Bill Maher points out oil industry’s influence in climate change politics

Saturday, January 29, 2011 19:05 EDT
google plus icon
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

Is science political?

That’s what one guest on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” claimed Friday, drawing gasps from the studio audience during a discussion about global climate change.

“Science is very political,” Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said.

“The only science that is ‘political’ is the science that is funded by oil companies,” host Bill Maher replied.

“And Democrats,” Rep. Kingston then quipped.

Moments prior Kingston blasted former vice president Al Gore for his Academy Award-winning documentary about climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth.” But the comedian would have nothing of it.

“Why isn’t it a conservative position to conserve the Earth?” Maher asked to no direct reply.

During the program, Kingston, who is a member of a House subcommittee on defense, maintained that the science behind climate change was inconclusive.

However, the climate science community unanimously agreed that human industry directly effects the Earth’s climate.

“It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases,” the US government’s Global Change Research Program reported. [PDF] “Such studies have only recently been used to determine the causes of some changes in extremes at the scale of a continent. Certain aspects of observed increases in temperature extremes have been linked to human influences.”

Their summary concluded: “In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.

“Current and future impacts resulting from these changes depend not only on the changes in extremes, but also on responses by human and natural systems.”

Maher posed the topic of climate change on the same weekend the billionaire Koch brothers were to have met with other right-wing activists to plan for the 2012 election.

This video is from HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, as snipped by Mediaite.

By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
  • Anonymous

    This is just 1 paper – there are hundreds more that refute AGW.

    It is the “global climate scientists” that stand to loose the most when the global warming bubble of ignorance bursts.

    You cannot simply stick your finders in your ears and yell “blah blah blah” – you and many others will have to face the reality that you have been lied to and made a fool.

    Your refusal to to accept actual science indicates you complete acceptance (brain washing) to the AGW propaganda. You adhere to it and and refuse all reason and logic – these are the unmistakable signs of a faith based religion.

    The climate scientists on which you are relying for your information are telling you to ignore science and well establish fundamental scientific law.

    You will be shown a gullible fool.
    Wake up – get smart – don’t let them continue making a fool of you.

  • Anonymous

    “1) Provide some evidence that NASA only uses stations which show a warming trend so we can judge it for ourselves.”
    Go and check the data for your self – it is all free and available.

    “2) Provide some evidence that direct measurement of temperature is easier to manipulate. Satellite data requires considerably more processing than thermometers do.”
    Read the NASA documents and then come back and tell me and everyone else about the methods used for temperature adjusts that have been used in New Zealand, Australia, Russia, Chine and the U.S.
    They would rather drop the official temperature records RATHER than attempt to explain the adjustments.
    This is CLEAR

    3) The satellites do no show 2010 as the warmest year because the satellites do not monitor temperatures north of 82.5 degrees North, i.e. the arctic circle which is the most rapidly warming part of the planet.
    Once again – go and check NASA temperature data sets, areas and locations.If you do you’ll find that cold areas like the poles are extrapolated from stations over hundreds kilometres.
    It is a physical impossibility for NASA to attain better data than that of satellites using ground based stations – let alone using a minor subset of what is actually available – this is irrefutable.