He's soundly mocked. See links, here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/16/nye-goofs-holds-up-pic-of-arctic-while-talking-about-antarctic-watch-bill-nye-debate-gop-rep-marsha-blackburn-nye-hold-up-pic-of-arctic-and-then-asks-if-antarctic-has-less-ice-climate-depot-answ/
I have posted all over this blog, and there are links galore to articles debunking both the correlations and the strength of the correlations between man and "climate change."
A lot bothers me about those who hold this religious (and I mean that in the most derogatory sense possible) view that Man is responsible for all climate activity on this planet, but, in no particular order here are some:
1. Their claim that the science is "settled." That, my friends, depends on what you mean by the "science." If you mean is CO2 increasing, and is Man a contributor to that, then yes, that is settled. If you mean, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, then, yes, the science is settled. But, that's science on the order of "water is chemically H2O" level stuff. This argument from the CC Religionists attempts to paint you as a bumpkin who believes the Earth is 5000 years old and Man roamed it with the dinosaurs. In other words, they want you to think you're stupid, (and they're smart and enlightened).
For most CC'ers, their knowledge of the "science" ends here. That's because that's all they hear from AlGore or MSNBC or the MSM, and it's about all they can comprehend. They don't understand that the Church of Climate Change typically ignores important things that also impact the science, like other greenhouse gases (um, water vapor, for example), natural events (volcanic eruptions, for example), natural climate variability, or that big ball of heat in the sky we call the Sun.
They don't understand (or willingly ignore) that the Church of Climate Change is built on models developed by "scientists" who often have a vested financial interest in the Church's future.
2. The "consensus" of scientists means you "deniers" need to shut up. Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Joe Bastardi and the thousands of others who don't ascribe to the man-caused fear mongering theories of the religionists don't count, as they're not in the consensus. Well, the consensus is not as great as they want you to believe, and I would encourage you to root around the Internet, and you find a lot of people who find the science problematic, and not so settled at all. If you have an engineering, science, or math background, some of the crap the religionists are passing off as science should seriously concern you.
3. Even if you cite experts in the field who produce research that contradicts the party line, and even if it's peer reviewed and well documented and truthful, well, they'll attempt to smear it was "funded by big oil." This is where Bill Nye devolved to on MTP today.
4. Extreme weather events are caused by "climate change" and are proof of "climate change." This is the absolute most maddening claim. No responsible climate scientist, and not even the most rabid in the "consensus" category will even touch an attempt to tie a specific weather event to "climate change." The fact is these links can not be proven, not least of all because there is no link. All you'll really get from them is that extreme weather is a possible result of climate change.
This is clearly an attempt to influence public opinion, but when everything is caused by climate change, nothing is. The new religion's name, "climate change," is even used to be as expansive as possible. Is there someone alive who thinks the climate hasn't always changed? The Earth has survived through numerous periods of warming and cooling. The climate has ALWAYS changed. This is the very nature of things. Don't fall for this tactic. This is entirely meant to distract from the incontrovertible fact that global temperatures have remained the same/fallen slightly since 1998, and their models can not explain "The Pause." This occurring despite global CO2 emissions continuing to increase.
Us skeptics say this is because something else is going in here. These people built their careers (I don't blame anyone for wanting a steady job, but in academia, it's important to be right) on this religion. Their models were designed to make the most of Man's activities. Why? Because if you can't say the sky is falling, why should any policy maker fork over the nation's treasury to you to study it more?
That's one group of the believers. Those are the cash hounds, who need this charade to continue to keep the money flowing. The harder group are those who know this is a charade, but see it as an opportunity to bring down Western Civilization, something they've been trying to do for generations. These were the communist fellow-travelers and the same people who 40 years ago were whining about a new ice and the population explosion.
Regardless of the cause of the man-caused catastrophe, their proscriptions are all the same - it's the West's fault, stop development, and you people in the 3rd world who'd like to be rich - get back to your caves.
Opposing these people is both a Pro-Science and Moral obligation for me. That's why I am so passionate about it and find this group to be so dangerous to not just what the West has accomplished but to mankind and what our friends in Brazil and India, and other developing nations may accomplish.