Additional funding is provided by. Corporate funding is providedvie by. Bill nye, welcomto firing line. Thanks for having me. Ita pleasure to have you here. Thousands of young people saw you for many, many years n on bi the science guy, a program that you hosted on pbn thatrom 1993 to 1998. You yourself won seven emmys personally and your show rmn 18 emmys. And it really in a generation of youth of that was the goal, yes. That was the goal. So, youre trained as an engineer, and you discovered performance and comedy very early in your life, and then you found, really, a calling as an educat. Yes. But also, i was very concerned. I mean, understand, uy born in the u. S. , an engineer, i was very concerned about the future of the United States. I just thought the u. Is going to heck,the key to our future is the technology derived from science. And so, i was a young gu and i just realized that young people are the future. I want to play you a clip of you, your cameo appearance on jon olers program back in may. Lets take a look. That was fun. Yo dhave a fun experiment for us . Here, ive got an experiment for yo safety glasses on. By the end of thisentury, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on earth could go up another 4 to 8 degrees. What im saying is, the planets on [bleep] fire. Therare a lot things we could do to put it out. Are any of them free . Nothings free, you idiots grow the [bleep] up. Youre not childn anymore. Didnt mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But youre adults w, and this is an actual crisis safety glasses offp] [ laughter, cheers, applause ] i think weve all broken bill nye. So. [ laughing ] i just want to say, thats objectivfunny. S even though i e guy on the tv, it was pretty funny. But the point of itis erious. Heck yes. Right. Oh, man, ive been talking about Climate Change you know, my first kids book, published in 1993,er is a rce to the greenhouse effect and how serious this could be. T 1993s gettibe a while ago. So, i mean, the idea of Climate Change is complex, but the science so, for the sakety simple. Of the audience, will you just explain, basically, why is Climate Change happening . Climate change is happeninghu because wenkind, has put in a greatl more Carbon Dioxide and a great deal more methan and a few other gases than would normally be thereg without us havvented the steam engine and burning coal for a coue centuries gas and oil. And the word fossil is an old latin word it means buried. So this is fuel that we dug up. So, it is ancient sunlightpt that has been ed psemically in ancient and trees, buried, turned to coal, gas, and oil, dug up, and burned. So, we are burning it at a much, much faster rate than it was created. And so weveut a lot of these gases in the air that hold in heat. And this at this level, this is not rocket surgery. About this for decades. James hansen testified front of congress in 19 u. S. Congress in 1988 about this. Jim hansen did testify in 1988. He was testifying in front of an senate, and the next day, it was on the cover of the new york times, which was the first ti Climate Change was actually reported on as a leading story. E sos talk about how Climate Change is showing up now. So, well, a couple things that have been predicted for a long time are happenin first of all, the worlds getting warmer. 2016 w the warmest year, but it looks like 2019 will be thwarmest year. The other thing thats happening now thats everybodys goal in Climate Science in has been to tie extreme weatherr events like anes like catastrophic vents, like extremely cold events,en like a lot of extra snow events tie any of these things to Climate Change. Is that correct . Well, yeah. This has been predicte for years. But now, the model is getting sophticated enough to show or predi that a hurricane like michael or dorian is gonna move slowly and stay there a long time and dump a lot of water. And so s and because the ocean warmer. The ocean is warmer, so theres more energy. More energy, and they have more water. When the oceans warmer, the molecules are moving faster, they push each other apart faster, and the air is more turbulent, and the storms are bigger. And people have pren icting this for decades, but now people are able to tieca this mathematil model to whats actually happening. So, cane talk about worstcase scenarios . The worstcase scenarios, in terms of whatould happen to the earth in the worst models, arpretty biblical proportions, right . That could be pushed out ofle their homelands cause of rising temperatures or rising seas, the disappearance of resources, the mass extinction of species. All true. All big doggone deal how do you deal with this notion that, for young people, the scenarios can be so daunting that you can turn them off how to tackle it . Nowing real young people. Fople that are in school right now, they up. Theyt gonna put up with this stuff. And when they comewh get to be of voting age, theyre gonna make changes, people. Look out. W i want to su a clip of a young person who actually made news this last week, a swedish activist n Greta Thunberg, who said this at the u. N. Lets take a look. This is all wrong. I shouldnt be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you alme to us young people for hope. How dare you we will not let you get away with this. Rit here, right now is where we draw the line. Th world is waking up, and change is coming whether you like it or not. So, what s your reaction when that video went viral . Right on, greta. Right on. And you do you believe that it is as dire as she articulates . I dont mean to missive, but ive been people on the science side of this have been talking about this for decades. And now the public consensus is realizing the significance of it. I mean, youre a scientist. Im certain you have knowledge that the models, dependg on how you model it, can have extremely biblical results,ul of moderately bad s, or the models can show they continue on the current trend line, which is bad. Yeah. So theres varying degrees of what could happen. Is there a risk at with the alarmism, that you could actually slow down the kind of progressho yo to achieve . So, in the case of Greta Thunberg and the united nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change s been quite conservative. Its been scientists arguing about stuff and actually underplaying the risks. De so what does that mean . Walk us through what that looks like. What its gonna be is, populations in the developing world in asia, south asia, are gonna go somewhere as sealevel rise comes up in their relatively lowland countries. And theyre gonna go somewhere, ere are they gonna go . And in the case of what we nominally call the middle east, the droughts that have become more frequent and more severe, have disenfranchised young people, and this leads to trouble. And so if youresking us, on the scienceeducation side, the situations generally worse than is presented. Ente so, by critics, youve been criticized for debating climate deniers. By your supporters, youve been eralded for taking on peo who are the deniers. So how useful is it yo i meandebated on the Oreilly Factor with bill oreilly. When youre debating the deniers, how does it your audience is not that guy. How does it help spad your message . That when people watch it, the first time, i say to everybody, y believe in something very with science,s inconsistent it takes a couple years. Youre not gonna change your mind in a day. It takes hearing the message over and over again. What es it feel like when youre debating the deniers . Does it make your Blood Pressure go up . You have to really focus. And what they want, i believe, is for you to sasomething youll regret. Like what . I dont know. Calling that person names. Id like to play a clip from a famous debate thatha yowith a creationist, ken ham, on evolution back in 2014. Lets take a look. What, if anytng, would ever change your mind . Well, the answer to that question is, im a christian. And so, as far as the word of god is concerned, no, no ones ever gonna convince me that the word of god is not true. Mr. Nye . We would just need one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another. We would need evidencehat rock layers can somehow formm din just 4,000 years inst of the extraordinary amount we would need evidence that somehow you can res atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons. Bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately. Most people agree that you won that debate, except the flip sideed of what happs that it generated an enormous amount of attention for mr. Ham, who was then able to go raise money to build a noahs ark a nn rder to teach creationism. So, this is. Youre right you do this often, though. Youre debating people who are the naysayers who have their own sort of entrenched constituency, and theres a real question about whether youre gonna have the ability to change hearts and minds. My audience, for thatebate, was not ken ham. No, of course not. My audience is the future. And so i get correspondence all the timeevery month or, week from people who were enabled or red by watching that debate. Should families be able to teach their children whatever they want if its ionsistent with science . Well, i guess so. So, well, then, what about the states . Should the states be able curriculum of religious schools . Well, what we want in the science tehers association are national standards, based on improving the quality of life for everyone. And, you guys, this isnt my idea. Ic if you go to a 1, section 8 of the u. S. Constitution, clause 8, it refers to the progressgr of science and useful arts. It does not refer to in fact, they went to a lot of trouble to leave religion out of the constitution. And there were compromises made, and theres reference to god and stuff, but they went to a lot of trouble toet religion out of there because they all, in some the Founding Fathers and the women that supported them were ftraditions where religion had caused trouble. So it sounds like youre making the argument that the founders belief was cent with this argument that there should be a national standard. Oh, yeah progress of science and useful art that would absolutely allowg a state toate the curriculum of religious schools. Well. What we want are National Science standards. So, if you go to a schoolan they teach you one thing about religion, about the age of the eth,th but you have to pass a National Test or the equivalent of a National Test that featus accepted science, then we want you tat least get the right answers when you take the test. O youre in favor of it. E. Well, s but are you uncomfortable saying that the states should be of standards for rus. In set well, it just ticks people off when you tell them what to do. You wa to sell them on the idea that science, vaccinations, addressing Climate Change, electrifying all ground eaansportation, providing water, renewably produced electricity, access to theis internet, g the standard of living of women and girls around the world, is in everybodys best interests. So, even if it ticks them off, its worthng . What if they dont buy the idea . Okay, well, so, you want to show them the evidence. Repeatedly. And hope that they voluntarily choose to incorporate it. Make an argument that they will eventually embrace. Do you think that ken ham is gonna voluntarily embrace that idea . No, but his i thk he will have fewer and fewer recruits over the coming decades. Ah. Ah. Bill predicts that, in the next 20 years, sciencwill win out not in the next two years, but in the next 20. All right, so i want to read you a tweet from President Trump. Brutal and extended cold blast could shatter all records all caps. Whatever happenedba to gwarming . How would biye debate President Trump . I dont changing his mind well, his mind changes quite frequently, but the problem is, apparently, whoever he spoke with last influences him. Ld so, what i way is, wh ask your daughter about Climate Change. Thats how i would get to him. And this is what i say all the time about joe bastardi, marc morano, to name some names and your grandkids say to you . And this is what Greta Thunbergs message is. Were fed up, people. Were 16 years old. Were not gonna put uphi withanymore, you guys. In 1990, william f. Buckley jr. , who hosted this program. Ed william f. Buckley. Yeah. He actually maybe was early to this debate for conservatives he invited a leading environmentalist and a leading major coal producer to the program to debate the pros and cons of coal. Ta i want you t a look. When you burn coal or oil or natural gas, although in smaller quantities, which is not in thtdioxide, term toxic, but which does expose usus to a risk of basally destabilizing global climate. And thats a cost. You can argue about how big a cost it is, and i think thats a reasonable argument. We dont know exactl but we think the lesson of what happened with acidain is. We being the sira club . The sierra club. And i think environmentalists, in general. That when we see a problem like this, we ought to begin buying a small insurance policy early instead of waiting until we have a crisis. The problem in is,e with acid its going to be much more expensive to clean it up now than iwould have been if we had started in 1981 when we first became aware of the problem and put in place a modest program at low costs that coul protected the environment over a longer period of time a and uch lower total cost to the economy. But thats not the way we do things. Ai we like tofor the crisis. And then we have a crisis solution. Thats not the sierra club, right . No, but thats the american way, thats e american way. I mean, with respect to t is tere we are with Global Warming . I mean, is that the american way, in your view, thatve to wait until its really a crisis till Global Warming is really a crisis, before we get serious about it . No. No. Ste really amazing thing about the current admition, to me, is the number of peoplent that the presiill be able to find who are likeminded and antiClimate Changeil and profouel industrydust and antienvironment. Do you thinthat were making progress, in terms of understanding that Climate Change is a real issue facing the world . Absolutely. The polls and i all i do iread them. I dont conduct them. Theres Something Like 80 of the u. S. Popution is concerned about Climate Change. So heres a claim for you to evaluate in 2020, a conservative might be able to run for president who does not have a Climate Policy no Climate Policy,gn juste it 2020, could be. 2024 maybe. But in 2028, everybodys gonna have to have a Climate Policy conservative and progressive. I actually i think its gonna happen sooner than that. And we all hope so. T well, no, its look, it seems to me ttitudes are changing if 66 ofmericans believe Climate Change is caused by human activity, certainly, ldcan understand why you w think the current leadership of the Republican Party wouldnt be interested on a climate platfa or running but evenev major Oil Corporations exxonmobil have come out in favor of a carbon tax. That would be great. A carbon tax would be great. And, yeah theyre in favor of a carbon tax. You have rublican secretaries of previous administrations, from james bak to h George Shultz k paulson are you in favor of a carbon tax as a conservative approach to addressing Climate Change . Industry has couchw the oil the carbon tax. Ideas. Even that theyre in favor of it, im sure you would im sure you would probably s quibble wie of the details. Doesnt it demonstrate. Oh, itd be great. The word tax attitude . Is a fabulous word,rd, ant justin trudeau, prime minster ofa, got in huge trouble for accidentally saying. Saying the word taxes. So how about the word fee . T a threeletter word. Well have a carbon fee. So, when you produce carb when your business produces carbon, the cost of your p goes up a little bit. This would discourage the production of the reckless production of carbon or methane Carbon Dioxide or methane and it would encourage innovation and conservation and efficiency. And this is the free market. This should be a wonderful,ha y thing. So, i mean, it seems to me at least,debate has shifted amongst sort of thinking, engaged policymakers away from sort of the dynamic of the bill nye ken ham believe or not believe s to a, tning, and the debate is really, how do mitigate it and tackle it and the varying degrees to which one should spend money on doing it, how quickly or expeditiously or over more of a longterm,r mo incremental phase it seems to me that thats the dynamic of debate now, rather than the dichotomy of the deniers. Well, i hope youht, but the Current Administration has just founds all two dozen deniers that still walk the earth, and so they all got them working for him. And as you point out, this cant this cant last. You cant deny science, you know, for very long without it catching up with you. And so, i strongly believe we have to view the earth as our home or our house and that we are in charg humans are in charge. Our choice. Y not have been and im an rei member, and i love the outdoors. And we all talk about wanting to leave the outdoors alone and its natural and thisd and that, ats a lot theres a huge amount to that. Th but we are in control. And so we have in my opinion, we have to take a topdown or much more centralized approach to managg the earths climate and our place here on earth. In and this requirernational cooperation and everybody acknowledging that Climate