Right Wing Science

I have two items for you. First is a video produced by Media Matters on Right Wing Science. I especially love Bill Nye's facial expressions as he is assailed with unbelievable stupidity:

And now, also from Media Matters, this fun infographic. Share it around!


More like this

The stupidity of these people is so painful. What will it take to conquer this ignorance?

the scariest thing is that those idiots are main stream media and they are all crazy

By david daulby (not verified) on 06 Jun 2013 #permalink

I think I'm actually going to vomit. The worst part: it's not just a small faction that believe this nonsense, we're talking millions of people. While I'd be more than willing to believe that not everyone has such extreme views, it sickens me that some of these people's children are force fed this crap their entire lives, therefore ensuring another generation of absolute stupidity.

I hate when people say 'heat rises'. It doesn't. Hot air rises. Heat radiates in all directions. There is a difference. Do some research if you still dont understand it!

I think its funnier when somebody suggests that because 'heat rises' the arctic cap is melting... lmao *facepalm*
At least he accepts the earth is spherical... thats a big move for these bastards... nobody mentioned THAT in the bible

"Tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain that."
Bill O'Reilly

Peter Hadfield {aka potholer54 }produced a hilarious video regarding Billo's ignorance about tides and the moon.


By Reggie, sponso… (not verified) on 06 Jun 2013 #permalink

All I could do was shake my head in disbelief. Arctic sea ice is melting because heat rises?

What's inexplicable? Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck..

Did Limbaugh get that "fact" from Fight Club?
What a bunch of dipshits.

Marshal: "The stupidity of these people is so painful. What will it take to conquer this ignorance?"

Mass poisoning, BP and Anadarko have got it sorted, remember Deep Water Horizon?


By EmmittBrownBTTF1 (not verified) on 06 Jun 2013 #permalink

What to do about this:

The only reason Fox Noize has the audience it has, is because it is "bundled" with the package of cable TV channels that are the basic service offering of every cable TV provider. This "bundling" is achieved by nasty negotiations, for example Fox network will tell cable providers, "if you want our sports programming (and they all do) you'll have to include Fox Noize in the basic package."

If you have cable TV, you are subsidizing Fox Noize and its merry band of quacks, cranks, extremists, and spewers of hatreds, lies, and execrable BS.

The solution to this is FCC-mandated "a-la-carte" programming, where you get to choose which channels are included in your basic cable package. Fox would then have NO leverage whatsoever, and would begin to lose market share. This would start a downward spiral of declining ad revenue and declining market share, that would ultimately shove Fox Noize out to the margins where it belongs.

This would also be a handwriting-on-wall signal to other media outlets that dabble in obscurantist BS, to clean up their acts or similar outcomes await them.

Fox owner Rupert Murdoch won't be around on this Earth for much longer, and his heirs are reputed to be less obnoxious than he is. So there is also a reasonable probability of change from that direction.

So: Bug your elected officials endlessly, for "a-la-carte cable." May as well bug your cable TV providers for it too, because they can't entirely ignore consumer preferences.

Right wing religious beliefs to corrupt science teaching in U.S. ... because the bible told me so.

What will it take to conquer this ignorance?

I'm afraid we'll have to do it one funeral at a time. The "CO2 is plant food" notion has been long since debunked (yes, plants need CO2, but they need other stuff as well, and the limiting factor for any given plant is almost always among that other stuff).

More importantly, as a wiser man than I pointed out, it is difficult to get somebody to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 07 Jun 2013 #permalink

As a conservative, I feel like my voice is absent in these comments. I just thought you should know there are definitely some of us that are not complete idiots. I'm an engineering student, a believer in evolution, I closely follow numerous scientific magazines and blogs, and I don't espouse nonsense.

On the other hand, I am a Christian, and I vote for conservative leaders in political office.

I enjoy laughing at these buffoons just as much as you do! Just remember that there are some of us conservatives who are sensible. I support Gay Marriage, availability of contraceptives to women, etc.

My beliefs differ from most liberals fiscally, but socially I find myself closer to the middle.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Contrary to the impression you might glean from Fox News, there are some of us that know what we're talking about.

Stephen, if you know they are buffoons, why do you vote for them? Because of your "fiscal" beliefs? Like believing in the policies of the previous president, the ones that nearly bankrupted the country? Believing in the policies of the tea-baggers who want to continue making things worse?
I can't reconcile your reasonable statements about the scientific characteristics of these folks with your continued support for them.

A-la-carte sounds like it might actually be doable. Being forced to pay big bucks for a bunch of crap you don't want sucks big time.

And it's not like the FCC will ever vote down media consolidation, or that congress will ever endorse any doctrine or principle involving fairness over public airways.

When it comes to politics, the free speech that the beltway respects the most is for the monied.

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 07 Jun 2013 #permalink

I loved bill Nyes facial expression during his interviews, looking at them like they complete idiots(which they are.)


It's not hard: I'm not a blanket-voter. I would NEVER vote for any of the caricatures portrayed here.

I vote based on who I believe possesses the best capacity to lead, legislate, etc. the way I would prefer. When it comes to Democrats and Republicans, neither suits me. I do not agree with the fiscal policy of the Democrats, and I often do not agree with the social policy of the Republicans.

Therefore, I am forced to decide: which is more important? Fiscal or Social policy? I've decided that fiscal policy is more important because I trust the overall trend is towards social liberalism, while I do not see any particular trend fiscally. My decision leads me to believe that socially, we can rectify the wrongs we've made against homosexuals, women, and minorities even if a particular administration does not support it.

Stephen, you are voting for a policy that ignores the external cost of burning fossil carbon. I'm not sure that is smart. Well, actually, I'm sure it is not smart but I'm trying to be polite.

Additionally Stephen, a little research will show you that for the past several decades the economy has done better when the Democratic Party is in the White House than when the Republicans have been: same with the budget. The Republicans stopped being fiscally responsible pre-Reagan (who was himself far from fiscally responsible).

Unfortunately, life and political decision-making is not a series of clear-cut black and white choices.

Smart conservatives such as Stephen are people we can discuss & debate with, and reach reasonable outcomes. We don't have to end up agreeing on everything; the important part is to move ahead on a practical basis that works.

For example, climate change is probably the biggest opportunity for a new technology boom the world has seen in a century. A relatively small input of gov money for development of thorium reactors could pay off hugely, revitalize some of our most important industries, and put us in the position to export the technology worldwide. Streamlined licensing procedures and tax incentives for investment would overcome the inertia to new reactor construction. There's no downside I can see in this picture. This should be part of a convergent solution that's a win/win for everyone involved.

I believe that there are no thorium reactors. I'm not convinced it is a real thing. I'm willing to be convinced but there would have to be evidence. At present, the pro-thorium industry seems to have created a convincing looking but substance fee fiction. So, the downsides might be a) it is not possible and b) the industry has already gone beyond the traditional nuclear power industry's skill in making things up.

Am I right?

Greg, there was an operating thorium reactor in the US in the 1960s. It was eventually shut down because it wasn't seen as justified to operate a second entire fuel cycle when the infrastructure for the uranium fuel cycle was already in place.

Realistically we could also go for an expansion of uranium and plutonium fueled reactors, and with reprocessing, extend the fuel supply hundreds of years: more than sufficient time for breakthroughs in fusion research, and the deployment of commercial fusion reactors.

The chief problem with uranium and plutonium is the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, which limits the spread of fission technology to countries that can handle it responsibly. Thorium can't be used to make nuclear weapons: we could give the technology to every unstable regime on Earth and not have to worry about them doing what North Korea did and Iran is trying mightily to do.

The underlying issue here is baseload power that is not subject to intermittency. Wind is good for at most 30% of grid power (speaking from engineering experience in the industry), and if you assume solar is good for 50%, you still have 20% that has to come from "somewhere." Geothermal is promising but still experimental.

Natural gas is the best of the fossil fuels, and can be used for "dispatchable power" via gas turbines that can be spun up to cover peak demand periods. But natural gas shouldn't be counted on for baseload, because the atmosphere doesn't care where its excess CO2 load comes from. No matter how you cut the pie, there's still a need for fission in the mix, and thorium could solve that issue globally without risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

BTW, I have no connections whatsoever to the nuclear industry, whether uranium, plutonium, or thorium.

the only way we are gonna get around these idiots are to remove them from the equation. Only those of higher intellect AND higher education should be allowed in politics. plain and simple.

By James Vance (not verified) on 12 Jun 2013 #permalink

What to do about those obscurantists in the Senate:


"Mr. President, this is Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma calling. You saw the news about that tornado we just had, right?"

"Hi Jim. Yes, I saw the news. 2.6 miles in diameter and winds over 250 miles per hour. My heart goes out to everyone in Oklahoma..."

"Mr. President, as much as I'd prefer not to depend on government aid, there's something I have to ask. FEMA has been great so far, but we're going to need serious money to rebuild. Something along the lines of..."

"Jim, I gotta' level with you. The consensus of science is that climate change will produce an increase in the frequency and severity of violent storms..."

"Mr. President, now's not the time for..."

"Yes it is, Jim, just like confronting someone with the fact that they have a drinking problem the day after they get pulled over for DUI. You're as much in denial as someone with alcoholism. Your denial is directly responsible for preventable harm to others."

"Mr. President, let's not get political at a time like this."

Jim, it's not politics, it's science. It's reality. So here's the deal. If you want any further aid in rebuilding after this tornado, or any other tornado as long as I'm in office, you'll come out and make a speech on the Senate floor declaring that climate change is real, is caused by human activities, and is occurring now. I'll take that speech as a good faith gesture and you'll get the aid you requested. But then you have to follow up. There's going to be a new climate bill introduced in two months. I'm counting on you to co-sponsor it and make sure it passes."

"But Mr. President, I can't-"

"You can't? Famous last words from every alcoholic who refused to acknowledge he had a drinking problem. Let's not confuse won't with can't. Now you know I don't like playing hardball, but climate change is as serious as a heart attack and the time for softball on it is long over. By the way, this is exactly how President Johnson got the civil rights laws passed. And history shows he was right. You have two days to think it over. Feel free to call me any time, OK Jim?"

"Yes Mr. President. Thanks."