iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Republican Global Warming Deniers Funded By Energy Industry

First Posted: 10/14/10 08:52 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:00 PM ET

Pat Toomey
Pat Toomey

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey drew headlines when he said in a local radio interview on Friday, that the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much disputed" and "debated."

It's not the first time he's made the argument.

"There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming," Toomey claimed in June.

Trolling Opensecrets.org, HuffPost found Toomey's top contributors include oil and coal giants Koch Industries ($15,000) and Murray Energy ($16,655). Those are the top two contributors of climate change skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who received $45,500 and $30,600 from those companies respectively.

Inhofe attracted national attention during the record-breaking snowfall in Washington in February when he built an igloo outside the Capitol with a sign on it that read: "Al Gore's Home. Honk If You Like Global Warming." And for years now, Inhofe has insisted that global warming doesn't exist, deeming it "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

The only other Senate candidates whose top contributors include these two companies are global warming deniers David Vitter (R - La.), John Hoeven (R - N.D), and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Vitter received $16,750 from Koch Industries and $17,378 from Murray Energy; Hoeven received $10,000 from Koch Industries and $20,789 from Murray Energy; and DeMint received $22,000 from Koch industries and $24,333 from Murray Energy.

Hoeven has said of global warming "there's different opinions of exactly what's causing it," while Vitter has called evidence from liberals supporting climate change "ridiculous pseudo-science garbage." Meanwhile Demint took to Twitter to write, in the midst of the snowstorm in DC last winter: "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle.'"

The Washington Post cited Toomey as a prime example of a Tea Party candidate who comes across as moderate and reasonable, when compared to the likes of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, but who holds extreme views on specific issues -- in this case, climate change.

The question is whether Toomey's view can even be considered extreme given the views of others in his party.

Though his claims are sharply at odds with scientific consensus, which holds that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming, Toomey's position on climate change will likely be the position held by a majority of GOPers in in the 112th Congress.

A roundup by ThinkProgress's Wonk Room shows that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution. ThinkProgress's Brad Johnson writes:

Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, no one supports climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O'Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.


Many of these Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries' Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to "Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures."

HuffPost found Koch Industries was a top contributor for Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Daniel Coats (R-Ind), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Murray Energy was a top contributor for Carly Fiorina (R-Calif.), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Every one of these Republican candidates for Senate has questioned climate science. (Click on their names for an example.)

Neither company funded a single Democratic candidate for Senate.

In Alaska, the state most coveted by the oil and natural gas industry, Exxon Mobil donated some money to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller and more to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski, who suffered an unexpected defeat to Miller in the Republican primary election.

That mirrors the strategy Exxon Mobil used in the 2008 presidential election when it contributed to both Barack Obama and John McCain. Though McCain would presumably better protect company interests, by donating to both candidates Exxon might hope to curry favor with whoever ultimately won power.

Listen to Toomey's local radio interview here -- the relevant conversation starts around the 15 minute mark -- or watch an excerpt below.

Toomey is locked in a tight race with Rep. Joe Sestak to replace five-term Sen. Arlen Specter, who lost to Sestak in May's Democratic primary.

"This is just the latest example of Congressman Toomey's refusal to hear perspectives that don't fit into his own narrow mindset, even if those perspectives are backed by a large volume of credible evidence," said Sestak campaign spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. "But try as he might, Toomey can't escape from the facts. Pennsylvania needs a public servant dedicated to finding practical solutions to the problems we face, not another closed-minded ideologue bent on insisting that the 'world is flat.'"

Toomey's press office did not immediately respond to a media query made late in the day by HuffPost.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey drew headlines when he said in a local radio interview on Friday, that the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much di...
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey drew headlines when he said in a local radio interview on Friday, that the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much di...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,243
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (20 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sals
08:39 PM on 11/07/2010
these teabaggers and old hands like mccain would sell their families to be in congress.......they bring shame on our country.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
05:11 PM on 11/03/2010
"House Democrats who voted for the 2009 bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions – dubbed cap-and-tax by GOP opponents – had a terrible night.

Over two dozen lawmakers who favored efforts to clamp down on heat-trapping emissions were swept away on Tuesday's anti-incumbent wave, ushering in a new class of Republicans who doubt global warming science and want to upend President Barack Obama's environmental and energy policies.

Democrats who voted for the controversial House climate bill were slaughtered at the ballot box, including Rep. Rick Boucher, the 14-term Virginian who helped broker some of the key deals instrumental to its June 2009 passage. In the Senate, several reliable green advocates also went down to opponents who derided tough new environmental policies.

Come January, Obama will be working with a Congress that will have little appetite for the types of sweeping energy reform he sought over the last two years. With the House in Republican hands, some of the climate issue's most vocal advocates have been dislodged from their powerful perches, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman......."

from the liberal Politico blog.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:40 PM on 11/03/2010
Richard2: "ushering in a new class of Republicans who doubt global warming science"

I wonder how many of these science deniers agree with tea party icon Glenn Beck and doubt evolution too.

Speaking of, why do you continue to deny the opinions of the majority of Americans, R2
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
02:30 PM on 10/31/2010
From the sky is blue department: Roger Pielke Jr.

"...for the purposes of discussion, let's just assume that those on the political right are in fact ignoramuses. Even if that were the case, appeals to the wisdom of the educated (and the stupidness of others) would still be a losing electoral proposition as shown by the graph at the top of this post (data here in XLS): Americans older than 18 registered to vote with a college degree represent only 32% of the voting population. Those with an advanced degree represent only 11% of the population registered to vote. For those smart folks on the left, I shouldn't have to explain the corresponding electoral implications.

It should also be fairly obvious that when highly educated people tell those who are less educated that they are too stupid to know better, it probably does not lead to acceptance of claims to authority, much less reinforce trust in experts. In fact, it might even have the opposite effect."

For those on the left who spend a lot of time explaining how intelligent they are, their politics are not always so smart.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:13 AM on 11/02/2010
Here's Richard2's HuffPo comment profile.

http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­social/­Ric­hard2?­acti­on=co­mment­s&di­splay=­all­&sort=o­ld­est
http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­social/­Ric­hard2?­acti­on=co­mment­s&di­splay=­all­&sort=n­ew­est

He started on HuffPo with 126 straight denials of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts, following up one stray off-topic remark with nearly 1,700 more denials.

Who but a shill posts on only one topic?

But like he does here, this includes many posts to thwart anything that might crimp fossil fuel industry profiteering.

Richard2 will willingly lie about almost anything, but e.g., how is our arctic sea ice really doing?

www­.skept­ical­scien­ce.co­m/Ar­ctic-S­ea-­Ice-Par­t-­1-Is-Arc­t­ic-Sea-Ic­­e-recoveri­­ng.html

www­.arcti­c.no­aa.go­v/rep­ortc­ard/se­aic­e.html

psc­.apl.w­ashi­ngton­.edu/­Arct­icSeai­ceV­olume/I­ce­Volume.p­h­p

www­.scien­cene­ws.or­g/ind­ex/g­eneric­/ac­tivity/­vi­ew/id/63­4­26/title/­­Annual_Arc­­tic_ice_m­i­nimum_re­ac­hed

www­.time.­com/­time/­healt­h/ar­ticle/­0,8­599,1956­9­32,00.htm­­l#ixzz0m3F­­mvrcs

psc­.apl.w­ashi­ngton­.edu/­Arct­icSeai­ceV­olume/i­ma­ges/BPIO­M­ASIceVolu­­meAnomalyC­­urrent.pn­g

www­.arcti­c.no­aa.go­v/det­ect/­ice-se­aic­e.shtml

The problem is, with all the above data staring you in the face, to believe Richard2, you have to believe that most climate scientists and their organizations are willfully lying, while Big Oil, Gas, and Coal are as honest as the day is long.

I.e., you have to be pretty stupid. And Richard2 hopes you're really that stupid.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:49 PM on 10/31/2010
How are the glaciers in Glacier National Park doing?

http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/64674/title/GNP%E2%80%99s_glaciers__Going%2C_going
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:35 PM on 10/29/2010
Richard2: "Perhaps the Republican Senate candidates have been listening to the public"

What Republican Senate candidates are listening to is the science denial that is widespread in their voting base, as opposed to the National Academy of Sciences and the consensus of climate scientists.

From the poll you cited, R2:

---------------------------------

Continuing Partisan Divide over Global Warming

Views about climate change continue to be sharply divided along party lines. A substantial majority of Democrats (79%) say there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been increasing over the past few decades, and 53% think the earth is warming mostly because of human activity. Among Republicans, only 38% agree the earth is warming and just 16% say warming is caused by humans. Roughly half of Republicans (53%) say there is no solid evidence of warming...

Half (50%) of Democrats say global warming is a very serious problem and 32% say it is somewhat serious. Two-thirds (68%) of Democrats say it requires immediate government action. Just 14% of Republicans say global warming is a very serious problem and 27% view it as a somewhat serious problem; only about a quarter (24%) think it requires immediate action by the government...

Among Republican registered voters who agree with the Tea Party, fully 70% do not think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth is warming.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1780/poll-global-warming-scientists-energy-policies-offshore-drilling-tea-party
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
10:32 PM on 10/29/2010
This is an excellent further presentation of the new Pew Poll data. Here is some related thoughts.

Among Democrats, "53% think the earth is warming mostly because of human activity." That means that 47% of Democrats disagree with that statement. So views about climate change are sharply divided among Democrats themselves. However, this is rarely reflected by Democratic candidates.

Among Republicans, 16% think that the earth is warming mostly because of human activity, and 84% disagree with that statement. Most Republican candidates reflect the majority opinion, and a few Republicans reflect the 16% who think warming is mostly caused by humans.

Blending the Democrats, Republicans and Independents, we have only 34% of Americans agreeing that the earth is warming mostly because of human activity, and 66% disagreeing with the statement.

Elected officials within the Democratic Party have ignored public opinion completely, including a sizable minority within the Democratic Party itself. Further, they have made public speeches which attacked "deniers" and accused them of being "anti-science" without even understanding the honest views of a majority of the public on this topic.

The public can accept leaders who honestly disagree with them about certain issues. But the public has no stomach for leaders who show no respect for the fact that the public disagrees with them on the issue, of dangerous man-made global warming.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:42 AM on 10/30/2010
Lies, damned lies, statistics, and then incorrigible AGW denial.

R2, you are misusing statistics there. Do you perceive how? Are you deliberately misrepresenting public opinion? Again?

What kind of brain concocts such machinations as you present here? (A: an abby normal brain.)

In summary, do you also burn books?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:46 AM on 10/30/2010
R2: "Among Democrats, '53% think the earth is warming mostly because of human activity.' That means that 47% of Democrats disagree with that statement."

One would think that after your previous incorrect inference below where you ignored those who "don't know" that you wouldn't make the same error twice, R2 - that is, assuming that you didn't intentionally intend to.

In any event that's what you did, R2 - you made the same statistical misrepresentation/'error" twice in two posts.

What a surprise.

Speaking of reality denial:

Why do you R2 deny the opinions of close to two-thirds of Americans and assert that evolution is not disputed? In your mind do the opinions of the majority of Americans there, since you disagree with them, simply not exist?

Do tell, R2.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
01:41 PM on 10/28/2010
Perhaps the Republican Senate candidates have been listening to the public:

Views about the existence and causes of global warming have changed little over the past year. A new, October 2010 Pew Research Center poll finds that:

Roughly a third (34%) say that global warming is occurring mostly because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which also is little changed from last year (36%).

So roughly one third of the public thinks that global warming is occurring mostly because of human activity. That infers that roughly two thirds of the public doesn't agree with that statement, a clear majority.

An additional question that should have been asked is: if climate change is happening, do you think it is dangerous, beneficial, or neither?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:12 AM on 10/29/2010
The word you were looking for is 'implies'. You yourself are doing the infering here.

Any other reasonable person might conclude that the other two thirds are disinterested or uninformed.

I concede that a certain percentage just 'knows' that we homo sapiens don't affect climate. They are the loudest ones on the matter.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:08 PM on 10/29/2010
R2: "roughly one third of the public thinks that global warming is occurring mostly because of human activity. That infers that roughly two thirds of the public doesn't agree with that statement, a clear majority."

Your inference R2 is incorrect. As the poll data shows if you had bothered to look at it 15% say they don't know, not that they disagree.

That means about half of Americans disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming.

For comparison, close to two-thirds of Americans disagree with the scientific consensus on evolution - despite your claim R2 that evolution is not disputed.

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=715

Why do you deny the opinions of close to two-thirds of Americans, R2? Are those who dispute evolution not real humans to you? Or just not real Americans?

R2: "An additional question that should have been asked is: if climate change is happening, do you think it is dangerous, beneficial, or neither?"

Try to answer that question by making a correct inference from the following information from the same poll you cited, R2:

"How serious a problem [is global warming]?"

Very serious: 32%
Somewhat serious: 31%
Not too serious: 16%
Not a problem: 18%
Don't know: 3%

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1780/poll-global-warming-scientists-energy-policies-offshore-drilling-tea-party
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
12:21 PM on 10/29/2010
Ah, that's a good benchmark. More Americans believe in AGW than evolution? We are getting somewhere.

As I suspected from the way he constructed his argument, he was eliding or obscuring important facts about the very poll that he was using.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:21 PM on 10/29/2010
maslin: "More Americans believe in AGW than evolution?"

Yup. And Richard2 denies that evolution is disputed at all, let alone by the majority of Americans.

Why don't you trust the word the majority of Americans about what they say they believe, R2?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:48 PM on 10/26/2010
after the last two years, the science is in question. This only boils down to do you think the America should pay a tax for something that isnt proven
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:00 PM on 10/27/2010
Your point is a political point. Has nothing at all to do with the science of the situation.

Among those scientists whom are qualified to have a scientific opinion, the science is settled.
Certainly, there are a few scientists who are still skeptical. But the overwhelming majority are not. To suggest otherwise is to be deceptive.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:54 PM on 10/27/2010
No, to suggest it has nothing to do with Americans paying a tax to to the IMF is the only thing that is proven...it has nothing to do with the enviroment. The science on the warming is disproven, so much so their was an article last month saying it is back to cooling. Come on.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:00 PM on 10/27/2010
Vino you offer proof by assertion, hard to take you seriously here.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:49 PM on 10/27/2010
vino22: "after the last two years, the science is in question."

Science is always "in question" - as for example evolution scientists are well aware.

vino22: "This only boils down to... something that isnt proven "

Scientific theories are never "proven" - they are instead either supported or disproven by the scientific evidence. And the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:51 PM on 10/27/2010
The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.

* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be below freezing.

* Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing CO2 atmospheric concentrations over recent decades has caused increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere.

* The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said atmospheric CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic (man-made) global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which again is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
10:47 PM on 10/27/2010
'Me: "Two words for you, as you are evidently illiterate on the subject: Carbon Cycle. Look it up."

Vinny22: "I did look it up, it is a scam"

You are saying the Carbon Cycle is a scam?!?'

. . .

Wow.

Yeah - those damn plants are STEALING our carbon!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
10:55 PM on 10/24/2010
The Republican's position is being encouraged by the general lack of concern among the public concerning the global warming issue. From the January, 2010 Pew Poll:

"Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents."
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:50 PM on 10/25/2010
Hey Richard2:

Can you admit you were wrong about evolution not being "disputed", or are you going to continue to deny reality on this science-related question too?

I think the answer is quite clear at this point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
09:41 PM on 10/27/2010
The other problem being that short term economic difficulties like the recession take peoples minds of the much more important long term issue of global warming.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:44 PM on 10/24/2010
To Richard2:

You claimed here that "evolution is not disputed."

Here again is Professor Roy Spencer (University of Alabama, Huntsville), disputing evolution:

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

http://en.­­­wikipedi­a­.­org/wi­ki­/R­oy_S­pen­cer­_(­scie­ntist­)

Can you admit you were wrong about evolution not being "disputed", R2, or are you going to continue to deny reality on this science-related question too?

Please finally answer the question; thanks.
03:50 PM on 10/25/2010
Well, it is wrong to say it isn't disputed. Even rock solid claims are disputed by those who are not able to reason. Posting a resource that says that Intelligent Design is on the same scientific footing as Evolution makes it clear where this person stands and that this person is unable to reason.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:38 PM on 10/25/2010
Agreed.

And yet climate science deniers like Richard2 regard Dr. Roy Spencer as one of world's greatest authorities on global warming science, Dr. Spencer's evolution science denial (to say nothing of Spencer's climate science denial) notwithstanding.

I guess climate science deniers like Richard2 to continue to regard Spencer as a reliable science authority by repeatedly denying to themselves and others the irrefutable fact that Spencer disputes global warming, which is what Richard2 continues to do.

Science deniers are good at reality denial, if nothing else.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:47 PM on 10/25/2010
D'oh! I wrote:

"I guess climate science deniers like Richard2 to continue to regard Spencer as a reliable science authority by repeatedly denying to themselves and others the irrefutable fact that Spencer disputes global *warming*"

I meant to write:

"I guess climate science deniers like Richard2 to continue to regard Spencer as a reliable science authority by repeatedly denying to themselves and others the irrefutable fact that Spencer disputes *evolution*..."

Hey Richard2:

Can you admit you were wrong about evolution not being "disputed", R2, or are you going to continue to deny reality on this science-related question too?

I think the answer is quite clear at this point.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:30 PM on 10/25/2010
Richard2: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
06:31 PM on 10/24/2010
The Purdue Climate Change Research Center and the Global Policy Research Institute will host a panel discussion with:

ROGER PIELKE, JR.
University of Colorado

ANDREW REVKIN
New York Times Dot Earth and Pace University

JUDITH CURRY
Georgia Institute of Technology

Out in the real world beyond Stanford, scientists and interested parties actually discuss climate issues in public without throwing mud and insults at each other. Hopefully, we will see more events like this at private and public universities in the United States in the coming year.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:02 PM on 10/24/2010
Dr. Judith Curry:

----------­----------­-----
The earth is getting warmer, and scientists conducting research on global climate change overwhelmingly agree: most of the warming since the mid 20th century has been caused by humans, primarily through burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. Climate model projections suggest that average global temperatures could increase from 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100...

[W]e need to continue with aggressive efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
----------­----------­----------­----------­-----

http://cur­ry.eas.gat­ech.edu/cl­imate/pdf/­atlanta_re­v.pdf
11:11 PM on 10/24/2010
You really need to either read things in their entirety, or at least pretend to...

This style of yours of misinformation is distasteful and crass.

I'm actually going to be in Purdue on November. The panel on Nov. 3rd is about climate policy, not climate science. The purpose of this forum is to examine why such a contradiction between growing scientific certainty and decreasing public belief in climate science exists.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:06 PM on 10/22/2010
Stanford Poll: Large majority of Americans support government solutions to global warming

June 10, 2010

Three out of four Americans believe that the Earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it,

http://new­s.stanford­.edu/pr/20­10/pr-glob­al-warming­-poll-0610­10.html

===========================

Richard2: "Yes, and consider the source. Stanford is the home of Paul Ehrlich..."

So let me get this straight:

If a university such as Stanford has one faculty member that in your mind is not credible or otherwise untrustworthy then in your mind all research at said university is not credible or otherwise untrustworthy, R2?

Do tell.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:49 PM on 10/24/2010
Another (pre-Stanford poll) poll that also contradicts Richard2's claim that a majority of Americans don't believe in global warming....

I wonder if Richard2 will now try to impugn Gallup's integrity as an organization too, just like he did with Standford University, instead of admit the truth that his claim is contradicted by multiple polls.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:04 PM on 10/24/2010
Richard2: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}
06:47 PM on 10/21/2010
There is a lot of factionalism going on here. To help some escape from their acquired opinions (acquired as one acquires the 'flu - by some kind of contagion, rather than by reason), here is a weekly blogpost full of provocative insights, and the occasional laugh at the vanities of those determined to save the planet, regardless of reality or of costs: http://dailybayonet.com/?p=6615
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:09 AM on 10/22/2010
"here is a weekly blogpost full of provocative...."

Getting your science from anonymous blogs is very foolish.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:59 PM on 10/22/2010
SecondTime: "There is a lot of factionalism going on here."

Right. For example some of us believe in science, and some of us instead believe in and get their "science" from anti-science fraud sites like the aptly-named ClimateChangeFraud.com.

You SecondTime, for example, take the "science" of ClimateChangeFraud.com so seriously that you claim that the Moon violates the laws of physics.

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."
-- Thomas Paine
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:36 PM on 10/21/2010
To Richard2:

You claimed here that "evolution is not disputed."

Here again is Professor Roy Spencer (a prominent anthropogenic global warming "skeptic"), disputing evolution:

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

http://en.­­­wikipedi­a­.­org/wi­ki­/R­oy_S­pen­cer­_(­scie­ntist­)

Can you admit you were wrong about evolution not being "disputed", R2, or are you going to continue to deny reality on this science-related question too?

Please stop evading and finally answer the question; thanks.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:00 PM on 10/22/2010
Richard2: {{ ... crickets ... }}}
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
12:49 AM on 10/21/2010
Here is the deal. The lamest statement ever made about critics of catastrophic man-made global warming is that they are "deniers funded by energy companies."

A large majority of people in Britain don't think that CAGW is real. A lessor majority of people in the US also don't think that CAGW is real.

The idea that energy companies can secretly fund a majority of the British and American people is simply absurd. Let's see, here in the U.S. there are over 300 million of us.

It is amazing that the people who think CAGW is a real and present danger, don't recognize that making absurd statements about other people who simply, respectfully disagree with them, doesn't win any support from people who haven't yet formed a definite opinion on the topic.

Critics of CAGW are simply critics of CAGW.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
10:23 AM on 10/21/2010
"The idea that energy companies can secretly fund a majority of the British and American people is simply absurd. Let's see, here in the U.S. there are over 300 million of us."

Yes, that is absurd. Why did you post it?

"Critics of CAGW are simply critics of CAGW."

Disagree. Some are terminal serial deniers. Can't be reasoned with. Won't listen, yet continuously spam and clutter up the forums with weak, easily refuted straw man arguments.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
12:51 PM on 10/21/2010
This is the problem. Suppose you think that Agathe Christie was the greatest mystery writer. And you have a friend who thinks Raymond Chandler was better. Is your friend a "serial denier" because of this? Using your logic, anytime a friend disagrees with any climate dogma, they suddenly become serial "denier."

Fans of Agathe Christie and Raymond Chandler have logically worked out their good reasons for preferring one over the other. Why is it necessary to resort to childish name calling? Why is it necessary to be a bully?

Voters are going to choose a group of new Senators soon. All polling data indicates that "global warming" is an insignificant issue with most voters. The election choices will be made based on other issues and for other reasons.

To call Republican candidates "extremists" just because they do not accept all the dogma of global warming is completely unfair. You would almost think the author was writing a hit piece for political reasons.

And this is a its core the single major problem with CAGW. The proponents don't act in an objective manner. They attempt to scare people with endless horror stories, but never try to find a balance this by telling the other side of the story. They are advocates, not observers. They have an agenda. And they are intolerant to others, in an age where tolerance is highly valued.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:12 PM on 10/22/2010
R2: "To call Republican candidates "extremists" just because they do not accept all the dogma of global warming is completely unfair."

There you go confusing science with dogma again, R2.

Speaking of dogma:

Can you admit you were wrong about evolution not being "disputed", R2, or are you going to continue to deny reality on this science-related question too?

Please finally answer the question; thanks.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
10:33 AM on 10/21/2010
'The article at the top of the thread explains how deniers are paid to express opinions contrary to the established science.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
08:53 PM on 10/21/2010
Yes, and the article is wrong. Many polls have shown that CAGW is very low on the list of issues that voters are concerned with. Republican candidates have other issues to campaign on. And Republican candidates getting funding from many, many sources, including individual contributions. So the headline "Republican Global Warming Deniers Funded by Energy Companies" is an exaggeration, at the very least.
photo
Left of Right
Want to default your country? Default your job!
10:35 PM on 10/20/2010
Here's the deal: This planet must be able to sustain the 7 billion people that are on here now and the generations to come. In order to do that we must be responsible stewards of the earth.

The am radio commentators, politicians and tv pundits "educate" their listeners and wield great influence. When they go against the thousands of scientists that collectively agree we are destroying ourselves, they cause great harm.

This is not a political game, we have 1 tenuous chance to get this right or we are, in the literal sense, doomed.

If you are wrong, your insistence that there is no such thing as climate change will have destroyed us all. If you are right, then fine, we have learned to extend life on the planet for other generations beyond what could have survived otherwise.

The am radio commentators, politicians and tv pundits either need to help or get out of the way and keep quite. Pad your pockets elsewhere, and leave this issue alone.