>>11797279Woah this answer is pretty spot on. I never saw it this way.
>>11797669>This way, only one relatively science literate Nye-critic can make him look very unreliableThis is not true. The people he's pandering to aren't capable of understanding the criticism because they can't into science. Appearance matters many times more than honesty and being right put together; nobody who likes the show (is it a show?) is gonna side with the lone autistic screecher, because they have made their own judgement and they have their own rationalizations about the time they have spent watching the science guy.
>It's like when Al Gore made his film "An inconvenient truth".No, it's not like that at all. The difference is one that you implicitly recognized yourself:
>the climate change deniersThese are the autistic screechers of the first example, not the common people. The common people don't believe that climate change is false, and a bunch of noisy dudes -regardless of how ignorant or not they are- aren't gonna have more weight in their minds than the professionals who do careful image management. You don't seem to be very people-smart; people don't work like you think.
