The republican party has become increasingly corrupted at the activist level by a mix of anti-science religious zealots and anti-climate change contrarian irrationalists. This is causing problems for candidates who need to make it through the endorsing process while still appearing rational enough to win the general election. The Reagan Library Debate had this tap dancing on ready display, and highlights the problem reason-minded republicans face.
The most pro-science GOP candidate may be former Utah governor Jon Huntsman. Huntsman made news last week when he called his opponents "people on the fringes" and said "right now we have zero substance" in an interview on ABC's This Week. "I think it's a serious problem," Huntsman said. "The minute that the republican party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people that would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution; when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said - what the National Academy of Sciences has said - about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and therefore in a losing position." It's at about the 3:40 mark:
But in the debate Huntsman refused to identify opponents who - with the exception of Gingrich and Romney - do seem to be largely anti-science. A clear example is Perry's response to a question about climate change: "The science is not settled on this," said Perry.
But the US National Academy of Sciences disagrees: "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
Despite this, Perry argued that "The idea that we would put America's economy is jeopardy based on a scientific theory that's not settled yet to me is nonsense. Just because you have a group of scientist that stand up and say this... Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy... The science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point that we're going to put America's economy in jeopardy."
It was a clear example of anti-science: elevating ideology ahead of knowledge as the basis for public policy. In a race with anti-science candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, both of whom are prominent evolution deniers, Perry has until now managed to stand out as even more anti-science. But then there was this:
Perry took hits for a pro-science stance on human papillomavirus (HPV), an STD that causes cervical cancer. He defended himself against Ron Paul's and Bachmann's criticisms of an executive order he issued requiring sixth grade girls to be vaccinated against HPV. The 2007 order contained an opt-out clause but was still overturned by Texas lawmakers. By seeking to make it the standard, Perry was working to reduce cancer rates in accordance with the advice of medical experts.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has in the past been well known as a science advocate, even though he has a mixed record on science, which he largely (wisely?) kept quiet on during the debate. Under his leadership, congress closed the Office of Technology Assessment, its impartial science advisory body, giving itself what congressman Rush Holt, D-NY, a physicist, called a "lobotomy." Now congress members largely rely on staff research on the Internet, expert testimony, and lobbyists, all dubious sources. Gingrich supported the idea of a presidential science debate in 2008, and managed to pass bills doubling the research budgets of some federal agencies such as the NIH.
Mitt Romney's position supporting climate change early on is clear in the record, and he wasn't asked to defend it at the debate. But neither did he go out of his way to attack other candidates for their anti-science positions, and he has waffled on his stance more recently, and argued for increased drilling.
GOP hopefuls are increasingly stuck between a rock and a hard place: how to satisfy the anti-science foot soldiers recruited into the base because of their passionate energy without alienating general election voters who view those positions as irrational. The battle over science - between Huntsman, Gingrich and Romney on the one hand, and Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and Paul on the other, may determine the relevance of the republican party going forward.
Shawn Lawrence Otto is the author of Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. "A gripping analysis of America's anti-science crisis." --Starred Kirkus Review. Like him on Facebook.
Follow Shawn Lawrence Otto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shawnotto
Clark Freshman: Examining Body Language at the GOP Debate
Anyone know why the Democrat controlled Congress could not pass cap and trade? was it all "politics" or was the shenanigans at the CRU and scandal over the bogus "Hockey Stick" somewhat to blame.
Or was it just the fact that we cannot affect world CO2 output by just throwing hard earned Tax $$ we don't have at it???
This from a guy who failed all of his science courses in college. The only thing he aced was extracting Bull semen.
Perry by Otto: "Perry argued that "The idea that we would put America's economy is jeopardy based on a scientific theory that's not settled yet to me is nonsense. ..."
Economy in jeopardy? That's a joke considering his state has the biggest response to AGW with wind turbine installation. And unbeknownst to him (D in economics), that energy is beginning to drive his states economy now. Sounds to me that if every place in the country where wind and solar energy can be extracted with most efficacy, our economy would be perking right along. Imagine, a trillion dollars a year spent here rather than to oil sheiks and wars to protect supply lines. Perry and anyone who thinks oil and coal are our salvation have their heads where the sun don't shine.
Skip the carbon taxes, they'll only be wasted by our elected officials. Instead let's collect a small surcharge on all electricity -- 1-2 ¢/kWh -- and invest all the proceeds into installing wind, solar and grid, and electrified transportation. $40-80 billion per year now, growing rapidly as electrification and population grow. Energy is the key!
Ever wonder why this nonsense could not pass even when the Congress and WH was OWNED by Democrats - think about it............
That demand grows with population is a given, That coal,oil and gas decline in availability is a given. THAT will cause skyrocketing prices But with renewable, sustainable energy it doesn't have to be. Of course, once the price of energy is SET by reduced supply, the price will NOT drop, even if energy were free and infinite.
Prior to the last Congressional elections, commentators at HP repeatedly stated that Republican Congressional candidates were shooting themselves in the foot by associating with climate science sceptics. Yet the Republicans won those seats in Congress.
The same situation is forming again. Commentators like yourself are claiming that candidates for President are shooting themselves in the foot by being sceptical of the "climate science" endorsed by the U.N.'s IPCC.
What you miss are the obvious facts.
1. Most people are sceptical of alarmist climate science.
2. Over time, the size of this majority is growing, not shrinking.
3. The emphasis on the climate science issue by Democrats is a major mistake. Democrats have traditionally been the party of the working man. But who is hurt first by "carbon taxes," energy bills inflated by subsidies to very expensive green power, etc? Answer: The working man.
4. The elites have abandoned support for policies that help the average American. Instead, the "climate science" issues are the issues of the idle rich, the college elites, and the U.N.
Any Republican candidate can run a truck through the opening handed to them by a Democratic Party that abandoned policies aimed at helping workers, such as locally produced, reliable, inexpensive energy, to run the factories, stores and laboratories that will compete effectively with the rest of the world.
"1. Most people are sceptical of alarmist climate science."
An easy asserition, especially when "most people" are technically illiterate. And easy for them to believe since it requires no thinking on their part. A propagandist golad mine.
"2. Over time, the size of this majority is growing, not shrinking."
Yes, because they are easy targets for your propaganda.
"3. The emphasis on the climate science ..."carbon taxes," ...subsidies ..."
That's why it has to be a transparent direct surcharge on the energy you want to promote - electricity. And you use it for infrastructure development in that sector and treat it as an investment - clearly quantified, easy metrics.
"4. The elites have abandoned support for policies that help the average American. ..."
"Elites" know that climate change has both science and policy components. The policy requires work, especially by your side. You attack the science so we cannot even begin to discuss policy coherently. We "elites" also know that the world will become electrified by renewable energy. The sooner we move in that direction as a national policy, similar in magnitude to our penchant for supporting war, the sooner our economy will boom. Do you think it is a coincidence, that states that are installing wind turbines are often those that have lower unemployment?
and then there is the reality that NOTHING we could do even if we dumped Trillion more $$ we don't have into it will stop world CO2 output.
the sane policy is to develop alternatives that will, in a few decades produce results, while at the same time reducing our need to buy fuels by exploiting domestic supplies - like oil and gas offshore and in Alaska. Doing otherwise is just political nonsense,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/republicans-climate-change_n_954016.html?ref=climate-change
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/
and since when do we do science by "consensus"? its political nonsense and people are not buying the lies and distortions
Energy leaves Earth as far-IR radiated from surface, clouds, and air, and as reflected light.
The amounts arriving and leaving are almost equal. There's something like one percent more leaving, because of geothermal heat. But the earth is in almost perfect energy balance, because the amounts are so huge that even a slight imbalance would soon leave the earth frozen or vaporized. The warmer something is, the more energy it emits. So warming or cooling eliminates the imbalance, and the earth is always at whatever temperature it takes to do so.
The air both absorbs and emits IR according to the concentration of molecules with at least three atoms, like water, CO2, and methane.
The effects of changes in albedo, humidity, winds, and currents are substantially larger than the direct effect of added CO2. But those are all endogenous variables, things that change as a result of internal interactions within the ocean/atmosphere system. They adjust until heat balance is reached. CO2 is an exogenous variable. A forcing. Something that the system changes in response to.
"I’ve spent a couple of days looking at CERES data without taking normals and present a couple of questions for readers to think about. (I know the answers.) I’d like readers to answer according to their general knowledge and not by looking up or researching.
The first question: the “solar constant” (as measured by CERES) is approximately 340.5 wm-2 (1362/4). What is the variation in average annual incoming solar as measured by CERES?
I’ve temporarily shut off comments on this thread so that you have an opportunity to make your answer without being affected by the answers from other readers. Update: Open now.
Answer: the difference between the annual max and annual min is about 23 wm-2, or about 5 times the 3.8 wm-2 anticipated from doubled CO2, as readers quickly observed. Some people instinctively think about solar variability, but it’s the eccentricity that matters"
http://climateaudit.org/
Is calculus really harder than english? Or are the standards lower for the latter?
Jon Huntsman was the only sane person on that stage. The last thing we can afford to do as a society is have a leader who is, for all intents and purposes, uneducated. How can someone stand, with empirical data in there face, and lie to people and not even understand they're lying. Our education system is bad enough as it is, but to have someone who thinks creationism is a subject worth teaching our children, we'd be in real trouble.
Since you are qualified in math and climate physics, why don't you enlighten us as to which part of AGW theory fails. You can be technical, we will be able to understand it, or offer techincal discussion on which parts are problematic. Think you can do it?
By the way, it is not hypothesis. The fundamental science is strong. It all works. It now has the status of theory.
Perry (or anyone else) could say this about countless scientific hypotheses and theories. That's the nature of science, that it's unsettled. When additional evidence is presented, the scientific fact is updated.
Compare/contrast that to T-Nuts' version of what they may call "settled science", being that Jesus' birth was foretold to shepherds by angels flying around a mere 4,000 years after the planet appeared, replete with distracting fossils intentionally placed by some dude with a red tail. And that Jesus actually died (after everyone - except his friends - went home) and then magically came back to life and sprang his dang self (while the guards slept). Then he defied gravity and ascended to be with his dad, whom no one has ever seen or heard from.
We can blame the GOP for allowing itself to be hi-jacked by belligerent, near-fascist Neanderthals, but we can also blame the media that the iconoclasts get a lion's share of attention, while reasonable politicians are ignored.
The print media, internet, and TV are all hyper-focused on Romney vs Perry today. If I hadn't watched the debate, I wouldn't know there were 8 candidates on stage last night (exception: article above). The media have decided, and it has nothing to do with the polls, where Romney and Perry do lead at the moment.
Responsible media would showcase important aspects of each serious candidate, because their lack of coverage leaves primary and national electorates uninformed about anyone except the ones the media anoint as contenders.
In effect, the media influence primaries and general elections enormously by their choices of whom to publicize, whom to criticize, and whom to praise - but they do it based on ratings and biases, not on a desire to inform.
With Obama looking beatable, it's important that the Republican nominee be one who can and will govern and try to save us from further decline. We need two responsible candidates. 2012 should not be a choice between survival and suicide.
No, wait -- that's not right.
With even more impressive hair than Kerry,
At last into the race arrives Rick Perry.
Though Perry's blessed, no doubt, with splendid hair, he
Believes some things that strike some folks as scary.
Observers down in Texas still are wary.
The space between his ears, they say, is airy.
But for the pros who count which states he'd carry,
What's there beneath the hair is ancillary.
Whose ignorance did sorely vex us
He fired all the teachers
To swap them with preachers
And drive his poor state up its nexus.
Really? Which ones?
You made a claim. Looks like you cannot back it up. Thought so.
the good news is fewer people are buying it.....
Polls repeatedly have shown that less than half of all Americans believe in evolution. For example, a Gallup poll in 2009 found that only 39% of all Americans believed in evolution, and that even among the better educated only 53% of Americans with college degrees believed in evolution. It's hard to believe that someone who disagrees with evolution or who doesn't have an opinion regarding whether the theory of evolution is correct is going to vote against Perry simply because Perry doesn't believe in evolution.
Polls also show that many Americans are unsure about the extent of man's role in global climate change. In a 2010 Gallup poll conducted in five different countries, significant majorities of those polled in Russia, China, India and Japan believed that global warming was caused by man or a combination of man and nature; however, only 50% of Americans thought so.
Given these types of poll numbers, if Perry (or any other Republican nominee) takes the position that mankind's role in global climate change is unclear and that mankind may or may not be the result of evolution, that probably isn't going to prevent him from being elected.
this from MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Please, do tell me, what do you know that the majority of the scientific community doesn't know, and how did you come by this knowledge?