There’s No Debate Here – It’s Science vs Nonscience, And The Scientists Get The Vote

Those of you who follow this blog will know by now that I’m a big Bill Maher fan. This guy really “gets”  climate change. Here he is from June 6, 2010:

We have to pretend that there are always two truths and the side that doesn’t know anything has something to say. On this side, all the scientists in the world, and on the other side, Mr. Potato Head. There’s no debate here. It’s just scientists vs nonscientists…We shouldn’t decide everything by polling the masses…As in ‘Eat shit – twenty trillion flies can’t be wrong’…Mainstream media can you please stop pitting the ignorant vs the educated and framing it as a debate?…”


*Thanks to David Wilson for sharing this video link*

0 thoughts on “There’s No Debate Here – It’s Science vs Nonscience, And The Scientists Get The Vote”

  1. What better scientist than Prof. Phil Jones, the former director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia ?

    Climate Scientist Admits No Warming in 15 Years

    But then, an that first hand, we have scientists scamming everybody…

    Emails Damning To CRU Head, Phil Jones

  2. Really, cowboy?!? That’s the best you can do, link to a few skeptic blogs and posit that as accurate information? Don’t know who you expect to believe that nonsense, as there is plenty of information out there now about Phil Jones, who has been cleared in not one but two different reviews. For example, from The Guardian newspaper July 7, 2010 re: Sir Muir Russell’s report:
    The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.

    Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.

    And some more: “The ‘Climategate inquiry at last vindicates Phil Jones – and so must I”

    And here, on the earlier British House of Commons inquiry that cleared Phil Jones:

    And now, cowboy, I refer you to my comment policy which states, in part:
    In keeping with the critical urgency of this situation, comments that argue that climate change is not happening, that CO2 is good for us, that Al Gore isn’t a scientist (we all know this!!), that as a meteorologist/geologist/etc. you know better than the IPCC and every National Academy of Science, humans are too insignificant to cause climate change, and so on, will be deleted without comment. If you are high on the credibility spectrum – that is, you are a publishing scientist – and you are quoting from a legitimate peer-reviewed source, and you have something to say about the science of climate change, then your comments will be posted. Referencing other blogs DOES NOT count!

    I’d be interested to know where you are on the credibility spectrum, and if you are a publishing climate scientist I welcome your comments on climate science. However, being an armchair skeptic and smearing the reputation of hard working scientists ranks one extremely low on the spectrum.


Leave a Comment