Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

GOP Senate Candidates Oppose Climate Science And Policy

Quote :

A comprehensive Wonk Room survey of the Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate finds that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution. In May, 2010, the National Academies of Science reported to Congress that “the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change” because global warming is “caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems.”This finding is shared by scientific bodies around the world. However, in the alternate reality of the fossil-fueled right wing, climate science is confused or a conspiracy, and policies to limit pollution would destroy the economy.Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, only one — Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware — supports climate action. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.

Only in it for the gold. Unless you're funded by the oil industry. That's perfectly acceptable.

Artie60438 wrote:

GOP Senate Candidates Oppose Climate Science And Policy

I think we should take another roll call on Intelligent Design, too.

Heretic wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

GOP Senate Candidates Oppose Climate Science And Policy

I think we should take another roll call on Intelligent Design, too.

We'll have plenty of opportunities for that during the 2012 Republican Presidential Debates considering how far to the right they've gone. I always look forward to the moment when the moderator asks the candidates to raise their hand if they don't believe in evolution.

And speaking of retarded nonsense, Geocentrists have an upcoming conference in South Bend in November. 'Cause remember, all those heliocentrists are just in it for the gold. Between this and AGW, it's the only way NASA gets any funding... right, BWG?

Skeptics discount science by casting doubts on scientist expertise

Quote :

The people behind the new study start by asking a pretty obvious question: "Why do members of the public disagree—sharply and persistently—about facts on which expert scientists largely agree?" (Elsewhere, they refer to the "intense political contestation over empirical issues on which technical experts largely agree.") In this regard, the numbers from the Pew survey are pretty informative. Ninety-seven percent of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science accept the evidence for evolution, but at least 40 percent of the public thinks that major differences remain in scientific opinion on this topic. Clearly, the scientific community isn't succeeding in making the public aware of its opinion.

According to the new study, this isn't necessarily the fault of the scientists, though. The authors favor a model, called the cultural cognition of risk, which "refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values." This wouldn't apply directly to evolution, but would to climate change: if your cultural values make you less likely to accept the policy implications of our current scientific understanding, then you'll be less likely to accept the science.

But, as the authors note, opponents of a scientific consensus often try to claim to be opposing it on scientific, rather than cultural grounds. "Public debates rarely feature open resistance to science," they note, "the parties to such disputes are much more likely to advance diametrically opposed claims about what the scientific evidence really shows." To get there, those doing the arguing must ultimately be selective about what evidence and experts they accept—they listen to, and remember, those who tell them what they want to hear. "The cultural cognition thesis predicts that individuals will more readily recall instances of experts taking the position that is consistent with their cultural predisposition than ones taking positions inconsistent with it," the paper suggests.

. . .

So, it's not just a matter of the public not understanding the expert opinions of places like the National Academies of science; they simply discount the expertise associated with any opinion they'd rather not hear.

No surprise there.

Former Republican Representative Sherwood Boehlert is equally dismayed by his party's unfounded attacks on science:

Quote :

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world's top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

. . .

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem's existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.

The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry - the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity - are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it's also bad politics.

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn't deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.

It's short and worth reading in full.

[quote="Heretic"]

Quote :

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world's top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I believe they are told to march in lockstep to their talking points. How else can anyone explain how every single Repub votes the same way on an issue. That rarely,if ever,happens on the Dem side.

Quote :

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

It's called "red meat" for the cranks that believe in creation and not evolution.

Quote :

My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it's also bad politics.

Yeah,well not reaching out to minorities is bad politics too,but that hasn't stopped them.

Quote :

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals.

There would be no place for Reagan in today's Repub party.

For the next mental midget who says Al Gore invented global warming. It's easily debunked nonsense, but here's a rebuttal presented in video since they have such an aversion to reading:

Not exactly AGW, but it's definitely related:

Quote :

How Species Save Our Lives

We still scoff at naturalists today. We also tend to forget how much we benefit from their work. Since this is the final column in this series about how the discovery of species has changed our lives, let me put it as plainly as possible: Were it not for the work of naturalists, you and I would probably be dead. Or if alive, we would be far likelier to be crippled, in pain, or otherwise incapacitated.

. . .

But our debt to the naturalists also takes more conventional form: Roughly half our medicines come directly from the natural world, or get manufactured synthetically based on discoveries from nature. The list includes aspirin (originally from the willow tree), almost all our antibiotics (from fungi that evolved in nature, not a Petri dish), and many of our most effective cancer treatments. I can remember a pale girl in second grade going off to die of lymphoma or leukemia; children with those diseases almost always died then. Now they routinely live, because of drugs developed from the Madagascar rosy periwinkle, a flowering plant. Many patients with lung, breast, uterine, and other cancers also now recover because in 1962 a botanist named Arthur S. Barclay collected samples of the Pacific yew tree, leading to the development of the anticancer drug Taxol. For those who think natural resources should stand or fall based on their current cash value, yew trees would have been basically worthless in 1961. But today, according to industry analysts IMS Health, Taxol is a $1.7 billion-a-year product.

An interesting article, the final of an eight part series that can be read in its entirety here.

This is fun. A collection of flip flops on global warming from some of the GOP Presidential hopefuls:

Quote :

On Global Warming, No Clear Skies For Most 2012 GOP Contenders

So as a service to GOP voters preparing their early 2012 crib sheets, here is a quick-and-dirty look--in six parts, with video and links--of how this year's potential candidates have approached the carbon issue:

I don't really know who to blame for this kind of stupidity. At the core, it's simple lies to get elected. Their base is science starved and retarded, so much so that merely acknowledging the problem will ruin any chance of getting elected. But their voters are only so ignorant thanks to the constant blaring of "it's a conspiracy" from Fox News and the conservative media, the idiots above included. Wherever it started, its a self reinforcing cycle of stupidity now, regardless. The GOP could break the chain if they were merely lying to get elected where they could actually address the problem once in office, but we all know that's not the case. Despicable liars the lot of 'em.

Darn, Heretic.
Did you ever consider that "that dust will be there...LOOOONG after I'm gone?
"

My gram told me at age 90 when people in the family caught her digging worms instead of cleaning the house.

The house is still there and new in-direct relatives need a "lashing".

UrRight wrote:

Darn, Heretic.
Did you ever consider that "that dust will be there...LOOOONG after I'm gone?"

What does that even mean? That we're immune to various biological laws and physics or that such biological collapses from said violations simply don't matter because the rock we inhabit is old?

Do you ever consider that "the dust will be there long after I'm gone?" in all your crazy ramblings on the dangers of minorities?