In the above video liberal climate “expert” Bill Maher provides an example as to what average liberals rely on for their climate change education.
Average liberals don’t take the time to actually learn the science, they rely upon scientific “experts” like Bill Nye, Al Gore, Michael Mann, late night comedians like Bill Maher, and Oscar the Grouch. Liberals tend to outsource their thinking to “experts,” and rely on others to tell them what to think. That is why the “consensus” and “polling” is such an effective tactic for liberals.
In the Bill Maher video, he makes unsubstantiated and nonsensical alarmist claims of “Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction,” but his most often repeated source of “evidence” is the claim that “out of 10,858 peer-reviewed articles only 2 rejected the claim of man-made climate change.” He repeated the claim so many times I stopped counting.
If that is the best argument Bill Maher and the liberals can muster, it isn’t much of an argument at all. Here are more details on the appeal to authority and “consensus” as a way to determine the scientific truth.
While Bill Maher and other liberal organizations and media outlets may discuss “consensus” and the proper Ad Hominem attack to use in climate discussions, they will never address the real science supporting TRILLIONS of dollars of public spending projects.
Things you won’t hear discussed on Bill Maher’s show:
Even though the oceans and water cover 70%+ of the globe and whose energy content dominate the climate system, most of the climate data covering that area is “made up.”
The results of the IPCC climate models and the reasons they fail so epically.
How CO2 can warm the oceans, the greatest influence of climate change.
The benefits society has received for spending TRILLIONs of public dollars on fighting climate change, and not building schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges.
Better uses for spending TRILLIONS of public dollars than building wind and solar farms.
How temperature data controlled for CO2 shows no global warming.
The failed economics of the “green economy.”
Why someone that is writing an Anti-Trump Book should be considered as credible and chosen as your main source of evidence?
The list can go on and on and on to no end.
Until liberals start talking seriously about the real science backing climate change all their claims of “championing science” should be considered nothing more than left-wing politics as usual.