That is a good question, for real. You said back, I think in the Voice of Reason thread that skepticism is important in science, and I have to agree. Even so, I see a lot of acceptance going on by people who see the CAGW theory/hypothesis to be valid. I think they see the all the impressive credentials and stacks of published papers, and say, well, the work is all done- I must accept the work by these expert people. Admittedly, that sometimes works. Sometimes a consensus is right. But a consensus is not right just because it is a consensus. That is sort of winning by default, and not by being tested. I recall the first times I heard the term "settled science", and I thought- they're giving questioners the bum's rush!! That was just cheap. I am not,and never have been a scientist, but I worked as a lab tech and a field tech for entomologists and animal scientists at USDA Beltsville a long time ago, and I was a perpetual student at the U. of Md. for most of a decade, back when tuition was cheap-hard to believe, but full-time tuition for Md. residents was less than $300 a semester. Anyway, the consensus thing, the focus on consensus, in my opinion is "so what?" An example of an overwhelming consensus being wrong is the theory that stress causes peptic ulcers. Almost all doctors and medical researchers thought it was true, but it was not- 2 researchers, Robin Marshall and Barry Marshall discovered that that a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, was the cause of peptic ulcers. Yeah, the entire medical profession minus two people, wrong. So, it is not about consensus, much as the 97% is repeated. It is about whether a hypothesis fits reality, and when it is repeatedly, independently tested, keeps fitting reality. Then, it may be a good hypothesis. ...(full comment)
Look, let's be honest. You see Concord from the Interstate and it isn't appealing. The back end of buildings jutting out. Mostly ugly architecture, a few steeples and the gold dome of the State House. This isn't quaint Montpelier. People aren't going to stop except to get directions and pee. So why waste the money on the downtown? ...(full comment)
It is very clear this topic means a lot to you. But there are natural variables that appear to be missed completely, both here and in the piece about the Gulf of Maine. The waters in the Gulf of Maine were slightly warmer during the 1940s. Though the Gulf of Mexico generally bypasses the Gulf of Maine, sometimes there are natural events- the North Atlantic Oscillation, for example- currents sometimes shift. It is worth noting that there are localized natural phenomena. The Maine moose population apparently benefits from the logging operations there- the new growth in clearings is very attractive to moose. Plus, open areas may give the moose a better chance against predators. It is a big, simplistic mistake to just latch onto human produced carbon dioxide as the one driving variable- it does not fit with complex reality. ...(full comment)
You’re scrapping the bottom of the barrel of denierism now. The WSJ has had a standing offer from NASA/GISS to come visit for years. They’ve never bothered to take them up on it—who needs messy facts when ideology will do? Anything Bast and Spencer have to say should be examined with a critical eye. Bast is a founder of Heartland Institute, whose hijinks are legendary, and include support for Joe Camel, CFC’s, Creation Science, and the privatizing of virtually any and everything under the Sun. Spencer is a devout Christian who’s embraced Creation Science, and allowed his religious faith to color his science. As a result, he’s not highly regarded for the quality of his science. And for good measure, he’s apparently the go-to scientist for the Rank Limberger show.
It was a survey of members, some of whom are more knowledgeable about climate science than others. The more expert those polled regarding climate change, the more likely they were to agree with the 97% of experts on climate change. ...(full comment)
Based on the tone of her comments, Fenwick is a far-right gun fetishist who delights in making outrageous statements. The unsettling aspect is wondering how much of her nonsense she actually believes. One only has to venture over to Granite Grok to find similar sentiments routinely voiced. The frightening part is the short distance from Fenwick's vile expressions to the actions of extremists like the Oklahoma City bombers, or the survivalist who killed the Pa. trooper.
That "vast pool of oil money" should be seen as green-washing, and as a largely successful effort to co-opt major environmental groups--the WWF, and the Nature Conservancy foremost among them. On the other side,tens of millions in secret funding goes to denier groups from fossil fuels interests and right-wing billionaires intent on preserving (so they claim) "free enterprise". "The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon."
"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.
By definition that means none of the money is going to end up with groups like Greenpeace, she said. 'It won't be going to liberals.'
Ball won't divulge names, but she said the stable of donors represents a wide range of opinion on the American right. Increasingly over the years, those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organisations working to discredit climate science or block climate action."
While the congressional committee reports that you linked to approvingly released a report on funding of environmental groups that was hardly fair or balanced, since it could state with a straight face: "an elite group of left-wing millionaires and billionaires, which this report refers to as the 'Billionaire's Club,' directs and controls the far-left environmental movement, which in turn controls major policy decisions and lobbies on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." This is laughable, coming as it does from politicians like James Inhofe, who could easily be described as "the senator from fossil fuels".
Laurie, engage brain before operating mouth or keyboard. Hamas is a client of Syria and Iran. Now ask yourself who are the most deadly enemies of ISIS. Since you are clearly unable to find the correct answer, I'll give it to you: ISIS' deadly enemies are Syria and Iran. Do you consult with any of the other "usual suspects" to make sure that you get it backwards just about every time? ...(full comment)
Those who turn their swords into plow shares,will plow for those who do not...shame on you...Hamas is ISIS. You collar does not give your opinion merit, whence wrong. My God carries an AR15... ...(full comment)
Really? Not much of a musician are you? You're the one who sounds a single low "D" note in response to every news story or article on climate change. Your broad brush claims don't hold up, while you venture further down the rabbit hole of climate science denial. "Anti-science, anti-sense"--those are apt descriptions of men who've prostituted themselves repeatedly in the service of industry: men like Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso, Marc Morano-- once denying a link between 2nd hand smoke and disease, also denying the link between CFC's and ozone depletion, and now denying a link between CO2 and climate change. Consider the company they keep, and who finances their efforts at distorting the science--said efforts you frequently recite here. ...(full comment)