>> He's the funny guy in a bow tie taking on a very serious subject, this week on "Firing Line."

>> ♪ Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill ♪ ♪ Bill Nye the Science Guy ♪ >> He introduced a generation of children to the wonders of science.

>> Some of the electrons jump off.

>> But now Bill Nye is changing his message and his style.

>> What I'm saying is, the planet's on [bleep] fire.

>> He's taking on climate change.

And he's taking on the climate skeptics directly.

>> I'm just saying you don't actually know because it's unknowable.

>> This is how long it takes you to interrupt me.

>> With young people demanding action... >> If you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you.

>> ...and politicians taking sides... >> Small, incremental policy solutions are not enough.

>> Global warming and the -- A lot of it's a hoax.

It's a hoax.

>> What does Bill Nye the Science Guy say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Bill Nye, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks for having me.

>> It's a pleasure to have you here.

Thousands of young people saw you for many, many years on "Bill Nye the Science Guy," a program that you hosted on PBS that ran from 1993 to 1998.

You yourself won seven Emmys personally and your show won 18 Emmys.

And it really informed a generation of youth to learn to love science.

>> That was the goal, yes.

That was the goal.

>> So, you're trained as an engineer, and you discovered performance and comedy very early in your life, and then you found, really, a calling as an educator.

>> Yes.

But also, I was very concerned.

I mean, understand, as a guy born in the U.S., an engineer, I was very concerned about the future of the United States.

I just thought the U.S. is going to heck, and the key to our future is the technology derived from science.

And so, I was a young guy, and I just realized that young people are the future.

>> I want to play you a clip of you, your cameo appearance on Jon Oliver's program back in May.

Let's take a look.

>> That was fun.

>> Do you have a fun experiment for us?

>> Here, I've got an experiment for you.

Safety glasses on.

By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another 4 to 8 degrees.

What I'm saying is, the planet's on [bleep] fire.

There are a lot things we could do to put it out.

Are any of them free?

No, of course not!

Nothing's free, you idiots!

Grow the [bleep] up.

You're not children anymore.

I didn't mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12.

But you're adults now, and this is an actual crisis!

Got it?!

Safety glasses off [bleep] [ Laughter, cheers, applause ] >> I think we've all broken Bill Nye.

>> So... >> [ Laughing ] I just want to say, that's objectively funny.

Even though I was the guy on the TV, it was pretty funny.

>> But the point of it is serious.

>> Heck yes.

>> Right.

>> Oh, man, I've been talking about climate change -- You know, my first kids book, published in 1993, is a reference to the greenhouse effect and how serious this could be.

1993's getting to be a while ago.

>> So, I mean, the idea of climate change is complex, but the science is actually pretty simple.

So, for the sake of the audience, will you just explain, basically, why is climate change happening?

>> Climate change is happening because we, humankind, has put in a great deal more carbon dioxide and a great deal more methane and a few other gases than would normally be there without us having invented the steam engine and burning coal for a couple centuries -- and 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 sunlight that has been captured chemically in ancient swamps 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 we've put a lot of these gases in the air that hold in heat.

And this -- At this level, this is not rocket surgery.

People have been talking about this for decades.

James Hansen testified in front of Congress in 1988 -- U.S. Congress -- in 1988 about this.

>> Jim Hansen did testify in 1988.

He was testifying in front of a Senate panel, and the next day, it was on the cover of The New York Times, which was the first time climate change was actually reported on as a leading story.

So, let's talk about how climate change is showing up now.

>> So, well, a couple things that have been predicted for a long time are happening.

First of all, the world's getting warmer.

2016 was the warmest year, but it looks like 2019 will be the warmest year.

The other thing that's happening now that's everybody's goal in climate science has been to tie extreme weather events like hurricanes -- like hurricanes, like catastrophic heat events, like extremely cold events, like a lot of extra snow events -- tie any of these things to climate change.

>> Is that correct?

>> Well, yeah.

This has been predicted for years.

But now, the model is getting sophisticated enough to show or predict 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 -- >> And because the ocean is warmer... >> The ocean is warmer, so there's more energy.

>> More energy, and they have more water.

>> When the ocean's 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 been predicting this for decades, but now people are able to tie this mathematical model to what's actually happening.

>> So, can we talk about worst-case scenarios?

The worst-case scenarios, in terms of what could happen to the Earth in the worst models, are pretty "biblical proportions," right?

You have migrations of people that could be pushed out of their homelands 'cause of rising temperatures or rising seas, the disappearance of resources, the mass extinction of species.

>> All true.

All big doggone deals.

>> How do you deal with this notion that, for young people, the scenarios can be so daunting that you can turn them off for fear of not knowing how to tackle it?

>> Real young people.

People that are in school right now, they're fed up.

They're not gonna put up with this stuff.

And when they come -- when get to be of voting age, they're gonna make changes, people.

Look out.

>> I want to show you a clip of a young person who actually made news this last week, a Swedish activist named Greta Thunberg, who said this at the U.N. Let's take a look.

>> This is all wrong.

I shouldn't be up here.

I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.

Yet you all come to us young people for hope.

How dare you!

We will not let you get away with this.

Right here, right now is where we draw the line.

The world is waking up, and change is coming whether you like it or not.

>> So, what was 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?

>> Yeah, sure.

Yes.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but I've 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, you're a scientist.

I'm certain you have knowledge that the models, depending on how you model it, can have extremely biblical results, or they can be sort of moderately bad results, or the models can show they continue on the current trend line, which is bad.

>> Yeah.

>> So there's varying degrees of what could happen.

Is there a risk at -- with the alarmism, that you could actually slow down the kind of progress you hope to achieve?

>> So, in the case of Greta Thunberg and the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been quite conservative.

It's been scientists arguing about stuff and actually underplaying the risks.

>> So what does that mean?

Walk us through what that looks like.

>> What it's gonna be is, populations in the developing world in Asia, South Asia, are gonna go somewhere as sea-level rise comes up in their relatively lowland countries.

And they're gonna go somewhere, and where 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 you're asking us, on the science-education side, the situation's generally worse than is presented.

>> So, by critics, you've been criticized for debating climate deniers.

By your supporters, you've been heralded for taking on people who are the deniers.

So how useful is it -- I mean, you debated on "The O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly.

When you're debating the deniers, how does it help?

>> Your audience is not that guy.

>> How does it help spread your message?

>> That when people watch it, the first time, I say to everybody, if you believe in something very strongly that's inconsistent with science, it takes a couple years.

You're not gonna change your mind in a day.

It takes hearing the message over and over again.

>> What does it feel like when you're debating the deniers?

Does it make your blood pressure go up?

>> Oh, yeah.

You have to really focus.

And what they want, I believe, is for you to say something you'll regret.

>> Like what?

>> I don't know.

Calling that person names.

>> I'd like to play a clip from a famous debate that you had with a creationist, Ken Ham, on evolution back in 2014.

Let's take a look.

>> What, if anything, would ever change your mind?

>> Well, the answer to that question is, I'm a Christian.

And so, as far as the word of God is concerned, no, no one's 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 evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4,000 years instead of the extraordinary amount -- We would need evidence that somehow you can reset 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 side of what happened is that it generated an enormous amount of attention for Mr. Ham, who was then able to go raise money to build a Noah's Ark in order to teach creationism.

>> So, this is... You're right.

>> You do this often, though.

You're debating people who are the naysayers who have their own sort of entrenched constituency, and there's a real question about whether you're gonna have the ability to change hearts and minds.

>> My audience, for that debate, was not Ken Ham.

>> No, of course not.

>> My audience is the future.

And so I get correspondence all the time, every month -- or, week -- from people who were enabled or empowered by watching that debate.

>> Should families be able to teach their children whatever they want if it's inconsistent with science?

>> Well, I guess so.

>> So, well, then, what about the states?

Should the states be able to regulate the science curriculum of religious schools?

>> Well, what we want in the Science Teachers Association are national standards, based on improving the quality of life for everyone.

And, you guys, this isn't my idea.

If you go to Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, clause 8, it refers to the progress 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 there's reference to God and stuff, but they went to a lot of trouble to get religion out of there because they all, in some -- the founding fathers and the women that supported them were from traditions where religion had caused trouble.

>> So it sounds like you're making the argument that the founders' belief was consistent with this argument that there should be a national standard.

>> Oh, yeah -- "progress of science and useful art"!

>> That would absolutely allow a state to regulate the curriculum of religious schools.

>> Well... What we want are national science standards.

So, if you go to a school and they teach you one thing about religion, about the age of the Earth, but you have to pass a national test or the equivalent of a national test that features accepted science, then we want you to at least get the right answers when you take the test.

>> So you're in favor of it.

>> Well, sure.

>> But are you uncomfortable saying that the states should be able to mandate a certain set of standards for religious... >> Well, it just ticks people off when you tell them what to do.

You want to sell them on the idea that science, vaccinations, addressing climate change, electrifying all ground transportation, providing clean water, renewably produced electricity, access to the Internet, raising the standard of living of women and girls around the world, is in everybody's best interests.

>> So, even if it ticks them off, it's worth doing?

What if they don't 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 think he will have fewer and fewer recruits over the coming decades.

>> Ah.

Ah.

>> Bill predicts that, in the next 20 years, science will 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 happened to Global Warming?"

How would Bill Nye debate President Trump?

>> I don't -- Changing his mind -- Well, his mind changes quite frequently, but the problem is, apparently, whoever he spoke with last influences him.

So, what I would say is, "Ask your daughter about climate change."

That's how I would get to him.

And this is what I say all the time about Joe Bastardi, Marc Morano, to name some names -- what will your kids and your grandkids say to you?

And this is what Greta Thunberg's message is.

"We're fed up, people.

We're 16 years old.

We're not gonna put up with this anymore, you guys."

>> In 1990, William F. Buckley Jr., who hosted this program... >> 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.

I want you to take a look.

>> When you burn coal or oil or natural gas, although in smaller quantities, you put out carbon dioxide, which is not in the short term toxic, but which does expose us to a risk of basically destabilizing global climate.

And that's a cost.

You can argue about how big a cost it is, and I think that's a reasonable argument.

We don't know exactly.

But we think the lesson of what happened with acid rain is... >> "We" being the Sierra 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 we have with acid rain is, it's going to be much more expensive to clean it up now than it would 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 could have protected the environment over a longer period of time and at a much lower total cost to the economy.

But that's not the way we do things.

We like to wait for the crisis.

And then we have a crisis solution.

>> That's not the Sierra Club, right?

>> No, but that's the American way, that's the American way.

>> I mean, with respect to -- is that where we are with global warming?

I mean, is that the American way, in your view, that we have to wait until it's really a crisis -- till global warming is really a crisis, before we get serious about it?

>> No.

No.

The really amazing thing about the current administration, to me, is the number of people that the President will be able to find who are like-minded and anti-climate change and pro-fossil fuel industry and anti-environment.

>> Do you think that we're making progress, in terms of understanding that climate change is a real issue facing the world?

>> Absolutely.

The polls -- and I -- All I do is read them.

I don't conduct them.

There's something like 80% of the U.S. population is concerned about climate change.

So here's 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, just ignore it -- 2020, could be.

2024 -- maybe.

But in 2028, everybody's gonna have to have a climate policy -- conservative and progressive.

>> I actually -- I think it's gonna happen sooner than that.

>> And we all hope so.

>> Well, no, it's -- look, it seems to me that attitudes are changing if 66% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity, certainly, I can understand why you would think the current leadership of the Republican Party wouldn't be interested in a climate agenda or running on a climate platform, but even 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 -- they're in favor of a carbon tax.

You have Republican secretaries of previous administrations, from James Baker to George Shultz to Hank Paulson -- Are you in favor of a carbon tax as a conservative approach to addressing climate change?

>> Just careful how the oil industry has couched the carbon tax...ideas.

That would be great.

>> Even that they're in favor of it, I'm sure you would -- I'm sure you would probably quibble with some of the details.

Doesn't it demonstrate... >> Oh, it'd be great.

>> ...a change in attitude?

>> The word "tax" is a fabulous word, but Justin Trudeau, Prime Minster of Canada, got in huge trouble for accidentally saying... >> Saying the word "taxes."

>> So how about the word "fee"?

It's a three-letter word.

We'll have a carbon fee.

So, when you produce carb-- when your business produces carbon, the cost of your product 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, happy thing.

>> So, I mean, it seems to me that the debate has shifted -- at least, amongst sort of thinking, engaged policymakers -- away from sort of the dynamic of the Bill Nye/Ken Ham -- believe or not believe -- to a, "This is happening," and the debate is really, how do you 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 long-term, incremental phase -- it seems to me that that's the dynamic of debate now, rather than the dichotomy of the deniers.

>> Well, I hope you're right, but the current administration has just found all two dozen deniers that still walk the Earth, and so they all got them working for him.

And as you point out, this can't -- this can't last.

You can't 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 charge -- humans are in charge.

And this may not have been our choice.

And I'm an REI member, and I love the outdoors.

And we all talk about wanting to leave the outdoors alone and it's natural and this and that, and that's a lot -- there's a huge amount to that.

But we are in control.

And so we have -- in my opinion, we have to take a top-down or much more centralized approach to managing the Earth's climate and our place here on Earth.

And this requires international cooperation and everybody acknowledging that climate change is a serious problem and we're going to address it.

>> We are a leader in the... >> Well, we want to -- I want us to be.

>> ...in the carbon-reduction space.

I mean, the United States has reduced its carbon emissions... >> Yeah.

>> ...more than any other country.

I mean, China's responsible for 30% of the world's carbon emissions.

So, how do you deal with this tension of these other post-industrialized nations, who actually are worse offenders by a significant margin than the United States and convince them to change their policies?

>> Okay, so, in the case of China, they have a situation now where people can't be outside in their capital city on certain days of the year 'cause the air is so bad.

People aren't gonna put up with that.

And this whole -- this whatabout-- there's an expression, which I really like -- "whataboutism."

>> Yeah, but I'm not doing whataboutism.

I'm actually asking, like, if we're facing -- if you're looking at Greta Thunberg, and she's saying, "Shame on you all because I'm gonna have to inherit a world that has more carbon emissions and more pollutants than you guys had," and we are working with these partners across the world, and we're not encouraging or helping -- what do we do about the ones who are even worse offenders than us that actually have no interest or aim to stop burning coal in the next 10 years?

>> What makes you say they have no interest?

They're caught up in the same thing.

>> Okay, right.

Well, this is the thing.

There is -- India, for example, will continue to burn coal until 2030, at least.

China is also continuing to burn coal for at least the next decade.

So, how do you look at Greta Thunbergs of the world and say, "We're doing our part, but we can't -- we can't do anything about them"?

>> So, while China's also the world's largest manufacturer -- China at large -- manufacturers in China are the largest manufacturers of solar panels.

>> They are, but does that mitigate the fact that they're still burning coal?

>> Well, so, you guys, let's address these problems, and so, by making -- >> "How do you do it?"

is my question.

>> Well... messing up decades-negotiated international trading agreements is probably not the best way to influence another government, for example.

So, we got to convince or show everybody that we're all in this together and solve these problems.

I want us to be leaders.

>> Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

>> And so, let's lead.

And we can do this.

>> Do you think that addressing it will be solved through technological innovation, that there's an argument that we're pretty clever animals.

We've worked our way out of binds we've been in the past previously, and we'll probably think through and create and innovate our way out of this one, as well.

And there are really interesting sort of technological ideas, hypotheses, that are really being looked at -- spraying the atmosphere with particles that can -- >> That is madness.

I'm open-minded, of course, but if you spray -- >> Why is it madness?

>> Okay, so, it's just -- There's a word which is -- you can understand it without much thinking -- "geoengineering."

We're gonna engineer the whole Earth, okay?

If you put particles in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, what if there's some global conflict?

What if people start pulling out of treaties?

What if people stop supplying?

What if -- And then you stop putting the particles in the atmosphere.

Then you stop cooling the Earth off, and all this carbon dioxide, methane you put in in the meantime now just sends this greenhouse effect into an overwhelming, very fast climate -- much faster than it would have been -- climate change.

>> Okay, so, bottom line -- do you think we can innovate our way out of this?

>> Yeah, but it's gonna take working the problem from both ends or every end.

It's gonna take innovation.

It's gonna take investment.

It's gonna take education.

And you can't -- when you -- we have to stop burning fossil fuels, and that's not something that's gonna be accomplished technically.

It's gonna take political decisions.

>> Right.

>> And the sacrifices are really hard for people of my age or your age to really grasp.

You know, I try to understand it, I do my best, but we can solve enormous problems.

And my three ideas -- you know, you can read lists of 25 things we need to do or 54 things we need -- >> You have three.

>> Try three -- clean water, renewably produced, reliable electricity, access to the Internet.

If we had those three things for everybody on Earth, we would change the world.

But this is gonna take everybody working together and accepting that the Earth is it.

As Carl Sagan said, this is where we make our stand.

There's no cavalry coming over the hill.

>> There's no Planet B.

>> There's no Planet B.

This is it.

So let's go, people.

Let's work together and change the world.

>> Bill, thank you for coming to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you.

>> Alright.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> You're watching PBS.