T: To what degree is man’s involvement in global warming?
B: That’s not -
T: ANSWER MY QUESTION! WHY DO YOU “SCIENTISTS” ALWAYS SHOUT US DOWN WHEN WE ARE ASKING SIMPLE HONEST QUESTIONS WITH AN OPEN MIND!? WHY DO YOU LITERALLY WANT TO SEND PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU TO JAIL!?
…and the insular bullheadedness of stubborn old men twice his age!
As someone who wears bowties, I do so because 1) I can physically wear them without looking ridiculous, and 2) I’m the type of person who knows how to tie a bowtie and can do it well. He looks ridiculous in a bowtie, so I’m willing to bet he can’t properly tie one either.
The comments were shocking. How long can they maintain their denialism as things continue to fall part? Will there still be people shouting “shill” and “hoax” as they starve to death during a January hurricane?
I think they should get Matt Smith in on this.
He isn’t actually a Doctor.
Yeah. That part, especially. Shrill, whiny Tucker shouting over his ‘guest’ about being shouted down. That instant held the same horrible fascination as every time I’ve heard, “Democrats are the real racists” or “Obama’s corrupt administration” or “fake news” variations. To my mind, it’s the perfect equivalent of pointing at the sun and screeching about how it’s really nighttime and that’s just an exceptionally bright moon.
I think @Enkita or @anon50609448 mentioned it elsewhere regarding the American relationship w/news media, that essentially once they deny the existence of [broad daylight thing everyone can plainly see and understand], then we’re done, aren’t we?
Did you know there’s a direct correlation between coolness of bow ties and Tucker Carlson’s abandonment of bow ties? Think about it!
The true irony is the Bill Nye went on because he is working with research into cognitive dissonance, and why people who deny climate science do so because the evidence contradicts their worldview.
It’s not about climate change. It’s about propaganda and tribalism. This has been one of the mis-steps of the scientific community throughout the last 20 years. You can’t argue with people’s feelings.
It will just get normalized. “Don’t believe Emmanuel Goldstein’s lies: the people have always starved during the January hurricanes.”
Listening to Carlson Tucker ask such ignorant questions, then interrupt the overly patient answers without understanding they were answers to his stupid stupid questions was painful.
Carlson saying he was open minded and trying to encourage climate change discussion and that bill nye was close minded was just too much.
Can Carlson not hear himself?
I bet his teachers hated him, that kind of person is the worst kind of student.
Is that a typo? It could be a typo, but I kinda hope it isn’t. The dissonance is too delicious.
I also tie my own. I was nearly late to a wedding because many of the youtube tutorials are horrible. I finally found one that illustrated the critical step as I pulled up to the wedding location.
Now, it ain’t no thang. 
I get the joke, but I think you’re right. Because climate changes slowly^, and because it has cycles within cycles, and because there’s good weather and bad weather, people can and will happily kid themselves that it’s all ok, celebrate nice days when they come around, endure the bad days, and stoically rebuild after each weather disaster.
(published 9 Jun 2014)
(published 24 Jan 2014)
^ on human timescales. I get that the change going on at the moment is unprecedentedly rapid.
He’s waiting for a very small phone call.
I actually had the opposite reaction, I thought Nye’s ability to provide concrete evidence to Carlson’s answers was a great response. Others may have been tempted to be more humble in what they share “we can’t be sure but”, Mr. Nye was direct in answering. I wish I knew how effective such a style is.
I think Mr. Nye did himself a disservice by ending on the Whitehouse Leaking topic, it seemed totally off topic and it wasn’t clear what point he was making with respect to climate change. It felt political and makes it easy to dismiss all the things he said before.
Yeah, I think my difference is in considering the audience.
Tucker’s audience isn’t going to be convinced by concrete evidence. That’s not what they’re watching the show for.
Good call, I wonder if his audience would be better served by Bill just providing an alternate narrative for why Fox News would lie about climate change, or if that would backfire.
I guess where I give Bill props is not being wishy-washy the way experts who can see the nuance and ambiguity can be, but for being direct. I’ve seen it so many times where an expert sounds less credible because they can see the shades of gray and their opponent is black and white.
