I claim I do have the answers. Okay. Okay. You're not, you're not a scientist, you know,
you're a popularizer. So much of this you don't know, you pretend that you know,
but you don't know, and you believe people who ask you questions. I really have to disagree with you, sir, I really have to disagree.
Well, Bill Nye, the science guy, recently got into it with Tucker Carlson on Fox News about global
warming and climate change. I'll play the clip in just a moment, but I want to show you what the
Bible says about climate change. The Bible says while the earth remaineth seed time and harvest
and cold and heat and summer and winter and day and night shall not cease. That's what the Bible
says. We don't need to worry about climate change. God invented climate change. It's called winter,
spring, summer, fall, and he's saying that that's not gonna cease while the earth remains. There's
no need to worry about climate change. It's ridiculous. I hope you enjoy the clip.
Well, Bill Nye the Science Guy is now aspiring to a new title, Bill Nye the Psychoanalyst Guy.
During a Facebook live event with Senator Bernie Sanders today, the mechanical engineer and TV
personality said, skeptics of global warming suffer from the psychological delusion of cognitive
dissonance. It's a slight bump up from last year when his, he was open to the idea of imprisoning
skeptics of global warming as war criminals. Is that the choice? Bell viewer Nuremberg,
Bill Nye joins us now. Bill, it's great to see you. That doesn't sound like science to me,
Bill Nye the Science Guy. That sounds like something very different. So cognitive distance
is not a delusion. It's a feature. It's human nature. So we in the science community are
looking for an explanation why climate change deniers or extreme skeptics do not accept the
overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change. And the most reasonable explanation is
you have a worldview and then you have evidence and the evidence disagrees with your worldview.
So you deny the evidence and then run with that. You deny the authorities that are providing the
evidence. The core question from what I can tell is why the change, is it part of the endless cycle
of climate change or is human activity causing it? That seems to be the debate to me. And it
seems an open question, not a settled question to what degree human activity is causing that.
Is that not an open question? It's a subtle question. Human activity is causing climate change.
Wait, wait, wait, but hold on, hold on. But to what extent is human activity responsible for
speeding that up? I mean, please be more precise. If that's the number you're being. Humans are
causing it to happen catastrophically fast. Here's the point that I hope our viewers can understand.
I'm not in any way denying that the climate is changing. I'm utterly open to the possibility
that the change is caused by man's activity. I'm merely calling into question your claim that all
of this is settled, that the person that we know precisely what is happening and why, and that
anyone who asks pointed questions about it as a denier and ought to be imprisoned or shouted off
the state. That was your word. That's you guys. That's not my, that's not my claim. And I really,
would you like me to, would you like me to read your quote that people who disagree with you
ought to potentially go to jail? You said that. Okay. And I'm just saying, is it, I'm not sure
that's exactly what I said, Mr. Carson. We can talk about that shortly, but is it appropriate
to jail the guys from Enron? Was it appropriate to jail the people of the cigarette industry who
promised it wasn't addictive, et cetera. You're look, my only point is, shouldn't we be encouraging
people to ask honest questions, which I am doing. And you don't seem to have the answers to those
questions. I got to disagree with you. I claim I do have the answers. Okay. I want to know what
would happen without climate change. It's a simple question. The climate is always changing. You've
conceded that you're saying that human activity has increased the speed, increases the speed of
that change. And my point is, what would the climate look like right now without human
activity? At what point would it have warmed or cooled? Britain would not have changed during
that period. Yes. Britain would not be very well suited to growing grapes as it is today.
French winemakers would not be buying land to the North as they are now. People who plan to
run ski resorts would still be able to do it in Europe. Uh, and so the climate and the parasites,
you're using the language of politics. Look, you're not, you're not, you know,
you're a popularizer. The climate would be like it was in 1750. And the economics would be that
you could not grow wine worthy grapes in Britain as you can today because the climate is changing.
The use of pesticides in the Midwest would not be increasing because the parasites are showing
up sooner or the pests are showing up sooner and hanging around longer. I think that's probably
all true, but you would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change.
That's how much of this you don't know for you. You pretend that you know, but you don't know.
I really have to disagree with you. I spent a lot of time with this topic. I'm open-minded.
You are not. And we're out of time, unfortunately.