Not a Scientist, just a dummy.

How to get Republicans to stop using the “I’m not a scientist” dodge

By Ben Adler

17 Oct 2014 1:35 PM    208 comments

0 shares

In 2012, when Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was asked by GQ how old the Earth is, he demurred, “I’m not a scientist, man.” This was not a smooth move. It made him sound like a dumb frat boy. You don’t need to be a scientist to know the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old, any more than you need to be a scientist to know the Earth is round or it revolves around the sun. All you need to know is what scientists have determined, which Rubio, who sits on the Commerce,

 Science and Transportation Committee, should know.

What Rubio feared, of course, was alienating the religious extremists in his party, who believe the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old because the Bible, if taken literally, says it is. As Juliet Lapidos of The New York Times observed, “Mr. Rubio surely knows that, according to Gallup, … 58 percent of Republicans believe in creationism … Mr. Rubio probably figured that these same Republicans have no truck with geologists … But if his response was more proof of cunning than idiocy, it was still ludicrous.” Luckily for Rubio, GQ did not also ask whether he thinks the Earth is round.

But in May of this year, when Rubio was asked about climate change by ABC’s Jonathan Karl, he expressed no such reluctance to weigh in on matters beyond his area of expertise. “I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate,” Rubio said. Why the difference? Rubio is positioning himself to appeal to the right-wing fanatics who determine Republican presidential primaries. On the Earth’s age, he must merely avoid admitting the scientific consensus. But on climate change he must deny it, lest he incur the wrath of Rush Limbaugh.

Even though the “I’m not a scientist” dodge that Rubio pioneered went over poorly at the time, other Republicans have been recently imitating it when asked about climate change. The ones who have done so — Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (Wis.) — are currently running in general elections. The more moderate general electorate requires them to simultaneously feign deference to science for the benefit of independents, while not admitting climate change is happening, so as not to alienate their base.

Writing in The Atlantic, David Graham does a good job of explaining why it is ridiculous for politicians to take the “not a scientist” dodge. Graham observes: “McConnell isn’t an economist, either, but he has strong views about the economy; nor is he a health-provider, but he has ideas about health-care provision.”

So how can journalists avoid letting Republicans give this asinine answer? By asking the right questions. If you ask a non-scientist whether human activity is causing climate change, “I’m not a scientist” has a surface validity as a response. But climate change isn’t a matter of belief. It’s a matter of scientific consensus, just like evolution or gravity. One should not ask whether politicians believe in climate science or evolutionary biology, just as one wouldn’t ask whether a politician believes that gravity causes apples to fall from trees. Instead, the question should be whether they accept climate science. The phrasing could be, “97 percent of papers published by climate scientists  in peer-reviewed academic journals have found that human activity is causing climate change. Do you accept those findings?”

One reason Rubio may have actually taken a position against climate science in his interview with Karl is that Karl asked the question as follows: “Miami, Tampa are two of the cities that are most threatened by climate change. So putting aside your disagreement with what to do about it, do you agree with the science on this?”

Sometimes the “I’m not a scientist” dodge can create what we might call “teachable moments.” For example, a number of Florida scientists offered to educate Scott on climate change in response to his evasions. In August, Scott met with some of them, but he did not make any comments or ask any questions after their presentation. This has all been pretty politically embarrassing to him.

But, ultimately, the media should not treat climate science as an open question. Rather, journalists should send a clear message that they are people who deal in matters of fact, and they expect politicians to do the same. Climate science is well established; the question is whether leading Republicans accept it.
 ================================================================
This guy nails it for me.  I've often gritted my teeth when someone says, "I'm not a scientist," then ups and tells you some idiotic third-hand crap that his party or neighbor has said is "true."

I'm not a scientist, is a cop-out.  You don't have to be a scientist to understand that global warming is a fact -- a scientific fact.  All you have to do is read a few journals or even read the damned newspaper to understand that we have polluted our planet to the point that it has tipped over in favor of global warming and there doesn't seem to be anything we can do to stop it.  Even if we cleaned up the entire planet, at this point warming would in all likelihood continue.  So when Rubio or one of the other Repugnicans say they aren't scientists so they don't anger the religious right, they are just using a cop-out response and they sound like idiots.

Someday, everyone will agree on this warming issue, not just the scientific community.  Everyday man will see it in his backyard, in the streams and rivers and lakes.  He will even see it in himself, how he dresses, how he fits into the NEW world atmosphere.  We humans will adapt, but we first have to get our heads out of the sand and admit there is a problem before we can work on solving the problem. 

Rollin rollin rollin, keep that Ebola rollin along

Here I go once more into the breach. “Why do we let people into our country who are from countries with deadly diseases like Ebola?”

Sounds like a good question until you take a closer look at it. My answer would be, “how do you keep 'em out?” If you can answer that one, you should be president, vice president, secretary of state and head of both houses. For every argument you can give for keeping people out of the U.S., there are two more showing you how it's impossible to do it – or any other country for that matter [even so-called closed Communist Countries]. Besides, we are not what you would call excellent protectors of our borders...and there's a good reason we aren't, i.e., nearly 20 thousand miles of border to protect is a lot of miles.

People enter the U.S.A. every day with various illnesses, maybe not Ebola, but other deadly ones. The reason you don't hear about them is they are usually hospitalized quietly and cured, or they die. Or they sniffle, snuffle, cough and wheeze, then climb on a bus, train or plane and depart to some other country, state, county or town never to be heard of at all...PERIOD.

Ebola is a media disease. It's captured the hearts and minds of all the shock-jocks and conspiracy nuts who've got air-wave voices. What's better to stir up the masses than a good ol' plague with no cure? EBOLA. The killer of EVERYBODY. Hide. Dig a hole and climb in it. Run away. Get some of those surgery masks and walk around town showing people you ARE PREPARED.

Or. We could just treat whomever enters our country who shows signs of a disease and let it go at that and stop thinking that the sky is falling cause there are a couple of sick people in a population of 300 million citizens.

IDAHO WEIRDNESS

Idaho's race for governor just got really, really weird

by Jeff Singer Follow

Republican Gov. Butch Otter has never been particularly popular even in this dark red state, but it was still a surprise when the Republican Governor's Association[RGA] committed six figures to this race at the beginning of October. It was hard to believe that the RGA would spend so much so late in the cycle unless the group didn't think Otter was safe, and a new Public Policy Polling [PPP] survey confirms that this contest is a lot more interesting that previously thought.

PPP finds Otter leading wealthy conservative Democrat A.J. Balukoff only 39-36, with four independent candidates taking a combined 12 percent (this includes 3 percent for a perennial candidate who legally changed his name to "Pro-Life"). Otter appears to have worn out his welcome with his constituents, and he sports an underwater 36-49 job approval rating. By contrast Balukoff, who has been freely spending his own money, sports a 38-32 favorability rating.

There have been very few other polls out of Idaho, but there's another good reason to believe that PPP and the RGA are seeing similar numbers. The RGA just went on the air with another spot, this one tying Balukoff to Obama as closely as possible. Balukoff was a Romney supporter in 2012, but of course that's not stopping the RGA from linking him to the president, who PPP finds is very unpopular here.

Democrats haven't won a gubernatorial election in the Gem State since Cecil Andrus' landslide 1990 re-election victory, and Balukoff still has an uphill climb. Some late polls in 2006 found Democrat Jerry Brady looking very competitive against Otter, but the Republican still won 53-44. Otter may also have some room to grow here. When supporters of the third-party candidates are asked to pick between Otter and Balukoff, the governor's overall lead becomes 47-38. Independent candidates tend to lose support as the campaign concludes, and Otter stands to benefit. Still, it's clear that Otter does not have this race locked up yet. As a result, Daily Kos Elections is changing our race rating from Safe Republican to Likely Republican.

OH THAT HORRID OBAMACARE

Our friend Charles Gaba is keeping an eye on premium rates in Obamacare plans for 2015. He features this post from PricewaterhouseCoopers on the latest six states to report.

Among the six states and DC with final rate announcements, the average premium (across metal tiers and ages) is about $328, and the average premium increase from 2014 is 2.6 percent. By contrast, the average premium increase across all reporting states is 5.9 percent and the average premium is $382.

Note that's the pre-subsidy premium cost. There are a few outliers—Colorado being an example, with a crazy range from -22 percent to +35 percent—that have double-digit increases. But those are the minority. And, as Gaba notes, these rates are far from what was predicted throughout the year. They're also far from the double-digit increases that have been the norm for employer-based insurance for the past several years, at least.What this means is not only that Obamacare is a good deal for its customers, it's a good deal for taxpayers. Healthcare spending is slowing down, tremendously. Covering millions through Obamacare is costing far less than predicted. Medicare is saving so much money it's beating every deficit reduction plan that's been proposed in the last several years. Repeal all that, Republicans.

OBAMA SUCCESSFUL

OBAMA COULD BE ONE OF THE MOST

SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME

In the beginning, there was skepticism.  That's right, I was pretty skeptical when it came to Barack Obama.  I thought he was naive.  I thought he was out of step with what needed to be done in America to bring it back to its previous glory.  Finally, I thought he would never be successful because he was African-American.  So, In 2008 I voted for Hilary to become the Democratic candidate for president.

I was wrong.

[From Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winning Princeton Economist] :

Obama was indeed naive: He faced scorched-earth Republican opposition from Day One, and it took him years to start dealing with that opposition realistically. Furthermore, he came perilously close to doing terrible things to the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain; we were saved from significant cuts to Social Security and a rise in the Medicare age only by Republican greed, the GOP's unwillingness to make even token concessions.

But now the shoe is on the other foot: Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn't deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it's working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it's much more effective than you'd think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.

I'll go through those achievements shortly. First, however, let's take a moment to talk about the current wave of Obama-bashing. All Obama-bashing can be divided into three types. One, a constant of his time in office, is the onslaught from the right, which has never stopped portraying him as an Islamic atheist Marxist Kenyan. Nothing has changed on that front, and nothing will.

There's a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who ''posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit.'' They're outraged that Wall Street hasn't been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that ''neoliberal'' economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have con- strained even his much more modest efforts. It's hard to take such claims seriously.

Finally, there's the constant belittling of Obama from mainstream pundits and talking heads. Turn on cable news (although I wouldn't advise it) and you'll hear endless talk about a rudderless, stalled administration, maybe even about a failed presidency. Such talk is often buttressed by polls showing that Obama does, indeed, have an approval rating that is very low by historical standards.

But this bashing is misguided even in its own terms – and in any case, it's focused on the wrong thing. 

Yes, Obama has a low approval rating compared with earlier presidents. But there are a number of reasons to believe that presidential approval doesn't mean the same thing that it used to: There is much more party-sorting (in which Republicans never, ever have a good word for a Democratic president, and vice versa), the public is negative on politicians in general, and so on. Obviously the midterm election hasn't happened yet, but in a year when Republicans have a huge structural advantage – Democrats are defending a disproportionate number of Senate seats in deep-red states – most analyses suggest that control of the Senate is in doubt, with Democrats doing considerably better than they were supposed to. This isn't what you'd expect to see if a failing president were dragging his party down.

More important, however, polls – or even elections – are not the measure of a president. High office shouldn't be about putting points on the electoral scoreboard, it should be about changing the country for the better. Has Obama done that? Do his achievements look likely to endure? The answer to both questions is yes.

In my opinion, Barack Obama has been very successful given the uphill battle with the do-nothing congress.  I also believe history will prove me right.

 

CARTOON

I have found that cartoons can and are used to satirize situations, people and places.  They are often very effective.  Take for instance THE DAILY SHOW featuring Jon Stewart.  The Daily Show is a prime example of how comedy can be used to stimulate conversation and/or change the direction of policy simply by poking fun at the status quo.  Below is a cartoon depicting how out of touch the media and the government is out of touch with reality.  See if you don't agree.

Voting? Why.

At the rate they are going, in 10 years, ISIS & Ebola will have killed 11 Americans. —Just a thought