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

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.

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?

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

[Khyber]

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

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.

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: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.

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....

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.

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.

[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: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]

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.