How To Saw "I'm Not A Scientist" In Half - Grist

[hatrack]

EDIT

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?”

EDIT

http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-to-get-republicans-to-stop-using-the-im-not-a-scientist-dodge/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. My reply is basically

'That's blindingly obvious, based upon the nonsense you're putting forth.'

[Prophet 451]

2. Saying "I'm not a scientist" is like saying "I'm a AGW sceptic"

They're not. If either were true, they wouldn't be advocating doing nothing. By advocating doing nothing, they are saying they have already decided that AGW is false.

[TlalocW]

3. If journalists had any balls/ovaries

When the politicians tried that, "I'm not a scientist," dodge, they would immediately interrupt and say, "Oh, well, thank you for admitting you're not qualified to comment on this issue. Let's move on to something you feel comfortable talking about."

TlalocW

[Jim Lane]

4. Republicans somehow BECOME scientists when they want to criticize Obama about Ebola

Apparently they've mastered epidemiology, although not climatology.

We won't hear "I'm not an epidemiologist" until viruses start making campaign contributions.

[Nihil]

5. No chance of that ...

> We won't hear "I'm not an epidemiologist"

Too many syllables ... the morons that are quoting "I'm not a scientist" can only just
manage "scientist" ...