Sarah Palin Says 'Bill Nye Is As Much A Scientist As I Am' (cnn.com)

ClickOnThis quotes a report from CNN: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin mocked Bill Nye on Thursday, using the premier of a film that criticizes climate change scientists to call into question Nye's credentials. "Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am," the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee said, according to The Hill. "He's a kids' show actor, he's not a scientist." Palin, who was speaking at the Washington premiere of the anti-climate change film "Climate Hustle," targeted Nye during a rant against the "alarmism" of climate change activists. Palin urged parents to teach their children to "ask those questions and not just believe what Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them" about climate change. Just because Bill Nye may be best known for his role in the popular educational TV series "Bill Nye the Science Guy," doesn't mean he isn't a scientist. In fact, he graduated from Cornell University's School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering. From Wikipedia: In the early 2000s, Nye assisted in the development of a small sundial that was included in the Mars Exploration Rover missions. He holds several U.S. patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes and another for an educational magnifying glass created by filling a clear plastic bag with water.

Comments

we're all scientists

[turkeydance]

we're all equal, right?

Re:we're all scientists

[pollarda]

A scientist is someone who seeks to find the truth via the scientific process. Bill Nye is not this. He is an actor. He has the potential to be a scientist as we all do and he has some degrees that could allow him to have a leg up in being a scientist compared to some others. Even so, he has chosen to be an actor and an activist. At this stage, he is at most a science enthusiast. Once he starts a serious research project about something we don't already know the answer to and develops his various hypotheses and then proceeds to develop and run a methodology to test them, then I'll call him a scientist.

Re:we're all scientists

[Ol Olsoc]

A scientist is someone who seeks to find the truth via the scientific process. Bill Nye is not this. He is an actor.

He's a popularizer. Just like Carl Sagan, Popularizers are despised by many in science, because they are considered "actors" and they are equally despised by people like Sarah Palin, Who are in fact, either idiots, or trying to look like one. If you've heard her speeches lately, she is virtually incoherent.

And in fact, is there a shit to be given when a person is right? As I recall, Bill is calle "The science guy"

Unless of course, you ascribe to Sarah Palin's brand of science. Whic isn't science at all, but denial of science.

Re:we're all scientists

[rahvin112]

You don't need a degree, research budget and to be published to be a scientist.

Science is a methodology for studying the natural world that is the best method we have for separating out human weaknesses in the process, anyone can do it. But to do science and practice it you need to follow the methods. Sarah Palin hasn't followed those methods at any time in her entire life, Bill Nye has.

Re:we're all scientists

[buchner.johannes]

He is a science communicator. He goes to scientific research and presents it to the public in an understandable way. When he has questions, he asks scientists.
Sarah Palin does not consult scientists. That's why Bill Nye is considered an authority when he speaks. Not because he contributed, but because what he says is based on scientific research.

Re:we're all scientists

[T.E.D.]

He doesn't claim to be a scientist. He calls himself a "Science Guy". This is a complete straman that Ms. Palin made to beat up on rather than address the actual science that many people, (yes, including that "Science Guy") are trying to bring up. But Mr. Nye could turn out to be 10 kittens in a man-suit, and it wouldn't change anything.

This kind of attack on a person rather than the idea is the kind of thing you do when your actual argument is crap and you know it.

Re:we're all scientists

[whoever57]

Just like Carl Sagan

Just like Carl Sagan, except for the 600 scientific papers and articles and his contributions to scientific research.

Re:we're all scientists

[Ol Olsoc]

But he was a popularizer, just like Sagan was.

One of the most amusing aspects of denialism is that since they have no concept of the science, they go oafter what the can attack. Personality. That's why we were treated to years of "Michael Mann is an asshole", which was somehow supposed to invalidate his work. Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.

Now Nye, he isn't a person on the same caliber as Sagan. But the attacks are similar.

Carl Sagan, Socialist Jerk http://www.stephankinsella.com...

https://eternian.wordpress.com...

I coud find more of people playing the personality card on people of science. Nye is getting the same treatment as other popularizers like Sagan and N.D. Tyson.

And that's good enough proof that he's on to something, when Deniers single him out for their anti science derision.

Re:we're all scientists

[Antique Geekmeister]

He's actually quite good. He presents as much data as he has, and as his current audience can handle, in clear language and good logic. It's difficult to get every scientific detail explained in full in a public forum of any sort, but he does and has done clear scientific analysis for decades now, and he does his research to be prepared for the presentations.

He's done public debates with science denying fools before: there was an infamous debate with a creationist leader, at:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:we're all scientists

[Gadget_Guy]

But he was a popularizer, just like Sagan was.

So you think that Carl Sagan was despised by many in science? I don't think so. I can't discount that are aren't some scientists in the world who don't like the man, but I doubt that it is true that many in science would think that. The fact that you found a couple of links of Sagan-haters from an "Austro-Anarchist Libertarian" patent lawyer and a whacky Christian disabled person is pretty meaningless.

There are people who find themselves in the unenviable position where science is inconvenient to their beliefs for either political, religious or financial reasons. Those people can't argue on an equal basis since scientists have facts, measurements, mathematics etc while they have just their gut feeling that all the scientists must be wrong. So they go after the scientists themselves, as well as anyone who communicates science to the masses (like Bill Nye). If the person wanting to belittle the science has heard of the person then they can attack them directly, but otherwise they will spread FUD about scientists all being in it for the money or all participating in a giant conspiracy to raise taxes.

So it isn't that people are targeting popularizers; they will go after everyone they can and cherry-pick any weakness that they think they have found. In this case, Sarah Palin has tried to belittle anything that Bill Nye says on this subject by pointing out that he is not a scientist. But if all he does is report what the climate scientists say, then it doesn't matter what his qualifications are. Sarah Palin is NOT as much of a scientist as all the scientists that Bill Nye talks about.

Re: we're all scientists

[TimMD909]

Reenacting a famous scientific experiment is still science. It's not ground breaking. It's meant to teach. The foundations, while rudimentary, are still the base of all higher education and knowledge.

Re: we're all scientists

[Ol Olsoc]

What denialists like myself go after is demonstrably false predictions by 'scientists' in the past that were disproved long ago. When they said there'd be no snow last year 2000 they were simply wrong.

Who is they? NO scientist I know would ever say such a thing. The models used predict the warming moving north, with the greatest warming in the upper latitudes, but not remotely snow free. The CO2 content in the air would have to approach the Cambrian age, and that isn't going to happen.

Anyhow, give me the cites. There is no misunderstanding of the concept of science when you make a false prediction. If it is wrong it is wrong and it doesn't matter what kind of scientist they are if they make a wrong prediction .

You really have made an extraordinary claim AC. Prove it.

Re:we're all scientists

[Ol Olsoc]

Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.

Mark Steyn will still be ready and waiting if Mann is even man enough to go to discovery.

So tell me - Even if Mann is an asshole - even if he's the biggest asshole the world has ever produced, does that make him wrong? In other words, assuming he is, does being an asshole disprove AGW?

By the way, everyone who has written back fell right into my trap.

You see, you have nothing but personality to use to disprove Michael Mann. And you all fell into that steaming pile of denialist shit.

One guy did actually try to add a little science along with his serving of Michael Mann is an asshole. And I don't feel like addressing several people who have politically based physics, so it's your day in the barrel.

Q: Ho wmany investigations of Mann were there?

A. 8 independent investigations.

How many of these investigations concluded that Man was engaging in anything unethical or even just bad science?

A: none of the 8 independent investigations found any wrongdoing.

Q: How many reconstructions were performed on the data of Mann et al?

A. More than two dozen

Q: What were their findings?

A: they support the broad consensus in Mann's research and support the General conclusions of the research.

Side notes, there were other investigations and reconstructions. Including repeated investigations into Mann et al, when the climategate emails surfaced. This was dismissed after 8 more investigations. The reportage by the statistical team that Ed Wegman set up at the request of Representative Ed Whitfield used in statistical recunstruction found some small errors, but nothing invalidating the research, and that paper had plagiarized elements in it.

Joe Barton launched the 2005 investigation which Sherwood Bohlert, the head of the House Science committee called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.

So your elected and revered representatives went after Mann personally. And how many investgations that show he was right do you need?

And you don't have anything else at all. Sad really, trying to argue against science with Lysenkoism.

Your move.

Re:we're all scientists

[PopeRatzo]

But I'm sure Sarah Palin also "thinks scientifically" occasionally just by virtue of possessing a human brain.

Citation needed.

Re:we're all scientists

[Ol Olsoc]

But I'm right.

Re:we're all scientists

[Gadget_Guy]

Dr. Roy Spencer provides evidence and contrary opinions.

He also says a lot of stuff that isn't well supported by the evidence. In fact, he once said about his own paper:

"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."

One has to wonder how many of the climate myths that Dr Spencer has said have been a result of what his gut says rather than any evidence; and how much of his evidence is selected to match his gut feeling. His papers and comments do seem to be motivated by the desire to right the supposed mistakes of other climate research.

And yet he claims that it is the climate researchers who are the myopic ones:

They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'...by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption... But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

In his quest to show that climate researchers are wrong, he has stated that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, but also that it causes its own climate change by its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

So take you pedantic ass and fuck off.

A well formed argument there, but I would expect nothing less from someone who consistently can't spell the word climate.

Re: we're all scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just teach.

It confirms.

It's been done a hundred times before? So what? It doesn't hurt to do the experiment again. And again. And again.

And if repeating the experiment doesn't quite result in what you might expect? Hey, that's good science. Now it's time to go figure out why.

And if I claim to be a scientist, but I don't tell anyone how to reproduce my results? I'm either a fraud or an idiot. Maybe both.

(And if the words "trust me, I'm a scientist" escape my lips, I'm an asshole as well as not behaving like a scientist.)

The best way to teach science is to do science. Every kid in a science class performing an experiment should think of themselves as a scientist (aside from the ones cheating, that is).

It's educational to read up on the actual history behind the science of Vitamin C, and the importance of repeating experiments.

Re:we're all scientists

[Ol Olsoc]

You didn't address any points he made.

Typical

The predictions do pan out. Denialists don't accept them because they read a cold day outside their as refutation of AGW.

The peer reviewed research is out there, and much is online. All you have to do is read it. You want Uncle Ol to have storytime when he reads it to you all? Mann, the Boogyman of the Denialist movement has been reviewed so many times, and found not in error that his detractors don't realize that they did a terrible disservice to themselves. The satellite versus ionosphere measurements cited on so many denialists webpages have been correctd and brought into agreement, even by further research by the author. But you won't see that tidbit on the denialist cites, they continue to push the old and incorrect stuff. I've read the paper. It's online.

I've provided many, many cites and links to actual peer reviewed articles, as either evidence or refutation.

And I don't do it to impress or educate you or any denier. You have your mind made up, and it is based on political will, and not science. I do it because there are people out there who are wondering, perhaps not having their minds made up, perhaps wavering somewhere between truth and politics.

Because I've found that we need a lot more people who believe in science, and not so many people who believe in incorrect things, brought to them as science, by politicians who are paid for their version of the truth.

Re:we're all scientists

[jon3k]

Nye is an engineer. He has a BS in mechanical engineering from Cornell. He worked at Boeing as an engineer (including and developing a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for the 747). Just because he's on TV he doesn't stop being an engineer. He still has an engineering degree and has spent decades studying and practicing in the field of engineering.

If Sarah Palin had any less brain activity

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If Sarah Palin had any less brain activity we could legally harvest her organs.

Re:If Sarah Palin had any less brain activity

[MightyMartian]

But she's representative of a large group of people who, when confronted with science they don't like, just discard the science, declare the researchers in question frauds, and then assume somehow the universe will be okay, because, you know, apparently the universe owes specific ideologies a big favor, and would never dream of having physical laws that would create some sort of problem for that ideology. In Palin's case, she's a pretty hard right Christian, so I'm fairly certain she believes God would never make oil harmful, because, well, God loves oil and wants us to burn as much of it as we can possibly can.

Re:If Sarah Palin had any less brain activity

[MightyMartian]

Most of the critics aren't even real critics; in that they're not attacking any climatological theory, but rather partaking in various forms of fallacious argument, in many cases, like pseudo-scientific purveyors before, simply repeating discredited claims over and over and over again.

Here's the facts. CO2 absorbs and the emits certain frequencies of solar radiation. In other words, CO2 traps energy. No matter how you try to handwave it away, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy is trapped in the atmosphere, raising atmospheric, surface and ocean temperatures. Coupled with CO2's reaction with seawater to alter sea pH levels, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more pronounced the effects get. You can wave your hands and jump up and down about how the poow whittle cwitics are so badly abused, but the fact is that the one group that counts, which is atmospheric scientists, say very clearly that human CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the lower atmosphere because it is trapping energy. This is not in the least bit controversial, and has been known for over a century.

The only controversy is that it's going to cost lots of money, and it's going to reduce the profits of some very rich people. But that's an economic and political controversy, that fossil fuel companies and an exceedingly small number of critics who have any real credentials at all are trying to make into a scientific one.

The universe does not give one single fuck about the Koch Brother's investment portfolio. It doesn't give one single fuck about how much you have to pay for gasoline to go to work, or much it costs to transport tomatoes to your local grocery store. It does not give one single fuck about Saudis, Russians, OPEC, Canadian tar sands, or the price of jet fuel. It doesn't give one single fuck how you feel about the physical properties of CO2. It does not give one single fuck whether you want to ignore those physical principles at all. What is is, so demonstrate some capacity to think like an adult and try to imagine a universe in which we are captives of physical laws, and where our actions actually can have fairly significant effects.

Or continue to be a child, and grasp at every pathetic straw the likes of Spencer, who makes a lot more money spreading bullshit about his former field of research than anyone actually actively in that field does.

Well, that makes him an engineer, not a scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

"...he graduated from Cornell University's School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering."

Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.

Palin into insignificance

[Blue Stone]

I don't think anyone's not a scientist as much as Sarah Palin's not one.

Re:Palin into insignificance

[taustin]

Then you're not familiar with Diane Feinstein's legislative record?

It really hurts me to say this.

[fahrbot-bot]

Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am, ...

She kind of correct, but not complete. Bill is as much a scientist as she is, but she isn't (nearly) as much a scientist as Bill is.

Re:Well, that makes him an engineer, not a scienti

[ClickOnThis]

"...he graduated from Cornell University's School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering."

Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.

Frequently, engineers do science and scientists do engineering.

The difference between engineering and science is often one of intent rather than activity. Very broadly speaking, engineering is about making things that work, whereas science is about trying to understand how and why they work.

You all are misunderstanding her intention here

[guises]

The full quote: "Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am, and I know all about the weather and stuff. You know how much weather we get in Alaska? Tons. Most every day there's some kinda weather, the wind's blowin' or the rain's rainin'... Shoot, I can see all of that from my house sometimes. I'm an expert."

Re:Well, that makes him an engineer, not a scienti

[Anonymous Coward]

One would presume that en Engineering Degree would require more than a little exposure to the scientific method. I know that my first year of EE has plenty of lab work which required that I take a logical approach in determining why the chem lab was not performing like the lab notes indicated, or why the nand gate logic was not providing the results that I expected (darn old hexadecimal) or even why the mis-application of current to the transistor made the magic smoke come out.

Bill Nye demonstrates this things, while Sarah Palin demonstrates things like faith and conviction which require no understanding or application of scientific method.

Tell me w a straight face the AGWers are all PhDs

[RightwingNutjob]

with a complete understanding of all the top climate models and their error statistics, and that not one of them is a blind zealot. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Re:She isn't half the scientist that he is

[Khyber]

You can't call her a cunt, she lacks both the depth and warmth.

Engineering is Applied Science.

[rahvin112]

Engineering is Applied Science. Science is a method of studying the natural world, engineering uses scientific principles and methods in applications in the real world, rather than theoretical one.

Engineers are scientists. You'd have to be a moron to believe they aren't.

Re:Engineering is Applied Science.

[rahvin112]

Yes I do. The engineer uses scientifically derived knowledge of loading, strengths of materials in multiple dimensions, scientifically derived equations on the interplay of these forces and strengths and uses that knowledge and applies it in designing the structural details. Using the theoretical average strength of concrete they will develop a size of structure and then direct that the concrete in it meet the strength's they've designed for and develop construction plans and specifications to meet those goals. In other words they take all their scientific knowledge and develop a method and plan to apply that science in the real world. Engineering is Applied science.

If you aren't using science in the design of a structure you're doing what humanity did before engineers. That is simply find someone that built a building before that didn't fall down and try to replicate it without any understanding of why it didn't fall down and the other way did. There are a lot of structures in this world that are still built like that. By using science you can build bigger, taller and better using less materials and in a safer manner both for the builder and the eventual occupants.

Engineer's do things like design buildings, that even if the building is severely damaged by some event (say a earthquake hitting it) that the building doesn't fall down while people are still inside it. They couldn't do that without science.

Re:Well, that makes him an engineer, not a scienti

[Ol Olsoc]

Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.

He hasn't done any engineering, he's an actor. Like any other actor he ranks below anyone that isn't a sales or marketing guy.

I realize that denialists are reduced now to calling anyone who believes in AGW a "Stupid CacaHEad, and that's the extent of their argument, but tell me. If Bill Nye was a carpenter, or a plumber, does that mean his views are wrong on AGW?

You see, denialists have backed themselves into a corner. They call Nye "not a scientist so he's wrong", But who gives a damn? They don't believe scientists who they say are scientists? Need a frggin program to keep up with deniers now.

Sarah Palin screws up facts. That's news for who?

[Dr. Spork]

Congratulations, you've caught Sarah Palin saying something false and dumb. With that kinds of investigative gumption, you may also get the scoop on developing stories like "Local Bear Shits in Woods". Keep the "news" coming!

Hmm

[fluffernutter]

So, say theoretically I could pick the science teacher for my kids' school. The science teacher can be:

A) Bill Nye Science Guy, or
B) Sarah Palin.

Hmmm.. which to pick, which to pick....

Yes he is a scientist

[sjbe]

A scientist is someone who seeks to find the truth via the scientific process. Bill Nye is not this. He is an actor.

Actually he is an engineer and arguably a scientist too. He also happens to be an actor, scientific advocate, writer, and several other things besides. Unlike Sara Palin he actually has a talent beside self promotion. If you want to call him a citizen scientist, fine, but he's much more involved in science than 99.9% of the population. Particularly one former governor of Alaska.

Re:The Problems Isn't Sarah Palin, it's Bill Nye

[KenDiPietro]

You don't fight with such vigor to shut out debate unless the foundation of your argument is suspect.

Interesting comment.

As an exercise in honesty, if I were to assert that the moon is made out of green cheese, would you feel inclined to make a logical argument to refute my assertion?

From where I sit, I would simply tell any moron who diligently tried to back up that assertion that they were imbeciles and completely not worth a response - but that's me.

Bill would agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the summary: Palin urged parents to teach their children to "ask those questions and not just believe what Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them"

Bill Nye would enthusiastically agree that kids (and adults) should "ask those questions and not just believe what (ANYONE, including) Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them."

Re:Bill would agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

People can ask legitimate questions if they want. And if you have legitimate evidence that leads to different conclusions, then fine - bring forth your evidence. But there needs to be solid evidence. If all you have is the opinion of some random dude on the internet, then don't waste my time.

But to me the deniers are just engaging in sophistry - throwing out bullshit arguments, one after another. And when one is debunked they just cycle on to the next one, all the while never admitting that the first one was debunked - that way they can cycle around again and use it in the future.

If people want to see the science that proves climate change is real, then go read the IPCC reports. And don't give me bullshit arguments about that work being biased - if you are going to claim that they are biased, then you need to present EVIDENCE that this is the case. And not the opinion of some other random dude out there on the internet.

Re:Bill would agree.

[Gadget_Guy]

yes ... except that if they ask uncomfortable questions about climate change, they should be charged criminally.

Uncomfortable questions about climate change are fine, as long as you are willing to listen to the answers. If all you do once your question has been addressed is ignore that and move on to the next question until you eventually circle around and re-ask the first one again then you are not legitimately asking questions. All you are doing is trying to muddy the discussion.

Of course, if you ever run out of questions then you can always insinuate that the scientific community is trying to silence the critics who ask uncomfortable questions. Alternatively, you could just attack the credentials of someone who advocates the scientific view of climate change. For example, you could claim that they were as much of a scientist as you were, as if that made all they said false.

Re:Bill would agree.

[Gadget_Guy]

Bill Nye, and many others, have said that "deniers" should be punished or charged.

But did Bill Nye really say that all deniers should be charged? Just watch the video where he was asked about this.Firstly, look at the expression on his face when he hears the question. He looked rather surprised to get that question. This wasn't him making any grand proclamations, but rather just answering a question about what Robert F. Kennedy Jnr said.

Secondly, the question specifically mentioned energy CEOs and not all deniers. It is not about jailing any old Joe average who makes a statement against climate change, but about the heads of the large corporations spend millions of dollars spreading FUD and misinformation. Nye's answer even mentions the similar actions taken against the tobacco groups who did similar campaigns against health regulations when they knew that their products caused cancer. This refers precisely to what Kennedy said about the subject.

If you want to claim that this is an attempt to silence all critics, then you are either stretching the truth yourself or don't understand what was actually said.

I believe she is mistaken.

[mark_reh]

I really do.

Re: we're all scientists...

[serviscope_minor]

Now it's controversial to be skeptical about what the weatherman says.

Depends really. If the weatherman says it's raining out, every other weatherman says it's raining out and you look out and it's actually raining, then if you remain skeptical of what the weatherman says, then it's not so much controversial as a bit nuts.

Also, climate isn't weather and if you believe it's so unpredictable, I'll bet you $50 that it won't snow in London in the whole of August this year. To sweeten it a bit how about you get $100 if you win but I only get $50 if I win.