Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Political Dogma Over Scientific Fact – That’s the Republican Way

Political Dogma Over Scientific Fact – That’s the Republican Way

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

If a a man is a creationist, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?

If a man supports teaching creation (or ‘intelligent design’) alongside evolution in school, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?

If a man believes global warming is a fantasy, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?

If a man believes that global warming is real, but is not due in large part to human influence, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?

If a man believes that birth control is a sin or otherwise wrong, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?

If a man believes that homosexuality is a choice and is not due to genetic or biological factors, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?

If a man believes that the best way to achieve energy independence is drilling lots more oil wells, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?

Most of us know that the answer to each of the above questions is that the man is much more likely to be “Republican”. This is not to say that there are not Democrats who believe each of those – I’m sure there are. Conversely, there are Republicans (and other conservatives) who take the opposite view in each (Clavos, for one, has stated that the fight against global warming has been a conservative talking point).

But in each case the likelihood remains significantly stronger that the man in question is a Republican. This begs the question: who is more likely to ignore scientific fact (or at least strong scientific indications)? The above examples (with the possible exception of birth control) would point to the Republicans. Yes, this will outrage our conservative readers — but for those conservatives who would consign me to the lower depths of left-wing punditry, I challenge you to prove me wrong. It is apparent that, given scientific evidence that flies in the face of political dogma, Republicans are much more likely to ignore or even suppress that evidence to protect their own agenda.

For instance, the strongly-conservative Chamber of Commerce is now claiming that global warming will be beneficial to humanity! Not only that, but the Chamber of Commerce is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to put climate change evidence up for a public hearing — and says it will take the EPA to court if it refuses! The EPA is refusing because, it says, such a hearing is a ‘waste of time’. Why? Because climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Now compare that to the fact that only 47 percent of petroleum geologists believe that human involvement plays a role in global warming. Who do the climatologists work for? Usually universities and governments. Who do the petroleum geologists work for? Petroleum companies…all of which (AFAIK) support the Republican party over the Democratic party.

 

But not all the energy companies agree with the Chamber of Commerce’ extreme position. Exelon, PNM Resources, and Pacific Gas & Electric have now quit the Chamber of Commerce, joining major corporations like Apple and Nike who chose to quit the Chamber for its intransigence in the face of hard scientific fact.

A more egregious act of global-warming denial has just come to light. In 2007 the Bush administration refused to release an EPA report that specifically cites global warming's effects on air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources and coastal areas as endangering public welfare. What’s more, the Bush administration specifically stated that this report was not to be distributed to Democratic lawmakers! Again, political dogma was more important to the Republicans than scientific research and fact…even when the scientific research pointed to a gathering danger to the welfare of the American people as a whole.

A few days ago Science Daily published research by UCLA showing that the last time carbon dioxide levels were this high was 15 million years ago. Is this a big deal? After all, it was this bad fifteen million years ago and we’re just fine today, right? Except that at that time, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees warmer than now (which leads to much more violent weather), the Arctic and Greenland ice caps were completely gone, the Antarctic ice cap was nearly gone…and the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today! Given their actions over the past two decades, would anyone like to take bets on how many Republicans would take this research seriously?

It’s frustrating seeing so many refuse scientific facts just to protect their own political power and belief. It’s downright distressing that they would continue to ignore these facts even when they point to worldwide catastrophe — for that’s what will happen when everyone in lower elevations are forced to move uphill. Say goodbye to Florida, Louisiana, much of the East Coast, much of India and Southeast Asia (particularly Bangladesh). To the Republicans, this isn’t half as bad as the prospect of Big Business losing some of their market share or stock price.

To be fair, the Democrats are not perfect — their opposition to increased use of nuclear power plants has resulted in greater reliance on coal, which is probably the single dirtiest source of power. But in the end, which party is more likely to base their policy decisions on scientific fact? The above examples make clear that the Republicans are much less likely to do so than Democrats.

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • Cannonshop

    Glenn, it’s not the fact of climate-change, only an absolute MORON would assume that the Climate isn’t going to change-we live, after all, on an unstable spinning rock in a varying elliptical orbit around a G-2 Variable star, our atmosphere is composed of mostly-nitrogen with a dose of Oxygen and trace gases, and the planet wobbles.

    The argument is about what’s Causing the climate to change-notably, it’s interesting that the same folks who’ve failed to generate a single accurate model of the climate on their super-computers are the ones whose work is being used for a POLITICAL agenda- Read more than the cover-sheet of the report, Glenn. Until they build an accurate model without cooking the books (ala the Mann Hockeystick-which was and continues to be the foundation of your global-warming dogma-said dogma having taken a black eye when a test that assumed it to be going on showed the ocean to be COLDER than predicted, and dropping in temperature…) it’s all hypothesis, and has aobut the same scientific grounding as the Y2K panic did.

  • Cannonshop

    Flatly, to clarify: You dont make public policy on shit you can’t back up without cooking the books, Glenn, whether it’s allowing black citizens to fly fighters in 1943, or deciding to create an economic garrote on the west via Kyoto today.

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    Global warming is a fact, which is evidenced by temperature measurements. The cause of global warming is also to be determined by analysis of the data. We can dismiss the political dogma which says the planet has always had hot and cold times so there’s nothing to worry about.

    The International Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the warming trend for the last fifty years is twice that of the last hundred years, and most of it happened in the last fifteen years. So global warming is a fact.

    We know that carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas and that production has been increasing dramatically. The inevitable consequence is to add to global warming. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from 280ppm to 380ppm in the last 150 years. Anything more than 350ppm is long-term catastrophic for the atmosphere (see 350.org). The rise in carbon dioxide correlates perfectly with the rise in temperature. The IPCC showed that it was human activity, and not sunspots or the other suggested causes, that was responsible and they presented evidence that was solid enough to withstand global scrutiny.

    We could sit back and say, I won’t listen until you’ve built me a nice computer model, but frankly we have more of those than we know what to do with. It’s the lack of political will that is by far the most scary aspect of global warming. Maybe it is Republicans who are more reluctant to move on the issue, but the Democrats have been almost exactly the same.

  • Arch Conservative

    Ah yes……Al Gore and those supporting him were cut from God’s own cloth this very morning and are beyond reproach.

    Anyone questioning them, no matter how educated in climatology or any other scientific field is nothing but a tool of the greedy evil oil companies, rolling around naked in his or her millions of oil company dollars, laughing like a madman as the sun surely burns us all to a crisp.

    There is absolutely no room for debate. There is only time to do what we are told by the great and all knowing Al Gore.

    Is that the gist of it Glenn?

  • jtsgrandmom

    Bob Llyod, you speak with much conviction. I am curious, doe you have the bona fides or qualifieds to say “Global warming is a fact” or is it a layman’s opinion?

    I’ve no doubt that you are sincere in your conviction and no doubt you are wrong.

    Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the 70’s, 80’s when the experts announced we were entering a new, “Little Ice Age.”

    Yes, they DID.

    Have you read weather scientists’ dissenting opinions?

    Are you aware that Mr. Gore is HEAVILY invested in the fledgling global warming industry and technology and stands to make 10s of millions?

    Are you aware that as DC passes global warming legislation along with the draconian taxes and unconstituional infringments of our liberties, Europe and Australia are dancing away?

    I submit to you sir, that global warming is indeed a hoax, 31,000 scientists with the bona fides and qualifieds hold this opinion.

    despite the bully tactics and assault on many of their 1st Amendment rights to express said opinion with the revokation of their Meteorogical weather certification.

    There can not be honest debate when opposing opinion is quashed. I suggest you look at the sources of your info and then, for true intellectually honesty, look for sources that hold dissenting opinions.

    It ain’t all black and white as you hold.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    #5 jtsgrandmom,

    someone needs to call you on your comment!

    Are you aware that Mr. Gore is HEAVILY invested in the fledgling global warming industry and technology and stands to make 10’s of millions?

    my my grandma, I thought the conservatives/republican-party of greed believed in the FREE MARKET.

    Isn’t this the number one excuse for not developing a more just and morally responsible society?

    (President)Gore has every right to make as much money as all of you put together!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Jeannie, you seem to have gotten Gore’s title wrong.

    As for the article, the title tells more than the article itself does about why Republicans think the way that they do on these issues.

    It’s not a matter of being against science, it’s a matter of being skeptical (the way scientists are supposed to be) of scientific positions which seem to be used to advance political agendas.

    Republicans don’t oppose global warming because they don’t believe in it. They oppose it because they believe that it is being advanced as a concern primarily for political rather than scientific reasons. Ask a Republican and you’ll find they’re perfectly happy with reducing emissions and cutting carbon output. They just don’t like the idea of the restrictions being focused on America while ignoring polluters whose output relative to GDP is enormously greater. They see that as political and rightly so.

    The same holds true with your other energy-related issue, drilling oil wells. Republicans don’t see why we have to cripple ourselves in the short term while looking for long-term solutions to energy problems. The fact is that green technology (except nuclear) is not ready to go off the shelf at a reasonable cost. We still need the oil to keep industry going while we find better solutions.

    And your homosexuality example is just retarded. The only people who care whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic are a small body of relatively conservative homosexuals who are too weak to make the proper argument for their homosexuality and want to hide behind science. The truth is that we are self-aware and rational beings and even if we are born homosexual by genetics, we do have the ability to alter our behavior. We’re not slaves to our genes. And there also remains a percentage of homosexual behavior which is clearly not genetically motivated. An honest Republican will tell you that it doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice, it’s the behavior which has to be judged as right or wrong. And there’s a close to even split between those Republicans who find homosexuality acceptable and those who don’t.

    As for your general premise, I could easily write just as troubling a list for Democrats, but the focus would by hypocrisy rather than the perception of opposition to science, and it would be a rich list given the recent behavior of the Obama administration.

    Dave

  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop!

    Hey, whaddaya know! A conservative actually tried to talk SCIENCE! And guess what? He’s smarter than ANY of the 97% of the thousands of climatologists who said global warming is at least partly due to humanity! Congratulations, C-shop!

    Sarcasm aside, when nearly all of the scientists of a certain field are telling you something presents a danger to humanity, and it’s something that they don’t WANT to happen but believe IS happening, you’d better listen.

    You see, C-shop, you HOPE you’re right…but they HOPE they’re wrong. And unlike you, they’ve got all their education, all their research, and millions of years of data to back them up.

    It is at best naive to believe that the gases produced every day by hundreds of millions of vehicles, tens of millions of cattle, tens of thousands of aircraft flights, and tens of thousands of factories doesn’t have an effect on our world’s climate…’cause this world ain’t that big, in case you haven’t noticed.

    So if YOU are right and 97% of the climatologists are wrong, fine – we have some more financial difficulty and hassle…and that’s it. HOWEVER, if YOU are WRONG and 97% of the climatologists are right…what happens? Say goodbye to Florida and the densely-populated coastal areas of nations throughout the world. At least 75% of humanity lives at or near coastal areas C-shop…and most of them will have to move. What happens when most of humanity has to shift locations? War, and everything that comes with it.

    That’s your wager, C-shop. If you’re right and we still fight global warming, economic difficulty. If you’re wrong (and 97% of climatologists are RIGHT) but we do nothing….

    Ah! But I forget! Science that tells conservatives something they don’t want to hear must therefore be WRONG science! Oh, silly me….

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Dave #7

    No,I didn’t get Al Gores’ title wrong.

    I placed it in parentheses because he was voted in by the people who know global warming is the symptom of our disregarded of the environment.

    Take the blinders off.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    It’s also snowing outside my window right now..:(

  • Glenn Contrarian

    jtsgrandmom –

    I suggest that before you start posting references, that you check the veracity of those references. Your ‘31,000 scientists’ signing on against global warming is easily debunked. For example, only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

    ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT of your ‘scientists’ have ANY education in climatology. Compare that to 97% of ALL climatologists who DO know better than you, who DO say global warming is real.

    Click here to find out why the National Academy of Science said the petition was so misleading that they felt it necessary to issue a news release stating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

    One more thing – you mention the ‘little ice age’. Scientists will ALL tell you we don’t know everything…but it is a logical error to assume that because they scientists were wrong about something at one time in the past, that they must be wrong now.

    Claiming the ‘little ice age’ is proof against global warming (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) is akin to claiming the one-time belief in phlogiston is proof that nuclear power is impossible.

    One last thing – do you live near Washington state? Go to Mount Rainier – they’ve got old pictures of the Nisqually glacier at the visitors center. Then step outside to see that the Nisqually glacier isn’t even one-quarter the size it was sixty years ago….

  • Doug Hunter

    It is estimated that the use of genetically modified foods with their disease resistance and increased growing areas has saved around 1 billion people from starving since the 70’s – Who’s most likely to oppose that?

    Here’s a link and a quote:

    “Environmental critics faulted the father of the Green (as in crops) Revolution for promoting the heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers. They succeeded in persuading foundations to slash their support of Mr. Borlaug’s work. He told Atlantic Monthly: ‘If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they’d be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.'”

    It is also estimated that the ban of DDT, conveniently after the US used it to eliminate Malaria here, has resulted in the unneeded death of 20 to 50 million people. For example in Sri Lanka, thue use of DDT took Malaria cases from 3 million to 29, after stopping DDT use this went back to 600,000. Who is most likely to oppose that?

    Here’s a quote from Wikipedia

    “According to Amir Attaran and Roger Bate, many environmental groups fought against the public health exception of DDT in the 2001 Stockholm Convention, over the objections of third world governments and many malaria researchers. Attaran strongly objected to an outright ban, writing, ‘Environmentalists in rich, developed countries gain nothing from DDT, and thus small risks felt at home loom larger than health benefits for the poor tropics. More than 200 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT…'”

    As for Global Warming. Very few dispute it his happening, they simply oppose the ridiculous and unnecessary political solutions being put forward. Here are some facts for you.

    Fact: in the last 15000 years recovering from an ice age (a blink in history) sea levels have risen over 400ft averaging 2.5ft/century, estimated sea level rise this century is 9 inches less than 1/3 the long term average.

    Fact: The CO2 greenhouse effect alone does not explain recent warming. Water vapor is the main driver behind the greehhouse effect, only when assuming a positive feedback from water vapor can you massage the numbers to blame warming on CO2.

    Fact: Computer models are sorely lacking in being able to predict cloud effects and many don’t even make an attempt. Since water vapor is the main driver of climate change and cloud/rain plays a huge role in determining water vapor levels (and clouds have their own cooling effect) you’d think this would be something to fix before mankind makes major decisions.

    Fact: Ocean heat content and World temperatures have plateaued and even gone down slightly over the last few years which none of the models predicted.

    Leftists also like to ignore the hoards of research showing government growth negatively effects economic growth. You have to really rig the study to show no correlation and some have shown a positive for specific spending such as education, but the balance of the science is in favor of limited government. Who cares about economic growth you say? Long term differences in growth rates create large disparities, similiar to how compounding interest will boost your bank account.

    So yes, a few currently on the right oppose science on meaningless historical points like whether the big bank or the big god created the universe. The left opposes the science of progress and growth which in turn kills million or billions of people.

  • Doug Hunter

    Only 10,000 (again, a blink of an eye in goeological terms) years ago glaciers were a mile thick over much of the midwest and many northern areas in the US. I think glaciers have been retreating for awhile now, manmade global warming or not.

  • Doug Hunter

    Sorry, I love facts. If your worried about the doomsday scenario of Antarctic icecap melt. Just remember the AVERAGE temperature in Antarctica is -56F. That’s 88 degrees below freezing by my calculation. It ain’t gong to happen.

  • http://cockroachpeople.com Rey Lopez-Calderon

    Dave said: “Republicans don’t oppose global warming because they don’t believe in it. They oppose it because they believe that it is being advanced as a concern primarily for political rather than scientific reasons.”

    Does that hold for evolution and intelligent design as well?

  • Doug Hunter

    “Does that hold for evolution and intelligent design as well?”

    Are you really that dense or do you just find it enjoyable to troll dumb questions?

  • http://cockroachpeople.com Rey Lopez-Calderon

    “Sorry, I love facts. If your worried about the doomsday scenario of Antarctic icecap melt. Just remember the AVERAGE temperature in Antarctica is -56F. That’s 88 degrees below freezing by my calculation. It ain’t gong to happen.”

    Me too. The average daily temperature in Chicago was 49 degrees Fahrenheit (above freezing), therefore it will never snow in Chicago.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    As for the article, the title tells more than the article itself does about why Republicans think the way that they do on these issues. It’s not a matter of being against science, it’s a matter of being skeptical (the way scientists are supposed to be) of scientific positions which seem to be used to advance political agendas.

    Dave, you’re ASSUMING that the scientists don’t have a healthy sense of skepticism. Beware of such assumptions. If you know ANYthing of academia – and you DO – then you know how professors (regardless of their academic field) take a nearly obscene delight in tearing down the research and conclusions of other professors. You know better than I what ‘peer-reviewed’ means.

    But when it comes to global warming, those who are most qualified, who have done by far the most peer-reviewed research, are almost completely united in raising the alarm…and they hope they’re wrong because NObody wants to see just how bad it can get!

    Republicans don’t oppose global warming because they don’t believe in it.

    WRONG! A Pew Research poll and a Gallup poll BOTH show that a MAJORITY of Republicans don’t believe in global warming AT ALL.

    They oppose it because they believe that it is being advanced as a concern primarily for political rather than scientific reasons. Ask a Republican and you’ll find they’re perfectly happy with reducing emissions and cutting carbon output. They just don’t like the idea of the restrictions being focused on America while ignoring polluters whose output relative to GDP is enormously greater. They see that as political and rightly so.

    Dave, I’d LOVE to see you provide ANY proof that Republicans are happy with reducing emissions and cutting carbon output. BUT YOU’RE RIGHT that it’s all political…because the Republicans are putting politics ahead of scientific FACT.

    The same holds true with your other energy-related issue, drilling oil wells. Republicans don’t see why we have to cripple ourselves in the short term while looking for long-term solutions to energy problems. The fact is that green technology (except nuclear) is not ready to go off the shelf at a reasonable cost. We still need the oil to keep industry going while we find better solutions.

    Um, Dave, guess what? If we opened up ANWAR and got ALL the oil that’s there, it would provide less than five hundred days’ worth of America’s oil demands. The answer ain’t more drilling – you don’t treat alcoholism by giving the guy more alcohol. The answer IS solar power on an industrial Manhattan-project-size scale…and nuclear power (which I most strongly support).

    And your homosexuality example is just retarded. The only people who care whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic are a small body of relatively conservative homosexuals who are too weak to make the proper argument for their homosexuality and want to hide behind science.

    ‘Relatively small body’? Gee, then WHY did 3/4 of Republicans vote for Proposition 8? WHY, if they didn’t care whether it was choice or genetics, did they even CARE to vote one way or another? Dave, you’re tap-dancing…and it shows.

    The truth is that we are self-aware and rational beings and even if we are born homosexual by genetics, we do have the ability to alter our behavior. We’re not slaves to our genes.

    And neither are animals? Homosexual activity has been observed in the great majority of mammals.

    And there also remains a percentage of homosexual behavior which is clearly not genetically motivated.

    “Oh, today I think I’ll make a CHOICE to get aroused with someone of my own sex!” Oh, that’s rich! Dave, do you not realize that if arousal were a CHOICE in the manner you believe, Viagra would’ve never made it to market?

    An honest Republican will tell you that it doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice, it’s the behavior which has to be judged as right or wrong.

    And I guess that the ‘honest’ Republicans are a very small minority, because a significant MAJORITY of Republicans are against same-sex marriage.

    And there’s a close to even split between those Republicans who find homosexuality acceptable and those who don’t.

    Is this really true? Please provide proof…especially given the opposition by the great majority of Republicans to gay marriage.

    As for your general premise, I could easily write just as troubling a list for Democrats, but the focus would by hypocrisy rather than the perception of opposition to science, and it would be a rich list given the recent behavior of the Obama administration.

    THEN PLEASE DO SO BY ALL MEANS! I’m really eager to see such a list, especially since only SIX PERCENT of scientists are Republican, and slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal.

    Dave, ‘liberal’ means ‘change’. ‘Conservative’ usually is in opposition to change. Scientists by their very nature are eager to CHANGE things…and that’s why scientists are MUCH more likely to be liberal than conservative…and that’s ALSO why most conservatives are skeptical of scientific research – because conservatives don’t like change.

  • http://cockroachpeople.com Rey Lopez-Calderon

    Glenn,

    more than a few people in this country do not understand science. Part of the problem is that science is poorly taught in schools. This is not a republican or democrat problem. Sure, Republican politicians have been the most vocal with regard to denying the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in public (it’s good populism), but it’s a non-sequitur to conclude therefore science-deniers are more likely to be Republican in general. Many Democrats and apolitical folk mistrust and/or don’t understand science as well.

    As evidenced by the comments here, partisanship further clouds many people’s already murky understanding of science.

  • http://cockroachpeople.com Rey Lopez-Calderon

    Doug said: “Are you really that dense or do you just find it enjoyable to troll dumb questions?”

    Doug, I wasn’t asking you. Perhaps that’s why you didn’t understand the question (i.e. “you” found it dumb).

  • Doug Hunter

    “The average daily temperature in Chicago was 49 degrees Fahrenheit (above freezing), therefore it will never snow in Chicago.”

    I’ll grant you this, during the summer the antarctic temperature does rise up to a balmy -20F on average (a mere 52 degrees below freezing)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    I’m a conservative and do believe in Global Warming, however, Al Gore has hijacked this issue for MONEY & POWER! Did anyone see Gore’s latest public speaking engagement?

    Daring to Question Al Gore

    Guess Gore didn’t want to answer the question but even shut down a reporter who asked about the “9 Significant Errors in Gore’s Movie” from a judge in the British High Court. HMMM

  • Clavos

    The author’s entire premise, both in the article, as well as in his responses in the comments thread is a combination of two logical fallacies often committed by those not well schooled in logic: the first is the Appeal to Authority argument, which is fallacious because it assumes the infallibility of the authority, in this case, those scientists who support the idea that GW is anthropogenic. The author’s second fallacy is employed to bolster the first, and is known as the Argument by Consensus, or Authority of the Many. This argument assumes that “If many believe so, it is so.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    ‘Logical’ refutation fails where hard, measurable evidence proves the claim of the authority…and particularly when there is a dearth of evidence proving otherwise.

    When it comes to theories, Clavos – and Dave – perhaps neither of you are aware of the standard to which most scientists hold eacy other. ‘Gravity’ is still a theory…yet we all know it’s quite real. ‘Evolution’ is still a theory…yet scientists have documented many instances of observed evolution in species of every kingdom.

    One global-warming denier above made many claims…but provided NOT ONE link proving those claims other than something having to do with genetically-engineered crops. Big whoop.

    I would REALLY like it if the conservatives on BC would learn to provide PROOF of their claims from reputably sources, rather than simply leaning on personal opinion and ‘logical’ arguments not much different from the type of arguments the Jesuits used to refute Galileo.

    But the BC conservatives won’t – because they can’t. That’s not a dare…that’s a statement of fact.

  • Doug Hunter

    You couldn’t kill em by shutting down access to modern crops and farming methods, you didn’t get em all by banning DDT and watching them suffer with Malaria, you’ve tried to hand out condoms and offer abortion service but it’s been insufficient, you’re against economic growth and capitalist policies that countries could use to pull themselves out of poverty, maybe when you shut off the power in the name of global warming it’ll do the trick!

    Dogma over facts.

  • Clavos

    ‘Logical’ refutation fails where hard, measurable evidence proves the claim of the authority…

    Not a refutation. You’re just repeating the same fallacy.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Then according to you, a jury is a logically-fallacious way of deciding guilt or innocence because juries decide according to evidence.

    And Clavos – if you’re going to refute authority, it is truly erroneous to do so without hard evidence to back yourself up. The hard evidence is on the side of the climatologists and not on the side of the Republicans.

  • http://cockroachpeople.com Rey Lopez-Calderon

    Clavos said: “The author’s entire premise, both in the article, as well as in his responses in the comments thread is a combination of two logical fallacies often committed by those not well schooled in logic: the first is the Appeal to Authority…”

    Actually Clavos, the argumentum ad verecundiam becomes a fallacy only when the authority is “not an expert in the field in which one is speaking; the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided **down the middle**[my emphasis] on the subject; no explicit reference is made to the authority.” I’m quoting Quine, with whom I assume you are familiar with.

  • Doug Hunter

    “I would REALLY like it if the conservatives on BC would learn to provide PROOF of their claims from reputably sources…but the BC conservatives won’t – because they can’t. That’s not a dare…that’s a statement of fact”

    Wrong again Glenn.

    ***Damn comment sensor. I researched carefully every point I made in #12 with links and it got blocked.***

    Anyway, to sum up for Glenn who enjoys being tedious and whose false statements I’ve had to correct on multiple occasion here goes. (I’ve proven him wrong so often he now refuses to speak to me)

    #1 Sea level Rise

    Just wikipedia “sea level rise” and you’ll find a chart showing 400ft rise in 15000 years and the data on measured SLR of 1.8-2.8 MM/year (7-11 inches/century) and IPCC projections of 7-23 inches. My statement is within projections based on all of these.

    #2 CO2 alone not responsible for warming.

    From a well researched pro AGW Yale Forum article called ‘Water Vapor Feedback’. Here’s a relevant quote:

    “Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2. So why all the attention on carbon dioxide and its ilk? Is water vapor the real culprit causing global warming? The answer is that water vapor is indeed responsible for a major portion of Earth’s warming over the past century and for projected future warming.”

    #3 Claims on modeling cloud feedbacks.

    Relevant quotes from IPCC fourth assesment report section 8.6.3, half the models show positive feedbacks and half negative, basically they have no clue:

    “Modelling assumptions controlling the cloud water phase (liquid, ice or mixed) are known to be critical for the prediction of climate sensitivity. However, the evaluation of these assumptions is just beginning”

    “Although the errors in the simulation of the different cloud types may eventually compensate and lead to a prediction of the mean CRF in agreement with observations, they cast doubts on the reliability of the model cloud feedbacks”

    “Boundary-layer clouds have a strong impact on the net radiation budget and cover a large fraction of the global ocean… understanding of the physical processes that control the response of boundary-layer clouds and their radiative properties to a change in climate remains very limited.”

    The other claims can likewise be checked against relevant sources but I’m too lazy to continue.

  • Clavos

    Then according to you, a jury is a logically-fallacious way of deciding guilt or innocence because juries decide according to evidence.

    Only in principle, Glenn. In the real world they often decide for a variety of specious reasons, including emotion, manipulation by the prosecution or defense and even prejudice. This is why a good trial lawyer will spend a great deal of time and effort on jury selection.

    …if you’re going to refute authority, it is truly erroneous to do so without hard evidence to back yourself up.

    See commments #s 1, 5, 12, 13, and 14 in this thread, read the writings of such distinguished scientists as Roy Spencer, S. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy (a signer of the 2001 IPCC report), among many others (the number of scientists challenging the extent of the anthropogenesis of GW now exceeds the number of signatories to the 2007 IPCC report by a factor of 13X).

    Also, here, here, and here.

  • Clavos

    …the argumentum ad verecundiam becomes a fallacy only when the authority is “not an expert in the field in which one is speaking…

    Not quite, Rey. An appeal which insists on the infallibility of the authority is ipso facto fallacious. The experts themselves can be be mistaken, subject to pressure from peers or the sources of their funding, they can have a vested financial interest in the matter, or even be deliberately deceptive for a variety of reasons.

  • zingzing

    for all your arguing over ad verecundiam and ipso facto ad naiseum, it’s really hard to think of a reason WHY 97% of climatologists would want to spread a lie.

    it’s a pretty difficult position to defend, and it has some really nasty consequences if you’re wrong. i’m not willing to take that bet, and neither is the rest of the world. i think that the gw-deniers are going to have to sit on the sidelines and watch. as they should, i guess.

  • Creationist

    The article reminds me of a jab a democratic politician once stated that her party was a party that was motivated to act by (scientific) evidence. Nice to solicit such sponsorship but I don’t think science is such a monolith™ as this article suggests. There is a diversity of opinion in science and to assume science would rubberstamp a view on climate change with only 150 years of consideration seems premature. Especially since the initial data took place in a time where accurate data recording was incomplete and done with crude technology. Scientifically speaking, if a study is started with questionable or compromised data the resulting conclusion can be, well, screwed. Statistics proves this repeatedly.

    About the thesis that one belief automatically indicates the presence or lack thereof of another belief? It doesn’t really follow.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Incredible.

    Clavos and some other guy is trying so hard to deny global warming…but it doesn’t work. Why? Because neither one (nor any other conservative like Dave) is presenting ANY proof against global warming.

    And the worst thing is that we liberals don’t want to be right on global warming! We WANT to be wrong, because we know what will happen if we’re right! But sadly, we’re not wrong. We wish we were….

  • zingzing

    part of me would actually love to shove it in their sunburned faces. kidding. only kidding. in yo face! oh, the sweetness…

  • http://cockroachpeople.com Rey Lopez-Calderon

    Clavos said: “An appeal which insists on the infallibility of the authority is ipso facto fallacious.”

    That is true when one insists on “infallibility”–though your use of ipso facto is not quite right since you have established no such fact. Glenn clearly referred to a consenus of the scientific community (not its absolute infallibility). Such a straw man argument is also indicative of those who are,in your words”not well schooled in logic.”

    Glenn not being an expert himself is perfectly logical in choosing a consensus not evenly divided “down the middle”–hence my appeal to yet another authority, Quine. The subtlety that exists between the application of informal logica and formal logic to real life situations often takes time to master. You yourself resorted to an argumentum ad hominem when you said “experts themselves can be be mistaken, subject to pressure from peers or the sources of their funding, they can have a vested financial interest in the matter…” None of those facts–even if you had established them (you didn’t)–would punch a whole in the validty of the scientific arguments themselves, let alone the fallibility of the scientists in question. A better way to demonstrate the invalidity of the infallible scientist(s) ( again your straw man argument not Glenn’s) would have been to say something like “we know that Newton was not infallible with respect gravity because Einstein…blah, blah, blah…

  • Clavos

    Clavos and some other guy is trying so hard to deny global warming

    As always, your reading comprehension is defective, Glenn. At no point have I denied GW. My point has to do with the extent to which is anthropogenic, and in fact, I cited several articles on that point, as well as a number of authors.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “My point has to do with the extent to which is anthropogenic.”

    jeez. no one is saying that it’s ALL humans. of course the climate will change over time. it’s not like some guy invented ice and we had an ice age.

    but we ARE contributing. we couldn’t not. and things are getting to the point where we don’t want to cause anything that wouldn’t happen naturally. obviously, we can’t change the course of nature.

    global warming, in whatever combination of human and natural causes, isn’t going to be good for us. we’re hastening the warming, there’s no doubt about it. the earth’s going to do what it’s going to do, but we’re pushing it over the edge. that’s the damn point.

    hemming and hawing and generally just being political about it is just a waste of time. we need to act sooner rather than later and it’s the people who say “no, let’s just keep going as we have been because this is all a hoax” are going to get us all killed.

  • Clavos

    That is true when one insists on “infallibility”…

    Which is exactly what those who propose Cap and Trade and other “remedies” for GW are doing: arguing even to the point as BHO did recently, that “All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” A speech in which he conveniently ignores the actual lack of “man-made [climatological] disasters” thus far, but what the hey, he’s the prez, so it’s OK.

    Glenn not being an expert himself is perfectly logical in choosing a consensus…

    Um, no. That’s yet another fallacy, which you, since you invoke Quine should know is an argumentum ad populum.

    And my description of the possible motives of the scientists was not an ad hominem, since all advocates of the validity of anthropogenic GW theory point to them and their work as the definitive proof of its existence and magnitude. Therefore, it’s legitimate to indicate the possibilities involving the people being set up as the source of definitive evidence and point out why their expertise does not necessarily assure that their arguments are unimpeachable or even valid. Nice try, though.

  • Doug Hunter

    “part of me would actually love to shove it in their sunburned faces. kidding. only kidding. in yo face! oh, the sweetness…”

    Well then, you’ll get your chance. We aren’t about to stop using carbon. Boondoggles like Waxman Markey will do essentially nothing (by their own estimate) to stop the upward trend. What they have proposed is a symbolic gesture that will cost real Americans real money and accomplish very little. Those are facts, that’s what we deal with.

    I know it’s fun to beat the straw man to death then reassemble and repeat ad infinitum you’re not even attempting to address the main point. I said it, Nalle said it, Clavos said it, it’s about the political side of GW.

    I’ll do a little formula so you can keep up with the chain of thought here.

    Global warming->Manmade Global Warming->Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming->Adaption or Mitigation->Government Mitigation Plans->Wealth Redistribution

    We’re arguing the last points, you’re arguing the first ones. First point virtually 100% certainty, second point 90% likelihood according to IPCC, then it gets murky. The potential catastrophic consequences you hear in the media are the tiny minority, they just happen to be interesting to print. I’m not solidly against anything but the last one.

    The answer isn’t carbon tax on companies and a credit back to consumers, that’s simply welfare relabeled. Even granting you silly tipping points (that conveniently coincide with global conferences) and catastrophic climate failure (Antarctica suddenly warming 50 nor 60 degrees) the only way to prevent rather than delay is to either 1) Quit using carbon taking our standard of living back to that of the 19th century killing off millions or billions of the population or 2) develop revolutionary affordable alternative energy technologies that will replace fossil fuels.

    When you’re ready for #2 we can progress ahead, until then I’m not interested in symbolic measures or killing off billions of humans.

  • http://cockroachpeople.com Rey Lopez-Calderon

    Clavos,

    you should consider studying more logic. If you actually think that the crux of informal logic vis a vis “experts” is an argumentum ad populum, then there is no point in continuing to argue the matter on this thread. Unless of course, you prefer to express your argument modally. I’d be happy to respond in that case (though I sense we would have a hard time agreeing on axiomatic restrictions).

  • Clavos

    Actually, Rey, it was you who addressed me first, so if you wish to disengage I have no objection.

    I will take under advisement your suggestion to renew my studies in logic, thanks for your input.

  • zingzing

    yes, doug, what we who are actually worried about global warming secretly plot is to kill off millions of humans and bring on global socialism. mwahaha haaa. ha. aaaa….

    and we are ready to “develop revolutionary affordable alternative energy technologies that will replace fossil fuels,” but you guys don’t want to put up the money to fund it. nor do you want to replace fossil fuels, as that would mess with the gasoline funds the republicans base most of their foreign policy on.

    ok, so maybe that last bit is a little over the top. but maybe it’s not. getting off of fossil fuels would radically change the power structure of the world. and if we are leading the way away from the use of fossil fuels, guess who’d come out on top? we’d no longer be chained to the middle east, china would fall far behind us, and our technological prowess would once again make us easily the most powerful (and clean) nation on earth. it’s a win-win. but you’re happy with the status quo. gas-junky.

  • Clavos

    “Technological prowess?”

    The USA?

    It is to laugh — you lost it years ago — to the Japanese and other Asians, as well as to the Irish, of all people.

  • zingzing

    that’s the point, clavos. we fell behind… we have a ticket back in. what did you think i was driving at?

  • zingzing

    weak, clavos, weak.

    give us money and motivation (and scientists from other nations that want the money) and the us could easily catch up. thing is, conservative government has limited our reach in two key areas: stem cells and green tech. throw money at science, it’ll reward you. box it up in politics and religion, and it’s stagnant.

  • zingzing

    and who’s this “you,” mr. miami?

  • Clavos

    give us money and motivation (and scientists from other nations that want the money) and the us could easily catch up.

    But you won’t.

    and who’s this “you,” mr. miami?

    You didn’t know we’re not part of the usa anymore?

    Think I’m kidding? Come down here and look around; ni hablamos inglés — you better be able to speak Spanish.

    And we like it that way.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “But you won’t.”

    why not? (three words isn’t enough.)

    “Think I’m kidding? Come down here and look around; ni hablamos inglés — you better be able to speak Spanish.”

    i’ve been there. and i got on quite well. although i do know a little spanish. actually got up to a literature level in college. and i do live in a spanish-speaking neighborhood. caught a woman talking about me the other day at the bodega and i called her out on it.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    as well as to the Irish, of all people.

    Sure and don’t the Irish love Americans, Clav? ‘Tis not to despair. They’ll be sharin’ the technological prowess with yez, so they will.

    It may even be that the Kilkenny – the world’s finest ale – will at last be sold in America, and you and me, Mr Nails, shall be raisin’ a glass together. ‘Tis too long since you and I sat on the porch watchin’ the trolls, so ’tis.

  • Doug Hunter

    I think the technology will materialize in time to save us, if not as the oil needle hits E we’re fucked.

  • Clavos

    Sure, and I do b’lieve you be right, Doc.

  • pablo

    Glenn says in his article:

    “It’s frustrating seeing so many refuse scientific facts just to protect their own political power and belief.

    I could not agree more. For the record I am not a republican.

    From the Club of Rome’s book “The First Global Revolution”

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
    famine, and the like would fit the bill”

    For those of you not familiar with The Club of Rome, it is another globalist government institution that works in tandem with the Bilderberg Group, the CFR, and the Rockefellers.

    Although many liberals mean well, they are naive to the extreme in what is really going on in the world today, in short they are suckers.

    Here is an article in the Daily Mail dated Oct 14, 2009, titled, “Whatever happened to global warming? How freezing temperatures are starting to shatter climate change theory.”

    Daily Mail article

    Global warming was invented by Chicken Little, and is being used by the globalists to scare people into accepting global governance and institute Agenda 21. The main proponent of this UN agenda is none other than Maurice Strong, who works for the Rothschild family.

    Another prime example of the extreme naivete of liberals is their continued support of Obama who is nothing less than a hack of the same globalists.

    Speaking of Obama, in particular about his place of birth. It is no wonder that many of us question it. Here is an article from 2004 in a Kenyan newspaper, The Standard, Which says in plain english:

    “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.” Link below

    Kenyan newspaper article

    If only the liberals were less naive and the conservatives had more of a heart, this world might have a chance. As it is now we are headed for disaster.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Yes, possibly among those 31000 “scientists” who signed on against the reality of man made global warming are some of the people who spent a significant amount of their working lives “improving” plastic vomit. I’d certainly value their opinion regarding global warming.

    The point that just being a “scientist” hardly qualifies one to render opinions on matters not of their particular concentration. Their having done so should require them to turn in the Captain Midnight decoder badges.

    The opinion of actual climatologists regarding THE FRIGGIN CLIMATE!!! should carry some gravitas, for crap’s sake.

    B

  • Jordan Richardson

    Nice to see the usual crowd still steeped in denial while the world roasts, burns and literally melts around them.

    Bravo, America, on being completely oblivious to reality and, yet again, reducing EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE WORLD (yes, not just in Precious America) to a fucking political one.

    The world thanks you. Idiots.

  • Clavos

    Yaaawwwwnnn…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Rey and Clavos –

    I did enjoy reading the discussion between the two of you on logic. Thank you both.

    That said, Clavos, you’ve tipped your hand. Your dependence on ‘logic’ to deny the obvious does you a disservice. This strongly reminds me of the time you (and Dave) denied the reliability of a poll showing that nearly half of Republicans subscribed to the ‘birther’ theory. You claimed that since the poll only asked something like 328 Republicans (or was it 528?), it couldn’t be representative of Republicans as a whole…despite the fact that Nate Silver – one of the foremost political statisticians in the country – stated that the polling agency and its methods were indeed reliable.

    “If you can’t present facts to refute the data, then claim the data isn’t valid.” That’s what you’re doing.

    BUT YOU DID at least provide some good references this time – references that are forcing me to dig deeper. THAT is what I’ve been asking for all along. Don’t give me logical double-talk, because ‘logical’ arguments can be used just as deceptively as statistics. If you use what you believe to be provable fact – and give reliable sources for those facts – then you might find a great deal more success in your arguments.

    But I think you should check your sources – follow the money, y’know? You mentioned four academicians: Roy Spencer, S. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy.

    For starters let’s look at Dr. Richard Lindzen:

    “[Lindzen] charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.”

    There’s Fred Singer, who must be a polymath because of the WIDE range of his expertise – check it out (from the same source as above)! “[Singer] has also published his doubts about the links between second hand smoke and lung cancer and between UV rays and skin cancer.” He worked for the Tobacco Institute in their ‘whitecoats project’ wherein the aim was to discredit those who spoke out about the effects of cigarette smoke.

    “[Singer’s] organization — the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) — has received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, according to a review of Exxon’s own financial documents and Greenpeace’s Exxonsecrets.org. That site also shows that many of the other organizations with which Singer works — Frontiers of Freedom, the Cato Institute, National Center for Policy Analysis — have received large grants from Exxon as well.”

    Now look at this source to find out how much more Lindzen and Singer were being paid by Big Oil.

    Then there’s Roy Spencer, who was a Co-author of an Interfaith Stewardship Alliance report critical of the Evangelical Climate Initiative’s Call To Action urging a swift response to global warming. The ISA letter argues that “the most prudent response is not to try (almost certainly unsuccessfully and at enormous cost) to prevent or reduce whatever slight warming might really occur.” They suggest adaptation instead.

    Like Lindzen and Singer, he’s also a member of the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

    And Christy and Roy Spencer admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.

    Christy had said, “Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” But the opposite was true.

    “These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

    In a debate, Christy said: “I don’t see danger. I see, in some cases, adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee, at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and a more fertile atmosphere.”

    Read about Christy’s misadventures here.

    On the links you provided, I suggest you take a look at the, um, eccentricities of the ‘scientists’ involved in the first three links (hint: Lindzen was involved in all three), and for the fourth link, the 700-odd scientists who spoke out against global warming, take a look at this list of who the initial 413 scientists included:

    – 84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
    – 44 are television weathermen
    – 20 are economists
    – 70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
    – Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.

    Those on the list with NO expertise in the field should be considered ‘filler’, and any list with that much ‘filler’ should be considered quite suspect.

    OKAY, CLAVOS? I’ve refuted in detail EVERY ONE of your references. Dude, you need to learn to follow the money trail…and in nearly every case the money trail goes back to the industry with the most to lose in the fight against global warming – Big Oil.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Clavos –

    Please peruse this NOAA chart of mean land and sea temperatures from 1880 till the present. It ties directly in with the Industrial Revolution and there is no ‘eleven-year cycle’ of increased or decreased heat from the sun.

  • Clavos

    I have been aware of the money trail for a long time, Glenn, and I believe that Big Oil, who are not fools, are already prepared to make even bigger money from GW than they do from oil, and they are not going to stop selling oil and its byproducts before it runs out, so the source of Lindzen et al’s fundiing is not a concern to me, especially when their published material is endorsed by other scientists, which it is.

    Following the money trail is a two-edge sword, Glenn, many of the GW advocates are receiving government and issues-oriented NGO money for their research, and it’s very much in worldwide government’s interest for the populace to believe we’re all going to suffer if GW is not controlled.

    So you follow your scientists and I’ll follow mine.

    Oh, and Glenn, I’m much too old fashioned (and conservative) to be a “dude.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Oh, and Glenn, I’m much too old fashioned (and conservative) to be a “dude.”

    I had to chuckle – I’m not yet at the half-century mark, but it’s not often I get my comeuppance anymore from someone significantly more senior than myself. My apology…but with a grin.

    But back to the funding issue, the source of the funding isn’t the only problem I listed, is it? No – far from it. Every single scientist (every one!) that came out on the ‘denier’ side has either erroneous research, supported other non-starters like Big Tobacco (for lots of money), or had little or no expertise in climatology.

    Add that to the non-scientific ‘fillers’ who lent their names to Sen. Inhofe’s list…and things start to smell really bad.

    And NO, big oil does NOT stand to make huge amounts of money from GW. Why? Ships. Refineries. Pipelines. Oil wells. All of which is manufactured and operated cradle-to-grave by hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of human beings.

    There is such a thing as ‘corporate momentum’, and every time someone mentions GW and renewable energy, all the people whose livelihoods depend upon the above behemoth logistic system see an attack on their livelihoods, their futures, because they DO stand to lose a lot of money.

    So please don’t tell me that Big Oil is really on our side. Big Oil is on Big Oil’s side, and they will stop at nothing to protect and preserve their corporate momentum. The saddest part is that there’s not one man or one group of men that can shift that momentum…the corporate mindset doesn’t work that way.

  • Clavos

    So please don’t tell me that Big Oil is really on our side.

    No corporation is on our side any more than any government is, Glenn, and you’re naive to think either is on your side.

    I didn’t say that, I said they WILL make big money from GW , and believe me, they will. They will not give up their current role as the world’s energy providers, you’ll see. They will start buying up every startup green company that shows promise, hold their patents while the oil runs out and then produce the green products.

    That’s how I would deal with the green movement if I ran Big Oil. I certainly wouldn’t give up the energy business, and they won’t. As a Big Oil stockholder, I expect them to do just that.

    Every single scientist (every one!) that came out on the ‘denier’ side has either erroneous research, supported other non-starters like Big Tobacco (for lots of money), or had little or no expertise in climatology.

    Bull. Both Spencer and Lindzen (to name just two) are highly respected academic climatologists.

  • Clavos

    I had to chuckle – I’m not yet at the half-century mark, but it’s not often I get my comeuppance anymore from someone significantly more senior than myself. My apology…but with a grin.

    Nothing to do with age, Glenn. I wasn’t a “dude” when I was ten. Or twenty. Or thirty.

    I”m too old fashioned for trendiness.

  • Clavos

    An interesting article (posted for the benefit of those who have doubts about GW; you supporters needn’t bother reading it — you won’t believe it; save yourselves the trouble) on the research and science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory in Quadrant, an Australian scholarly journal.

  • pablo

    An excellent article Clavos. I do have a question for you however. What in your opinion is the reason that many people of political note are pushing the GW phenomenon so much? As you already know I have my opinion on it. What is yours? I am not talking about Gore, I am talking about the collective of many nations, the UN, and others of note.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Nice to see the usual crowd still steeped in denial while the world roasts, burns and literally melts around them.

    Jordan, we’re at the end of a 10 year cooling trend which has erased all the warming which went on in the 90s. Let us know how your winter goes up there in Canada, because down here in the US we’re expecting the earliest and heaviest snowfall in half a century this year.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Pablo,

    I don’t think there is any one overriding reason, and I don’t think that just political people are pushing the GW theory; it seems obvious that there are significant commercial entities (principally the oil and finance industries) involved as well.

    That said, on the political side I think there are two overriding reasons: government growth, which here in the US has been a an ever-accelerating phenomenon since WW II, and the reason for that growth, which is ever-increasing control of the populace. GW seems to offer an unprecedented opportunity to accelerate substantially these two aspects of US politics.

    Controlling GW (if it even can be controlled, which I personally believe is not possible, because I believe it to be a natural cycle in the ever-changing state of the atmosphere principally caused by other than manmade conditions) will be very costly, not only in the sense of expenditures, but also in damage to the economy as presently constituted (I don’t think its proponents have thoroughly thought through this aspect of the issue; they’ve focused on the expenditure side of the equation, which likely will result in new technologies and thus jobs and revenue, but dismiss the flip side, which will manifest in substantial losses of jobs and industries deemed to be “dirty,” as well as massive tax increases.)

    I think the losses will far exceeed the gains and likely cripple our economy for decades to come, while others (notably the Chinese and Indians) will thrive and prosper to our detriment, because they will not burden themselves with the strictures or the taxes (Cap and Trade, e.g.) being proposed in this country. There is a not inconsiderable risk too, that the projected rise of new technology and the industry to produce it foir consumption does not take place here in the US.

    No matter how it’s sliced, our headlong, panic-driven plunge into attempting to control what is arguably a natural phenomenon beyond human control, is ill-advised without further discussion and debate, particularly in the scientific community.

  • http://marksaleski.com Mark Saleski

    Jordan, we’re at the end of a 10 year cooling trend which has erased all the warming which went on in the 90s. Let us know how your winter goes up there in Canada, because down here in the US we’re expecting the earliest and heaviest snowfall in half a century this year.

    warming trends are long-term, so you can’t base anything on very recent data.

    just like correlation and causation are not the same thing, a mistake that’s all too common with political ‘discourse’ on the internet.