Climate Skeptics: Crazy as They Want to Be
Serious, science-based climate skeptics have a chance to separate themselves from the foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy that defines their public image. I mention this because I know that some of you skeptics chafe at the buffoonish antics of Christopher Monckton and the sweeping declarations of Republican Senator James Inhofe.
As science writer David Brin has written (which I agree with),
Not every person who expresses doubt or criticism toward some part of this complex issue [climate change] is openly wedded to the shrill anti-intellectualism of Fox News “” nor do all of them nod in agreement with absurd exaggerations, e.g., that a winter snowstorm refutes any gradual warming of Earth’s atmosphere. Indeed, you are likely to know some individuals who claim not to be “global warming deniers” but rational, open-minded “AGW-skeptics.”
My blog, with its weirdly diverse audience, attracts some readers who would classify themselves in the latter category. This post is addressed to you.
I know you roll your eyes at Monckton and Morano, and that you wish Anthony Watts could restrain his partisanship. You don’t like all the “baggage” that comes with the climate skeptic label. You try to ignore it.
Guess what? Texas Governor Rick Perry has now made that impossible. For the next 15 months, he will represent the Republican position on climate change. He will be the public face of climate skeptics.
Unfortunately for you, his position on climate science (it’s all a big hoax) will be associated with all his other positions on science.
A single tweet by Jon Huntsman, another Republican Presidential candidate, has articulated the sum meaning of this:
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
This is a shot across the bow of the Republican party. Because of Tea Party mania, Huntsman is not expected to gain traction in the 2012 campaign. Perry, though, will likely saddle up the congealed Republican discontent, anger and culture war politics, and ride all the way to the GOP Presidential nomination.
And a little more than half the country will call him crazy and re-elect President Obama. By then, Perry will also have thoroughly established the climate skeptic position as crazy. And as scientifically illegitimate as creationism.
That is the foreshadowed meaning of Jon Huntsman’s tweet. Do you get that? If so, what are you going to do about it?
Well, I don’t want to assume that this post is all about me…
A few thoughts, however (some of which I’ve been cogitating on for a long while):
1) I have publicly taken those to task who go as far in rejecting the fundamentals of climate science as I have those who embrace what I consider to be climate gullibilism: the willingness to accept any claim generated by a person calling him/herself a climate scientist so long as it points to catastrophe, and justifies the imposition of pre-existing political goals. I won’t say I’ve spent as much time on one as the other, since I think that climate science is exaggerated far more often than it’s dismissed entirely.
2) I’m exceedingly unlikely to vote for anyone who essentially dismisses the idea that science is humanity’s best device for understanding the universe around us, and empowering us to act within that universe. Hence, the only reason I’d vote for someone like Perry is if I was absolutely convinced that he was the only hope for overcoming a greater menace, and I was also relatively confident that he couldn’t do much harm with his non-scientific leanings. This applies to his views on evolution as much as climate science. While I won’t share my voting record explicitly, this also applies to people I have/have not voted for in the past.
3) Keith’s challenge cuts both ways: the mainstream media gleefully grabbed onto a Pentagon report that supported the “climate change = disaster” paradigm, but simply ignores (rather than chastises) the kind of lunacy involved in a recent “study” that suggests aliens will attack humanity for emitting greenhouse gases.
4) GHG control advocates have yet to take responsibility for their decisions that allowed climate science to be tainted. There is this understanding among serious people that if you’re proposing some major sacrifices or changes, you not only have to be honest, you have to avoid “even the appearance” of dishonesty. The short version of this is to quote Will Smith: “you didn’t start nothin’, there wouldn’t be nothin’.” That is if Marc Morano couldn’t easily fill a monstrous website with links to articles raising questions about science ethics in the climate science community, there would be nothing to point to, as Perry does. If GHG control advocates hadn’t tied themselves to a blatantly corrupt organization with one-world government ambitions (the UN), then the anti-GHG control people wouldn’t have been able to simply trot out an endless litany of corruption stories in the UN, and impeach it’s credibility by pointing to its own internal reports.
That last point, I would argue, is the most important: if you want to know what empowered someone like Perry to think he could win the presidency while rejecting even fundamental climate science, look to those who exaggerated, look to those who politicized the science, look to those who hijacked climate science for ulterior reasons, look to those who intentionally injected climate science into religious sectarianism by trying to “convert” the Pope, Evangelicals, Jews, etc.
If GHG control advocates had kept a clean house, people like Perry wouldn’t have dirt to point to.
Personally I think you vastly over rate the importance of climate issues to the general voting public. Most people that I know tuned out years ago.
The drum beat of global warming alarmist articles is just so much noise now. And the wackier ones like the latest fantasy about aliens wiping us out because we increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from a trace amount to somewhat larger trace amount just further confirms the disconnect.
And I don’t find articles and blog postings on Bishop Hill or WUWT to be any more ridiculous than the alarmist articles. I do think that your mostly personal attacks on both authors just diminish your own reputation.
Ken,
I appreciate you engaging, but I can’t resist in chewing on some of that straw you served up. Where to start…let’s work from the bottom up:
1) The notion that Perry’s dismissal of climate science owes to exaggerations made by the other side is absurd. Does his pro-creationist stance owe to supposed exaggerations of evolution? Please.
2) What’s with the black helicopter, one-world UN dominated view? Do you seriously believe that?
3) The alien study/story is most amusing, but even that is labeled as “highly speculative.” And yet…given that a majority of Americans appear to believe in angels and heaven and hell, and an all knowing, benevolent higher power, all of which there is as just as much evidence for as there is for little green men from mars…well, I don’t see too many “chastising” media stories on this, either.
You get my drift? (Well, there were the disapproving ones that called out some prominent Christians for saying that 9/11 happened because of gays, lesbians and the ACLU.)
4) Take a closer look at the links to Morano’s website. He’s writing clever headlines with links back to blogs (sometimes this one), and an assortment of right wing media stories. It’s a PR site, not remotely honest (and I once had higher hopes). If he copied Drudge, who despite his own biases, is for real, maybe you’d have a point. But Marc would rather conjure a fantasyland than try to approximate reality.
@3
Re:point 3
given that a majority of Americans appear to believe in angels and heaven and hell, and an all knowing, benevolent higher power, all of which there is as just as much evidence for as there is for little green men from mars”¦well, I don’t see too many “chastising” media stories on this, either.
This was a paper published by real, live scientists not some bumpkins talking about angels at the local psychic fair.
Menth,
I’m not sure I get your point. I think the paper is absurd (I’ve also never heard of the journal it was published in).
I also think sightings of the Virgin Mary are absurd. Yet they are treated at face value by the press.
That’s my point.
re: #4, Marc would rather make money
I also think that both you and Ken are underestimating the effects of the recession. People are scared and pissed off. Much easier to believe doomsdaying especially when the other team is in office. (see the 10 or so noteworthy GOP politicians who have supported climate policies in the past)
@5 I think the difference from my perspective is that I believe one the most important functions of the media is to question and hold authority (of all types, including scientific) accountable. Joe Whiskeybottle who sees Jesus’ face on his grilled cheese isn’t in a position of authority.
“If so, what are you going to do about it?”
It wouldn’t help. Even if skeptics called out deniers more often, the deniers would just consider the skeptics to be heretics. Something similar happened when one of the guys who thought that Bush and Co demolished the towers was presented with evidence and decided he had been wrong. Didn’t change the “911 truth movement” at all. They just considered it proof of what they are up against.
What skeptics and deniers most have to worry about re Perry is that he talks both about climate and doubt of evolution. Many deniers go to great lengths to avoid that connection, but Perry is going to make that more difficult now if he does get the nomination.
Since I’m a skeptic who believes CO2 is most likely to have a much, much smaller affect on global temps than that trumpeted by Romm and can only be addressed with a rational energy plan- something entirely lacking from the greens – I have only one question about this post:
Why on earth do you give a rat’s hiney about my political (or religious) affiliation?
Seriously – Do you really think a claim that Michael Mann’s statistical prowess is better than MacIntyre’s goes down easier with me if it’s attached to a good ol’ fashioned dishonest heapin’ of partisanship? Is a lie about the true cost of wind and solar more palatable if you sprinkle in a few insults about Jesus freaks?
Climate change skepticism is more bi-partisan than warmism is. You’ve got a tweet from Huntsman versus the voting record and campaigns of dozens of Democrats in the House and Senate (google West Virginia bullet cap-n-trade)
You are in the media, have you ever seen a successful ad campaign aimed specifically at alienating half the country (Republicans) and or 70% of the country (Christians)? That doesn’t give you much of a margin at election time.
Menth,
Click on the link to that AP/Guardian story. Joe whiskey bottle’s visions were approved by the Vatican, which is considered an “authority” by billions.
And I’m still not getting your point. Most daily media (of the straight news variety) reports on such things (like the Vatican signing off on a Virgin Mary sighting) and alien speculations published by scientists in a scientific journal.
Dean (8):
“What skeptics and deniers most have to worry about re Perry is that he talks both about climate and doubt of evolution. Many deniers go to great lengths to avoid that connection, but Perry is going to make that more difficult now if he does get the nomination.”
Exactly my point. And the point of Huntsman’s tweet. The thing to keep in mind about Perry is the “Bush on steroids” observation that’s been made. Perry is going to obviously thrill 1/3 of Republican voters–the ones that will run to the voting booth to vote for him.
He’s going to depress the hell out of another 1/3, who will either sit out the general election or vote for Obama again.
Meanwhile, the Obama team has to be “praying” for a “Bush on steroids” candidate to run against. The increasing radicalism of the Republican party will pretty much ensure Obama’s reelection and destroy the Republican brand for probably another four years–until Huntsman can revive it when he runs again in 2016.
Jeffn (9),
I don’t give a rats hiney, so I’m not sure what your point is. But on this you are quite mistaken: “Climate change skepticism is more bi-partisan than warmism is.”
And again, the point of my post is that Perry’s views of climate change are going to be viewed in the context of his anti-evolution views.
Climate skeptics who would like to keep the discussion centered squarely on climate science will not be able to avoid the increasingly negative, anti-science association that Perry puts front and center. All I’m saying is that if they were smart, they would put some separation between them and the Morano/Monckton wing of the climate skeptic movement.
Thus far, I have seen no inclination on their part to do so. Oh, well.
Keith
I consider you a smart person and usually very observant but I think you have a blind spot when it comes to politics, especially when it involves the Tea Party and religious conservatives. First and foremost is that 15 months is a long time, it gives candidates plenty of time to harden, soften, clarify, modify, evolve or any other euphemism to change a position that does not poll well.
Perry is grapping headlines right now because he is the fresh face on the trail but you think it means he is the standard bearer. You need to be a lot more cynical and read a little more history when it comes to political campaigns. The republican position on CC will end up being “The only thing I am sure of is that we can’t afford to break our economy right now. Now let me tell you about how bad President Obama has done on jobs and government spending.” Right now there is a better chance of Perry running out of speed and oxygen than making it to the nomination. His national campaign staff is practically nonexistent but I expect his friend and ex Newt manager Ron Johnson is burning up the phones trying to put something together.
Your Tea Party view seems a little myopic though I admit there are some black helicopter types involved. After your LaRouche post I contacted Mr. Petit and he was nice enough to reply. My impression was that he in no way felt that the “Lyndon LaRouche-ies have reanimated into Tea Party-iers.” but that the speaker Mr. Folken weaved together myriad of incidents to challenge AGW. Some skeptics and other groups both liberal and conservative use that approach all the time on a variety of topics.
If you take out the black helicopter types I have found that the TP’s avoid CC all together and focus more on full domestic production of Energy using Fossil fuels, nuclear renewable, efficiency, and some sort of sensible conservation effort. They have a big problem with the government artificial restricting supply and picking energy winners and losers.
Jeff Norris (12),
“First and foremost is that 15 months is a long time, it gives candidates plenty of time to harden, soften, clarify, modify, evolve or any other euphemism to change a position that does not poll well.”
A fair (and excellent) point. But given the rightward lurch of the GOP, and the ideological purity demanded of it (see recent Debt standoff, where compromise was impossible with the Tea Party faction), I’m not sure the eventual GOP candidate will be permitted to soften/moderate any that hardness.
=============
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
=============
Does he trust the ones that James Hansen describes as exhibiting magical thinking and believing in fairy dust?
Science is not about trust. It is about hard headed skepticism
“It is about hard headed skepticism”
Well this is only true when yo have the expertise to understand the science and the data and are able to put information in the proper perspective. Standing on the sidelines and thinking you know more than the experts isn’t skepticism, hard-headed or otherwise — that’s called Dunning Kruger.
As a liberal Democrat I doubt if my opinion of Rick Perry matters much.
For what it’s worth though, it’s not only wrong, it’s stupid. I see no real reason to expect him to be well-versed in climate change, but equally, there’s no reason and no benefit to pronouncing on it.
Climate change will not walk into the voting booth with many primary voters, and his stance would hurt him in the general. So why would he do this?
It doesn’t seem like a focus grouped stance. I actually suspect a pre-emptive homage to James Inhofe and his prophet Marc Morano. They’ve been raking non-compliant candidates over the coals and Perry doesn’t need the aggravation.
All good news for my candidate, a certain BHO.
I think WaPo journalist and fact checker Glenn Kessler should get 4 pinocchios for his fact check. (linked above) A personal opinion may be either correct or incorrect but it certainly isn’t a lie.
Glenn deftly copied and cropped two sentences by Perry, not even having sufficient integrity to insert quote marks or ellipsis, in order to make it look like he was stating “facts” when he was simply giving his opinion.
He gave Perry 4 Pinocchios(whopper) for being wrong about the following “facts”.
———-
“1. A substantial number of scientists have manipulated data so they will have dollars rolling into their projects.
2. Almost weekly or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.
How true is this?”
———
After clicking the WaPo link to the National Journal, here is what I found Perry actually said.
———
“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” Perry answered. “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”
Pegging the global cost of implementing “anti-carbon programs” in the billions or trillions of dollars, Perry said, “I don’t think from my perspective that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on [what is] still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.”
———
Perry’s only assertions of fact are the last two sentences in the first graph and I agree with both of them.
Yet another demonstration of journalistic bias.
There is little need to wonder why people put little confidence in the accuracy of what journalists write when people like Glenn Kessler are on the job.
[Interesting take, Bob, which I will charitably characterize as a stellar example of “confirmation bias.” Also, wrong thread.//KK]
==============
ell this is only true when yo have the expertise to understand the science and the data and are able to put information in the proper perspective. Standing on the sidelines and thinking you know more than the experts isn’t skepticism, hard-headed or otherwise “” that’s called Dunning Kruger.
==============
I recall many experts who were touting Internet stocks. I recall Enron being viewed as visionary and establishing new markets
So James Hansen says many climate scientists engage in magical thinking and believe in fairy dust I recall experts and the tech bubble and the rating of liar mortgages as AAA if they could find enough liars to group them together. I recall experts bankrupting Lehman brothers and as a result coming perilously coming close to shutting down the world economy over a weekend. i recall the Euro and how the experts told us that this would install economic discipline in European governments.
My belief in the wisdom of experts does not extend to believing anything they say
As to the difficulty of understanding climate science. I have read the accounts of these paleo reconstructions. I concur with Judith Curry that they require no sophisticated ability in mathematics to understand
The number of “serious science-based climate skeptics” is exceedingly few. If they were common, they would truly be appalled by the fringe. But having the loonies out there isn’t unfortunate to most of those who claim to be serious skeptics. They see the loonies as helping their cause, which is not to advance science, but to prevent action on emissions, and they are often actively engaged (Roy Spencer, for example) on that goal. They see the tea party loonies, Moranos, etc as being mostly very helpful, even if they aren’t explicitly one of them – attending rallies and chanting slogans. But just because one contrarian type is loonier than the other, doesn’t mean they aren’t both loony.
==========
To be clear. I believe in evolution
==========
How does one “believe” in a scientific theory A scientific theory is a tool for making predictions. it is either useful or not useful in that regard. Doe someone say “I believe in hammers” because he/she is a master carpenter.
Suppose they gave a culture war and nobody came.
I wish supporters of AGW would forget about playing the evolution card and stay out of the culture war. This cannot help in addressing the problem. There will be no end to that culture war
“All I’m saying is that if they were smart, they would put some separation between them and the Morano/Monckton wing of the climate skeptic movement.”
They are smart, because they don’t mention Morano or Monckton at all- mostly because the list of people who are in that “wing” of agreement about the existence of dishonest exaggeration and magical thinking in the warming camp includes: James Hansen, Mark Lynas, George Monbiot… and sometimes even you. The only difference is that when a GOP candidate says it, you call them crazy.
As for your response to another comment that the GOP is somehow moving hard right- I challenge this. Perry was the 1988 Texas presidential campaign manager for Al Gore. If you know anything at all about the 1988 version of Al Gore, you know that Gore has shifted far to the left since then. Perry is more like the 1988 Gore then Gore is.
And what’s with the “black helicopter” references? Any political group that holds conspiracy theories about Bush knocking down the World Trade Center or that Palin is the mother of her grandson, or that McIntyre is paid by Exxon to confuse people should be a bit more careful with the dark mutterings slur.
Keith –
1) I did not mean to suggest that climate exaggerations caused Perry’s rejectionism, I was suggesting that the exaggerations gave openings to people like Morano, and Morano’s success in publicizing those excesses have shifted public opinion to the point that Perry’s rejectionism is enabled, and might not be a barrier to election. That’s less true of his stance on evolution, though some evolutionary psychologists and reductionists have certainly exaggerated the ability to apply evolutionary theory to create great breakthroughs in science and medicine.
2) I’m not into black helicopters, though I do wonder about the all-white jets you see stationed at various airports. 🙂 Seriously though, are you denying that the UN actively promotes and pursues world governance and wealth redistribution? You could fill entire library shelves (if we still had libraries) with UN documents that explicitly argue for that outcome. Or are you arguing that the GHG control advocates didn’t tie themselves to the UN approach overwhelmingly?
3) I don’t much care for the way Marc spins things on Climate Depot at times: I dislike the whole posting of personal email address thing, and the recent shift from pointing to exaggeration and politicization over to the “climate change is one big fraud,” as I pointed out here and on AEI’s blog. But I stand with my first statement: Had Morano not found many examples of scientific over-statement and over-reach by people like Hansen, Mann, and other annointed “super scientists,” his site would never have gotten on the map.
And Keith…starting your response with the idea that my entire post was a collection of straw men is hardly likely to make me believe there’s value in having discourse with you. In case you’re unclear on the concept, a “strawman” argument is one in which a person misrepresents an opponent’s position. I don’t see anything in my initial comment where I misrepresent someone else’s argument. Points one and two are simply summaries of my previous actions and their rationales; point 3, about MSM bias is, I believe, pretty much undisputed; and point 4 is simply my belief that GHG control activists are unwilling to take personal responsibility for their excesses and hypocrisies, like tolerating Al Gore’s outrageous lifestyle while nearly beatifying him. Can you point out all the supposed “straw” for me?
“So James Hansen says many climate scientists engage in magical thinking and believe in fairy dust ”
Actually he never said that. He said something about tooth fairies about enviros and greens who tout renewables as the only solution.
“As to the difficulty of understanding climate science. I have read the accounts of these paleo reconstructions. I concur with Judith Curry that they require no sophisticated ability in mathematics to understand ”
This is actually a good statement to show what Dunning Krugar is.
As well as show how people think climate science is all about certain paleo reconstructions.
This is an interesting comment an apparently “serious skeptic” made in reference to Bastardi’s (as loony as Morano) recent post on wuwt and Chris Colose’s challenge to wuwt readers to take a skeptical view.
Ryan Maue: [Bastardi] is putting out his opinions for public consumption but there is no accountability implied
I haven’t read the entire thread comments in full but it doesn’t appear any “skeptic” took Colose’s challenge. I highlighted a few comments. Some pretty goofy stuff here…
http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/#comment-2167
Ken Green,
I plead guilty to being unnecessarily rude. But I saw you laying out a bunch a of false equivalencies, which included, in my mind, willful misrepresentations, such as the part about the media not “chastising” the alien study. Pundits and bloggers chastise; reporters report. That’s what they did with the pentagon study, which whether you agree with it not, qualified as big news.
I think your UN/world governance fears are unwarranted but if you really worry, after half a century of UN history to judge by, that the world might soon be run out of a skyscraper in the Turtle Bay section of Manhattan, that is your right.
Marc has been playing up the one-big-fraud/hoax narrative since Climategate. Personally, I like the guy and have had pleasant exchanges with him, and once had hopes he might play things a bit more straight. Those hopes have been dashed.
As a Brit, there’s sweet FA I can do about it. But living outside the American goldfish bowl, where creationism isn’t such a big issue, it doesn’t matter much.
It’s dawning on people, even in the US, that the AGW sceptics are a broad camp. Most of them in the blogosphere accept GHE theory and the argument is about how serious AGW is. Also, most of them accept evolution as a fact whether or not they question (as I do) whether Neodarwinism is a good explanation of it.
I don’t think sceptics have to do anything about it, any way. Alarmism will stand or fall by the science, and what actually goes on outside the window in the next few years will help decide that, regardless of what policy decisions are enacted in the interim.
I agree with Tom Gray that I don’t have much faith in experts. In the end, they are always proved, in some degree or other, wrong. We only tend to be able to admit that after the fact; read the history books – truth is relative, even in science. We move from one fantasy world to the next, often convinced that the current one is unchallengeable.
Michael,
On what basis (especially as a Brit, living outside the American goldfish bowl), do you assert that it’s “dawning on people” in the U.S. that AGW skeptics are a broad camp?
If I said to you that the AGW camp is pretty broad, too, and should not be identified solely with Al Gore, would you believe me?
Now I happen to think that that is only partially true (AGW is a broad camp but it is also very much associated in the public’s mind with Al Gore).
So I’ll grant you this much: the AGW skeptic camp may well be broad (I’m not so sure, though), but it is certainly associated with the more extreme, ideological and anti-science wing of the spectrum. Thanks in part to Morano-like enforcement of this, that association will be much more prominently displayed in the next 15 months during the U.S. Presidential campaign.
“I agree with Tom Gray that I don’t have much faith in experts. In the end, they are always proved, in some degree or other, wrong.”
Well, I mean pretty everything we do in life, individually and collectively, is based the hard work and advice of experts, so I find this claim to be, more or less, selective in it’s application, but that aside, the ‘people have been wrong in history’ argument doesn’t pull much weight without specifically discussing beliefs and why experts thought that way. It would make sense that the more advanced we become, the more e dispel theories when we weren’t so advanced. And I don’t consider a few financial hawks running around overestimating a new stock in a bull market the type of expertise worth gauging decades of academic study on.
In reading the posting and the followi9ng comments, I have come to realize that the AGW issue has entered the same culture war in the US as evolution. I read the same culture war statements about anti-science as I do when I read accounts of the endless evolution war. The AGW political debate is not about AGW. it has become just another front in the endless culture war between rationalism and faith in the US
Well Keith, if you look at the range of people who have been called denialisters by people like NewYorkJ, it amounts to a pretty big tent and includes many who don’t consider themselves skeptics.
One of the problems is switching definitions in the middle of an argument. Another is painting with a very broad brush. NewYorkJ calls me and Mosher and Curry deniers. False to fact and easily show to be so. You wonder just how diverse skeptics are-but who are you calling skeptics? How similar do you think Lucia and Morano are? What exactly do you think McIntyre and Morano have in common? Which of the above do you consider skeptics? More importantly Keith, does your classification scheme ever change depending on the topic?
Keith
Stop the presses, opponents to AGW will be portrayed as Anti-Science! Next you are going to say that Republicans will be portrayed as rich racist white people who hate children and old people. They also kick dogs when no ones looking.
To the question of what/how will Science Oriented Skeptics respond to his view on AGW? My feeling is that SO types don’t believe everything they read in the papers and will go to the source material like Mr. Koss has done. If Perry puts emphasis on possible data manipulation and improprieties and lessens the Global conspiracy theme he will do okay with them. The Intelligent Design support will be more problematic.
“I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution.”
Perry 2010
Perry has shown some skill as a politician so if it becomes a big issue expect an emphasis on personal religious beliefs separate from policy actions, trotting out science funding in Texas, and States Rights to set Education policy.
==========
And I don’t consider a few financial hawks running around overestimating a new stock in a bull market the type of expertise worth gauging decades of academic study on
==========
The Euro
Lehman Brothers
These were not decisions by a few financial hawks. These policies were based on the the considered judgement of some of the most esteeemed financial experts in the world.
When I first heard of the Euro and its monetary union without a fiscal union concept, I was really puzzled as to how it could work. How could interest rates be set so that they could be applicable to such a wide range of economies? However, what did I know. The experts assured everyone it would work and they would certainly pay no attention to any opinion of mine even in the very remote chance that they would become even slightly aware of it.
They had “the type of expertise worth gauging decades of academic study on” and what did I know. My opinion could not be compared to that of world renowned scholars and high officials of important institutions.
Then again, maybe they should have just asked me. I find it difficult to imagine that I could have made a bigger mess of it.
Expert – noun – Somebody from out of town.
Tom Gray (29):
Nice try. You mean abortion, of course. Or do you not see that as part of the culture wars?
But with respect to the endless war against evolution, you might be very much in sync with Perry, who would like to see creationism taught in public schools (and even mistakenly thought it was in Texas).
Indeed, just as you say, the creationism/evolution war waged by Discovery Institute et al
“has become just another front in the endless culture war between rationalism and faith in the US.”
Tom Fuller (30):
Once again, your mistake is to confuse a narrow sliver of blog commentators as a representative face.
If you want to use the blogosphere as a metric, why not just go by what’s said and written and featured by the hosts?
Tom (30)
Not only are you a skeptic and a Sith Lord rumors have it you
possibly contribute significantly to public global warming disinformation.
You have to read the backstory of the stupid alien/climate article, written by the NASA postdoc who was involved:
http://paleblueblog.org/post/9110304050/some-important-points-of-clarification
Once again, people have been played like a fiddle by the media trying to gin up controversy….
Tom Fuller: What exactly do you think McIntyre and Morano have in common?
Both perpetuate the notion that climate scientists are dishonest, manipulate their research, and can’t be trusted. One implies or insinuates it. One comes right out and says it. Very different in style. Much more similar in substance. Where does Tom fit in? You decide.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php
Mary (35),
Thanks for the link. Quite a backstory, indeed. I went back and read the Guardian article more carefully and noticed that there was no actual interviews with the authors of the paper, which should have been a tip-off that something wasn’t quite right.
Almost every newspaper article write up of a scientific paper published in a scientific journal includes fresh quotes from the author(s).
In this case, that would have an opportunity for the Guardian reporter to clarify the paper’s association to NASA or any other official body.
At any rate, this is a clear cut case of a respectable newspaper choosing sensationalism over responsible science reporting.
Whatever this is, this is just another guy fusing creationism with anti AGW sentiment. Same as everybody else.
What are you gonna do about it? There’s nothing you can do.
I don’t think Perry has a chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination so what impact he will have on the election in 2012 is irrelevant.
The RNC has always been good at casting the net ‘wide and far’ in the early stages of the election process then moving towards the center later in the process.
At this point we have a couple of potential females candidates reminding woman that it’s okay to consider a Republican candidate, We have an African-American candidate reminding African-Americans that it’s okay to think about a republican, we have a candidate from the religious right reminding the religious right that voting republican and being religious go together.
Each appeals to a specific demographic but none has a base large enough to win in a general election. That’s not the point of the exercise, the point of the exercise is that they will all carry their specific bases into a general election behind a more moderate candidate.
Who the more centrist candidate will be at this point is completely unknown and unknowable. Lot’s of names being floated.
If nominated Perry will be running against an incompetent president with absolutely no understanding of the forces that drive economic growth. Perhaps not coincidentally, this president is also an avid supporter of global warming theory.
Part of the economic malaise the country suffers from is due to the president’s implementation of various “green” regulatory policies. As the governor of a state that has done well economically, Perry will win.
When President Perry takes office he will unquestionably de-fund global warming research. He will point out that we cannot afford to throw billions into research whose scientific underpinnings were demolished by the research of Lindzen and Spencer. Climate scientists will be reviled as unconscionable con artists who foisted blatantly false science to garner lush government grant monies while their fellow countrymen languished in a recession worsened by policies they promulgated.
AGW science has been proven false. Your article is dated. Move along.
Keith,
Glad I reviewed my comment #17.
I see you inserted this reply to me.
——–
[Interesting take, Bob, which I will charitably characterize as a stellar example of “confirmation bias.” Also, wrong thread.//KK]
——–
Your pathetically weak response to my comment indicates you have no demonstrable basis for saying I showed my confirmation bias. If you could have, you would have. I will concede it is likely you could get WaPo fact checker Glenn Kessler to agree with you. Sort of a birds of a feather type thing.
As to being wrong thread. Are you saying people aren’t allowed to rebut what you link in the same thread you put the link? You linked to Glenn Kessler’s article in your opening post as evidence of Perry’s facts being wrong and him now setting the climate position for the GOP. If rebuttal in the same thread isn’t kosher, there isn’t much need for embedding links. It will certainly make for a dull site though.
I will admit I do have a very large bias. That bias is toward accuracy. Glenn Kessler failed. Do you disagree?
Poe or no?
You know what Keith? There are folks on my side that would do well to do a better brand of homework. You might however take a look at the other side of the coin. There’s a website Number watch I believe, you can Google it I’m sure, that keeps a running list of stories of things that are the result of or cause of “Global Warming” It’s nothing short of hilarious.
It’s the exaggeration and fiction in those links that Ken Green in post #1 is talking about. For anyone who wants to really examine what has passed for honest reporting about this issue these last several years, they will come away with the revelation that it has made mockery of the whole affair.
“…the AGW skeptic camp may well be broad (I’m not so sure, though), but it is certainly associated with the more extreme, ideological and anti-science wing of the spectrum.”
I think it’s important to point out that despite what particular sides of the issue say, neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on wingnuts as Monbiot and Lynas have recently discovered.
They’re not the Tea Party but take a look at this lovely group of reasonable individuals: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/05/480247.html
It would be extremely probable that they are also AGW activists. I don’t believe these people, and people like them are objectively assessing the science of AGW and then subsequently crafting a moral viewpoint. The intuitive moral framework precedes the belief in AGW which dovetails with their pre-existing narrative: humans are raping the planet.
The stupid alien story is another example of this; benevolent all-knowing aliens punish humanity for technological hubris in some quasi re-imagining of abrahamic religion.
This of course, doesn’t mean that AGW isn’t true but:
the pro AGW activist camp may well be broad (I’m not so sure, though), but it is certainly associated with the more extreme, ideological and anti-science wing of the spectrum.”
Watts’ partisanship?
You should check with Anthony on that. I believe you will find that Anthony is a moderate (perhaps even dem-leaning, I’m not quite sure) independent who drives an (pre-volt, I believe) electric car.
Partisanship? I’d say more like level-headed open mindedness. If you’ve a scientific argument that holds water Anthony will be the first to acknowledge same.
You know, I “trust the scientists” on this matter too.
These 31, 487 Scientists (9029 PhD’s) in particular:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
If you want to tell me that they are all crackpots, start with the author of the cover letter and then explain about Freeman Dyson. All the others are listed, by dicipline, university and degree. Please explain how each one is not to be believed.
Bob Koss Says:
August 19th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
<i> Perry’s facts being wrong and him now setting the climate position for the GOP. </i>
I just got the ‘election year issues’ survey from my state GOP party. Climate is not on the issues survey. Neither is evolution.
A related article in today’s WaPo, that ends on this note:
Climate change, says Marc Morano, the publisher and editor of the skeptical Web site Climate Depot, is “a litmus test, pure and simple, for the presidential race.”
And speaking of Morano, he puts an interesting take on my post over at Climate Depot. I presume some of the new commenters we’re seeing now have found there way here from his link.
I note that Keith has posted my above “climate skeptic” post without selectively editing or snipping it. Tolerance for diverse opinions is a a rarity among warmist websites. Keith deserves credit for his open-mindedness.
I also see he has links to some excellent articles on archeology and other topics. Will bookmark the site.
“I presume some of the new commenters we’re seeing now have found there way here from his link.”
If I was one of those you had in mind, Keith, I’ve been reading your blog for a couple of years and have only very rarely visited Climate Depot. In fact, the only reason I’ve been there recently is because you’ve referred to it and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
BTW, I know that the US is waking up to the fact that sceptics form a broad church because most of the climate blogs are American. Not too long ago, all sceptics were deemed to be raving lunatics. Even lukewarmers were included in that category. There does seem, at least on some warmist blogs, acceptance that there might exist what they term “genuine sceptics”. But generally, they seem to assume that they are a rare breed.
There are nutcases on all sides. But my sense is that there is in fact a sensible contingent who may lean in opposite directions, as I mentioned in a recent post. The main place where they can contribute, or lurk and learn, is Judith Curry’s blog.
We need to jettison the politics and the triumphalism or schadenfreude that goes with it. As I’ve intimated, in the end, mother earth will answer all the questions regardless of any policies that might be enacted. I just hope that whatever those policies are, they won’t do more harm than good. I think those of good will on all sides can agree on that.
So David is a science write who writes:
“Not every person who expresses doubt or criticism toward some part of this complex issue [climate change] is openly wedded to the shrill anti-intellectualism of Fox News…”
And Keith agrees with him. Please provide the scientific evidence that Fox New is “anti-itellectual”. For those who profess the purity of scientists and the scientific method I sure read a lot of general BS opinions.
For me when I see comments like this, pretty much anything that comes after is tainted and biased and tnot worth my time.
Also, thanks Keith I had not received my instructions from Marc yet that Climate Change is a litmus test position for the presedential race. Why don’t you contact Gallup and have them poll registered voters and have them ask if they know of Marc Morano. I’m gussing <5%.
Keith,
Please accept this open comment. It is my opinion that there are many, many people like myself who started investigating this issue out of geniune concern for the future of their families, long before the advent of today’s current blogwars courtesy of Monkton, Morano, Watts, RealClimate, Tamino, etc. I have an engineering (BSME) degree coupled with a natural curiosity and concern for my fellow man. I don’t “believe in evolution”, however, I subscribe to the evolutionary theory. I’ve read all four IPCC reports among dozens of other materials specific to climate change. At this point I cannot subscribe to the CAGW theory. In my opinion there are serious issues with all three legs of the AGW stool – paleoclimatic theory, instrumentation records and the GCM’s. Skepticism is healthy. Zealotry is not.
Glenn Kessler’s “fact checking” is wrong on one of the points. Before I get to that issue though, I want to point out the quote given by his piece is wrong. The last sentence in the piece is quoted as being:
But I do not buy into, that a group of scientists, who in some cases were found to be manipulating this data.
In reality, Rick Perry said “manipulating this information,” not “manipulating this data.” It’s amusing for a fact checker to get a quote wrong. You’d think that would be one of the most important facts a fact-checker would check.
Now then, while funny, Kessler messing up the quote doesn’t mean much (and it doesn’t change anything). However, he did make a mistake which is significant. Rick Perry referred to scientists “who in some cases were found to be manipulating this information.” It’s important to note Perry never said who found this. Kessler responds to this by saying “five investigations have since been conducted into the allegations “” and each one exonerated the half-dozen or so scientists involved.” This is a non-response. Scientists could have been found to have manipulated data/information regardless of whether or not some investigations (which weren’t actually investigations in any meaningful sense of the word) found such. While this may seem like quibbling over semantics, it is extremely important as Kessler said:
So, in contrast to Perry’s statement, there have not been a “substantial number” of scientists who manipulated data. Instead, there were a handful “” who were falsely accused.
The part I made bold is untrue. Kessler has not addressed any accusations or made any effort to show they are false. He simply claimed five investigations cleared the scientists, thus the accusations are false. That’s not how fact-checkers are supposed to work. It is faulty logic, and it leads him to saying something which is untrue.
Brandon,
You are wasting your time.
“I know you roll your eyes at Monckton and Morano, and that you wish Anthony Watts could restrain his partisanship.”
Actually I don’t roll my eyes about them any more than i assume the Believers do about Romm, Gore, Cook, Hansen, or Pachauri. The list goes on.
But Keith… “his partisanship.” Funny. Got a mirror handy?
Actually , I find Monckton pompous but informed and effective , and Morano amusing and effective . Essentially all Morano does is link these screeds so they can’t get by unchallenged.
Gore is every bit as much a religious left nut as Perry is religious right.
It appears to me that the typical catastrophic AGW true believer is someone with weak quantitative ability and education so they can do no better than put their faith in those government funded “scientists” who confirm their gut belief in man’s intrinsic sinfulness , and the need therefore of institutional force to keep him and all the non-believers pure .
Discounting even the overarching fact that they , like all life , only exists on earth because it began with a CO2 rather than O2 atmosphere.
All I care about is equations and data . And from the simplest extrapolation of the minor amount of warming minimally correlated with the extra molecule of CO2 per 10k in the atmosphere we may be responsible for since carbon fuels started extending our lifespans, to the quantitatively trivial change in our spectrum from additional CO2 at levels capable of sustaining life, fear of CO2 is just plain stupid.
EdG… you said it. What a desperate attempt by KK to try to defuse this amazing turn of events. What I enjoy so much is the warmists trying to link skeptics with evangelistic religion through the Creation vs Evolution debate when they are the ones who have got this whole “Repent Now!!… The end of the world is nigh” attitude. KK, here is a tip regarding the scientific method. When you make an extra-ordinary prediction and it doesn’t come true then your credibility is called into question. Climate “Science” has a credibility problem.
Truth is Perry will win and it won’t have jack to do with the irrelevant old-time green religion issue of “climate change.”
Perry will win because people are tired of the increasingly tired-looking, very gray, very beta male Obama and his failure to *raise morale.*
That’s mainly what people want out of a president. Morale. Everybody knows the sh*t is difficult and pretty much random — they want someone to act as if it isn’t.
Perry “not believing” in “climate change” is code, of course. No one gives a rat’s ass about “climate change” except blog doofuses who stupidly believe that expert prediction and projection have something to do with reality.
“Climate science” is *not* hard science. Period. It’s a tree-ring circus. Hey, that’s a good one. Anyone hear that before? 😉
Perry’s is smart as hell. He doesn’t give a damn about “climate change,” but he gives a big ol’ Texas goddamn about winning the US Presidency.
And a good way to do it is to mock ludicrous elitist green *cant* extravaganzas like “global warming” and “climate change.”
Enough said, I think.–
Alright, yeah, Mark got there before me as well as a million others. God Bless Google and God Bless America. 😉
It’s still dead-true that “climate science” is a tree-ring circus, however.
Everybody hear should read Dan Gardner’s “Future Babble.” Open your eyes.–
Perry is an utter Shill of the Bilderbergers and a puppet of Goldman-Sachs. He will do whatever the NWO tells him. Just don’t expect him to remove any “carbon Taxes” should he become POTUS.
Alex Jones, says that Perry is “channeling” Ron Paul, to try and fool the electorate into believing that the Texas Governor, Perry’s attitude has changed. This is transparent ploy really. Are people too stupid to see it?
See the Alex Jones videos:
“Rick Perry is the Banker’s answer to Ron Paul”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkMkJ5s1j0I&rel=0
Rick Perry’s Campaign Strategy: Become Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_KyjvfnHBs
Grant Kidney says:
Rick Perry Vs. Ron Paul: Who Will Win in 2012?
Posted by Grant J. Kidney on August 17th, 2011
“Unlocked minds who know that they’re being enslaved by a global, scientific dictatorship are aware of the fact that Ron Paul is indeed the true GOP front runner. However, the prescription medicated among us – the American zombies who do precisely as instructed by their television sets- are convinced that Rick Perry is the GOP’s last best hope to challenge President Obama in 2012.”
http://grantjkidney.com/rick-perry-vs-ron-paul-who-will-win-in-2012/
James Richard Perry = Perry hides cram jar (anagram)
WAKE UP YOU PEOPLE – Perry isn’t a real choice. He is there only to give you an illusion of choice. Nothing changed from Bush to Obama, and Perry won’t change anything either. CFR, Bilderberg, Goldman Sachs. The Banksters and their Puppet Shills will again triumph, because they have entered ALL the horses in this race (except for Ron Paul).
For the next 15 months, he will represent the Republican position on climate change. He will be the public face of climate skeptics. By then, Perry will also have thoroughly established the climate skeptic position as crazy. And as scientifically illegitimate as creationism.
And then what? Obama will win the election again, America will reject fossil fuels and the world will be saved? Nahh… don’t think so.
The merry-go-round of climate wars does not solve problems…. a good thing it is not carbon-intensive 🙂
Jarmo,
The thesis of my post does not extend beyond the 2012 election.
Except to say that the image of climate skeptics (assuming Perry remains a front runner and goes on to become the GOP nominee) will be very clear in the public mind: bat-shit, anti-science crazy (for the reasons I laid out in my post).
Now the interesting thing about the reaction of nearly all skeptic responses to this post is this: they aren’t bothered by this–in the least.
Indeed, as Marc Morano says over at Climate Depot, “Warmist Kloor assumes climate skeptics are embarrassed by Rick Perry’s climate views.”
That’s only partially true. I just assumed that those who really wanted the debate to be about science would be embarrassed.
Maybe there’s less of you than I imagined. I dunno.
I mean, look it at this way. Many skeptics have said that the pro-AGW side would be better served if it wasn’t so closely associated with Al Gore and the “alarmist” wing. I think there’s some merit to that (the operative word being “some”).
So why when the same logic is applied to the other side–that they would be better served if they weren’t so publicly associated with Perry’s brand of Morano-like climate skepticism, they go into a defensive crouch?
As you said, Jarmo, the “merry-go-round of climate wars…”
Keith Kloor, is your typical global warmer.
Thr global man made warming theory as far as I am concerned has already been proven to be wrong.
The models have predicted many ,many items incorrect, I will name some of the major blunders, to get the complete list go to the ICECAP.COM website.
The models predicted a more zonal amtopsheric circulation going forward,(reality is a more meridional atmospheric circulation has been evolving), in line with that prediction the models predicted less extremes in climate, the reality is climatic extremes have been on the increae since 2008, the models predicted a lower troposheric hot spot ,due to positive feedbacks between an increase of CO2 ,with watervapor,(reality is no troposheric hot spot has been shown to have come about at 400mb ,600mb or any level for that matter),the models predicted a colder startosphere especially near the poles(reality is the stratosphere has been warming ,especially near the poles) the models predicted more El Ninos and droughts,(reality is we just came off one of our strongest La Ninas ,with more to follow ,and record floods throughout Austrilia in response to the La Nina , have been occuring ,not droughts) Last but not least the models have been predicting the temperatures to continue to rise,(reality is the temperatures have failed to rise since year 2002 or so)
If the climatic models can’t predict the basic atmospheric circulation correctly ,how could they predict future climate? The two main reasons why the models can’t predict correctly, are first the data they receive is not accurate, and secondly it is not complete.
WHAT REALLY CONTROLS THE CLIMATE
It is the sun that sets the tables, and right now we are in a prolong solar minimum,this along with an inrease in volcanic activity in response to the prolong solar minimum, along with the PDO going into it’s cold phase, with more La Ninas(a more positive SOI INDEX), along with the AO becoming more negative,the AMO going to it’s cold phase later this decade, will all result in a tempeature decline this decade,along with more climatic extremes ,and increasing geological activity.
The global man made warming hoax theory ,should meet it’s ending within the next few years, as the prolong solar minimum’s impacts start to become more established.
Duration and degree of magnitude of the items that control the climate being most important
, which were mentioned above.
Past history confirms my thoughts, just go back to the last two prolong solar minimums those being the Dalton Minimum, and the Maunder Minimum ,and one will see this is the case.
Finally all of the recent warming can be shown to have been caused by the same natural items ,that were in a warm phase , especially from 1977-2002. Those being very high solar activity ,a warm PDO. many El Ninos, low volcanic activity, a mostly +AO , this has since changed ,and thus the recent temperature rise has come to a halt ,with a decline to follow.
Also let’s not forget that the warming of .7c or so that took place in the past 150 years or so up to year 2002, is one of the smallest temperature changes on earth over a time period of that length. Past history shows many,many ,many temperature swings both up and down, much greater in degree of magnitude then what last century had. Infact last century as a whole was one of the most stable climatic periods in earth’s history.
Imagine a trace gas, with a trace increase is going to control earth’s climatic system. Next joke.
KEITH, since you are the authority on climate, please give us an explanation to account for the may abrupt climatic changes that have taken place in the past. I mean we have had 100’s of them. Explain what has caused all these abrupt climatic changes to have taken place, during earth’s past history,and why?
I will be waiting for your explanation.
Stephen Wilde Theory, How The Sun Controls Earth’s Temperature, and my phase in theory as a compliment to his theory , will be proven to be the correct theories on climatic change before this decade is out. They are thousands of times superior to the man made global warming BS theory.
Anytime you would want to debate on the merits of our theory versus the global man made BS theory ,let us know.
Look, Keith. It’s you that is thinking in terms of a particular logic – i.e. you accept that Gore damages the warmist side, and so why don’t others accept that someone like Perry damages the sceptic side?
The thing is, some of us don’t think in those terms. Screw the politics and the politicking, the triumphalism and the schadenfreude. That’s just a game about winning and losing. If what one is interested in is the truth about the climate, then sooner or later actual events will illuminate that truth.
Meanwhile, the politicians will enact whatever policies they will enact. There’s rock all Joe Public can do about that barring voting for people they think will implement their favoured policies. There’s no guarantee that will happen since we all know politicians are lying, opportunistic bastards who often say one thing to get into power and another when it comes to exercising that power. Right and left are united in this tendency.
The Democrats gave us Obama — the most leftward member of the Senate and someone with strong ties to avowed communists and terrorists. And Keith thinks the GOP needs to worry about being too extreme.
Keith, the log in your eye is blinding you.
I support Perry completely. There is no embarrassment involved.
It is time that someone on the public stage called out the AGW crowd and their scam and exposed it for what it is, a political agenda that does not have the welfare of the people or the planet in mind.
It is all about power and greed, providing some individuals and banks with huge riches and government with huge undeserved revenue streams while creating unprecedented control over the activities and lives of all peoples and individuals.
Us unfunded, and honest scientists who know BS when we smell it, have nothing to complain about when somebody has the integrity to speak the truth.
Charles (70), Stan (69),
I don’t know what planet you guys are from, but you’re sure living up to the title of my post.
I like turning the bigoted propaganda hose right back at the Alarmists. “Democrats hate Christians, capitalism, and the Constitiution!” Distilled, simple, alliterative. Say it over and over again till it becomes the meme.
I’m a Catholic so I really don’t know much about creationism. Gallup tells us that 40% of the public believes in creationsim, 38% believe in God-guided evolution, and 16% think like you angry atheist Alarmists do, evolution with no God.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
Keith – you’ve always come across as media liberal, but one with a bit of a conscience who’s genuinely trying to find some middle ground with people whose opinions grate on you.
Phraseology such as “foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy” and “bathshit crazy” however, gives the impression you are sliding down the greasy slope into Romm territory.
I think I’ll be seeking the middle ground at Judith Curry’s from now on.
Ketih Kloor writes
==========================
Tom Gray (29):
Nice try. You mean abortion, of course. Or do you not see that as part of the culture wars?
But with respect to the endless war against evolution, you might be very much in sync with Perry, who would like to see creationism taught in public schools (and even mistakenly thought it was in Texas).
Indeed, just as you say, the creationism/evolution war waged by Discovery Institute et al
“has become just another front in the endless culture war between rationalism and faith in the US.”
==================
For some reason, Keith Kloor has decided that I am a a participant in the endless US culture war on the side of creationism. This is just a sad commentary on the state of the about AGW. As I said previously, AGW has become just another front in the endless culture wars between faith and rationalism. There is an assumption on both sides that if one does not agree in every detail with their opinion then one must be a proponent for the other side. This is not a situation which is conducive to coming to agreement on solutions.
For Keith Kloor’s information, I am an atheist who sees evolution as a useful theory that is the basis of modern biology. I regret that the scientific theory of evolution has become enmeshed in a moral between. those who profess faith and those who profess rationalism. Evolution works by means of natural selection which is by its very nature irrational. I hold with the Nobel prize winner Gerald Edelman that the basis of the brain function is what he calls “Neural Darwinism” or a selection among competing behaviors. To me Edelman’s works is a confirmation of the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein who saw human behavior as essentially irrational. Wittgenstein saw human behavior, as does Edelman, as selected not planned and based on what works and not as a result of deep rational planning. So evolution is irrational and is a good and useful theory to describe biological and mental systems.
So in the culture war between those of faith and the rationalists, I am a bystander. As for AGW, I am of the same opinion. I just want to see the selection of an adequate solution. I don’t want to be the winner in some US political war. Since I do not live in the US, US political machinations are only of a secondary concern to me.
I do not want to deviate the thread but if you think Perry will have a problem with the creationist talk you are wrong. It is very easy to make scientific hypothesis that uses evolution to prove God:
If you define God as a spiritual entity superior to the human spirituality than it is obvious that natural evolution leads toward God. I.e. humans are not the end result of evolution. Human society, similar with the cells society in the human body, will naturally evolve to create a new conscience superimposed on the human society. If a informational network made of cells evolved to create a conscience (us) then why not our human informational network would not evolve too? We humans we’ll be as much able to access it as a neuron is able to access our conscience.
Now, if it is proven that a superior conscience can naturally appear and evolve there is no reason why in other places it didn’t already evolve. Maybe we (the humans) are the modality these superior consciences multiply (i.e. we are the “son of God, the father). We, humans, multiply by creating a society of cells which evolve in creating another human conscience.
Such a conscience superimposed on our human civilisation would represent the so called “personal God”.
***
It is easy to dismiss the link by comparing the AGW theory with the “social evolution” theory (yes, the one used by the Nazis) or other racist theories.
Therefore Perry’s loud denials, once clarified and explained, will bring him the reputation of honesty and courage.
Pew Research center told us last fall that only 34% of Americans believe in man made global warming…
http://people-press.org/2010/10/27/little-change-in-opinions-about-global-warming/
Perry is following a safe path. Normal people don’t think like you Alarmists. He would be well advised to mock Gore and his acolytes as often as possible.
Kk. “batshit crazy anti-science” Republican position- this has been exaggerated just like all the other pseudo-science scare stories- nukes, anti-vaxer, anti gm food etc.
“batshit crazy antiscience” democrats: sure we made up the whole thing about nukes DDT vaccines gm food etc etc etc but this time you should trust us! This time we only want to turn offend electricity!
jeffn-
Just so you know: I think that liberals that are anti-vaxx and woo-loving, and anti-GM are batshit crazy, too.
I’m being unnecessarily provocative with such language, I recognize that. Normally, I’m not so flippant. But in any case, longtime readers know that I’m just as critical of the irrational, anti-science positions held by liberals. (That’s why they love me so! 🙂
Tom Gray (74)
You shouldn’t infer anything. But it was glaring how you referenced the culture wars without mentioning abortion or creationism.
Foxgoose (73)
Sorry to see you go. You know where to find me when you want to hear it straight from someone who doesn’t pull punches with either camp.
Mike Mangan (72)
If you think I’m an angry atheist or an “alarmist,” you haven’t been reading this blog for long.
I do not know what John Huntsman meant when he wrote “… I believe in evolution …”. However the statement “I believe in evolution.” is normally meant a as a moral statement about the place of humanity in the world. It is associated with another statement “Humanity is a species like any other” which is a direct statement about humanity’s lack of a right to interfere with the environment for its own benefit. It is contrasted with the statements “I do not believe in evolution” and its associated statement “Humanity is an exceptional species” which are again statements about humanity’s right in the shaping the world.
So both of the statements about evolution are moral statements about humanity’s role in the world and are not scientific statements. They cannot be falsified
In the US context, this has become associated with atheism and evangelical religion and have come also to be moral statements about the significance of the individual. For some, there is a personal god who values every individual and gives them meaning. They see evolution as indicating that the individual has no meaning except as part of the means of selection. For others, human beings can find their place in the world by understanding it through rational analysis. An individual makes his/her own meaning and has no need for a personal god.. These positions are not reconcilable and so the endless culture war rages on. It find outlets in political discussions. Unfortunately, given technology’s place in world culture it also finds outlets in scientific discussions. Each side tries to point out the foolishness of the other side’s beliefs and attempts to show that they are, the ultimate insult, “anti-scientific.
I read part of Dawkin’s “God Delusion” and read the portion in which he describes people who believe in the Holy Trinity. He was astonished that anyone could believe in what they do not understand. I thought of quantum theory with the many competing interpretations. There is no satisfactory human understandable interpretation of quantum theory. Yet scientists have devised ways in which they can make extremely accurate predictions about the world. Scientists also indicate that these calculations rely on methods for which there is no mathematical justification. There only justification is that they work and are thus useful. So some people find eh Holy Trinty useful but cannot say they understand it. Some people find quantum theory useful but cannot say they understand it. My own conclusion about Dawkins’ book was that it is not useful.
In regard to the culture war:
Both the “I believe in evolution” and “I don’t believe in evolution” moral statements derive form the millenarian branch of Christianity. They both derive from the belief in some strains of Christianianity that humanity’s role is to prepare the earth as a paradise for the second coming of Christ. However, this bit of European social history (Lancelot Andrewes and all the rest) is usually unpleasant for participants in the US culture war so I won’t go further.
OK. Keith, present company excluded, of course! 🙂
Mr. Kloor –
It strikes me that Perry’s charge – that information has been manipulated to garner grant money – which you brand as anti-rational, anti-science, creationist, knuckle-dragging, etc. has been claimed very forthrightly by very knowlegeable people like Will Happer, Freeman Dyson, etc. I think his words might not have been chosen with enough care but he is on more solid ground than you think.
Tom C @ 82 – just because a bunch of other folk have said it too doesn’t make it true.
Mr. Kloor, I think that Prof.Walter Russell Mead has answered your question quite well, please see his post:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/19/feeding-the-masses-on-unicorn-ribs/
Please start reading with this: “let me put i this way. A GOP candidate might feel a need to please creationist voters and say a few nice things about intelligent design. That is politics as usual; it gins up the base and drive the opposition insane with fury and rage. No harm, really, and no foul. But if that same politician then proposed to base federal health policy on a hunt for the historial Garden of Eden so that we could replace Medicare by feeding old people on fruit from the Tree of Life, he would have gone from quackery-as-usual to raving incompetence.”
And them it goes on with mr.Obama and Green Jobs.please read it!!
Huntsman is looking to be the next to last candidate standing. If the rest of the aspirants split the wingnut vote and he picks up the 15-30% of the Republican voters who are still not in Fox land, then he can make it to the last two and if it comes down to the last primary in CA he has a shot.
Well, as the EPA continues to shut down coal fired power plants, rapidly driving up energy costs for all, increasing the already high unemployment and causing blackouts for many… I’m sure you will see Perry’s popularity rise. All these people who are currently disinterested in AGW will soon wake up and… guess what side they are going to be on come Nov 2012?
But if Huntsman were to actually win the R nomination, it would mean a third party Tea Party candidate. No way the R base would support him. Look at the Colo gubernatorial race last year. I only wonder if a Romney nomination would cause the same thing.
@ Louise –
Mr. Kloor thinks that Perry’s views put him beyond rational discourse, that he is “bat-shit crazy”. My point is that he should then be willing to accuse Will Happer and Freeman Dyson similarly. Mr. Kloor?
Huntsman is doubling down and drawing the contrast between him and Perry.
Like I said in the post, Perry will be the face of anti-science Republicanism. I just didn’t expect another Republican to crystallize the picture for the public–and so soon.
Richard Nixon’s head in a jar has a better chance of getting the nomination than Huntsman. I hope both Palin and Ryan get in. I remember watching both political conventions in 1968 as a third grader. I’ve longed for an exciting “and on the 24th ballot they finally broke the deadlock” type of drama ever since.
If we are to play the political associations game, I believe that the AGW position will be hurt by its association with the so-far failed and incompetent Obama administration.
Obama likes global warming theory. People don’t like Obama. People won’t believe a theory Obama believes and espouses (AGW theory).
If Obama goes people will dump global warming theory like a hot potato. Congress should hold hearings where “climate scientists” are forced to respond to why they spent billions of dollars to “research” a defunct notion while the country wallowed in a severe recession. The billions spent on this fraud are an outrage.
“foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy”
“buffoonish antics”
“sweeping declarations”
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. (Applies to CAGW alarmists)
Even the Democrats number one constituency, African-Americans, are getting tired of the rubbish of “green jobs.”
“Of course, we want to be a part of the new innovation and the green jobs,” Rep. Maxine Waters said on MSNBC Thursday. “But you know, the green jobs have been about a lot of talk and not a lot has been happening on that.” A few hours later, also on MSNBC, Waters said flatly: “All of this talk about the green jobs never materialized.”
Waters is a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Last month, the chairman of that group, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, told the Huffington Post that green jobs had little meaning for his constituents. “African-Americans out there were saying, ‘What do we have in common with this new, green technology?'” Cleaver told the website.
I always like to point out to African-Americans that “going green” means paying a lot more for gas and electricity so rich white people can feel better about themselves.
aka Mary @35: Whew, I just did the math and realized Mike isn’t my brother….I was worried there for a second….
We Mangans get around.
Well, I haven’t seen a thread here like this for a while. Kinda fun.
As a die-hard Obama supporter, I’m happy to see Rick Perry make a mistake. I don’t think it says too much about Perry–more about the quality of advice he’s getting. FWIW, I think Obama’s gotten a lot of bad advice about climate change, too.
I think Morano has started taking himself seriously (or has been directed to be more serious by Sen. Inhofe, who may have started thinking of himself as kingmaker for the Republican nomination, something I’ve been saying for quite a while). I think Perry is probably tactically smart not to piss off Inhofe at this stage of the game.
If Perry’s smart, now that he has paid proper skeptical obeisance, he’ll let the matter rest. If he’s dumb as dirt, he’ll adopt the Crusade and make a fool of himself.
If he’s average, he’ll waver back and forth and make a couple of mistakes regarding timing that won’t have a huge effect on the election.
I think probably he’s average.
What I don’t think is that he is an evile moustachioed villain out to destroy all we liberals hold dear. He’s just a conservative acting conservatively.
Nor do I think he’s a saint destined to rescue the Republicans from the mediocracy of the electoral field that faced them a week ago. He will have serious problems to overcome based on his actions as governor of Texas. How long before other Republicans start harping on his connection to Al Gore, ya think?
Vote for Barack Hussein Obama in 2012. I will. But without painting his opponents as caricatures. (I save that for certain commenters here).
What was the question again?
@97
It’s been overwhelmingly answered by this thread. Do you have a different answer?
@55, Shub Niggurath tells me I’m wasting my time by pointing out the error in Kessler’s piece. I suspect he’s right. When “investigations” can avoid investigating things then flat-out make things up for their conclusions, and journalists simply accept them at face value, what good can pointing out the failings of the investigations do? Their accuracy apparently has no relevance to the media.
As for Rick Perry, I don’t see any reason I should try to distance myself from him, and I think Keith Kloor gives him far more attention than he deserves. Kloor claims:
For the next 15 months, [Perry] will represent the Republican position on climate change. He will be the public face of climate skeptics.
If Perry actually gets the Republican nomination, maybe Kloor’s claim will ring true. However, Perry only announced he was going to run for president a week or so ago, and there’s little reason to assume he will win the nomination. As far as I see it, unless Perry remains very vocal about global warming throughout a successful campaign, I don’t think skeptics (or Republicans) are going to be associated with him any more than most people they get associated with.
This is especially true given the things Perry said about Bernanke. If Perry keeps his current trend up, nobody’s going to care much about his outlandish claims due to how many outlandish claims he makes.
You know what, Perry’s position isn’t as indefensible as I thought. Data manipulation includes a variety of things, including selective reporting. Now then, Perry didn’t say how many people were guilty data manipulation, but there is certainly a case to be made for it.
For example, The IPCC is guilty of it in its last two assessment reports. I don’t know how many of the “thousands of scientists” involved in the assessment reports should get blamed, but I do know the number is commonly used to promote the report. Even if you only blame those directly involved with the wrongdoing, you’ll still get at least a few dozen cases.
Global warming concerns may not be based on data manipulation, but data manipulation is certainly used to support them, and scientists tend not to complain about it.
#63 Keith,
The thesis of my post does not extend beyond the 2012 election.
Except to say that the image of climate skeptics (assuming Perry remains a front runner and goes on to become the GOP nominee) will be very clear in the public mind: bat-shit, anti-science crazy (for the reasons I laid out in my post).
I mean, look it at this way. Many skeptics have said that the pro-AGW side would be better served if it wasn’t so closely associated with Al Gore and the “alarmist” wing. I think there’s some merit to that (the operative word being “some”).
So why when the same logic is applied to the other side”“that they would be better served if they weren’t so publicly associated with Perry’s brand of Morano-like climate skepticism, they go into a defensive crouch?
I think that most sceptics of my flavour ignore Morano and Perry as far as AGW is concerned. They obviously have other reasons than science that motivate them.
I think it is the same with many AGW supporters: Gore and all the pseudoscientific stuff that was and is pushed to sell AGW to John Q. Public is pathetic or hilarious, depending on your mood.
As far as public association goes, well, as you know it’s political. Spinmeisters on both sides trying to paint the other side as crazies.
People are told who to associate with whom.
For example, after that mass murder in Norway, the usual crowd that would like to ban hunting started crowing about banning all firearms. Kind of useless to emphasize that gunowners are not foaming-mouth right -wing lunatics. Their mind is made up.
Over here you can lose your gun permits for drunk driving or any sort of violence so gunowners on average are more law-abiding than the general population.
But I digress. The point is that there are always people that try to associate you, your lifestyle, your opinion, your religion etc. with some sinister character or purpose, usually because these people have an agenda of their own. You just have to trust that with time, the public will see through those claims. All Greens are not leftover sleeper agents (or wannabes) of the Soviet Union trying to promote world government, all Christians do not go around blowing up abortion clinics etc. You have to see beyond the headlines of media and most people will.
According to a whistleblower in Texas, Perry has been up to all kinds of weird and kinky sex practices, and even derives money from investments in a string of dirty bookstores and emporiums. Youy can’t make this kind of thing up. This may be ad hominem, but hey the man is a hypocrite. A phoney who preaches Christian values, while secretly indulging in disgusting orgies…. allegedly.
Read this full page advert placed in the Austin Chronicle.
http://images.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/18/rick_perry_women_ad/morrowadbig.jpg
See the Appearances on the Alex Jones show where all is revealed in lurid and disgusting detail. We should not be subjected to this kind of hypocrisy and corruption. I don’t know which is worse.
Robert Morrow: Rick Perry’s Little Bisexual
Sexcapades & Murky Land Deals! 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pry4a353VCE
Other two parts appear on the right column at YouTube page.
Then also see the next video
Infowars TV Interviews Rick Perry Sex Scandal Accuser 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K5vunjeUZ4
Again the second part appears at the right of YouTube page
You cannot make this stuff up, can you.
Will Perry still become POTUS? …… it’s up to you.
The last president with sexually questionable behavior was Bill Clinton – Democrats claimed that his sex life was irrelevant to his performance as president.
It is unquestionably true that the US economy in 2016 will be in far better shape with Perry as president than with ex-community organizer Obama as president.
Unpopular Obama’s association with global warming is contributing to the unraveling of support for it.
Funy you should mention Bill Clinton, but Perry at the time a “Democrat” was instrumental in getting Al Gore elected as Vice President. Some old Wall Street chums helped out enormously.
Blackmail is the name of the game here. You cannot possibly trust a President who is capable of being blackmailed into submission, by a succession of unsavoury characters from his past. criminal bosses, druglords, foreign agents, prostitutes and their pimps & etc. What message would this send to the rest of the World? Here we go again with yet another corrupt presidency, waging wars around the globe, on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex, and the corrupt Scientific Dictatorship of the Bogus and Hokum Carbon Tax Frauds.
Perry we know is tainted by associations with Goldman Sachs Bank.
Former Goldman Sachs men are infesting the Whitehouse & the Treasury already. Bernanke & Kashcarri will be carrying off more cash of the US taxpayer, and then refusing to tell Congress where the money went. (it was sent to foreign banks outside the USA).
Yet you still say that “It is unquestionably true that the US economy in 2016 will be in far better shape with Perry as president”. Sadly this is a delusion. Wake up & smell the coffee (while you can still afford buy coffee)…….
Obama’s attitude about “global warming” shouldn’t be a surprise. He said before being elected, that “Under my plans, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.” Yet you sad twits voted him in in your droves, and now you may do the same for Dick Pervy.
What’s the matter with you people?
Keith Kloor : “And a little more than half the country will call him crazy and re-elect President Obama.”
Listen to KK, climastrologer extraordinaire and now oracle of presidencies.
You add $100, he’ll tell you what he can see in his crystal ball about your next 10 year life.
Axel says:
“Obama’s attitude about “global warming” shouldn’t be a surprise. He said before being elected, that “Under my plans, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.” Yet you sad twits voted him in in your droves, and now you may do the same for Dick Pervy.”
Not all of us voted for Obama and if its Obama vs. Perry we can only vote for one of them. We know for sure Obama is generally incompetent, pursues ruinous economic policies, some of them tied to his belief in the global warming hoax. Perry for sure will be better for the economy and we learned from Clinton that a president can’t be blackmailed about his/her sex life since no one cares about it (especially under the current circumstances).
Axel says that under Perry:
“Bernanke & Kashcarri will be carrying off more cash of the US taxpayer…” If you follow news in the US at all you know that Perry recently criticized Bernanke in the strongest possible terms. Obama, of course, reappointed him.
Fred, the difference is that Perry is likely to be found in bed with a male goat.
Dick Pervy’s paymasters ARE Goldman Sachs associates. In that respect he is no different to Obamstick. Pervy’s criticism of Bernanke is a transparent ploy. Obamstick re-appointed a lot of old Bush Staffers, because Barry too is in hawk to Wall St. interests. The Whitehouse is infested with former Goldman Sachs people.
Fred said: “we learned from Clinton that a president can’t be blackmailed about his/her sex life”…. Is that really what we learned?
I saw that differently. Years of legal wrangling, which destroyed Clinton’s integrity, and years of inaction on important issues, because of the sex & drugs insinuations. A denegration of the position of POTUS, and a dimunition of authority of the post.
—– who is really controlling the agenda ? —–
See the videos about the Big Bad Bank and it’s obnoxious deeds.
George Hunt Speaks – Part 1 – The Gang Behind The Rio Earth Summit of 1992
George Hunt Speaks – Part 2 – The secret pseudo-eco-bank of the Globalists (2010)
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man – John Perkins
The Big Bad Bank – Updated – George Washington Hunt
These are collated on Video Wall #8, at the website linked to the name “Axel Says:” above. Check them out now, and see why the Presidents “elected” or selected by this process will always be disingenuous, and even bogus. Certainly they will do the bidding of those who put them in position, this is only natural.
Ron Paul isn’t involved in that chicanery, and so the bankers fear him, and the Global elites fear him. But are Y’All a’feared to vote for him. Are Y’All a’feared for the unknown future that an honest administration might bring. Used to the Graft & Payola society, a’feared to step into the light of truth, honesty & justice.
Prove me wrong. Get Paul selected as official GOP candidate, and watch him crush Obamstick and his FED buddies into the dust at the Election. A new era of constitution rule, and honest money is within your grasp, or more of the same old bribery and scams?
It’s up to YOU.
The only thing this comment thread answers overwhelmingly is that rank-and-file lefties love model-based science.
What else is new? 😉
First, I believe in evolution and I believe in general Science is a Good Thing. I do not, however, see any discernible relationship between Science and whatever it is that the small cabal of academics at the heart of the IPCC’s AGW scare are doing.
Second, I note repeated references to “black helicopter” believers in the post and several comments. Yes, Virginia, there are black helicopter teams (except that they are actually a very dark green); they belong to the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and yes, they did in the ’90s frequently fly unannounced and unacknowledged low-altitude “training missions” over civilian areas of American cities and towns. You may want to find a different term for those you believe prone to overactive imaginations.
Craig unfortunately you can not unring a bell.
From the urban dictionary web site.
black helicopter theory
Black helicopters are part of a conspiracy theory that claims that special silent running “black” helicopters are used by secret agents of the New World Order, United Nations troops preparing to invade the United States of America, and/or the Men in Black. Parapsychologist John Keel has argued that this theory has similar origins to those regarding UFO’s, ghosts and fairies; that they are part of modern mythology; in this case, representing a fear of the government and its technology.
Friends and I started using the phrase after a week in the Anza ““Borrego desert when are nightly entertainment was listening to Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM in the 90″s.
Axel,
So you’re a troll for Ron Paul? The guy who doesn’t believe in evolution. And who has said this about climate change:
“You know, the greatest hoax I think that has been around in many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming. You notice they don’t call it global warming anymore. It’s weather control,” Paul said in a Nov. 2009 interview with Fox Business.
Re Perry… some wishful comments from the German Climatetroopers:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/20/green-solar-jobs-in-germany-fail-to-materialize-german-greens-on-perry/
Includes some inconvenient truths emerging about the great ‘green jobs’ boom that isn’t happening there.
That is the foreshadowed meaning of Jon Huntsman’s tweet. Do you get that? If so, what are you going to do about it?
#######
retweet!
duh!
Keith’s complete slience to all my commentary and questions proves my point. An empty vessel, with no convictions to back up is global man made warming thoughts. Just wishful thinking which will end this decade.
Take a look over at Judith Curry’s blog.
At least some of the more prominent “skeptics” there assert that they see absolutely no problem with “skeptics” being associated with Young Earth Creationists.
In fact, they assert that Intentional Design is based on “scientific evidence” just like any other scientific theory.
In fact, one even calls Intentional Design a “major” scientific theory.
No, seriously. I’m not kidding. Go take a look.
Axel –
Alex Jones? Are you kidding?
Re: #101 –
<blockquote>But I digress. The point is that there are always people that try to associate you, your lifestyle, your opinion, your religion etc. with some sinister character or purpose, usually because these people have an agenda of their own.</blockquote>
The problem here is that you will find “skeptics” saying that something like Young Earth Creationism is a valid scientific theory. That isn’t simply guilt by association. That is a statement about how those “skeptics” view science.
Take a peek over at Judith Curry’s blog and you’ll see what I’m talking about.