Super Stupid

Fox News contributor and resident Romulan Charles Krauthammer isn’t impressed by science.

According to him, believing in climate change is just like believing in rain dancing. Also, the weatherman gets it wrong sometimes.

via TPM

“It’s always a result of what is ultimately what we’re talking about here, human sin with pollution of carbon,” Krauthammer said. “It’s the oldest superstition around. It was in the Old Testament, it’s in the rain dance of Native Americans — if you sin, the skies will not cooperate.”

picard_riker_double_facepalm

“Ninety-nine percent of physicists were convinced that space and time are fixed, until Einstein working in a patent office wrote a paper in which he showed that they are not,” he said. “I’m not impressed by numbers, I’m not impressed by consensus.”

“These are things that people negotiate the way that you would negotiate a bill, because the science is unstable,” he added. “Because in the case of climate, the models are changeable and because climate is so complicated, the idea that we who have trouble forecasting what’s going to happen on Saturday in the climate could pretend to be predicting what could happen in 30, 40 years is absurd.”

A forecast for the weather on Saturday is not the same thing as a modeling trends in climate change.

Climatologists do not point toward the year 2040 and say there’s going to be a devastating hurricane that year. What they say is current trends suggest storms during that time period could be stronger because of global warming.

But who am I kidding? Attempting to explain the difference between weather and climate to a guy who thinks believing in climate change is equivalent to believing in rain dancing is obviously futile.

The great thing about science is it’s true whether Charles Krauthammer believes it or not.

This entry was posted in Super Stupid and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • WiscoJoe

    Anyone else remember Rick Perry’s “Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas”?

    Good times.

  • Auld_mac

    Not ‘stupid’ but ‘corrupt’ . Mr. Krauthammer knows full weel that what he says is shite. He is just doing the bidding of his masters in order to maintain his swiftly degrading place in the hierarchy of oligarch apologists. He has, however, miss-read the lay of the battlefield and chosen the soft low ground on which to stand.

  • GrafZeppelin127


    “I’m not impressed by consensus.”

    Ugh. If there’s one thing about right-wingers that bothers the crap out of me, it’s that no-one-gets-it-but-me attitude that disdains expertise and puts one’s own ego above objective reality. It’s not like he’s saying “The consensus could be wrong,” or “Consensus doesn’t mean anything,” or “Consensus is not certainty,” he’s saying “I’M not impressed” by it.

    Well, pardon me, Chuckles, but since when is it anybody’s job to “impress” you? F*** you and what you’re “impressed” or “not impressed” by.

    Right-wing pundits have been doing this for years, telling their dumb, uneducated sheep audience that “You don’t have to believe anything you don’t want to believe.” People can make up their own reality by simply deciding, arbitrarily and unilaterally, that they’re “not impressed by” whatever objective reality presents to them.

    I had one such dimwit, during the “they think they know better than you and how dare they” phase of the health-care debate, tell me it was “ridiculous” to suggest that people who make it their job, their business, their responsibility, their life’s work, to learn, research, study, analyze, and develop expertise in a particular subject matter (such as, e.g., health care, health insurance, or law), know more about that subject than people who do not do any of those things. “Ridiculous” to believe that experts know more than non-experts about the things the former have worked and studied for years to become experts in. That’s “ridiculous.”

    Then we get the other half of the stupid sandwich, when people who know nothing just decide that they’re “not impressed” with what people who do know, know.

    I went through this as a teacher, briefly. One year I taught in a suburban school which was probably the least intellectually-stimulating environment I’ve ever been in. I would talk to students about interpretations of literary works, drawn from years of study of those texts and the critical consensus with respect thereto, and they’d just reject it. “I just don’t agree,” they’d say, and that’s it.

    It’s a wonder people like Krauthammer ever got out of high school.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Why do you think one of the biggest lines in their script is that science, whether we’re talking about climate change or evolution, is just another religion? It’s all about reframing the facts so that everything is just a “belief” and nothing is fact. The subtext here is pretty obvious, too: Science is just a pagan religion, just like those ignorance injuns were, but you know better because you’re part of the One True Religion of Conservative Christianity.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Every time I get into a discussion with one of these “atheism is a religion” crackpots, I always ask them what, by their definition of what a “religion” is, isn’t a religion? They can’t define it in a way that would exclude anything.

        It’s all about reframing the facts so that everything is just a “belief” and nothing is fact.

        That’s almost exactly what those students at that awful school kept saying to me. Whether it was an interpretation of the symbolism of the double-ended spear in Lord of the Flies or the grade I gave them on a writing project, it was always, “Well, that’s just your opinion.” Even my supervisor — a very strange and difficult person — said that, if not in so many words. She didn’t like that I used only performance-based assessments like reader-response notebooks and writing projects, because grading them was “too subjective.” Nonsense. Performance-based work product can be graded just as objectively as multiple-choice, albeit in a different way.

        But I’m getting off the point. If you’re a student, and you can always just brush off your teacher’s (or professor’s) assessment of your work as “just your opinion,” you will never, ever LEARN anything, because you’re not responsible for learning anything, and letting yourself off the hook for not learning anything. I’ve been saying for years that this is why high-school and college kids don’t know anything: Because no one expects them to know anything. If I had a dime for every time I had another adult, be it a teacher or parent, say to me, “Oh, you can’t expect kids to know that,” I wouldn’t have had to change professions.

        • David Atkins

          Atheism may not be a religion, but the New Atheists are very much a squabbling fundamentalist sect that stands very much within the Christianist tradition. Their defining heresy is quite the whopper, putting them in the same league as the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists, and like all fundamentalists they have the conceit that because their particular doctrine is TRUE they can be excused from all requirements of civility or relevence to which all other sects must adhere.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            Which is really just another way of saying that some atheists can be really, really obnoxious, about atheism and about being atheists. I’ve heard this record before. Many of the debates I’ve had end up here, viz., the person insists that “atheism is a religion” because of the way that some atheists express their ideas, not the nature of the ideas themselves.

            Being obnoxious about something you believe, or the fact that people can be obnoxious about it, doesn’t make the thing you are or can be obnoxious about believing a “religion.”

      • Auld_mac

        Duh?

  • captkurt

    Unfortunately, Right Wing Conservatives have a ‘foolproof’ approach that allows them to ignore climate change. Deny the existence of climate change, or evidence of a changing
    climate. Then, when really disastrous, catastrophic weather events start to occur with increasing frequency, simply claim that this is because the evil government, Illuminati, UN, or whomever, is controlling the weather. Ya know, like how Obama was able to control Hurricane Sandy to help him win the 2012 election.

  • D_C_Wilson

    Krauthammer is actually a very intelligent person, which makes his statements even more despicable. He knows he’s peddling bullshit by equating climate science with raindance. He’s just telling the rubes what they want to hear so that our corporate overloads will not be inconvenienced by having to deal with the pollution they are causing.

    • Toolymegapoopoo

      I was just going to post something about how I despise Krauthammer but I’ve always respected his intelligence when I saw you beat me to it. This is baffling that he would even venture into these waters. Sure, he’s slammed climate scientists in the past, but it has always been to extrapolate an error. This Tea Party pandering is just asinine.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      Advocacy is really not that hard for intelligent people. In some ways it’s like improv. It’s kind of like how they say a good salesman could sell snow to an eskimo. An intelligent person with a command of the English language could effectively and convincingly advocate for anything, even something he doesn’t actually believe or believe in.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    A “Rain Dance”…..really?
    This despicable corporate whore just scored a twofer by sneaking in a little racism with his climate denial shtick.

  • muselet

    I’m tempted to fisk Charles Krauthammer’s remarks, but he’s not worth the effort. He phoned this one in, just putting a little offensive spin on standard Righty “pollution is good for you” nonsense.

    Climate science is science. What Krauthammer’s peddling isn’t.

    –alopecia

  • Zen Diesel

    Krauthammer looks more like a resident Count Chocula than a Romulan in my humble opinion, and for the life of me why is he considered to be an expert on anything. His track record is about just as bad as Bill Kristol.