There was a minor uproar over a recent Bill Nye comment that is summed up in this article: “Bill Nye: Climate Change Scientists Need To Wait For Older People To Die.”

But let’s look at this for what it really reveals.

First of all, Bill is stating a fact. Many in the climate change “resistance” are Bill’s age and older. But this generation was brought up differently than the current group of people, many rising through academia. We were taught to question authority. We were also encouraged to reject groupthink. Perhaps it had to do with Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech in which he warned against the military-industrial complex — which, when I was growing up in the ‘60s and '70s, was being used as a rallying cry against our involvement in Vietnam. But those of us who are in the generation of which Bill speaks also took note of the other part of Eisenhower’s speech.

Let me borrow from this Wikipedia link. The legacy of the speech from the article above attests to my assertion about its importance in relation to Vietnam:

Although it was much broader, Eisenhower’s speech is remembered primarily for its reference to the military-industrial complex. The phrase gained acceptance during the Vietnam War era and 21st-century commentators have expressed the opinion that a number of the fears raised in his speech have come true.

Here’s that part of the speech:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Here is one of the greatest generals of our nation warning against the military-industrial complex, and many took it to heart.

But we of that generation also knew about the second part of his warning.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central. It also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. …

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Ike was right.

Here is where Nye has a point . He understands that the people who were brought up in the form of Americanism and who believed the individual should question authority are getting older and will not be around when the new vanguard takes over. Enlightened he believes himself to be, and I suspect others like Al Gore think they are simply leading the new wave to replace the old wave. But instead of attacking Nye and making it seem like he has a death wish for his opponents, why don’t people actually look at the facts of what he is saying and what they actually mean for things like critical thought and skepticism? Those things are essential not only to the scientific method but also for the basis for man to use his free will to better himself. The bottom line is that Nye’s statement does not identify a problem with Nye, it identifies a problem with what has happened over the post-Vietnam generations. Nye and the climate issue, when looked at more deeply, reveal a deeper problem that strikes at the core of what has led to the nation’s rising.

Nye is right about the inevitable result. It does not make him right about CO₂ being the climate control knob. But Nye is not the demon here; he is more a messenger of the very changes that Eisenhower warned us about in his speech. And what is apparent is that the generation which followed that speech took his word to heart over one thing but went the opposite way on another.

Some may be tempted to think I am going soft on Nye. I am evaluating what he said in an objective manner. I would suggest that instead of tearing at the messenger we look at the message. For in his message is the real danger – not to the people who are aging but to the methodology that makes solid foundational skepticism and freedom possible.

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm, and contributor to The Patriot Post on environmental issues.