Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science

Posted on 24 August 2011 by dana1981

Climate Myths from PoliticiansWe've previously documented the general anti-climate science stance of Republican politicians in the USA.  With the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination already beginning to heat up, we thought it would be a good time to examine how the various candidates' comments stack up against the body of climate science evidence.  The candidates below are listed in order based on a very rough estimate of their chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination (highest probability candidates are listed first).

Rick Perry

Rick Perry is the governor of Texas, former Lieutenant Governor under George W. Bush, and even more anti-climate science than his former boss.  Recently, Perry has been questioning the climate science consensus, and claiming that climate scientists are falsifying data in order to receive research funding.  This sort of conspiratorial mindset is perhaps as anti-climate science as possible.


Rick Perry quotes

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts, and one of the few Republican presidential candiates who doesn't deny basic climate science.

Mitt Romney


In June 2011, Romney said:

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that...It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

These aren't the most Earth-shattering comments, but a simple refusal to deny basic climate science has become a rarity in Republican politics.

Michelle Bachmann

Michelle Bachmann is a congresswoman from Minnesota, and founder and chair of the Tea Party Caucus in the US House of Representatives.  Bachmann's climate arguments generally tend to center around the claims that carbon and climate change are natural, and therefore nothing to worry about.  In short, a straight-up denial that humans could possibly be causing significant climate change.


Bachmann quotes 

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a congressman from Texas.  Although he's a registered Republican, his political philosophy is more Libertarian, and thus many pundits don't consider him a "top tier candidate" with a serious chance to win the Republican presidential nomination.  Paul has become increasingly anti-climate science in recent years, going as far as to call it "the greatest hoax...for many, many years if not hundreds of years."  Paul believes the government can do nothing right, and thus opposes most proposed climate solutions (such as carbon pricing), which may cloud his perception of climate science.


Ron Paul Quotes

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is the former governor of Alaska.  She has not yet entered the 2012 presidential race, but may very well eventually throw her hat in the ring.  Palin has long denied many aspects of climate science, from the man-made global warming consensus, to the existence of man-made global warming itself, to the endangerment of polar bears as a result of climate change.


Palin Quotes

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is the former Speaker of the House of Representatives and congressman from Georgia.  Gingrich is guilty of the biggest flip-flop on climate science amongst these candidates.  In 2008, he appeared in an ad with then-Democratic Speaker of the House Nanci Pelosi in which he said:

"our country must take action to address climate change"

Those were the days.  Since then, Gingrich's positions on climate science and solutions have changed dramatically.  Recently, Gingrich has not only denied that humans are causing global warming, but has gone as far as expressing "skepticism" that the planet is even warming to begin with.


Gingrich quotes

Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman is the former Governor of Utah and US embassador to China.  He is one of the few Republican presidential candidates to express confidence in climate science research. 


In response to an interview in which Rick Perry expressed his climate "skepticism", Huntsman tweeted:

"To be clear.  I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming.  Call me crazy."

Huntsman later expanded on this point:

?"I think there's a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party - the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science - Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position"

However, Huntsman's chances of winning the presidential nomination are considered slim.

Herman Cain

Herman Cain is a businessman from Georgia.  He had a brief surge in popularity in the Republican presidential race, but it didn't last very long. Similar to Perry, Cain claims that humans aren't causing global warming, and accuses climate scientists of falsifying data.


Cain quotes

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is a former Senator from Pennsylvania who has been very consistent in his denial of basic climate science.


Santorum quotes

An Anti-Science Group

With the exception of Mitt Romney, John Huntsman's warning to his fellow candidates not to become the anti-science party seems to be falling on deaf ears.  Most Republican presidential candidates deny the basic science about the warming of the planet and/or accuse climate scientists of falsifying data. Unfortunately, denial of basic climate science appears to have become a "litmus test" for any candidate trying to win a Republican political nomination.

UCS Climate Science References

In response to the general Republican climate science denial, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has assembled a number of references to recent climate assessments and statements from scientific societies.  They also referenced Skeptical Science as a useful resource to debunk climate myths.

Note: the quotes above have been added to the Politician Climate Myths resource, and some have been added to the Climate Misinformers page at

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Prev  1  2  3  Next

Comments 51 to 100 out of 122:

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. I have replied to EtR's final comment on Texas weather on the thread I suggested earlier.
    0 0
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. "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
  9. 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
  10. badger - where do you see the slideshow on that page?
    0 0
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. ??? "me" on that diagram is "Maine". (And I have never lived in the US).
    0 0
  16. 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
  17. "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,", Aug 17, 2011 To access this informative post, click here.
    0 0
  18. I suspect that Perry is referring to the growing numbers who are signing reports like the following: 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Be careful. Don't get burned.
    0 0
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. @muoncounter#79 Yes, the paragraph that I excerpted from Parker's column are her words, not Perry's.
    0 0
  32. 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
  33. "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
  34. “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
  35. "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
  36. 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
  • Andrew Dessler takes on Guvna Perry: I've got to wonder how any resident of Texas - and particularly the governor who not so long ago was asking us to pray for rain - can be so cavalier about climate change. As a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, I can also tell you from the data that the current heat wave and drought in Texas is so bad that calling it "extreme weather" does not do it justice. ... I know that climate change does not cause any specific weather event. But I also know that humans have warmed the climate over the last century, and that this warming has almost certainly made the heat wave and drought more extreme than it would have otherwise been. I am not alone in these views. There are dozens of atmospheric scientists at Texas institutions like Rice, the University of Texas, and Texas A&M, and none of them dispute the mainstream scientific view of climate change. This is not surprising, since there are only a handful of atmospheric scientists in the entire world who dispute the essential facts - and their ranks are not increasing, as Gov. Perry claimed. Guvna P graduated from Texas A&M in 1972 with a 2.5 GPA (out of 4) and a BS in Animal Science; here's to a more enlightened generation of Aggies!
    0 0
  • Other authors are following Dana’s suit. As they say, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Suggested reading: "GOP Presidential Candidates on Clean Energy and Climate Change" by Donnie Folwer, Huffington Post, Aug 30, 2011 To access this article, click here.
    0 0
  • EtR, if you're implying that Gore represents a Left position, you're simply wrong. Gore is in no way against capitalism. At best, he's Right-liberal.
    0 0
  • Suggested reading: “God’s Response to Rick Perry” PlanetSave, Aug 31, 2011 It’s a hoot!
    0 0
  • Letters to the International Herald Tribune Politics and Science Paul Krugman’s “Republicans against science” (Views, Aug. 30) states that “odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively antiscience, indeed antiknowledge.” This line reminds me of the great H.L. Mencken’s words in the Baltimore Evening Sun in 1920: “As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people....On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” Woodrow Wilson was president at the time; to be followed by Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. We all know what happened next. Peter W. Gerrard, Kehlen, Luxembourg
    0 0
  • However, the fact is that Huntsman is barely registering in most polls, and the leading candidates in the Republican party are successful in part precisely because they are voicing an opinion that runs counter to expertise. For many in the US, expertise has taken on a negative cultural value; experts are part of an elite that thinks it knows better than the average citizen. (This is accurate, for what it's worth.) Very few object to that sort of expertise when it comes time to, say, put the space shuttle into orbit, but expertise can become a problem when the experts have reached a consensus that runs against cultural values. And, for many in our society, scientific expertise has done just that. Abstinence-only sex education has been largely ineffective. Carbon emissions are creating a risk of climate change. Humanity originated via an evolutionary process. All of these findings have threatened various aspects of people's cultural identity. By rejecting both the science and the expertise behind it, candidates can essentially send a signal that says, "I'm one of you, and I'm with you where it counts." Source: ” Political science: why rejecting expertise has become a campaign strategy (and why it scares me)" by John Timmer, ars technica, Sep 4, 2011
    0 0
  • Suggested reading: “Politics & Global Warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the Tea Party,” Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason Center on Climate Change Communciation, Sep 7, 2011 To access a PDF of the report, click here.
    0 0
  • The study cited in my previous post (#93) is also the topic of "Survey: Tea Party Isolated on Climate, But Wide Accord on Most Energy Policies," a post by Andrew Revkin on DOT Earth, NY Times, Sep 7, 2011. Revkin concludes his post with this ominous warning: "In reviewing the study, I found myself mulling the Tea Party views above in the context of recent research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute concluding that when 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, that belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. "Add in a big dose of talk radio and attack blogs, our habit of conducting politics from the fringes, and the Republican nomination process, then have a look around."
    0 0
  • Badgersouth - Um, no insult intended, but could you please provide some context for the links you have been posting? For example, why it might be interesting, or what it discusses? I have to admit that I have followed exactly none of your links, as they lack said context.
    0 0
  • @KR #95: The context for the links that I am providing is the article itself. When I see something that I blelieve provides additional/updated information, I post a link to it.
    0 0
  • "The economic downturn has made addressing climate change less urgent for voters. But the issue is not going away. The nation badly needs a candidate with a coherent, disciplined national strategy. So far, there is no Republican who fits that description." This is the concluding paragraph of a "must read" editorial, "In the Land of Denial " written by the NY Times Editorial Board and published on Sep 6, 2011.
    0 0
  • Rick Perry's EPA would be a horse of another color. "I'll tell you one thing: The EPA officials we have an opportunity to put in place, they're going to be pro-business, and there's not going to be any apologies to anybody about it," he said. "Those agencies won't know what hit 'em." I hear the ex CEO of BP needs a job. After all, that little oil spill was a natural event.
    0 0
  • Badgersouth - I understand, but please, state why these links are relevant. I believe that's part of the Comments Policy, under link or pic only.
    0 0
  • @KR #99: The articles that I provide links to further amplify and reinforce the quotes provided by Dana in his article.
    0 0
  • Prev  1  2  3  Next

    You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

    The Consensus Project Website


    (free to republish)

    © Copyright 2024 John Cook
    Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us