George Clooney: Global Warming Skeptics are “Stupid” and “Ridiculous”

As you probably are aware, there was a massive typhoon that hit the Philippines over the weekend, and according to authorities, as many as 10,000 people may have been killed. An estimated 2 million people were affected by the typhoon that left around 23,000 houses destroyed.

It was only a matter of time before the liberals started calling out for more carbon taxes that would supposedly convince the Earth to stop producing such disastrous weather patterns as the recent Philippines typhoon.

According to Obama buddy and actor George Clooney, if you don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming, then you’re “stupid” and “ridiculous.”

ClimateDepot.com’s Marc Morano reported:

Clooney made the remarks to reporters on the eve of Typhoon Haiyan hitting the Philippines. He was attending the BAFTA Britannia Awards in Beverly Hills on Saturday night November 9.

“Well it’s just a stupid argument,” Clooney said on the red carpet, referring to the dissenters of man-made global warming.

“If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you ‘you are sick’ and 1 percent that says ‘you’re fine,’ you probably want to hang out with, check it up for the 99. You know what I mean? The idea that we ignore that we are in some way involved in climate change is ridiculous. What’s the worst thing that happens? We clean up the earth a little bit?”

“I find this to be the most ridiculous argument ever,” Clooney explained.

Liberals often quote this “97%” figure to prove that there is this consensus among the scientific community that global warming is manmade. Like the theory itself, that statistic is a myth.

That 97% figure represented 75 scientists. Out of about 10,000. Yes, only 79 scientists actually responded to the survey. Writing for Financial Post, Andrew Montford reported:

…[M]any participants were appalled by the survey and recorded their feelings at the time, calling it simplistic and biased, and suggesting that it was an attempt to provide support for a predetermined view.

A second paper, by William Anderegg and colleagues, took a rather different approach, dividing scientists into those who were “convinced” and “unconvinced” by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and then assessing their relative numbers and their scientific credentials. It was observed at the time that the authors appeared to be trying to create a handy blacklist of scientists non gratae, and so their conclusions – that 97% of scientists were “convinced” and that their expertise was greater than that of their “unconvinced” colleagues – were unsurprising.

So, who exactly is “stupid” and “ridiculous?”