living. Individuals in populations with higher per-capita energy lead better lives, suffer fewer deaths. Naturally, energy is the enemy of all death-worshipping forms of altruistic collectivism.

    2. Woah, there buddy, that might actually land Mr. Science Guy in the slammer!

      1. One can only hope.

    3. And think fracking makes your faucet flammable

  21. Good on the alt-text Gillespie. I wasn’t able to figure out what that picture was from the article.

  22. Bill Nye isn’t a scientist, he’s an engineer. Considering an engineer’s bread and butter is finding applied solutions to real world problems (whether the problem exists to the degree believed or not is another issue), it doesn’t surprise me that he may consider jailing of ideological opponents as another arrow in his quiver of practical solutions.

    I’m not saying engineers are authoritarian assholes, just that I can see how this mindset could take hold in some of the unscrupulous ones.

    1. This board is probably heavily populated by engineers.

      Nye is an entertainer who enjoys getting fellated by the proggie left when he satisfies their authoritarian streak by giving them the sheen of credibility. Tyson is the same way. They both gain notoriety and credibility among their audience the more they agree with them and the more strident they become. They’re demagogues.

      1. ^This.

        1. Damn straight that…

      2. Most of the engineers I work with are fine people. Just an observation, not a denunciation.

        You’re right about Nye. He’s a science guy like Jim Cramer is an investment advisor. They’re both all about the show.

    2. How many engineers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
      Answer: 1, it only takes one engineer to screw up anything.

  23. Angela Merkel approves!

      1. Yes:

        “Merkel allows prosecution of German comedian who mocked Turkish president”

        1. I get it, Sevo. Just funny that the Germans have wasted all that money.

          1. Not wasted according to Jack. Why, he linked an article on how the Germans had ‘new techniques’ to deal with the intermittent supply. They were going to use ‘supply-side availability’ to set usage.
            Yes, you read that right: They are (or were) going to use that brand-new technique called “rationing” to deliver electricity!
            Jack was thrilled!

          2. The real news is that there’s actually a comedian in Germany.

        2. Holy shit.

          1. There’s a lamp post in her future yet.

        3. You know what other German leader didn’t understand ethnic comedy??

          1. Hans Gruber?

        4. ALL German nationalsocialist politicians jail comedians.

  24. Their main target is ExxonMobil, which they claim has lied about environmental science.

    So it’s a conflict of interest for an oil company to fund climate research but it’s not a conflict of interest for the government to fund climate research and actually send men with guns after the skeptics.

    1. They’d be shouting EM’s praises from the rooftops if the studies they funded supported their claims. Once again it’s hypocrites being hypocrites.

    2. it’s not a conflict of interest for the government to fund climate research and actually send men with guns after the skeptics.

      I fail to see the conflict. They have power; they wield it. They want more power; they wield existing power to acquire it.

      It’s a conflict of interest the way an invisible pink unicorn is a conflict of interests. The unicorn doesn’t really care what color it is visible or not.

    3. Not when the endgame of said research is to further empower the government

  25. Bill Nye, “The Silence Guy”

    1. I’ve got to remember that one.

  26. A criminal conspiracy by the AGs of several states to suppress free speech.

    Dear attorneys general, conspiring against free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds
    Glenn Harlan Reynolds April 11, 2016
    Liberal law enforcers shouldn’t break the law to shut up climate change dissenters.

    Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”

    I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices.

    1. From last year

      In letters he sent to the presidents of the universities employing us (although I have been retired from MIT since 2013), Mr. Grijalva wanted all details of all of our outside funding, and communications about this funding, including “consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and any other monies.” Mr. Grijalva acknowledged the absence of any evidence but purportedly wanted to know if accusations made against Mr. Soon about alleged conflicts of interest or failure to disclose his funding sources in science journals might not also apply to us.

      Perhaps the most bizarre letter concerned the University of Colorado’s Mr. Pielke. His specialty is science policy, not science per se, and he supports reductions in carbon emissions but finds no basis for associating extreme weather with climate. Mr. Grijalva’s complaint is that Mr. Pielke, in agreeing with the IPCC on extreme weather and climate, contradicts the assertions of John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar.

    2. Someone give BigT an English dictionary so he can look up “liberal.” The Nazi/Republican version has worn out its welcome since 1932. English-speaking countries not dominated by Ku-klux christendom use “liberal” in the genuine meaning of the word.

      1. Someone give the goddamn dipshit troll Hank Phillips a guide to HTML. Those vertical braces indicate quotes – in other words, BigT didn’t use the word liberal, Glenn Reynolds did.

  27. Looking forward to the day when the self-defense argument becomes even more prominent than it already is. I’ve heard it mumbled by a few of the climate change activists, but once the government gets on board with the idea that climate change deniers are directly engaging in physical violence against everyone else by stonewalling climate change legislation, it’s game over.

    1. Blackouts goooood! Power plants baaaaad!

  28. Fuck off, Bill Nye. Seriously, die in a fire you fucking phony.

  29. The real problem is the underlying assumption that science should drive policy decisions.
    I don’t care if ‘global warming’ is real or a fraud..
    No more than I care if genetics is valid science.
    The latter ‘settled science’ brought us eugenics when science was taken to be a guide for public policy.
    That’s the lesson we need to take and the argument we need to have.

    1. Three generations of moronic policies are enough?

  30. You know who else advocated imprisoning those who didn’t support the official consensus view on scientific questions of their day?

    1. The Priest of the Temple of Syrinx?

    2. Stalin?

    3. Cotton Mather

  31. When I took science class they always depicted Galileo as good guy (even though his math had flaws). Do they still teach it that way as they form a science inquisition?

    1. And if you really read about Galileo’s trial, a lot of the Inquisition’s anger at him derived from him not admitting that his math did have flaws, and not acknowledging that the Jesuits who pointed out those flaws had a legitimate criticism of his theory. History is significantly more complicated than people like to believe.

      1. What Galileo had shown was that there were phenomena (like the Jovian moons) that could not be accounted for into the then consensus model of the solar system. However, the Copernican Model could not predict planetary motion (because it made incorrect assumptions about the shape of orbits) the way the standard model could. The actual state of science was there was hard evidence that all the models were wrong in some way.

  32. Science works best when consensuses are reached…

    Uh, no. Science is the opposite of consensus.

    1. Science works best when assumptions and conclusions are constantly challenged and tested.

    2. There was a great book written about this called “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”

      To simplify one of the book’s main points: ongoing experimentation produces data to support a given theory, but there is almost always some anomalous data collected as well. When anomalies can’t be attributed to some other cause, like poor experimental design or instrument error, they gradually erode the theory. Get enough of these anomalous readings, and the theory gets called into question and, eventually, discarded completely. That’s what’s called a paradigm shift. These revolutions or paradigm shifts occur over and over again.

      I don’t get the current belief that science has figured out all there is to figure out and there can be no further questioning. Do actual scientists buy into that, or just laypeople like Nye? It especially seems odd when it comes to a highly complex system like climate, where they have yet to develop models that consistently spit out accurate predicted results. Science does not work the way they seem to think it does, which comes off more like religious dogma that you must take on faith. It’s especially suspicious when that’s then used by politicians to justify policies.

    3. Richard Feynmann: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

  33. “And a decree went forth from the temple of Bill Nye The Science Guy that all those who Deny should be brought before the I.P.C.C. to be tried and punished, lest any might believe differently from the Doctrine of The Sacred Cow.” A little jail time ought to give these evil naysayers some time to think about the error of their ways. Perhaps a wee bit of torture thrown in to speed their conversion? Say Bill, what if one of these Deniers fails to have a change of mind during this process? Shall we burn them at the stake? These Deniers should be sought out and expunged from political society like the Cathars and Albigensians in their day.

    Bill Nye the “science” guy speaks with the same zeal as Pope Gregory IX in the 13th Century. Let the New Inquisition begin….

    Remember Giordano Bruno!

    1. Remember Urbain Grandier! His crime was to live in the same county with victims of Satanic Possession…

  34. Bill Nye the Statist Guy

  35. As someone who actually holds an advanced degree in a science and worked for more than 15 years in a research lab, I find types like Nye and Chris Mooney beyond nauseating. Some may have undergrad degrees in a related field like Nye, or in English lit, like Mooney, but they are “science advocates” not practitioners, so they cannot claim to be objective, and shouldn’t be allowed to use the word “science” in describing themselves, or in any of their writings.

    I also know how the system works. Gov’t funding is decided behind closed doors and is earmarked for areas politicians and lobbying groups deem important (climate change is included here). Basic research gets very little funding, so all scientists have an incentive to follow the money and pursue research in politically-relevant areas. Once the grants are doled out, the pressure is on to tailor the data to the grant application, and since renewing the grant depends on the number of publications and how well the specific aims in the previous grant were met, negative results will never see the light of day.

    1. /\ this

      I just love how non-scientists talk about research/grants/money-in-science as if it is all pristine, above-board, and utterly factual.
      Research gets funded to support the theories of the funders. There is enormous pressure to come to the right answers in any kind of funded work, whether it be government or industry. In my experience, industry-funded research is more likely to be honest because of the ever present legal risk. Government-funded research doesn’t have this counter pressure as the government is virtually immune to punishment.

    2. Sorry, but no

      Those without advanced (or any) science degrees most definitely can and should use ‘science’ in their descriptions and arguments when appropriate

      Non-lawyers can make legal arguments

      Non-scientists can make scientific arguments

      The credentialist argument fails

      1. The argument does not fail, however, when those without advanced degrees try to posture as experts.

        These guys know no more about science than any other self ? taught lay person. They should not be treated as anything more.

      2. So… he who pays the piper with other people’s money does NOT call the tune?

  36. “As a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen…”

    That doesn’t make sense at all. First, it would mean non-taxpayers and non-voters would be shielded from the effects of doubt. Second, doubting something is so is not an action in itself so how can a non-action affect someone, besides his feelings?

    Besides this, there’s no such thing as a public citizen. The man is incapable of speaking coherently.

    That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good.

    “The senior scientific commissar would like a word with you, comrade!”

  37. Since most of you have already presented comments and arguments pointing to how much of a piece of shit people like like Nye The Scientician Guy is; along with his remarkable moxy to want to imprison people on a subject matter he himself isn’t even an expert on, please allow me to be more blunt if not less eloquent.

    Nye go fuck yourself.

    If you can’t debate in good faith without resorting to the obtuse and draconian calls for imprisonment (people like him then scream there are too many people in prison) then you ain’t worth jack shit or an ounce of credibility.

    Ok. Now you can go fuck yourself.

    1. “people like him then scream there are too many people in prison.”

      This is actually why the criminal justice reform bill did not make it through congress. Proggies claimed they saw through it because the Koch Bros. were behind it, and that “reform” would be a Trojan Horse for letting white collar criminals (which will soon include scientists who don’t agree with AGW) off the hook.

      Personally, I think Bill Nye and lots of proggies want nothing more than for those who don’t support their agenda to be locked up, if not executed.

  38. If I ever run into this guy I am going to kick his fascist ass.

    1. I’m pretty certain Nye is the type of dude to travel with 1 or more bodyguards while calling for the masses to be disarmed. But if you can Jet Li Nye and his entourage’s asses, please have the foresight to livestream it.

      1. If Bill Nye is such a sincere believer, he should give back all the money he made from his show which was broadcast and watched on television that used electricity generated by coal and oil. Oh yeah, and rip up the check that Monsanto gave him for saying nice things about GMOs.

  39. Hey Nick, maybe you and Bailey should note this. Keep in mind how shocked most scientists were with February numbers (including Spencer). According to the Japan Meteorological Agency:

    “Compared to the 20th-century average, March was 1.07C hotter across the globe, according to the JMA figures, while February was 1.04C higher. The JMA measurements go back to 1891 and show that every one of the last 11 months has been the hottest ever recorded for that month.”

    Maybe you ought to put some thought into that, rather than silly pronouncements from Nye. Or Lamar Smith.

    1. Today I am 1.0 day older than I ever have been before, and 1.0 days closer to death in records that go back to 1972.

    2. Compared to the 20th century average as recorded, or after the record was adjusted to make it cooler than recorded?

    3. Re: Jackass Ass

      “Compared to the 20th-century average, March was 1.07C hotter across the globe, according to the JMA figures, while February was 1.04C higher. The JMA measurements go back to 1891 and show that every one of the last 11 months has been the hottest ever recorded for that month.”

      Yes, everybody felt that…

      Maybe you ought to put some thought into that, rather than silly pronouncements from Nye.

      At least you concede they’re silly.

      Professor Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University in the US, responded to the March data by saying: “Wow. I continue to be shocked by what we are seeing.”

      He must have given the same face my soothsayer gives me when reading my palms.

  40. I also weigh 190 lbs more, so I must be seriously screwed.

  41. Bill Nye ironically recently became persona non grata among many of his former fans on the left when he changed his stance to (relatively) pro GMO after meeting with Monsanto scientists

    I have a lot of respect for him in that he apparently considered evidence and changed his mind, the hallmark of a scientist (inquisitiveness and being open to evidence that goes against your beliefs )

    And of course he knew making such statements in support of GMO would upset those from whom he has usually received support

    The left is hilariously now calling him a a school who must have been paid off (since no ‘msn of science’ could agree with GMOs in their mind and they are also now making the same ‘he’s not a scientist’ arguments that those who oppose his AGW etc comments make)

    It’s just richly ironic to me to see the reversal among his former supporters because he dared to go off script on GMOs

    1. Proggies tend to be anti-GMO because they don’t know what it means and because Whole Foods doesn’t sell it, but they tend to pick and choose the science they support, and even then there are divisions. For example, there is a lot of contempt among educated urban proggies where I live for Anti-Vaxxers, who they tend to think of as home-schooling, Jeezus-loving, republicans. Yet, Marin County, CA- a proggie haven, has the lowest vaccination rate in the US. Perhaps once their organic gluten-free diet costs too much, they will be pro-GMO too.

      1. My second cousin is a big anti-vaxxer and lives in Seattle. Funny – he has no problem with giving his kids antibiotics though.

        His wife nursed her kids until they were 7 or 8 years old.

        1. Well, there are some children who do actually get very sick from certain vaccines. Not the huge number that anti-vaxxers claim, but my oldest brother developed encephalitis following a smallpox vaccine when he was a year old in 1962. This reaction is well documented in other cases.

          More recently, there have been other kids. I read of one on a science blog, from a pro-vax mommy, who’s infant ended up in the ICU following a vaccine. She said she would do it again 1000 times, even though it nearly killed her child: a pro-vax fetishist from the sound of it.

      2. “Perhaps once their organic gluten-free diet costs too much”.

        Nothing subsidies and/or breadlines can’t solve.

        /prog nonsense

  42. His comments regarding his view of the first amendment is why we need the 2nd amendment.

  43. ” . … affecting my quality of life as a public citizen… ” Doesn’t Nye have to prove this before he starts sending deniers to the gallows?

    Exactly how as XYZ (Exxon, Mobil, Big Oil, the Koch Brothers), negatively affected Bill Nye’s quality of life?

    1. “Exactly how as XYZ (Exxon, Mobil, Big Oil, the Koch Brothers), negatively affected Bill Nye’s quality of life?”

      He likely huffed too much leaded gasoline back in the day.

  44. I always took him to be a jerk.

    I see this kind of crap all over. Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about the mysterious airship reports from the 1890s in No. Amer. One team says they were craft from outer space. The opposing team says the reports were all lies & misperceptions. I don’t think they were from outer space, nor entirely lies & misperceptions, but principally what they claimed to be: airships being tested. But that last idea isn’t sexy, so it’s not loudly promoted.

  45. Alt text: Can’t Understand Nye’s Thinking

    1. Alt text: Nye’s response to social pressure is all too understandable. The guy is one of the 75% who will repeat any lie provided only that it looks poplular to them at the time. These defectives will not go away, so it is best to learn some Robert Heinlein judo and deal with them.

  46. Bill inquires skeptically into everything but the politics of the Skeptical Inquirer

  47. I’m glad I spent the last two years moving into self directed IRAs and moving all those assets out of the country and into hard assets like real estate and out of reach of these authoritarian communists. And by the way that is perfectly legal though obummer would like everyone to believe otherwise.

    You know where we’re already going. If you disagree, the IRS looks at you. If you disagree, they can seize your bank accounts overnight. If you disagree, they sue you or even try you for crime.

  48. Scratch a liberal and beneath the veneer of reason and openness lies the heart of a fascist who believes government should rule our lives and dissenting opinions should be suppressed.

    And as Nye expresses, the Left is perfectly willing to send Libertarians, Republicans, Constitutionalists, Libertarians or anyone with a different political philosophy or policy and issue dissenters to jail [read as concentration camp] as a punishment for their disagreement.

    There was a reason for the word Socialist to be part of the NAZI party full name.

  49. Bill Nye is proof of the law ‘Never trust a man in a bow tie’. Think about it. With the possible exception of Orville Redenbacher, who was fictional, what man who wears a bow tie isn’t an asshole?

    1. Both Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy.

  50. Elite fancy pants intellectual of Central Committee has spoken. Deniers of truth will be herded off to room 101.

  51. Of course he’s not going to be the one pulling people out of their homes and putting them in cages. “Hey everybody! Today we’re going to learn the science of tactical entry teams, ballistics, and restraining aggressive individuals!”

  52. Hashtag bow tie on too tight!

  53. I Have Made lot of worth just a fraction of price .I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online. Than I decided keep an aye on it.. Before I looked D—05, the check of five thousand dollar in first month. I am very happy to see my success of little bit business. You also try ..


  54. I Have Made lot of worth just a fraction of price .I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online. Than I decided keep an aye on it.. Before I looked D—069, the check of five thousand dollar in first month. I am very happy to see my success of little bit business. You also try ..


  55. our roomate’s sister-in-law makes 85 an hour on the internet… she’s been unemployed for eight months but the previous month her income was 12306 working on the internet a few hours every day… go to this site


  56. RE: Bill Nye, “Science Guy,” Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics
    “There is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good.”

    Bill Nye is correct.
    Anyone who does not follow the politically correct position of climate change must be jailed.
    Otherwise free speech would result, scientific results of climate change would be challenged, and all that grant money would be gone.
    Does anyone want that on their conscience?

  57. Censorship on Craigslist.

    In the Science/ math forum no discussion of Global warming. or 9/11. It is suggested you take such
    to the “Conspiracy Theories” forum , which is not even listed on the main menu.
    Hmmmm I’ve even been told “Freedom of Speech” is not allowed on Craigslist. too disruptive.
    Hmmmm. Control freaks rule ! What are they afraid of?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.