Prev  1  2  3  Next

Comments 51 to 100 out of 122:

51. actually thoughtful at 06:02 AM on 26 August, 2011
    Paul D your comments regarding the statistical likelihood of a Republican vs Democrat politician agreeing with AGW appears to ignore the broad, sweeping, overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW. In deed, one has to ignore the science to deny AGW. That one party does, and one party doesn't, would appear to be caused by one party basing their understanding of the world on ideology (you could loosely understand this as "seeing the world as you want to see it") and one party basing their understanding of the world on science (ie "seeing the world as it is (to the best of our ability)"). There is no room for a "he said, she said" approach to climate change. There is the immutable truth, which science hopes and labors to reveal; and there is wishes and wants, which ideology strives to make palatable to the masses. There is no equivalency between these two approaches. Attempts to create such an equivalence immediately lead into the shark infested waters of setting the science aside so the less knowledgeable participants can feel good about themselves. Better to educate the less knowledgeable than to invoke some sort of "truth lies in the middle between science and ideology" pablum. There be dragons.
    0 0
52. John Hartz at 06:18 AM on 26 August, 2011
    Another recent article on the topic du jour: “A Fundamental Republican Science Problem” by Andy Revkin, DOT Earth, NY Times, Aug 22, 2011
    0 0
53. Eric the Red at 06:23 AM on 26 August, 2011
    AT, I think your description of one party being ideology-based and one being science-based is much too simplistic. While I agree that there is a huge difference between the fringe elements in each party, the middle-ground politicians have similar opinions on this issue. This issue is also not as cut and dry as some others, like abortion or the death penalty. There exists a wide range of future projections and possible solutions among scientists, let alone politicians. Your last quote could actually come true.
    0 0
54. muoncounter at 06:48 AM on 26 August, 2011
    EtR#53: Please identify the middle-ground politicians on the Republican side. Is Huntsman the one and only (and does he stand a chance?) How are any of the others' stances on climate change based on science? And the issue is cut and dry; either we do something or we do not. Postponement and 'we don't know' equates to doing nothing. It's as cut and dry as that. BTW, the post needs to be updated with Romney's latest: “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” “What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to.” Better do it quick, because his campaign might not last that long. Corporations are people. So is Soylent Green.
    0 0
55. Composer99 at 07:10 AM on 26 August, 2011
    I have replied to EtR's final comment on Texas weather on the thread I suggested earlier.
    0 0
56. Stephen Baines at 07:57 AM on 26 August, 2011
    EtR I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on anti-science thinking, so I agree with your admonition there. I have heard crazy-making things from some dems, just not with regard to climate science. The autism debate comes to mind. "the middle-ground politicians have similar opinions on this issue." I would have agreed with you some years ago. A lot of scientists I know are what might be called fiscal conservatives. Heck, Hansen, Alley, Emmanuel and Keeling are/were all republicans - as was my doctoral advisor. We used to have rep. Boehlert in NY, a real champion of science. But in the last week I have read at least 10 posts on blogs stating outright that belief in AGW amounts to a religion and brands one as a liberal democrat out to steal liberty (at the very least). Now blog posts are probably not a random sample, but this is what people see more and more of when they move about the web - it is the public face of the debate. Believing the evidence for AGW has somehow become a "political stance." It has an effect...I see it in my classroom. So things seem to have changed - and this post points to one mechanism behind that change. "Middle ground politicians" who believe the science (e.g. Huntsman) can no longer survive the Republican Primary Process. The leadership has shifted to the right to appease the most militant forces that drive that process - and that rightward shift includes consideration of climate change because of its (presumed) implications for policy. It seems to be that the GOP as whole, being more of an ordered top down ship than the dems (who are historically all over the place), has shifted toward more extreme positions on climate science in response. That process is also purging the party of that moderate pro-science contingent that has always existed previously. Even strongly conservative scientists like Emmanuel are now being disenfranchised. There has been a deliberate attempt to caste science related to policy in a purely political light, so as to discredit the science. It will be a real problem for the GOP in the end, and maybe for all of us, depending on how long this trend lasts. Nature will do what it does regardless of the debate. You claim projections vary widely, and they do for very real reasons, that is actually a worrying thing -- things could be worse than we expect! Even the low end of IPCC projections would present sizable challenges. As AT and mc point out, stalemate on the issue of whether AGW is occuring is not a neutral stance. It effectively represents a decision to not believe the evidence for climate change, and not to accept the sizeable risks associated therewith.
    0 0
57. Eric the Red at 08:17 AM on 26 August, 2011
    Stephen, I would echo most of your thoughts. The party leadership may pull the Republican party do far the general populace to become an endangered species. There will be those Republicans who stick with the party just for the support on election day, because jumping ship would be political suicide in their district. Local politicians do not seem to echo the party leadership. Yes, things could be worse. I have seen predictions both much higher and lower than the IPCC range, which I believe is only one standard deviation. Correct me if I am wrong on that. This is not meant to inflict uncertainty into the debate and therefore, stalement (as some have accuse me of inciting), but rather to show that the issue is not black and white, but has multiple shades of grey.
    0 0
58. John Hartz at 09:42 AM on 26 August, 2011
    "In fairness to Romney, he is not all that unique in his new rhetoric. For years, politicians have confessed uncertainty on the science and, from that, concluded that the government should do too little or nothing to address it. This line might continue to have political appeal in GOP primaries. But it’s still non-sensical on the merits." Source: "Mitt Romney’s position on climate change" by Stephen Stromberg, PostPartisan blog, Washington Post, Aug 25, 2011
    0 0
59. John Hartz at 10:01 AM on 26 August, 2011
    A slideshow version of a portion of Dana's article was posted today (Aug 25) by The Center for Public Integrity. Here's an excerpt from the intoductory text. "While 74 percent of Americans are worried about climate change, according to a March study, all but two of the Republican candidates for president have expressed skepticism about climate change. And while the Environmental Protection Agency was created four decades ago by a leading Republican, some of today's GOP candidates want to strip it of authority or shut it down almost entirely . Records of some of the candidates show their stances aren't just the stuff of campaign trail speeches." Source: "Eight views on climate change: A guide to the Republican candidates" by Evan Bush, iWatchNews, Aug 25, 2011
    0 0
60. dana1981 at 10:16 AM on 26 August, 2011
    badger - where do you see the slideshow on that page?
    0 0
61. Tom Curtis at 10:47 AM on 26 August, 2011
    Eric the Red @53, your presumption that both parties are equally prone to ideology assumes both parties have equally extreme positions around a centrist position. That assumption is false. This can be seen on the Political Compass of the 2008 Presidential elections: The compass shows two axes. The Left-Right Axis shows a continuum from complete state control of production and consumption of economic goods, to zero state control of the production and consumption of goods. Thus the outer extreme of the Left-Right axis would involve slightly more control than imposed in Stalinist Russia, while the extreme Right would propose no state ownership or regulation of economic goods, and zero taxes. The Authoritarian - Libertarian Axis represents control of personal liberty. An extreme Authoritarian believes in complete State regulation of and individuals moral life, whereas an extreme Libertarian believes in the complete non-regulation of an individuals moral life, except as it involves theft, coercion or violence towards others. What is missing is an axis for the distinction between autocracy and democracy, which I believe to be a glaring lapse; and also an axis for the distinction between constitutionalism (rule of law) and rule by persons. There is no meaningful distinction on these axes between major parties in America, so the lack is not significant for this purpose. Coming back to the main point, the centrist positions of the Democrats shows a lack of ideological commitment on their part. The presumption that their views on the science is strongly influenced by ideology is therefore without warrant.
    0 0
62. muoncounter at 12:05 PM on 26 August, 2011
    Tom C#61: Nice find. I wonder about the scaling of the axes. They have an interactive function for the US Senate; checking only the red and blue states, there is a clear ideological split. It's a bit dated, as there are some good names who were purged in last year's Tea Party beer hall extravaganza. The divide on climate policy is encapsulated in that split.
    0 0
63. apiratelooksat50 at 12:57 PM on 26 August, 2011
    Muon at 62 "...who were purged in last year's Tea Party beer hall extravaganza." Do you care to explain this statement? I really don't understand it and I really don't understand why you aren't moderated at times.
    0 0
64. Eric the Red at 13:05 PM on 26 August, 2011
    I don't know pirate, but muon looks like he put himself in the middle (the red me) and surrounded himself with red and blue dots.
    0 0
65. scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 26 August, 2011
    ??? "me" on that diagram is "Maine". (And I have never lived in the US).
    0 0
66. muoncounter at 13:18 PM on 26 August, 2011
    Thanks, phil; you beat me to identing the great state of Maine (moderate Republican senators, but a new far-right governor). BTW, 'pa' doesn't mean 'father.' pirate, apparently you've never enjoyed this particular pale ale. Yes, a Tea Party beer, debuted no doubt, in a hall where there was some form of celebration.
    0 0
67. John Hartz at 14:33 PM on 26 August, 2011
    "Perry's remarks give the impression that the science of global warming is in dispute, that some scientists feel one way, and some scientists feel another way. He says that skepticism is growing. In fact, our research shows that's not the case. We found that there is solid consensus among the major scientific organizations and that the skeptics seems to be small minority. We rate his statement False." Source: "Rick Perry says more and more scientists are questioning global warming," PoliticFact.com, Aug 17, 2011 To access this informative post, click here.
    0 0
68. Eric the Red at 23:49 PM on 26 August, 2011
    I suspect that Perry is referring to the growing numbers who are signing reports like the following: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport While the number of scientists signing these types of reports has increased, it does not necessarily indicate that more scientists are questioning global warming, just that more are coming forward. The numbers could have always been there.
    0 0
69. Bob Lacatena at 00:52 AM on 27 August, 2011
    68, Eric the Red, Signings like this are a complete joke. They are the equivalent of a commercial for toothpaste saying

    4 out of 5 housewives, midwifes, little children, college graduates and trash collectors surveyed prefer Zango toothpaste over the leading brand for adequate thermal reduction of invasive oral compounds.

    From Eric's link (as if this is a positive):

    The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

    Being a scientist, even being intelligent, doesn't qualify one to lead the world on an issue they do not understand. Quite honestly, I find extreme competence in one field to be the first and leading cause of the Dunning-Kruger afflicted. Honestly, this amounts to an appeal to non-authority. It amounts to saying "trust me, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I should, because I know about something entirely different." [And I'll bet they all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.]
    0 0
70. John Hartz at 01:27 AM on 27 August, 2011
    Sphaerica et al: Re Eric the Red's baiting posts... "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
    0 0
71. muoncounter at 01:52 AM on 27 August, 2011
    EtR#68: "Perry is referring to the growing numbers who are signing reports" Growing numbers, signing reports; sounds like a groundswell of opinion is building. However, EtR fails to mention that the date of this report is December, 2008. Old, irrelevant biased 'news' (it was written by Marc Morano). Badgersouth: This particular tree had no roots in reality; hence it made no sound at all.
    0 0
72. Eric the Red at 02:23 AM on 27 August, 2011
    Muon, That was the first report in 2008; it had 400 signers. The second in 209 had 700. The most recent had 1000. Just a possibility. As I said previously, this is not the best way to do science, although there are many here who seem to think so.
    0 0
73. John Hartz at 02:31 AM on 27 August, 2011
    Suggested reading: "Why Rick Perry Would Put the World on a Fast Track to Total Meltdown: From calling the BP disaster an "act of god" to responding to his state's drought with prayer, Perry's anti-environmental resume is extensive." To access this informative article by Tara Lohan posted (Aug 25)on Alternet, click here.
    0 0
74. actually thoughtful at 03:52 AM on 27 August, 2011
    Actually thoughtful: "...Better to educate the less knowledgeable than to invoke some sort of "truth lies in the middle between science and ideology" pablum. There be dragons." EtR": "...Your last quote could actually come true." Dragons! This sounds very interesting! I want one.
    0 0
75. Eric the Red at 03:56 AM on 27 August, 2011
    Be careful. Don't get burned.
    0 0
76. John Hartz at 04:15 AM on 27 August, 2011
    More bad news from the USA… “House Republicans Seek to Remove U.S. Funding for UN Climate Efforts: Their primary targets are the IPCC and UNFCCC, key programs designed to educate policymakers about climate science and slow warming worldwide.” by Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, Aug 26, 2011 To access this in-depth article by Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, Aug 26, 2011, click here
    0 0
77. John Hartz at 06:28 AM on 27 August, 2011
    On the good news front... "Despite Rick Perry, consensus on climate change keeps strengthening" by Brad Pulmer, Washington Post, Aug 23, 2011 To access this article, click here
    0 0
78. John Hartz at 08:00 AM on 28 August, 2011
    More on Rick Perry's beliefs... "If we are descended of some blend of apes, then we can’t have been created in God’s image. If we establish Earth’s age at 4.5 billion years, then we contradict the biblical view that God created the world just 6,500 years ago. And finally, if we say that climate change is partly the result of man’s actions, then God can’t be the One who punishes man’s sins with floods, droughts, earthquakes and hurricanes. If He wants the climate to change, then He will so ordain, and we’ll pray more." Source: "Rick Perry, the Republicans’ Messiah?" by Kathleen Parker, Washington Post, Aug 26, 2011 To access this insightful op-ed, click here.
    0 0
79. muoncounter at 08:10 AM on 28 August, 2011
    Badgersouth#78: Just to be clear, you are quoting from Parker's piece, not directly from Perry. I have no trouble believing that's likely to be his position, but he hasn't said it (yet).
    0 0
80. muoncounter at 08:39 AM on 28 August, 2011
    Badgersouth: The results of this survey (yes, another survey) may help explain Perry's position on science. - Most of the Texans in the survey — 51 percent — disagree with the statement, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Thirty-five percent agreed with that statement, and 15 percent said they don't know. - Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don't know. Texas is near the bottom of the class in high school graduation percentage; Guvna P is a product of that system.
    0 0
81. John Hartz at 10:38 AM on 28 August, 2011
    @muoncounter#79 Yes, the paragraph that I excerpted from Parker's column are her words, not Perry's.
    0 0
82. PrezMulkeyUnity at 07:44 AM on 29 August, 2011
    In order for these politicians to have credibility with their anti-science arguments, they must damage or dismiss the credibility of our most trusted scientific institutions. I have seen this strategy before. I recently had the displeasure of sharing a podium with Willie Soon. Soon began his talk with ad hominem attacks on Holdren, Cicerone, and Lubchenco. His statements about the first two implied that they had an ulterior motive and were in collusion. The logical extension of his remarks is that there is a vast conspiracy at the top to control U.S. science. For Lubchenco, his remarks were more personal, suggesting that she knows that she is propagating falsehoods about ocean acidification and that she is seeking personal gain by doing so. I suspected that Soon had been coached, and it seems likely that he is well rewarded for his efforts. In contrast, my colleague and I from the University of Idaho were at the symposium to present the view of legitimate science, and we were certainly not well paid. Soon's attacks and bogus science were well received by an audience full of partisans, most of whom held advanced degrees. We should be deeply concerned with the fact that leading presidential candidates have assailed the credibility of our best scientific institutions. As reviewed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the list of organizations and academies endorsing the basic tenants of AGW is exhaustive . l believe that it is urgent that each of us speak up to defend the legitimate science and the organizations that support science. It can be argued that scholars who remain silent in the face of explicit scientific falsehoods are turning their backs on the ethical imperative that comes with the privilege of their position in society. We need not be political in defense of science. We need not be blatantly partisan or personal in our responses. The peer-reviewed science is solid and it speaks for itself. We need only reference the enormous body of coherent scholarship that has been produced over the last 35 years. We should do so calmly and consistently and relentlessly in the face of political manipulation of the science. My message to my colleagues regarding the use of climate science is simply this: Use it or lose it. Specifically, if we fail to articulate the valid science to the public, our institutions may be dismissed, defunded, and incapable of responding when the public needs us the most. To be sure, AGW will become blatantly apparent as this century progresses, and the public will increasingly need what we do. We should all be teaching sustainability science to our students. In the meantime, such partisan misuse of science can do a lot of damage and continue to delay desperately needed programs in mitigation and adaptation. I am president of Unity College in Maine, which is a small college with an explicit environmental mission. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for me to use my position to educate the public about the valid science of climate change. It is only fitting that I use my credibility to speak to the misinformation that is abundant in political discourse. I do not speak in partisan terms, but I do speak out as a scientist and scholar, and I will continue to do so as long as necessary. I can no be silent because fear of personal retribution. I sincerely believe that it is my ethical obligation to speak up. To my peers, presidents and scientists, I say, "Where is your voice?" We need you to speak up. Stephen Mulkey, PhD
    0 0
83. John Hartz at 03:29 AM on 30 August, 2011
    "Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the 'anti-science party.' This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us." Source: "Republicans Against Science," Op-ed by Paul Krugman, NY Times, Nov 28, 2011
    0 0
84. John Hartz at 03:45 AM on 30 August, 2011
    “House Republicans are planning votes for almost every week this fall in an effort to repeal environmental and labor requirements on business that they say have hampered job growth.” Source: “House GOP revs up a repeal, reduce and rein-in agenda for the fall,” Washington Post, Aug 29, 2011 To access the entire article, click here
    0 0
85. John Hartz at 08:46 AM on 30 August, 2011
    "Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe formally endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president today, saying his fellow Republican has the right combination of executive experience and know-how about government regulations to beat President Obama. "Inhofe, a former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is a leading congressional skeptic on global warming and climate change. Perry made headlines recently for saying he has doubts about man-made global warming, saying it is an unproven scientific theory based on 'manipulated data.'" Source: “Climate change skeptic Inhofe endorses Rick Perry,” USA Today, Aug 29, 2011 To access the entire article, click here
    0 0
86. John Hartz at 04:42 AM on 31 August, 2011
    Only in America… “Government planning and preparation helped keep Irene's damage from being even worse than it was. No wonder right-wingers are going nuts.” Source: “The 5 Dumbest Right-Wing Reactions to Hurricane Irene” by Sarah Seltzer, Alternet, Aug 29, 2011 To access this article, click here 0 0