“I’m not a scientist” is what Republicans use as an excuse to be stupid about science they don’t like for political reasons only, and this ad ridiculing them is absolutely perfect. You must watch.
Of course, the only time they use that excuse is to deny climate change or evolution. When it comes to abortion and the question of when life begins, not one of them ever refuses to take a position there, claiming they are “not a scientist.”
Cudos to the Clinton campaign for this ad.
Australia is now suffering one of the worst heat waves in history.
Yes, it’s summer there. And it’s tremendously hot.
But you’d never know that from climate changes deniers here in the northern part of the globe, who apparently think that the entire planet is experiencing the record cold and snow we’re getting. “Can’t be global warming with all this snow!” say people who have no background whatsoever in climatology.
This is exactly what climate change scientists predicted years ago, though. An increase in temperature on the planet leads to extreme weather of all kinds. Among those who study climate, this is no surprise whatsoever.
Most of the people who object to climate change are doing so for political reasons anyway. They don’t like Al Gore so therefore they have to object to science. I mean, you never hear of these people objecting to the theory of gravity or arguing that math isn’t real. They’re like creationists who object to evolution because it violates their pre-conceived notions.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why the vast majority of scientists from around the world would become part of a grand conspiracy, working together in secret, to promote a scientific theory which would give them absolutely no benefit whatsoever. It’s certainly much more believable that the small percentage of scientists who get grants from major oil companies to “prove” that climate change is not real are part of a conspiracy, isn’t it? After all, they profit from such a conclusion.
It’s like the deniers are expecting all the climatologists to suddenly say, with an evil laugh, “Now that you agree there is climate change, you are under our control! Muahahahaha!” and then demand nothing because it’s not like they can solve it.
The thing about being a political commentator and being a TV weather reporter is that both can be wrong 50% of the time and yet still keep their jobs.
The difference is that the weather people are trying to be as accurate as possible. 
Political reporters don’t always care.
Mostly this is because some political reporters are in reality propagandists. They have no interest in the truth; getting people to agree with their already decided-upon conclusions outweighs any desire for accuracy or even honesty. The ends justifies the means.
Rush Limbaugh is the Poster Boy for this. Like many of his pals in the right-wing media collective, he has no qualifications for the position whatsoever other than a loud mouth and a desire to never do any research. His latest lie is that the “Polar Vortex” is another one of them there liberal conspiracies out to convince people of climate change.
So it’s nice to see Al Roker — someone who, unlike Limbaugh, is actually qualified to talk about climate — aim for facts. (You remember facts? They used to help convince people of the truth.)
On the Today show, he literally told Limbaugh and all the doubters to “stuff it.” Roker pulled out his old college textbook ‘The AMS Glossary of Meteorology’ from 1959 which used the term. “Rush Limbaugh claims the Polar Vortex is a creation of a left-wing, liberal media conspiracy,” he tweeted. “It’s Meteorology 101. No political agenda.”
And that’s the silly thing — that this is a political issue at all. It isn’t, and it shouldn’t be, any more than evolution should be a political issue.
“The good thing about science,” says Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “is that it’s true whether you believe it or not.”
Let’s try to simplify this.
If the planet’s temperature goes up a few degrees, that means more water evaporates from the ocean. The ocean covers 3/4ths of our world, so that’s a lot of water. When there is a storm then, it is often gigantic. Hurricanes can be much worse than before, and snow storms can be huge. 
Will this happen every single time? Of course not. But when you look at enough numbers, the answer is clear.
It’s like tossing a coin. If it comes up heads 90% of the time, it’s probably a trick coin or something is unbalanced. You don’t look at the 10% of the time it comes up tails and say “Aha! Look, it came up tails. That proves you’re wrong. The coin is balanced.”
We’ve had record heat the last few years, with summers pushing the temperatures to record levels. In fact, it was just a few weeks ago that we had record warm December days, remember? Further, in Australia, where it’s summer now, they are experiencing record heat waves. Despite all this, at no time has a climate change denier said, “Wow, I guess I was wrong.” But have a cold spell and suddenly they’re all saying, “See? There’s no global warming!”
Ridiculous. If you bring up the record heat, they say “Well, that’s one example; it doesn’t prove climate change.” Then they turn around and use one example to try to deny it.
Sorry, guys, but I’m going to believe the vast majority of climate scientists as opposed to a bunch of people who have no experience in it and who claim that all the scientists are part of some huge conspiracy. Apparently, they believe that the scientists are operating under Underpants Gnome logic:
Step One: Make up data to make people think there is climate change.
Step Two: ????
Step Three: Profit!!!
“It’s snowing so therefore there is no global warming” is like saying “I know a guy who smoked for years and never got cancer so clearly scientists are wrong and cigarettes aren’t bad for you.”
It’s pretty simple to disprove climate change. Submit your research to peer review and if it is conclusive, science will acknowledge it. That’s how it works.
Every time someone says to me “climate change has been proven wrong” they point me to some internet article, usually by someone who is not a climate scientist, denying what 99% of all scientists say. It’s a conclusion that isn’t peer reviewed and usually is backed by industries that want to deny climate change because they are afraid of government conservation policies.
Now, it’s good to be cynical and skeptical. That’s what science is all about. But when the vast majority of people whose job it is to know these things say it’s true, why should I, who have no experience in these things, not believe them? 
It always amazes me how people only deny science when it contradicts their already held political or religious views. They never seem to challenge the theory of relativity or the theory of gravity. Evolution? Can’t be true because God told me so. Climate change? Can’t be true because Fox News told me so.
Do you really think that scientists, whose livelihood relies upon being correct, would lie about this? That there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who have made up the research from every country on earth and are working together for the purpose of … what? What exactly is their benefit?
What possible reason would they have to make this all up? I can’t think of anything, unless you want to believe in some sort of cliched organization of evil scientists who evilly laugh about the evil they are evilly performing solely for the purpose of being evil.
I can’t wait for them to make their demands. “We will solve this problem for a milllllllion dollars!”
ventrellaquest.com 