Obama Has a Response to Republicans’ ‘I Am Not a Scientist’ Line

It’s a long string of jokes.

US President Barack Obama speaks about a Menurkey, a combination of a menorah and turkey honoring this year's shared dates of Thanksgiving and Hanukkah during a Hanukkah reception in the Grand Foyer of the White House December 5, 2013 in Washington, DC. Obama addressed the event behind held on the last day of Hanukkah . AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
National Journal
Lucia Graves
See more stories about...
Lucia Graves
June 26, 2014, 5:34 a.m.

Too of­ten in life when someone in­sults your in­tel­li­gence or levels some oth­er sting­ing verbal at­tack, the best re­sponses present them­selves hours, even days, too late to be use­ful. The French have a term for it: L’es­prit de l’es­cal­i­er (stair­case wit).

One of the be­ne­fits of be­ing pres­id­ent of the free world is you can de­ploy a team of speech­writers to help you think of the per­fect comebacks, and whenev­er you’re ready to dish your witty re­torts, the na­tion­al press will line up to broad­cast your zingers.

That was pre­cisely the situ­ation Wed­nes­day night, when Pres­id­ent Obama, speak­ing at the an­nu­al din­ner of the League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters, lit in­to GOP cli­mate skep­tics with a bar­rage of funny put-downs.

“It’s pretty rare that you en­counter people who say that the prob­lem of car­bon pol­lu­tion is not a prob­lem,” Obama told an audi­ence of sev­er­al hun­dred gathered in Wash­ing­ton’s Ron­ald Re­agan build­ing. “In most com­munit­ies and work­places, they may not know how big a prob­lem it is, they may not know ex­actly how it works, they may doubt they can do something about it. Gen­er­ally they don’t just say, ‘No I don’t be­lieve any­thing sci­ent­ists say.’ Ex­cept, where? Con­gress!”

“In Con­gress,” he ad­ded, “folks will tell you cli­mate change is hoax or a fad or a plot. A lib­er­al plot.”

Then there are those who if pressed about cli­mate “duck the ques­tion and say, ‘Hey, I’m not a sci­ent­ist,’ which really trans­lates in­to: ‘I ac­cept that man-made cli­mate change is real, but if I say so I will be run out of town by a bunch of fringe ele­ments,’ ” he said. “So I am just go­ing to pre­tend like — I don’t know — I can’t read.”

The jokes snow­balled from there.

“I mean, I’m not a sci­ent­ist either, but I’ve got this guy, John Hold­ren, he’s a sci­ent­ist. I’ve got a bunch of sci­ent­ists at NASA and I’ve got a bunch of sci­ent­ists at EPA.”

“I’m not a doc­tor either, but if a bunch of doc­tors tell me that to­bacco can cause lung can­cer then I’ll say, ‘OK!’ It’s not that hard.”

“I’m not a sci­ent­ist, but I read the sci­ence.”

It’s the second time in re­cent days Obama has mocked Re­pub­lic­ans for al­legedly be­ing an­ti­science. Earli­er this month, while speak­ing at the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (Irvine), Obama com­pared Re­pub­lic­ans’ po­s­i­tions on cli­mate change to be­liev­ing the moon was made of cheese, and he tested out a num­ber of the lines above.

Gene Kar­p­in­ski, the pres­id­ent of the en­vir­on­ment­al group host­ing the event, told Na­tion­al Journ­al at the din­ner that Obama’s mock­ing tone was “totally ap­pro­pri­ate.” And Keith Gaby, who, in his work as com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or for the En­vir­on­ment­al De­fense Fund, has been en­cour­aging en­vir­on­ment­al­ists to make bet­ter use of hu­mor, went fur­ther with his praise.

“I think hu­mor is a good way to get people who aren’t pay­ing at­ten­tion to take no­tice of an is­sue, par­tic­u­larly one like cli­mate change that has the repu­ta­tion of earn­est ser­i­ous­ness,” Gaby said in an email. “It’s very much the same strategy the Pres­id­ent used when he went on Between Two Ferns to talk about health care. A lot of young people tune out polit­ics, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care about their fu­ture — so you try to reach them through oth­er meth­ods, like hu­mor.”

Comedi­ans have long struggled to find much hu­mor value in en­vir­on­ment­al­ism, and if Al Gore is any in­dic­a­tion, it doesn’t come nat­ur­ally to most evan­gel­ists. But at the din­ner last night, en­vir­on­ment­al act­iv­ists were eat­ing it up, whoop­ing and holler­ing and pump­ing their arms.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×