Bill Nye the Lying Guy

Jack Hays · Jan 12, 2017

Nothing goes away on the internet. Too bad for Bill Nye.

Opinion
With record rainfalls in California, another Nye-Lie bites the dust

Bill Nye the Science Propaganda Guy just can’t seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. We’ve chronicled many of his blunders here, including his involvement in Al Gore’s “High School Science” experiment where the experiment was so flawed, that they had to fake the results in video post-production to make it believable. If…

Bill Nye the Science Propaganda Guy just can’t seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. We’ve chronicled many of his blunders here, including his involvement in Al Gore’s “High School Science” experiment where the experiment was so flawed, that they had to fake the results in video post-production to make it believable. If Bill Nye was really about science, he would have caught the fact that the experiment could never work, and refused to participate. Instead, he did, and the video still exists today with Bill Nye’s voice attached to it. So much for credibility.
In 2014, Bill Nye said this while calling people who disagree with him names:

And in the case of the California drought, a recent study suggests that there is 95 percent confident that human-caused climate change tripled the chance of the development of a persistent high pressure system in the Northern Pacific Ocean, which is the cause of the California drought because it deflects precipitation away from the region.
Source: http://www.attn.com/stories/228/bil...be-scientist-shut-down-climate-change-deniers

vesper · Jan 12, 2017

I wonder if Bill Nye is having sleepless nights since Trump nominated Scott Pruitt to take over the EPA. :lol:

I know the Sierra Club are beside themselves and many members probably wearing Depends these days as they have launched an all out attack on Pruitt.

Personally I think the next 4 years will produce some real honest debate on Climate Science.

Captain Adverse · Jan 12, 2017

Well if Wikipedia is to be believed, he only has a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where he took an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan)[10] and graduated with a B.S. in mechanical engineering in 1977.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

At best that makes him knowledgeable in that field, but hardly a scientific expert in any other...including Ecology, Earth or Life Science, or the environment.

He was a TV personality and read from a script. Small wonder he would be willing to read from any other script as shown in the OP video. :shrug:

Surface Detail · Jan 12, 2017

Captain Adverse said:
Well if Wikipedia is to be believed, he only has a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

At best that makes him knowledgeable in that field, but hardly a scientific expert in any other...including Ecology, Earth or Life Science, or the environment.

He was a TV personality and read from a script. Small wonder he would be willing to read from any other script as shown in the OP video. :shrug:

Yes, because everyone knows that you just stop learning when you leave university. It's simply not possible the Mr Nye could have learnt anything else in the 40 years since he descended from the ivory towers of academia.

MrPeanut · Jan 12, 2017

Captain Adverse said:
Well if Wikipedia is to be believed, he only has a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

At best that makes him knowledgeable in that field, but hardly a scientific expert in any other...including Ecology, Earth or Life Science, or the environment.

He was a TV personality and read from a script. Small wonder he would be willing to read from any other script as shown in the OP video. :shrug:

While I agree he isn't as knowledgeable as an actual scientist on the subject the physics, chemistry, and mathematics courses required to receive an engineering degree would give him a leg up in being able to understand some of the technical aspects of climate change.

Lord of Planar · Jan 15, 2017

I forget which thread, but a guy I was arguing with, using a link from a science channel, stopped chatting when I said something like "are they scientists like Bill Nye?"

I asked that questioning the quality of the science in that link.

Lord of Planar · Jan 15, 2017

MrPeanut said:
While I agree he isn't as knowledgeable as an actual scientist on the subject the physics, chemistry, and mathematics courses required to receive an engineering degree would give him a leg up in being able to understand some of the technical aspects of climate change.

I have some real strong skill-sets. I'll bet my Mechanical Engineering knowledge exceeds his, because I use in daily at work. Not make-believe TV features.

Quaestio · Jan 15, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
I forget which thread, but a guy I was arguing with, using a link from a science channel, stopped chatting when I said something like "are they scientists like Bill Nye?"

I asked that questioning the quality of the science in that link.

You have a poor recollection of facts. You weren't 'arguing' anything. You just dropped in some dumb non-sequiturs. I didn't "stop chatting', I continued posting in that thread.

Quaestio said:
Consilience of evidence:

The Importance of Consilience in Science

bubbabgone said:
That's a blog.

Lord of Planar said:
The warmers love their blogs!!!

Quaestio said:
You're repeating your own mindless dogma again without even reading the link I posted - which is NOT to a blog. It's the Australian Science Channel website.

Remember when you posted a link to the same page on the RiAus website in response to me posting about Consilience of evidence?

Quaestio said:

I accept the science of anthropogenic global warming because there is a very strong consilience of evidence from many different lines of investigation. Every major science institution around the world accepts the consilience of evidence.

Nothing to do with 'beliefs'.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Maybe you should read this:

The Importance of Consilience in Science

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

Duh. Maybe you should read my post again -where I linked to that article.

Do you not know how to click on a hyperlink in a sentence?

Click to expand...

doh...

Lord of Planar said:
People like Bill Nye on it, right?

Quaestio said:
Weird non sequitur.

Quaestio · Jan 15, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
I have some real strong skill-sets. I'll bet my Mechanical Engineering knowledge exceeds his, because I use in daily at work. Not make-believe TV features.

Self-delusion is a "skill-set"?

MrPeanut · Jan 15, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
I have some real strong skill-sets. I'll bet my Mechanical Engineering knowledge exceeds his, because I use in daily at work. Not make-believe TV features.

If you are a practicing mechanical engineer I bet you are right on that. Nye worked enough to get his P.E., but he got into all that science guy stuff a long time ago. I don't see how this responds to my comment. Do you believe that having some base in chemistry, physics, and mathematics is useful when attempting to interpret scientific data or not?

Lord of Planar · Jan 15, 2017

MrPeanut said:
If you are a practicing mechanical engineer I bet you are right on that. Nye worked enough to get his P.E., but he got into all that science guy stuff a long time ago. I don't see how this responds to my comment. Do you believe that having some base in chemistry, physics, and mathematics is useful when attempting to interpret scientific data or not?

Absolutely.

Physics and chemistry are absolutely crucial to understanding the climate sciences. Mathematics and biology are also very essential.

bubbabgone · Jan 15, 2017

Quaestio said:
You have a poor recollection of facts. You weren't 'arguing' anything. You just dropped in some dumb non-sequiturs. I didn't "stop chatting', I continued posting in that thread.

Good grief! Get a grip, my man. You're posting like a whirling dervish now.

was there a point buried in there somewhere?

bubbabgone · Jan 15, 2017

MrPeanut said:
If you are a practicing mechanical engineer I bet you are right on that. Nye worked enough to get his P.E., but he got into all that science guy stuff a long time ago. I don't see how this responds to my comment. Do you believe that having some base in chemistry, physics, and mathematics is useful when attempting to interpret scientific data or not?

There are many disciplines involved when investigating climate.
NO ONE is expert in all of them.
Very few are expert in more than one but any one of them can be legitimately challenged by experts in any of them.

MrPeanut · Jan 15, 2017

bubbabgone said:
There are many disciplines involved when investigating climate.
NO ONE is expert in all of them.
Very few are expert in more than one but any one of them can be legitimately challenged by experts in any of them.

I agree completely. There are many different scientific fields that relate to climate change. My comment was targeted more towards people who full-stop deny climate change, or those that full-stop deny that it is possible man can affect climate. Specifically when politicians, who are generally lawyers, take a dump on new climate research because it doesn't make sense to them.

bubbabgone · Jan 15, 2017

MrPeanut said:
I agree completely. There are many different scientific fields that relate to climate change. My comment was targeted more towards people who full-stop deny climate change, or those that full-stop deny that it is possible man can affect climate. Specifically when politicians, who are generally lawyers, take a dump on new climate research because it doesn't make sense to them.

Right, but in the current environment it's not so much that the research doesn't "make sense" to the ruling political class but that they know enough to realize it "won't help" the cause.
For example, everyone is familiar with the IPCC but I suspect not many realize it was established as a quasi-science political body.
Political influence is built into the process and has gotten worse over the years.
One of the products of each Assessment Report is the Summary for Policy Makers (politicians) which is written WITH and edited BY politicians.
The SPM exaggerates the findings in the body of the Report in order to support goals other than those of science.
And often you found a Working Group author reviewing his own work as part of the SPM.
A few years ago, the IPCC process was audited and "opportunities for political interference" was one of the findings, among others.

Expediting approval of the Summary for Policymakers. The final language
of the Summary for Policymakers is negotiated, line by line, between
scientists and government representatives in a grueling Plenary session
that lasts several days, usually culminating in an all-night meeting.
Scientists and government representatives who responded to the
Committee’s questionnaire suggested changes to reduce opportunities for
political interference with the scientific results and to improve the efficiency
of the approval process.

and

Yet in interviews and responses to
the Committee’s questionnaire, some scientists expressed frustration that
they have not been nominated, despite their scientific qualifications and
demonstrated willingness to participate. Frustration was particularly
strong among developing-country scientists, who felt that some of their
Government Focal Points do not always nominate the best scientists from
among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these
scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight
than scientific qualifications.

InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Mithrae · Jan 15, 2017

bubbabgone said:
One of the products of each Assessment Report is the Summary for Policy Makers (politicians) which is written WITH and edited BY politicians.
The SPM exaggerates the findings in the body of the Report in order to support goals other than those of science.
And often you found a Working Group author reviewing his own work as part of the SPM.
A few years ago, the IPCC process was audited and "opportunities for political interference" was one of the findings, among others.

InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Those same interviews - particularly those with harshest criticism of the SPM - tended to express approval for the Working Group reports' processes and final drafts, with some scope for improvements which were largely implemented into the 2013 report.

So you give a lot of weight to the information in the AR5 Working Group reports... don't you?

Also if you imagine that the balance of political influence favours 'alarmism' or action on climate change, you're very much mistaken. In general neither citizens nor business lobbies want any reductions in energy supply or limits to consumption. That's a bit of a no-brainer really. And if not citizens and lobbies, what on earth do you imagine is influencing politicians' priorities?

It's particularly telling that in 2016 - at the zenith of three consecutive hottest years on record - global warming was not mentioned a single time in the US presidential election debates. In some cases countries' delegates to the IPCC (particularly from tropical and island third world countries) might have an incentive to talk up the effects of global warming, but the richest and most influential and generally higher-latitude countries have every reason to downplay the issues... to the limited extent that they can influence even the SPM.

bubbabgone · Jan 15, 2017

Mithrae said:
Those same interviews - particularly those with harshest criticism of the SPM - tended to express approval for the Working Group reports' processes and final drafts, with some scope for improvements which were largely implemented into the 2013 report.

So you give a lot of weight to the information in the AR5 Working Group reports... don't you?

Also if you imagine that the balance of political influence favours 'alarmism' or action on climate change, you're very much mistaken. In general neither citizens nor business lobbies want any reductions in energy supply or limits to consumption. That's a bit of a no-brainer really. And if not citizens and lobbies, what on earth do you imagine is influencing politicians' priorities?

It's particularly telling that in 2016 - at the zenith of three consecutive hottest years on record - global warming was not mentioned a single time in the US presidential election debates. In some cases countries' delegates to the IPCC (particularly from tropical and island third world countries) might have an incentive to talk up the effects of global warming, but the richest and most influential and generally higher-latitude countries have every reason to downplay the issues... to the limited extent that they can influence even the SPM.

I would expect nothing other than a general approval of the IPCC in a review of the IPCC commissioned by the UN and the IPCC.

Hard to tell about the value of any WG reports if the contributors are selectively chosen for their groupthink capacity. With that in mind the IAC report recommended having independent members on an Executive Committee ... that didn't happen ... and as for AR5, the politicians & activists (and they're not skeptic activists - from any Country) were once again editing the SPM and setting confidence levels not supported by the WG section. That was in the IAC report too.

A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.
Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.
He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.

Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.
He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’

Some deletions were made at the insistence of only one or two nations – because under IPCC rules, the reports must be unanimous.
He revealed the original draft of the summary contained a lot of detail on how international co-operation to curb emissions might work, and how it could be funded. The final version contains only meaningless headings, however, with all details removed.

Prof Judith Curry, the head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, said that between them, Professors Tol and Stavins had shown the process was ‘polluted by obvious politics’.

Top climate expert's sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report | Daily Mail Online

Look, given the way the IPCC was created it could be expected to indulge in these practices and they still do.

And as for that remark about hottest year on record, exactly how long is that record?

Mithrae · Jan 16, 2017

bubbabgone said:
I would expect nothing other than a general approval of the IPCC in a review of the IPCC commissioned by the UN and the IPCC.

Okay, but you understand that your gut feelings don't count for a whole lot to other forum members, don't you? If you want to make an actual argument, you'll have to tell us exactly what you find objectionable about the terms of the review.

CHARGE TO REVIEW COMMITTEE:

2. A Review Committee is appointed by the IAC Co-Chairs to undertake a review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IAC Review Committee will take into account the following IPCC official documents: “Principles Governing IPCC Work”, including their Appendices: Appendix A “Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of the IPCC reports” and its Annexes (hereinafter referred to as “IPCC Procedures”), Appendix B “Financial Procedures for the IPCC”, and Appendix C “Rules of Procedures for the Election of the IPCC Bureau and Any Task Force Bureau”. The Review Committee is requested to perform the following tasks:

2.1. Review the IPCC procedures for preparing assessment reports including, but not restricted to:

Data quality assurance and data quality control;
Guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments, with special attention to the use of non peer-reviewed literature;
Procedures for expert and governmental review of IPCC materials;
Handling of the full range of scientific views; and
Procedures for correcting errors identified after approval, adoption and acceptance of a report.

2.2. Analyze the overall IPCC process, including the management and administrative functions within IPCC, and the role of UNEP and WMO, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders, with a view to strengthen and improve the efficiency of the assessment work and effectively ensure the consistent application of the IPCC Procedures.

2.3. Analyze appropriate communication strategies and the interaction of IPCC with the media to ensure that the public is kept apprised of its work.

2.4. Prepare a report on the outcome of the activities referred to above, including:

Methodology of the report preparation and measures taken to ensure high quality of the report findings;
Recommendations for amendments to the IPCC procedures;
Recommendations concerning strengthening the IPCC process, institutions and management functions;
Any other related recommendations; and
Outline of a plan for the implementation of recommendations.

Alternatively, you could explain to us why the Inter-Academy Council has so little credibility in your eyes (except when they say something you happen to like, of course).

Members of the IAC
Académie des Sciences, France
Academy of Science of South Africa
Australian Academy of Science
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
German National Academy of
Sciences Leopoldina
Hassan II Academy of Science and
Technology, Morocco

Indian National Science Academy
InterAcademy Medical Panel
IAP – the global network of
science academies
International Council of Academies of
Engineering and Technological
Sciences (CAETS)
International Council for Science (ICSU)
Mexican Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences,
Republic of Korea
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences (KNAW)
Science Council of Japan
The Royal Society, United Kingdom
TWAS – The World Academy of Sciences
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

Without one or both of these, all you've offered us is a gut feeling which looks (ironically) to be based more on groupthink and ideological bias than any clear evidence about shortcomings in the review.

Threegoofs · Jan 16, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Nothing goes away on the internet. Too bad for Bill Nye.

Opinion
With record rainfalls in California, another Nye-Lie bites the dust

Bill Nye the Science Propaganda Guy just can’t seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. We’ve chronicled many of his blunders here, including his involvement in Al Gore’s “High School Science” experiment where the experiment was so flawed, that they had to fake the results in video post-production to make it believable. If…

Bill Nye the Science Propaganda Guy just can’t seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. We’ve chronicled many of his blunders here, including his involvement in Al Gore’s “High School Science” experiment where the experiment was so flawed, that they had to fake the results in video post-production to make it believable. If Bill Nye was really about science, he would have caught the fact that the experiment could never work, and refused to participate. Instead, he did, and the video still exists today with Bill Nye’s voice attached to it. So much for credibility.
In 2014, Bill Nye said this while calling people who disagree with him names:

And in the case of the California drought, a recent study suggests that there is 95 percent confident that human-caused climate change tripled the chance of the development of a persistent high pressure system in the Northern Pacific Ocean, which is the cause of the California drought because it deflects precipitation away from the region.
Source: http://www.attn.com/stories/228/bil...be-scientist-shut-down-climate-change-deniers

If you actually read the article, you'll see that Nye didnt actually lie at all. He was mentioning a scientific study showing the drought in CA was potentially due to AGW, and then also demonstrating that the recent floods were also potentially due to AGW.

Apparently, what Watts (and JH) cant grasp is that BOTH of these statements can certainly be true - in fact, the best guess is that in many areas of the world, CA included, weather extremes will be magnified by AGW - meaning droughts will get worse, and floods will get worse also.

Its really strange that this concept is new to them, as they have been whining about those same projections for years.

bubbabgone · Jan 16, 2017

Mithrae said:
Okay, but you understand that your gut feelings don't count for a whole lot to other forum members, don't you? If you want to make an actual argument, you'll have to tell us exactly what you find objectionable about the terms of the review.

CHARGE TO REVIEW COMMITTEE:

2. A Review Committee is appointed by the IAC Co-Chairs to undertake a review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IAC Review Committee will take into account the following IPCC official documents: “Principles Governing IPCC Work”, including their Appendices: Appendix A “Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of the IPCC reports” and its Annexes (hereinafter referred to as “IPCC Procedures”), Appendix B “Financial Procedures for the IPCC”, and Appendix C “Rules of Procedures for the Election of the IPCC Bureau and Any Task Force Bureau”. The Review Committee is requested to perform the following tasks:

2.1. Review the IPCC procedures for preparing assessment reports including, but not restricted to:

Data quality assurance and data quality control;
Guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments, with special attention to the use of non peer-reviewed literature;
Procedures for expert and governmental review of IPCC materials;
Handling of the full range of scientific views; and
Procedures for correcting errors identified after approval, adoption and acceptance of a report.

2.2. Analyze the overall IPCC process, including the management and administrative functions within IPCC, and the role of UNEP and WMO, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders, with a view to strengthen and improve the efficiency of the assessment work and effectively ensure the consistent application of the IPCC Procedures.

2.3. Analyze appropriate communication strategies and the interaction of IPCC with the media to ensure that the public is kept apprised of its work.

2.4. Prepare a report on the outcome of the activities referred to above, including:

Methodology of the report preparation and measures taken to ensure high quality of the report findings;
Recommendations for amendments to the IPCC procedures;
Recommendations concerning strengthening the IPCC process, institutions and management functions;
Any other related recommendations; and
Outline of a plan for the implementation of recommendations.

Alternatively, you could explain to us why the Inter-Academy Council has so little credibility in your eyes (except when they say something you happen to like, of course).

Members of the IAC
Académie des Sciences, France
Academy of Science of South Africa
Australian Academy of Science
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
German National Academy of
Sciences Leopoldina
Hassan II Academy of Science and
Technology, Morocco

Indian National Science Academy
InterAcademy Medical Panel
IAP – the global network of
science academies
International Council of Academies of
Engineering and Technological
Sciences (CAETS)
International Council for Science (ICSU)
Mexican Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences,
Republic of Korea
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences (KNAW)
Science Council of Japan
The Royal Society, United Kingdom
TWAS – The World Academy of Sciences
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

Without one or both of these, all you've offered us is a gut feeling which looks (ironically) to be based more on groupthink and ideological bias than any clear evidence about shortcomings in the review.

You misunderstand me.
I believe the IAC review of the IPCC made the same points I've been making on threads like this and meeting great resistance (like from the member posting immediately above).
I call it IPCC corruption but other people can draw their own conclusions and call it a need for minor fine tuning if it'll get them through the day.

You must know if you've been reading these threads that the indoctrinated have knee-jerk reactions to stuff like that.
I do believe the IAC review had credibility, given who they are and what they delivered.
The IPCC does not, given what they declined to do with it.

My own personal rule is that if I have a point to make I try to use what the alarmists here would have to consider an unimpeachable source ... if possible.
This has been one of those instances when I could.

Jack Hays · Jan 16, 2017

Threegoofs said:
If you actually read the article, you'll see that Nye didnt actually lie at all. He was mentioning a scientific study showing the drought in CA was potentially due to AGW, and then also demonstrating that the recent floods were also potentially due to AGW.

Apparently, what Watts (and JH) cant grasp is that BOTH of these statements can certainly be true - in fact, the best guess is that in many areas of the world, CA included, weather extremes will be magnified by AGW - meaning droughts will get worse, and floods will get worse also.

Its really strange that this concept is new to them, as they have been whining about those same projections for years.

So . . . it is your contention that drought in CA is evidence for AGW and flooding in CA is evidence for AGW?:mrgreen:

And that Nye had future floods in mind when he was warning of persistent drought?:lamo

Threegoofs · Jan 16, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
I forget which thread, but a guy I was arguing with, using a link from a science channel, stopped chatting when I said something like "are they scientists like Bill Nye?"

I asked that questioning the quality of the science in that link.

At least Bill Nye is smart enough to understand he doesnt actually DO climate science, he just communicates the findings of climate scientists to less scientifically literate people.

When Bill Nye tells us that he's calculated something about AGW himself that is not in agreement with the experts, but he knows more than them because 'he reads all the papers', then you can make fun of him.

Threegoofs · Jan 16, 2017

Jack Hays said:
So . . . it is your contention that drought in CA is evidence for AGW and flooding in CA is evidence for AGW?:mrgreen:

And that Nye had future floods in mind when he was warning of persistent drought?:lamo

Again, is this a real surprise here?

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-...nk-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather Science Guy Bill Nye Explores How We Mourn a Changing Climate

bubbabgone · Jan 16, 2017

Jack Hays said:
So . . . it is your contention that drought in CA is evidence for AGW and flooding in CA is evidence for AGW?:mrgreen:

And that Nye had future floods in mind when he was warning of persistent drought?:lamo

He's going to have to get back to you because Nye " just communicates the findings of climate scientists to less scientifically literate people."
Wonder how far down the Nye communication line the scientifically illiterate DP members are.
You may be waiting awhile.

Jack Hays · Jan 16, 2017

Threegoofs said:
Again, is this a real surprise here?

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-...nk-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather Science Guy Bill Nye Explores How We Mourn a Changing Climate

Hmmm. You realize you are at odds with the IPCC on this?

On a global scale, there’s little to no evidence flooding events have been on the rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found in 2013 that “there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
Read more: Bill Nye Blames Global Warming For Floods In California | The Daily Caller

An article in The Daily Caller outlines his [Nye's] hypocrisy.

Bill Nye the Lying Guy

Jack Hays

Traveler

vesper

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Surface Detail

MrPeanut

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Quaestio

Quaestio

MrPeanut

Lord of Planar

bubbabgone

bubbabgone

MrPeanut

bubbabgone

Mithrae

bubbabgone

Mithrae

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

bubbabgone

Jack Hays

Traveler

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

bubbabgone

Jack Hays

Traveler