Sarah Palin Doesn’t Think Bill Nye Is A Real Scientist

Apr 19, 2016

Photo credit: Kamil Krzaczynski/Reuters

By Paige Lavender

Former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin argued Thursday that Bill Nye is not actually a scientist.

“Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am,” Palin said at an event in Washington, D.C., according to The Hill. “He’s a kids’ show actor; he’s not a scientist.”

Palin specifically targeted Nye for his statements on global warming, saying he and others who tout the science that says humans are contributing to changes in the Earth’s climate are fueling “alarmism.”

Palin’s criticism came after a showing of a new anti-climate change documentary called “Climate Hustle,” which features a clip of producer Marc Morano interviewing Nye, who regularly speaks out about the negative effects of global warming.

“We’ve been told by fearmongers that global warming is due to man’s activities, and this [film] presents strong arguments against that in a very relatable way,” Palin told Variety in an interview published Monday.

Palin has a long history of denying that humans contribute to climate change.


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

38 comments on “Sarah Palin Doesn’t Think Bill Nye Is A Real Scientist

  • @OP Former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin argued Thursday that Bill Nye is not actually a scientist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
    He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where he took an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan)[9] and graduated with a B.S. in mechanical engineering in 1977.[10] Nye occasionally returns to Cornell as a guest-lecturer of introductory-level astronomy and human ecology classes.

    “Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am,” Palin said

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

    Personal life and education

    Palin played flute in a band when she was in junior high, then she attended Wasilla High School where she was the head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes,[14] During her senior year, she was co-captain and point guard of the basketball team that won the 1982 Alaska state championship,

    Palin said at an event in Washington, D.C., according to The Hill. “He’s a kids’ show actor; he’s not a scientist.”

    Obviously Palin has a self-awarded bible fantasy degree in “faith-thinking”, which allows her to confidently arrive at conclusions without bothering with reasoning or looking at any evidence!

    Hence her “authoritative” pseudo-science statements asserting climate change denial!

    Of course she thinks Bill Nye is not a scientist, because she does not like what he is saying, and she has no idea what a scientist is, despite her father being a science teacher!

    Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho to Charles R. “Chuck” Heath, a science teacher and track and field coach, and Sarah “Sally” (née Sheeran), a school secretary.
    Report abuse

  • Technically, she’s right; by professional training, he is a mechanical engineer. But he also has honourary doctorates from a number of universities. And he’s been a science educator/communicator for a long time; and (IIRC) the best way to learn something is to teach it to some-one else.

    Of course, no-one cares what Sarah Palin thinks, especially when it comes to science.
    Report abuse

  • Isn’t it amazing though how the news media pick up on statements by individuals like Palin, but rarely ask for counter comments from suitably qualified scientists who would back up what Bill Nye said. After all that is what climatologists around the world are saying!
    Report abuse

  • How many illegitimate grandchildren does this “Christian” woman’s kid have to produce to get her to slither back under the rock from whence she came? With Phyllis Schlafly, it only took one gay son to effectively shame her into disappearing from the public eye.
    Report abuse

  • I’m surprised she’s still allowed to speak in public. And if she was paid to speak, what does that say for the sponsor….? From MarsFKA’s comment I’ll assume her speech wasn’t in Alaska…? Laughter right out of a Monty Python flick! He’s not a scientist, he’s as witch!
    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #10
    Apr 21, 2016 at 12:53 am

    Maybe Mrs Palin could have a debate with Nye. It would be over in……….two minutes……..

    I think they would need a muzzle! – or Scold’s bridle!

    There are those who have something of merit to say – and then there are those who have overwhelming urges to say something and won’t shut up! – Any blither will do if confidently trotted out!!!!
    Report abuse

  • 13
    Cairsley says:

    Sarah Palin Doesn’t Think Bill Nye Is A Real Scientist . . . “Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am.”

    Seeing that heading did make me laugh. It is getting to the point where one has to pity this woman’s cluelessness. Hers seems to be an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
    Report abuse

  • ShadowMind #5
    Apr 19, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where he took an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan)[9] and graduated with a B.S. in mechanical engineering in 1977

    Technically, she’s right; by professional training, he is a mechanical engineer. But he also has honourary doctorates from a number of universities.

    A graduate BS course in mechanical engineering (with astronomy – celestial mechanics) contains a very substantial part of physics.
    It is a science degree.

    Cornell programs in engineering and applied science lead to the degrees of bachelor of science (B.S.), master of engineering (M.Eng.), master of science (M.S.), . [courses.cornell.edu/content.php]

    Palin left high school as the co-head of the basket-case – err basket-ball, team!
    Report abuse

  • I don’t recall Bill Nye ever claiming to be a scientist, in the clinical sense. So what ?

    You’re being baited into a bait & switch argument…..let it die on the vine, or run with it, not against it.

    embrace it: ok, Ms. Palin so you are arguing the following points
    – Bill Nye is not a scientist
    – you simultaneously confirm that neither are you
    – you imply that because Bill Nye is not a scientist therefore any statement he makes about climate change is false…….ok, so since you admit you are also not a scientist where does that put all your statements about climate change, according to your own logic ? According to you, we shouldn’t listen to you either. Why are you still talking ?

    You don’t argue a person is crazy by declaration. In the end it’s no more than mud slinging, and you’ll always have political correctness against you. Instead, you lead them to demonstrate it first hand for everyone else to see. Just make sure the audience does connect the dots afterwards. Sarah Palin is so generous in this regard.

    I advocate the scientific method. I am not a scientist. Bill Nye is still right. Period.
    Report abuse

  • Over on PZ Myers’ spot, Pharyngula, there was a thread on this topic. Here is what I wrote over there. Someone commented and I had to flame them up a bit. I will not include my second post……. yet…….

    Anyone who solves problems using the scientific method is a scientist.

    A monkey in a cage sees a banana hanging from the roof on a string . It is just out of reach. He has observed the problem.
    He walks over and reaches up. He just did an experiment. He concludes that he can’t reach the banana. So, he jumps. He just did a second experiment. Conclusion? Banana or no banana. If no banana…He drags a chair over, stands on it, and gets the banana.
    A second monkey comes into the cage and a second banana is dangled. The first monkey drags the chair over and communicates his results. The monkey is a scientist!

    So, Sarah Palin is in a cage, there is a banana on a string. She starves to death.
    Report abuse

  • It is very unlikely that much of what Sarah Palin ever says is chosen to do anything other than get her publicity regardless of its truthfulness and it’s disappointing to see this site confirm the effectiveness of that ploy. She came with a certain amount of novelty value eight years ago due to her bizarre babblings when McCain chose her as his running mate but she’s little more than yesterday’s news as far as I’m concerned. It’s been a long time since I’ve had the slightest interest in her gibberish.
    Report abuse

  • bonnie2 #21
    Apr 21, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Must be blind, steadfast folk if they’re willing to see her after January’s debacle (Palin’s) > http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/so-uh-heres-the-full-text-of-sarah-palins-bizarre-trump-spee#.giBNKARVPj

    I didn’t think the Trump speech was even that much more incoherent than most of her past gibberish. It’s just that even the nutters who have supported her for so long have realised she doesn’t make any sense.
    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer #20
    Apr 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    @ your link:

    Fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-receding-of-sarah-palin-in-one-chart/

    Palin’s net favorability rating (favorable minus unfavorable) among all Americans1 has dropped more than 40 percentage points, from +18 percentage points to -24 points by mid-2014, according to a local regression. Meanwhile, her net favorability rating among Republicans has declined more than 55 percentage points, from +83 percentage points to +27 points by mid-2013.

    I suppose a credibility score of minus 24%, pretty well sums up her intellect as well as her “understanding” of science!

    On the other hand – Bill Nye seems to have a five star rating as a children’s science educator here!

    https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/bill-nye-the-science-guy#
    Bill Nye the Science Guy
    age 7+ Fantastically fun classic is perfect formula for learning.
    Report abuse

  • We have a lot to thank Palin for though actually. I think she more or less killed McCain’s chances of beating Obama when people realised she might only be a heartbeat away from the Presidency with a guy of that age. It surely can’t have done much good for confidence in Trump’s judgement either when he dragged the loon back out of obscurity, not that he has any chance of beating Hillary.
    Report abuse

  • Nuttery personified!!!

    http://www.alternet.org/story/97907/sarah_palin's_9_most_disturbing_beliefs

    Sarah Palin’s 9 Most Disturbing Beliefs

    Palin stated: “Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.” Presumably the programs that do find Palin’s support are ones that focus on abstinence and only mention contraceptives to talk about their supposed shortcomings.

    . . .and we know how that worked out for her twice pregnant daughter!

    Palin thinks that rape victims should be forced to bear the child of their rapist. She believes this so strongly that she would oppose abortion even if her own daughter were raped.

    See the link for the rest!
    Report abuse

  • The earth warms and cools.
    It is currently in a warming cycle.
    When temperature increases are measure, how significant an increase does man made C02 make?
    When I see graphs they tend to be measuring in 0.2 increments making increases seem more dramatic than they really are Is a 0.8 increase a lot when it spans a 100 years?
    C02 increases crops, giving higher yields, that is a good thing surely, allowing us to better fight hunger
    Report abuse

  • ian murray #26
    Apr 22, 2016 at 1:07 am

    Hi Ian,

    It looks like you have picked up disinformation from pseudo-science sources.

    The earth warms and cools.
    It is currently in a warming cycle.

    Nope!
    It is currently in a cooling cycle, but is warming because of high CO2 levels in the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    When temperature increases are measure, how significant an increase does man made C02 make?

    Very significant!
    That is what the climatologists have explained.
    It makes the difference between the natural cycles and the measured temperatures.
    As world trade figures for the production and burning of [billions of tons of] coal oil and gas are available, the quantities of man-made CO2 produced, are easily calculated.
    It can also be calculated by measuring the percentages of carbon14 isotopes in the atmosphere.

    When I see graphs they tend to be measuring in 0.2 increments making increases seem more dramatic than they really are Is a 0.8 increase a lot when it spans a 100 years?

    Yes, because CO2 and methane have a catalytic effect increasing water vapour which is the main greenhouse gas.

    C02 increases crops, giving higher yields, that is a good thing surely, allowing us to better fight hunger

    This is a fairy story put about by carbon industry sponsored deniers!
    Added CO2 boosts crop yields in commercial greenhouses, but we would cook the planet if the atmosphere was raised to those levels.

    The increased storms, floods, droughts, and rising sea-levels will cause devastating effects, vastly greater than any tiny increase in photosynthesis in plants.
    Report abuse

  • While we are discussing Palin’s denial of man-made climate change, I see that ironical chickens are coming home to roost!!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-36108295

    Venezuela is introducing power cuts of four hours a day from next week to deal with a worsening energy crisis.

    The cuts will last for 40 days as the country struggles under a severe drought limiting hydroelectric output.

    It is the latest setback to Venezuela’s economy which has been hit by a sharp fall in the price of its main export, oil.

    The country’s main brewer, Polar, also says it will stop production because it has no dollars to buy grain abroad.

    This reminds me of the Alaskan plan to sell more oil, in order to fund the evacuation and resettlement of coastal villages retreating from sea-level rises caused by global warming melting ice caps and glaciers!
    Report abuse

  • Alan4
    As always your post is excellent and the information in it is unassailable.

    Let me take a crack at putting it in very very simple terms.

    There are two things in the universe. Matter and Energy. Matter is made of particles. One type of energy (temperature) is a measure of how fast things are moving around– jiggling about.

    Our atmosphere has seen a rise in the number of particles and a rise in their speed.

    This manifests as the “unprecedented” storms and systems we’ve seen. BTW, how many of these do people need to witness so that they can accommodate what scientists have been shouting for decades?

    Now, and this is crucial, even if man is not causing this trend (and we are)—– man can stop it. it is just good policy to do so.

    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #31
    Apr 22, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    Now, and this is crucial, even if man is not causing this trend (and we are)—– man can stop it. it is just good policy to do so.

    Unfortunately we are already seeing some feed-back effects of a warming, thawing, drying climate, in the form of peat fires, forest fires and tundra fires!

    http://phys.org/news/2012-02-peat-climate.html

    Peat fires could accelerate climate change: researchers

    In 1997, a forest fire in Indonesia ignited an area of peatlands that smouldered for months. By the time it was over, the fire had released greenhouse gases equal to 20 to 40 percent of the total worldwide emissions that year from fossil fuels.

    But that could be a drop in the bucket compared to future emissions from peat fires. Indonesian peatlands are dwarfed by Canada’s. The total area of all peatland in Canada is estimated to be about twice the size of Saskatchewan.

    During a forest fire, especially in years of drought, peat can also ignite. When that happens, it produces a smoldering, smoky burn that is difficult to extinguish. Peat can grow several meters deep beneath the ground. In fact, some peat fires burn right through winter, beneath the snow, then pick up again in the spring.

    A warming climate appears to be increasing the risk of peat fires in the North, according to Flannigan. For example, in 2007, Alaska’s Anaktuvuk River region experienced a “tundra fire” fuelled by peat that covered 1,000 square kilometres. Until then, fire had largely been absent from the tundra since the Holocene epoch—12,000 years ago.

    . . . But don’t worry! 🙂
    The brains of the gas industries, are working on a way to drill into the Arctic Methane Clathrates to extract the gas – in addition to leaking methane from gas fracking and oil drilling!
    Report abuse

  • bonnie2 #33
    Apr 30, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

    The link is hot air, but this quote (above) from one of the comments on it, spells it out.
    Palinesque liars for Jesus with god delusions and theistic brain-fumblings, babble dogma, but these are just charlatans bought with oil money!
    Just another bunch of propagandist wind-bags pretending to be sceptical scientists!
    Report abuse

  • bonnie2 #34
    Apr 30, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    The carbon polluters seem to have money to burn paying muppets to spread disinformation – but most of the public (listening to propagandist howls about the cost of renewables), do not know whose money they are using!!!
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

    Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

    Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

    The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.

    The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.

    Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

    Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”

    The IMF, one of the world’s most respected financial institutions, said that ending subsidies for fossil fuels would cut global carbon emissions by 20%. That would be a giant step towards taming global warming, an issue on which the world has made little progress to date.

    Elon Musk: oil campaign against electric cars is like big tobacco lobbying

    Tesla chief executive likens attacks on electric cars to campaigns of misinformation by big tobacco and climate sceptics
    Report abuse

  • Sarah Palin obviously wasn’t there when apastosaurrus was munching away on vegetation, and nor was I. Too bad the gal is happy being ignorant. Bill Nye at least accepts evidence , a concept apparently alien to Palin.
    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #31
    Apr 22, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    Now, and this is crucial, even if man is not causing this trend (and we are)—– man can stop it. it is just good policy to do so.

    @32 – Peat fires could accelerate climate change: researchers

    Now since then further effects are being felt!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36212145

    El Niño and ongoing climate change have both contributed to the devastating Alberta wildfires according to experts.

    The weather phenomenon has caused much drier conditions than normal, leading to a massive increase in the number of fires in the province.

    Alberta has had 330 wildfires already this year, more than double the recent annual average.

    Global warming has also seen wildfire seasons lengthen considerably since 1979, according to studies.

    Dry winter

    Alberta and much of western Canada experienced a serious drought last year. So great was the impact on farmers, the province declared an agricultural emergency.

    The dry conditions continued through the winter with the western part of Canada then feeling the impact of El Niño.

    Scientists say the current El Niño event is one of the strongest on record, with the effects felt all over the world including a reduced monsoon in India and droughts in parts of Africa.
    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.