I’m not saying the anchors on FOX News are scientifically illiterate, but…

… it’s an easy judgement to make when you see them asking monumentally stupid questions like: Does the discovery of volcanism on the moon in some way disprove climate change on the Earth?

Seriously, check it:

You can see by his expression that Bill Nye (The Science Guy) may have had a minor stroke that took off a couple of IQ points just from being asked such a stunningly stupid question. How can they expect to have a serious discussion about something as important as whether or not climate change is real when it’s obvious that they don’t have a clue what climate change actually is?

It would be absolutely hysterical if they weren’t so effective in spreading their stupidity to their fans.

Found over at Media Matters for America.

11 thoughts on “I’m not saying the anchors on FOX News are scientifically illiterate, but…

  1. Climate change is constantly happening throughout earth’s history. Its been a barren volcano to a snowball and back-n-forth a few times without our intervention.
    So the fact the climate changes is true. The myth is that we have any say in when or how it changes.

  2. Cancer happens naturally. Human beings fell ill to cancer before the invention of the cigarrette. Therefore human behavior cannot cause cancer.

  3. @ Positive:
    Your “argument” has no basis in science. Changing the LOCAL climate is completely different from changing the entire planet.
    To make your “argument” relative to the discussion you would have to state it this way; “Cancer happens naturally. Human beings fell ill to cancer before the invention of the cigarrette. Therefore human behavior causes cancer in every human on earth.”

  4. Moloch, we already know you’re an idiot about climate change. You don’t need to keep proving it to us.

  5. Oops, cigarette*

    My argument has the support of most scientists. Your argument has the support of the same kind of corporations that would have told you that smoking was good for your health.

    And what Les said.

  6. I thought Nye was flustered by the utter, blinding stupidity of the question. Took him a moment to recover. When wingnuts say stuff like that, they interpret the pause as some kind of an admission.

    Oh, and Moloch? What Les said.

  7. Les, do you have anything to add to the topic besides more of nothing?
    Positive, Christianity has the support of around 2 billion people. Does that consensus mean Christianity is truth? Belief means nothing, man-caused climate change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Hole In The Ozone, formerly Global Cooling) is nothing more than the Earth’s inherent variability.

    DOF, try not to embarrass yourself with more “Der, what he said” comments.

  8. Pragmatically, this was a failure by the producers. The anchor obviously had no real questions prepared, and somehow either composed or was given that asinine question. If you have an anchor with no understanding of climate change fields of study providing bases for arguments for/against climate change, you’ve got to either give him some decent questions to ask or get somebody else to lead the segment. I hope somebody got his ass chewed for that one.

  9. You’re right Moloch, without certain conditions, consensus doesn’t mean much. Millions of people believe in Christianity without any evidence other than that other people do.

    Consensus among scientists about a scientific question within their field of specialty, however, is meaningful. There are at least two kinds of authority: the administrative kind, as in “He (usually) whose ass you’d be well advised to kiss” and the expertise kind, as in; “People who have taken this topic apart piece by piece and tested each piece against evidence, then compared their results with other scientists to see if they line up.” Then there’s the fake kind, as in: “Paid by companies with economic interest in a certain answer to give just that answer.”

  10. Does that consensus mean Christianity is truth? Belief means nothing

    Christians believe in in their religion based on belief, and belief does indeed mean nothing. Experts on the subject of climate change are going on evidence, testing, and peer review; not belief. There is a difference between, on the one hand, listening to the majority of the general public, who reject global warming based on little more than what the media and the corporations have told them (which presumably includes yourself) and on the other hand listening to a consensus of experts.
    Could something like 98% of scientists be wrong? Sure. But I wouldn’t start smoking on that basis.
    The reality is that to combat climate change requires sacrifice and innovation, and if there is anything that people (including myself) want less than that I would be hard pressed to think of it. But there are benefits, including green jobs. There is little that is of greater importance than preventing global warming. Attempting to combat it should be our top priority; if we fail it would have still been worth the effort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.