Saturday, April 25, 2009

Bill Maher: Republicans Are "Morons" and "Don't Get Science" Of Global Warming Despite Warnings Of "Any Scientist That Matters" (Video)

Bill, I got news for you. Not every environmental scientist believes in your so-called "global warming".

Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit


  1. Maher you are about the biggest idiot that ever spoke. You do not have a clue about what you are talking about. How about using the brain and not follow the leader.

  2. Not every environmental scientist believes in your so-called "global warming".So? Who cares what they believe?
    Science isn't based upon opinion polls or voting.
    It's based upon evidence and research.
    If there are environmental scientists that don't accept global warming then...why don't they present research to their peers in the scientific arena.
    Peer review.
    Not TV interviews.
    Peer review.
    Not coffee table books.
    Peer review.
    It's where scientists who are serious about their ideas present their work.
    It's is a necessary but not sufficient part of engaging in scientific discussion.
    Foxnews interviews don't cut it.
    Arguments from Authority don't cut it.

    Warning: University lecture video follows. Do not watch if you are afraid of getting an education. (No sound-bites in 5 seconds or less included.)

    The American Denial of Global Warming

  3. Yes, Cedric, science should not be about politics, but unfortunately, this issue has been co-opted by politicians, like Al Gore and corporations like GE which will profit greatly from "cap and trade" and other scams. Don't just take my word for it though, I think dissenting members of the scientific community should suffice...

  4. I have an answer to that Cedric, the are fearful of a systemic reprisal. These scientists have to work and coming out with a position contrary to the establihsed dogma is tantamount to career suicide. They remain quiet because like the rest of us they have to feed the family and pay the bills. Where is the pragmatic scientific method in all of this? Where is the proof. Maher's guests were right about one thing; this is most certainly about money. Ask yourself this, who stands to gain by implementing cap and trade, not the little guys for sure as our energy costs will skyrocket, its the elitists that are in control of the system. This whole global warming argument is fallacious at best and malicious at worst. I do not want to live in a third world country and thats what these environmentalist fruit loops want.

  5. Ask yourself this, who stands to gain by implementing cap and trade...Who stood to gain by the Twin Towers being destroyed?
    Who stood to gain from the Kennedy assassination?
    Who stands to gain from the Roswell cover-up?

    Once you go down the road of conspiracy theory, there's no turning back.
    How can anybody convince you that the global scientific community really isn't "in it for the money"? What would it take for you to believe that they actually have done the research and they are trying to warn us of the danger?
    Peer reviewed research? They've done it.
    They have mountains of painstakingly done research that have been vetted by their peers. They have put their reputations on the line.
    Expeditions to Greenland and the Arctic?
    They've done it. Repeatedly.
    Launching a continuous series of satellites?
    They've done it.
    Getting every single international body of scientists in agreement that man-made global warming is happening and that this is NOT GOOD? They've done it.
    NASA, the NAS, the APS...all of them.
    They have the evidence. It has been gathered using the scientific method. The boring old-fashioned way. No short cuts.

    The scientists are not out to get you.

  6. I didn't hear any actual evidence above, just a lot of conspiracy and opinion. Republicans could stand to learn that "gut feelings" and wishful thinking are not scientific.

  7. The above thread, aside from the last post, provides excellent evidence for Maher's thesis.

  8. Anon, the question of "who stands to gain?" is easily reversed - who stands to gain from the status quo? Could it be those who are invested in the past?

    Authority does not prove or disprove anything, but it's more like making book - who are you going to bet on?

    There are plenty of legitimate questions (like is it normal, what can be done about it, how bad is it, etc), but actual denial of the fact of global warming, when faced with photos of shrinking icecaps, is as stupid as the birthers, and only destroys your credibility.