Bill Nye the science guy.

Post Reply New Topic

Given how successful the show was in appealing to kids, it appears to have been very well-thought out TV.

Just because more kids are diagnosed with ADHD now doesn’t mean that many kids didn’t have it at the time and were undiagnosed due to a lack of awareness and understanding. For example, many on WP weren’t diagnosed with ADHD until they were well into adulthood. At any rate, children’s programming isn’t usually marketed solely towards kids with specific attention issues or learning challenges. It’s meant to appeal to a wide audience. Kids typically want to watch what other kids are watching and don’t want to feel different.

I think the show contained much more content than you seem to be suggesting/remembering. It wasn’t remotely close to being equivalent to typical cartoons. That doesn’t mean that someone has to like it or him. We all have different, tastes, preferences, and learning styles. Some kids need something that’s visually stimulating to sustain their attention. Several of my former students would’ve enjoyed watching him but not Mr. Wizard. My own kid likes Bill Nye. The most important thing is getting kids excited about science which he did.

IMO, it was a solid kid’s show from an educational standpoint although not every show will appeal to everyone which is why it’s good that there’s variety out there. I didn’t like watching Mr. Wizard. I’m glad that other children enjoyed watching him and benefited from it. Since science did not interest me when I was a kid, I needed something more engaging to spark my interest.

Maybe you don't understand what the word skeptical means. If you think his science is questionable, how is it that you are the only one, among anyone who is serious and knowledgeable about science? He has a fantastic reputation in his field and within the scientific community for being accurate and truthful. Do you have some special secret knowledge, that only you have, that he is not?

You don't have to like his manner or style. That's unrelated to being "skeptical." But even if you are skeptical that he actually helped people learn about science there's another mountain of evidence stacked against you there.

It's like saying you're "skeptical" about Julia Child and she therefore shouldn't be teaching people about cooking. It just doesn't make one damn bit of sense.

You're just out of step with reality on this.

I do indeed know what skeptical means. In this instance, I meant it specifically as an adjective to mean "doubtful about a particular thing" (doubtful about Bill Nye).



I am educated to a postgraduate level and know how to read scientific articles. I agree with the previous poster (MatchboxVagabond) when he says that Bill Nye's 'science' clips play a lot like cartoons, or on that level, anyway. I'm sure I am not the only one.



According to whom does he have a fantastic reputation? The readers of his books? Americans? He is barely known in the UK, another English speaking country.



I am skeptical that his level of science would qualify him to present himself as a "science guy" or to overreach what he knows when he presents himself as a spokesperson of climate change, for example.



In your opinion?

You just don't get it. Even you admit that you don't know anything about him, and you seem to think this boosts your position. And if you don't know about his very wide reaching reputation then look it the f**k up.

I am still appalled at the term "climate alarmist". It barely snowed last winter where I am and in the summer it's 40 degrees multiple times a week. At this rate in a few more decades the planet won't be habitable. Every piece of news I see is that something is happening even faster that we thought or is even worse than we thought. If you live anywhere near the ocean (which is a considerable percentage of the world) your home will soon be underwater. All of these are scientific facts. If that's not alarming I don't know what is.
I don't think you're denying climate change, I just think some people choose to live in a bubble where they tell themselves it's not that bad to avoid accepting that yeah, the climate is extremely f**ked up and we need to do something fast. But anyone who sees all the facts should be highly alarmed.

I suppose that if you were a Flat Earther then a normal person would be a "Flat Earth Denier".


So if you're a climate denier then a non climate denier would be a "Climate Change Alarmist".

So...is that what you are?

A climate change denier?

Bill Nye has more Science knowledge than do most journalist. He may not be an actual specialist in "Climatology". But even if he were his knowledge would just be in some narrow subdiscipline within climatology. And he would necessarily be more qualified over all to report about world wide climate change.

Or...if you doubt that the earth is flat then you could be called a...."Globalist"!

Naaahhhh.

That word is already taken....to mean something else.

You would be a ... a "Round Earther". Naa...because a flat disc can be called "round". We mean round in three dimensions.

A "Ballist" maybe?

I already said in a previous post that I didn't mean to imply that climate change is not real, with my usage of the term 'climate change alarmist'.

You can believe in climate change as a scientific phenomenon without being an alarmist about it.

True. But anyone who recognizes how bad it is would have to be insane to not be alarmed.
So it seems like you believe it exists, but you don't want to believe it's as bad as all the scientists (yes, actual scientists) are saying.

I have seen all sorts of predictions from various sources, including from the IPCC. Some sources say the negative effects of climate change won't be seen for nearly a thousand years and other sources say that within a few decades there will be chaos due to climate change.

Even if the worst predictions are true, I'll be almost dead in a few decades from now and I have no children.

Why would I become distressed about that at this point?

Many people care about stuff that won’t directly impact them.

^ Well, in any case, I can't do much about climate change apart from giving up meat perhaps, and I'm not prepared to do that. I already have a relatively low carbon footprint. I live with family, I don't have a personal transport vehicle etc.

There's really no point worrying about climate change, unless you are a policy maker or someone who can change things perhaps?

People can put pressure on policy makers and adjust their lifestyle in a variety of ways. To that end, scientists and knowledgeable spokespeople can inform the public about the gravity of the situation which is what Nye was doing.

I would say he was being an alarmist. He has pointed to the worst predictions, and presented them as the only outcomes.

Also, most people aren't ready to give up their meat, and probably even their cars or whatever. They'd rather see the world burn. (And yes, I have considered electric cars there).

So I think it'll be a case of hoping for the best, really.

Many issues seem like only those in power can help solve them. But if you care about something, there are always at least two things you can do: you can vote, and you can convince others to care about it.

Many people, including myself, would disagree with that assessment. Even if his specific timeline doesn’t come to fruition, the evidence demonstrates that this is a serious issue that more people should care about.