I find this mystifying. Bill Nye is going to do another debate this weekend, this time on climate change. At least one site considers this a bad idea, too.
This Sunday, “Meet the Press,” the renowned televised political news forum, will host a discussion of climate change — perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time — featuring a professional children’s entertainer and a Republican member of Congress. Yes, David Gregory will be refereeing a “debate” — their word — between “Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ and Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.” Nye will be arguing the pro (climate change is real and bad) and Blackburn will be arguing the anti (climate change is made up and not bad). By the end, America will be just a little bit more stupid and doomed.
Marsha Blackburn is bonkers — not only is she a birther, a climate change denier, and a gun fondler, but she’s also corrupt and incompetent. As pointed out above, she’s being given a little more credibility by this ‘debate’.
Honestly, I expect that Nye will have no problem dealing with this wackaloon, but not because he’s brilliant on climate science…but because his opponent is a crank. Just like Ken Ham is a crank.
And that’s what I don’t get. Does Nye really want to get the reputation as the willing body ready to engage with the looniest side of any discussion, a status he’s going to reinforce with this event? It doesn’t do him any favors.
And why would Blackburn so readily accept the position of the Ken Ham proxy in this punching bag session? Is she that stupid? Or does she think playing the role of a Ken Ham equivalent is admirable?
Up next, Michele Bachmann wants to debate Bill Nye on quantum electrodynamics
I agree that debates are an incredibly stupid way to try and convey information to the public, but I do admire Nye for being willing to engage the general public on these issues. We’re all well aware of the polls and surveys that show time and time again just how disturbingly uncommon it is for the American public to accept basic, fundamental scientific conclusions and theories. I suspect part of the reason for that is that science does a really crappy job at PR. There are most certainly better ways to go about educating the public than debates, but at least it’s something that will reach a wider audience of people who need to be convinced than (forgive the expression) preaching to the choir. And, it’s something more of the general public seems willing to pay attention to.
Scientists, philosophers, and other academics and scholars are in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation with the anti-intellectual crowds. If we engage them, we’re elevating their legitimacy, and if we don’t engage them, their crap goes unchallenged in the public arena – and they accuse scholars of being too cowardly to engage because if they did, they’d convert to [creationism / climate change denial / etc.]. But at least when we engage them, whatever boost they get to their legitimacy in the eyes of the public, counter-arguments are presented alongside.
And I certainly get the myriad of reasons why we don’t meet the idiots in the public arena – not least of which is because we’re too busy advancing the collective total of human knowledge and better understanding the nature of reality to want to waste time addressing basic stuff that should have been covered in grade school. But it seems that what our culture really needs is more public intellectuals who are willing to step in and tell these cranks that they’re cranks to their face. For all the wonders of blogging, writing, and TV documentaries to advance the public’s understanding of how the world really works, we’re still shamefully behind in how many people accept basic science, and I think part of that is because we’ve let the cranks go without significant challenge in the public arena for so long.
Let’s definitely not risk giving her credibility. I’d rather leave her and her insignificant fringe ideas where she has no credibility… as the Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Seriously, though, against Ham, Nye’s big victory was to show those who never really scrutinized YEC just how vacuous their position is. Maybe he could pull that off again. He’s gained a reputation as a likeable defender of science and I think he would look good as the face of climate science advocate.
Yes, and yes. It’s not an “or” question.
The left is no better than the right on climate change. The lie the left believes is that we can have all the excesses and comforts of modern life without the nasty consequences if we just invest in a few ‘green technologies’.
Ain’t gonna happen. You cannot make a system like ours green, no matter how many wind farms or solar farms you build (and these things in themselves produce pollution in their production and can be a threat to wildlife like birds).
You know who is living green? The Amish. There are a lot of them around where I live and they are not crazy like our society portrays them; actually it is just the opposite. But in a crazy world sanity looks loony.
I’m going to have to go with kome and reverendrobbie over here. We are absolutely never going to change anybody’s mind without engaging with the culture. And, unfortunately, the only way to engage with the culture is to get up on stage with wackaloons.
If Mr. Nye would have just gotten up on stage, even if he would have managed to convince a broadcaster to do so, and just talked about evolution or climate change, the already convinced would have been the only people to watch. This ropes in the not-convinced, or the people on the other side.
Quite frankly, I’m sick of people talking about “If there’s global warming, why is it still cold?” crap. If we could let it percolate through the popular consciousness what climate actually is and isn’t, I’m calling it a win.
I applaud Mr. Nye. It’s not like he’s been in research for awhile, so he’s not being pulled away from the cure for cancer. Let him debate Jenny McCarthy on vaccines next and we can get the trifecta of terrible science in the US.
Here’s the thing, by debating loonies on a variety of different fronts, he actually establishes himself as ‘the voice of reason’. The more areas he covers, the more it will solidify that status. Moreover, it creates a sort of equivalency-of-stupidity among his opponents.
Next he should debate a TV “psychic” or a 9/11 troofer or some other goofball. It would end up creating a sort of association between Ken Ham, Marsha Blackburn, and these other whack-a-doodles – an association they will come to loathe. Who wants to be in the same logical category as a bunch of other idiots, cranks, and quacks?
Informing the public about science used to be the job of the press, but that has been corrupted. Scientists must now become their own representatives in media.
I think he is perfect for these jobs. He is known as a television personality who educates children about science. I think that if anyone is going to debate a crank, it should be someone who is famous, not due to science acumen, but ability to explain simple scientific ideas to elementary school aged students. Lends the perfect amount of gravitas these debates i.e. not much. It is still too much, probably, but hey, sometimes you have to give them a small amount of credibility in order to draw in enough eyeballs to watch you make a complete and utter fool out of them. Honestly, it is worth a shot. Debate or no debates, crankery will go on and go strong in this country of ours.
Nye knows what he’s doing. He prepped for the Ham debate with the NCSE: http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/02/12/hearts-and-minds/
Next up: Bill Nye vs Ramtha!
Debate topic: consciousness or reality which came first?
Slightly OT but a bit irksome: I noticed the writer at Salon.com continues the anti-intellectual practice of belittling people who work with children. Educating children is important and if you have someone as knowledgable and capable as Nye then you win. Little kids tend to be inquisitive (until school grinds the curiosity and enthusiasm out of them) and will ask lots of unexpected questions. The time to make them think and learn is early in their lives. He’s not a lowly children’s “entertainer.”
I don’t buy the worry about giving the nuts credibility. Credibility with whom? The nuts already have credibility with the nuts. Low info yet normal people will learn something and will likely see how thoughtless the Hams and Blackburns are.
As the spouse of a hardworking primary school teacher I heartily second this…
And anteprepro’s comment above; these “debates” aren’t about rigorous scientific exposition; they’re about explaining a few central ideas in clear, simple terms and Nye is very good at that.
I think Bill Nye is too charitable to his opponents. Ham and Blackburn don’t need to be “debated,” they need to be disrespected and mocked, gracefully if possible. I don’t want to see another debate where the two sides just talk past each other, and nothing changes. The deniers have become a big part of the problem of inaction on climate change. They do real damage to America’s standing and credibility.
Republicans need to be called frauds. Nye needs to demand that Blackburn put up or shut up. Maybe he’s just too decent for this mission. Of course he should be civil, but why are we being so polite to people who we consider to be anti-science, anti-environment a**holes?
I’m sick of phony, ginned-up right-wing outrage and smokescreen tactics for Exxon etc. to continue using the planet as their ashtray. My outrage at their bullshit is real.
Looks like a case of “new agent syndrome” – a publicist agent gets a slice of the bookings so they’d have Nye dancing on a tabletop if the fee was right.k
@Brett McCoy #1:
With diagrams…
I am absolutely sick and tired of people insisting that challenging these idiots somehow gives them “legitimacy”. PEOPLE ALREADY THINK THEY’RE LEGITIMATE. AND IGNORING PROBLEMS NEVER WORKS.
ohkay @ 15
This is not a real debate it is a TV appearance and an educational opportunity. Nye’s job is to inform the public of the reality of climate change and to demolish the arguments of the climate deniers. Mocking and disrespecting the Blackburns and Hams would seem to me to be an emotionally pleasing distraction.
Why do we have to waste time debating these issues in the 21 century?. I wonder how many of those anti science people on the other side also think the earth is flat ?
I think this “Nye debating the loons” thing is an interesting experiment. It might backfire and do a little damage but I don’t see it doing a lot of damage – not after Nye did ‘OK’ against Ham. On the other hand, followers of Ham and Blackburn have/will see their “facts” examined for the first time rather than reconfirmed by the internetz. Many will “la la la” over what Nye has to say, but something may get through to some.
I also think it’s interesting if Nye continues this tour of Idiotville, USA. Rather than these debates giving credence to the loons, anyone who challenges Nye to a debate may just automatically be seen as a loon. Especially if he continues to have some modicum of success like he did against Ham.
Its an experiment. I’m hoping for some good results.
I changed my mind. I’m also with Kome (maybe you are a little less damned if you do than if you don’t) Reverend Robbie, antigone10, Sven (good point) and others. And I think it applies more broadly, like for example Sean Caroll (the theoretical physicist) debating William Lane Craig (this month.) I just hope I’m not going to have to change my mind on this again.
PZ, I don’t understand why you’d criticize Nye for engaging “wackaloons” like Ham and Blackburn when your blogging career has largely been built on engaging such people, albeit in a different fashion. Does every wackaloon article you write “do you any favors”? Yeah, it does – it drives traffic. That’s why 592 Google search results come up for “Ken Ham” on a site-specific search of Pharyngula. Nye is a public figure and these things obviously generate significant attention.
I comprehend the argument that such debates somehow elevate ridiculous ideas like creationism and climate change denial, but I find it hard to believe that the net effect is negative. And I don’t see how it’s much different from what you do. I say this as a big fan of yours. I’ve never commented, but I’ve been following Pharyngula for many years and I’ve really enjoyed your shift in focus from creationist wackaloons to misogynistic ones. I also appreciate that you’re not afraid to lash out at other people in the atheist, secular, and scientific communities. But sometimes you get a little overzealous with it, and I personally find it off-putting.
Yeah, it’s one thing for a Serious Scientist to debate a denialist of some kind; there is some granting of equal legitimacy involveds there. But Bill Nye? A famous children’s television personality? I say let him rip.
Before the Nye/Ham debate, I would have agreed wholeheartedly that engaging with them is a bad idea.
But Nye is just so GOOD at making science sound exciting and fun, even to a hostile crowd, that this might well be worth it. I mean, he TROUNCED Ham, in a fashion I had not dared to hope would happen. And he came off looking like a nice guy while doing it!
So, who knows? He might pull a twofer.
I was sceptical before the Ham debate, but now I’m going to add my voice here to the people who are in favour of this debate. A lot of the anti-AGW crowd live inside their Fox news bubble, and a debate like this will for a lot of these people be one of the few moments they actually hear arguments from the other side. Sure the True Believers will not be swayed, but it could be a learning opportunity for some people who are now believers just because they lie in the Fox news bubble. Even if it sways a small fraction of the believers, it will be a victory.
That said, I hope Nye is going in well prepared on this topic. There are a lot of stock AGW denialist positions, and Blackburn is probably going to spout these things without adding anything new, so a good preparation will be 95% of the victory.
Also, as an aside, I don’t really understand this ‘giving legitimacy to the loons’ in this case. Blackburn isn’t some person shouting on a soapbox on a street-corner, she is a member of the House of Representatives, one of the 435 people making the laws of the USA. She may be a loon, but she is legit.
This time Nye is doing much better in terms of Nick Matzke’s commandments. Won’t anybody give him credit for that?
Nye should challenge Blackburn to re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment. Chances are good that she won’t even know what it was.
I hope Nye is picking his opponents carefully. We want all the wackos to already have been debated by Nye before it becomes the general consensus that ‘debated by Bill Nye’ is synonymous with ‘crazy’.
While I’ve changed my tune since Nye/Ham and no longer object to such debates on principle, I do get a sense that I may be overconfident in Nye. I mean, we all know that Ham did far worse than we expected and pulled virtually none of the rhetorical tricks that we were looking for from him. I’m going into further Nye debates no longer with cynicism but still with extreme caution about my optimism.
As a side note, those on here who enjoyed Nye thrashing Ham should also catch Dillahunty’s satisfying debate from about a week ago against Ray Comfort on a Minnesota Christian radio station.
The second paragraph in the Salon article that the professor highlighted is a jewel, too.
Hey kiddies, it’s rhetorical question time! OOOO-K,… heeeeeeres your question:
Why do the shmucks in ‘mainstream’ news and media organizations these days even entertain the idea of producing sideshows like this likely debacle of a ‘debate’, continually giving a platform to people like this Blackburn creature, another in an endless supply of within the always entertaining–but cognitively dangerous– political/social circus of loons?
(Talk amongst yourselves…..)
It would be nice to see the non-brain dead swath of the American public writing or phoning in their sharp disapproval of these ‘debates’ to the respective media outlets that continue to give a voice to those who peddle bullshit as a viable position, particularly on subjects of science and environment.
When he is done with the global warming deniers, I would like to see him take on the anti-vaccination crowd and the complementary and alternative medicine quacks.
What, why? He’s going to get the reputation of being the one who shows You The People of the United States that all these cranks really are cranks, really are just bluffing, have no substance behind their grandiose claims, and don’t even understand what they’re talking about in the first place. Doesn’t that do everyone a favor?
I just hope this actually comes to pass. If Blackburn manages to do a Gish Gallop of denials that Nye hasn’t read up on, she might come out ahead…
Yes.
Dunning/Kruger effect! She really, honestly does believe she knows better than all the climatologists in the world, let alone a Science Guy!
Bingo! :-)
Has the press ever been good at that? Sixty years ago, Austria’s highest-brow newspaper (IIRC) wrote that .
…Did you read anything in this thread before you submitted your comment?!?
You know, the “don’t debate them, you will only give them credibility” argument seems stunningly similar to the “don’t feed the trolls, they only want attention” argument. Sometimes you need to ignore stupidity and hope it fades into the shadows. And sometimes you need to expose stupidity to the light of day, and openly mock it. Who knows. Honestly, the crankery in our country seems to be waxing, not waning. Might as well take some risks, because it is not a problem that is going to fix itself.
Well, I read all the comments and have changed my mind: I’m persuaded that on the whole it’s good that Nye’s doing this.
I just logged in to say that that’s why I like this site and keep coming back.
Personally, I like these debates. I think that Nye, being a “professional children’s entertainer”, speaks to his opponent’s audience in a simplistic way that they can understand. Face it, for most people, science is difficult to understand. Nye is making facts accessible to ordinary people and he might just change their minds.
Here’s an interesting letter, not exactly a poll but similar, some folks might want to sign on to:
TO: DEBORAH TURNESS, PRESIDENT OF NBC NEWS
Cancel your planned “debate” on climate change this Sunday and instead run a segment that looks at the real science of the issue.
Why is this important?
This Sunday, “Meet the Press” on NBC News is scheduled to host a “debate” on climate change between scientist Bill Nye and Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn.
Despite there now being wide scientific consensus that climate change is real and man-made, the media is still treating climate change denialism as a valid position to be given equal consideration in their coverage. The planned debate this Sunday falsely suggests that the jury is still out, and may leave uninformed viewers confused about the certainty of the issue.
… etc etc.
http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/nbc-news-don-t-make-a-mockery-of-science-with-your-climate-change-debate-this-sunday
One of the biggest pieces of fallout of the Nye/Ham debate, to my mind, was Wackaloon-in-Chief Pat Robertson effectively calling Ham an idiot. If Robertson can see the writing on the wall, how many others of his followers will be swayed? Hopefully, Nye can gain a similar result in this upcoming confrontation. If you can show that the patients are running the asylum, maybe you can do something about regaining control.
It’s NBC! Their raisin date is entertainment. Oh, and news. News is reporting what’s going on. In terms of climate change, there is a debate going on. One side is ascientific denialists, but nevertheless they exist, and from the perspective of news and entertainment, it would be stupid and wrong to pretend otherwise. Some of the ascientific denialists are politicians with power, extremely popular blogs, and whole cable networks.
Asking freaking NBC to ignore what’s actually going on in favor of soberly mouthpiecing the current scientific consensus (i.e. truth, probably) is naive, stupid and, I want to say, arrogant.
This is a bit of a tough one…
1. Blackburn is a policy maker, so it is important to try to educate policy makers. But, as stated, she’s a loon. Chance for education: 0%.
2. Along the lines of what Greg Laden posted, it would be nice if the “world” (specifically, “media” in this case) worked that way. Sadly, it doesn’t. What’s worse? Playing the stupid game or not playing at all? I lean toward “not playing at all” because then you’d only have the loon’s getting their voice heard.
Where does the “children’s entertainer” bit come from? Honest question. I remember Bill Nye from Almost Live—appearing in sketches and doing the occasional Bill Nye the Science Guy segment—and the next thing I know, he’s president of the Planetary Society! How did anyone outside the Seattle area ever hear of him?
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge @41: The segment went on to become it’s own half-hour long TV show that aired on PBS in the 90’s. I was a bit old to watch it myself, but one of my science teachers in junior high would occasionally show us segments from the show. It was good, from what I recall, though aimed at a younger audience (so of course we all said it was cheesy, because we were too cool for kiddie stuff).
More generally, I understand PZ’s stance on not debating creationists, thus giving them the legitimacy of debating a scientist. However, I think Bill Nye is uniquely positioned, as he is known as a science educator rather than a scientist. And in the case of climate change denial, there really isn’t the issue of granting the claim legitimacy, since it would seem that the view is held by nearly all Republican members of Congress. These are people in power, and their views won’t simply go away if they are ignored. At some point, they must be confronted.
I wish the media would do a better job of fact-checking and calling politicians on their bullshit. But since the media have failed at this task, it’s time for science advocates to do something. I hope Nye trounces Blackburn tomorrow, and gets some people to start thinking.
15 ohkay
– If the point of is to shame them into submission, good night and good luck. They are impervious, except possibly when it comes from their own. And the trick is that as soon as anyone disagrees they are no longer among “their own.”
– And please provide examples of the effectiveness of this program of “disrespect” and “mocking.” (Apart from self-satisfaction on one side and entrenchment on the other.)
Um, when were they not? And who has been disagreeing with you?
Wait. “We should be civil,” but “why are we being civil?”
Well, overall, very nearly a “Major Barbara” sentiment, the kind to which Undershaft responds: “My dear, you are the incarnation of morality. Your conscience is clear and your duty done when you have called everybody names.”
#3 reverendrobbie
– Precisely. I’m hoping that she is introduced, sharply, as “Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee,” and that the position is reiterated many, many times throughout the broadcast.
– Along with hopes of another performance and result similar to the previous “debate,” there’s this: That some number of people, at least among those already sympathetic with Nye, will have a “Wait… she’s WHAT? No… In the United States? Where I live and vote (sometimes)?” moment.
Turns out Robertson is an OEC, not a YEC. That means Ham and Robertson have always regarded each other as heretic, they just didn’t bother saying that out loud until now.
Yyyyyyesssssssssss.
No, you don’t want to give the creationists credibility by debating them. But it’s not always the case that you do. The worst case is when a college professor debates a creationist at the college. The creationists can then say that the issue is being debated at universities, which makes it sound like scientists are arguing amongst themselves.
Bill Nye went to the Creation Museum, which now lets us say that even at the museum, the issue is not settled. Plus, Nye isn’t a “real scientist”, so there’s no loss if he loses, and at best it’s entertainment, almost laughable to even talk about it.
In this case, if the leading Congressperson is admitting that the issue is still open for debate, the denialists have lost credibility.
——-
Did none of the pro-debate people take debate classes? We used to carry two shoeboxes full of factoids for and against, and flip a coin for which side of the case we would argue. It wasn’t about finding truth, it was about putting on a good show.
Debates are no way to do science. They are practically sermons, with the devil in the other podium. But Bill Nye was the right guy in the right place for the last one. I hope he does as well in the next.
BTW, I think Nye charged his usual speaker’s fee for the museum debate. I think Ham lost a big chunk of any funds raised, and lost the debate, too.
I think Sven’s strategy (#7), if that’s what Nye intends has much to recommend it.
Firstly, by engaging other loons it devalues the position of any individual loon.
Secondly, devout believers from the first ‘debate’, not alienated by Bill’s affable style, might watch the second and recognise a glimmer of logic. That might raise questions in their own logic – a kind of ‘Outsiders test of faith’, introduced slowly.
Which one was the professional children’s entertainer?