It's real: this man's absolute opposition to scientific information. The thought that this country would elect or seriously consider electing someone who stands out there and says I don't accept science on climate change and clearly doesn't want to study it any further. I think that's the big, hard, bad news for the Republican Party. Their front-runner, tonight, seemed to be anti-science and this country has to win the battle of science in the world against China and India and the other [something] countries. If we give up on science, if we get the image of being a yahoo country, a monkey-business country, we got a real problem in terms of our national identity and this fellow we're looking at right now is leading the charge, the luddite charge against modern technology and modern information. So I think that's the hard, bad news for the Republican party.So Mr. Science there — the man whose leg felt a thrill when he heard Barack Obama — says "big, hard, bad" and "hard, bad" when he sees Rick Perry. I'd say Matthews is scared. He's spewing emotion. But he would like us to believe he's devoted to science! A burbling bundle of emotion attempts to embody seriousness about science. It's absurd.
What is a "monkey-business country"? Did some notion of the "monkey trial" flitter through his flickering brain? Perry said nothing about evolution, but whatever. He seemed "anti-science" to Matthews, and Matthews opened up his anti-science floodgate and "monkey-business country" popped out, along with "yahoo" and "luddite," which are also rattling around in the same word bin in the mind of Matthews.
Let's look at the transcript and try to inject a little reality into the Matthews word-mush. John Harris of Politico has just asked Jon Huntsman — Jon Meade Huntsman Jr. — which of his fellow Republicans has been "saying crazy or inane things." Huntsman demurs. Harris tries again: "You yourself have said the party is in danger of becoming anti- science. Who on this stage is anti-science?" Huntsman says:
Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy. We've got to win voters.Odd that "We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy" and "We've got to win voters" followed the notion that "we can't run from science." Does he think it's difficult to be scientific and conservative? Anyway, Huntsman's main point is that if Republicans aren't scientific, it will "turn people off" and they won't win. That's about science, but not about the devotion to science. It's just a pragmatic statement about winning elections.
Harris turns to Rick Perry, even though Huntsman didn't name Perry (as Harris, obviously, had hoped). Harris doesn't pick up the evolution thread, but he asks Perry about "climate change": "You said that weekly and even daily, scientists are coming forward to question the idea that human activity is behind climate change. Which scientists have you found most credible on this subject?" Of course, Perry doesn't name any scientists. He says:
Well, I do agree that there is -- the science is -- is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at -- at -- at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just -- is nonsense. I mean, it -- I mean -- and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell.Now, that's just not anti-science. Perry resists signing on to the opinion of the experts who portray themselves as the scientific consensus, but he didn't say he "clearly doesn't want to study [climate change] any further," which is the way Chris Matthews characterized his remarks. Perry said he wanted accurate science and more science — especially when it is the basis for proposals that would have a "monstrous economic impact."
But the fact is, to put America's economic future in jeopardy, asking us to cut back in areas that would have monstrous economic impact on this country is not good economics and I will suggest to you is not necessarily good science. Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy.
Citing statistics showing success improving air quality in Texas, Perry says:
That's the way you need to do it, not by some scientist somewhere saying, "Here is what we think is happening out there." The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America's economics in jeopardy.That's not anti-science. That is a practical man setting a high burden of proof about the degree to which science must be "settled" where the effect on the economy is severe. You may disagree on the question of how settled the science is, but that doesn't make him anti-science.
Matthews, brought on to analyze the debate, seems barely to have heard what Perry actually said. He simply unleashed a torrent of words around the subject of science and tried to scare people — if anyone was still watching — about this yahoo monkeyman Perry.
Posts
189 comments:
I immediately switched over to the Brewers game.
Did they win? I wasn't paying attention last night and didn't read the WSJ this morning.
(Goes to look)
Nuts.
Worship that hockey stick, Matthews. It's big and hard.
The Obama-licking media is going to portray any Republican as anti-science. And also as a religious nutter. They don't care about facts or nuance. They just want to defeat the Republican.
No surprise here at Matthews' bluster.
they have to keep the subject away from talking about the economy. Thats why we now have wall to wall on their religious views and opposition to AGW.
MSNBC will not report what was said. They'll report what they want their viewers to hear, even if it's different from what was said.
What you have to understand is that saying Republicans are "anti-science" is the meme du jour. You've got to work it in there, whether it fits or not.
It's pretty much the same idea as when Jared Loughner went on his shooting rampage. The meme du jour at that time was that "incivility" on the part of Republicans, Tea Partiers, and especially Sarah Palin was responsible for the shooting. You had to work it in there whether it fit or not. The fact that it didn't, in fact, fit at all barely slowed them down.
And Brian Williams sure didn't ask a lot of questions about jobs or the economy, did he? It was conspicuous in its absence.
You know what is settled? Chris Matthews is a douchenozzle.
And the fact that the "scientists" lied. And all those on the political side of AGW are making millions.
This is a winning position for the GOP...exploit it.
I pretty much never watch MSNBC, but I tried to stay on for a while after the debate. It was painfully embarassing. I knew it was bad, but I had no idea it was that bad. I was really embarassed for Mr. Matthews, on that issue and several others.
He seemed obsessed with the issue of evolution, when none of the candidates expressed any policy suggestions or even opinions on evolution (and I've heard enough libs claim that, for example, Sarah Palin believes that dinosaurs and people walked together (she's stated many times that she's fully on board with Darwinian evolution) that I don't trust for a second what anyone tells me about what any of the candidates believe.
They all also couldn't get over that Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, as if this was some strange fringe idea. People have been calling SS a Ponzi scheme for years! How can they not know that? Even if they don't agree, they should at least understand that that's what people are saying.
Matthews was also obsessed with the south, and, in particular, what the south believes about Mormons. I live in the bible belt, I have not heard anyone express any concerns about Mormon candidates except coastal liberals. I know several Mormons- people just think of it as another religion. I've heard more anti-Catholic rhetoric then anti-Mormon rhetoric from southerners.
They also spoke to Herman Cain for a few minutes, then Rachel Maddow came away with a summary of why he was wrong (that she didn't discuss with Mr. Cain, of course) that showed that she didn't have the slightest minimal understanding of the Fair Tax that he's pushing.
Embarassing, through and through.
- Lyssa
Their front-runner, tonight, seemed to be anti-science and this country has to win the battle of science in the world against China and India and the other [something] countries.
Isn't that because China and India are basically ignoring the "threat" of global warming in marching toward economic growth?
Speaking of the nonsense surrounding climate change, how about this from Instapundit?
"HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): New jobless claims rise to 414,000 last week.“New U.S. jobless claims rose unexpectedly last week, further evidence of a weak labor market just hours before President Barack Obama delivers a major address to Congress on the issue.” Unexpectedly!
'I can’t find the link now, but somebody was criticizing this feature a while back as “juvenile.” Well, I am quite deliberately rubbing it in, as the ridiculously inflated expectations for Obama are regularly and repeatedly exposed as . . . ridiculously inflated. But what’s really juvenile is expecting that an inexperienced former community organizer could successfully execute the office of President of the United States. And if I’m peeing all over the wave of hope-and-change hype that got him into office despite his obvious unsuitability, it’s to help ensure that nothing this disastrous happens again in my lifetime. I realize that it’s painful for those who fell victim to the mass hysteria to constantly be reminded of their foolishness, but I hope it’ll be the kind of pain that results in learning. . . ."
OUCH!
Did you hear the latest from Pelosi? She’s worried that another 500 million Americans might lose their jobs this month.
Is Crissy getting another tingle?
"Anyway, Huntsman's main point is that if Republicans aren't scientific, it will "turn people off" and they won't win."
Don't a majority (or at least a large number) of the population believe in the Biblical description of Genesis and are skeptical of global warming? Seems like that's a winning electoral stance (regardless of the merits).
The Brewers lost.
"Their front-runner, tonight, seemed to be anti-science and this country has to win the battle of science in the world against China and India and the other [something] countries."
Matthews is anti-knowledge, as both the Chinese and Indians reject anthropomorphic global warming too.
Additionally, Perry is right. Real science is almost never settled - after all, that's the point behind science.
I spent a few days with some Progressive family members who kept talking about how Romney is a Mormon (!!!). Soooo scary.
Well, WTF is the Senate majority leader?
All of the debates where pro-democrat media are asking the questions – the pro-dems will only ask about global warming, religion and abortion. Most assuredly the pro-democrat media will stay away from economic questions.
Oops - EDH basically beat me to the punch.
Hate it when that happens, lol!
There's also this:
"and this fellow we're looking at right now is leading the charge, the luddite charge against modern technology and modern information."
If anybody is leading a charge against modern technology it's the wacky enviro-left (which is leaking into the standard left). They're the ones who seem to want to send us back to the 18th century. Who is trying to shut down power plants in Texas, Rick Perry or Obama's EPA? Who wants to shut down oil drilling? Who wants to limit air travel?
I don't know any Republicans leading a charge against modern technology but there are plenty of Democrats doing that.
Rialby, I had exactly that conversation with a progressive friend in 2008.
The answer? "Well, Harry Reid is not running for *President*."
Moved from the other thread:
Evolution is an interesting topic because it serves almost no basis for governing except as a sign of acceptable orthodoxy.
People need dogma in order to see who is on the right team and who is on the wrong team.
It doesn't matter what else they might be good at, or what other crazy things they might believe that are actually relevant, if they believe in that, they're good, and the more they assert it, the better they are.
Now, I do believe in evolution, as a reality of change and transformation though not of origins. But still think it weird that someone's governing skills are based on a topic that is almost entirely irrelevant, even in terms of embracing most modern science. It's a dogma more than it is a justifiable scientific theory.
There are much more significantly relevant issues that we should judge on. Obama believes all kinds of crazy things about this country and the economy, and has been joined by his partner in Congress. Those are the crazy beliefs I'd like to move past.
I don't care if a plumber believes in evolution, I just care if he has the skills and the tools to unclog my drain.
We're not looking for the intellectual in chief, or the philosopher/king who will shine wisdom upon our nation. We're looking for a political plumber who can help get things running smoothly again, respond to disasters when they happen, and leave us alone for most everything else.
Deciding whether is someone is good or bad based on a single issue of orthodoxy often takes the appearance of serious intellectual engagement, but it's really simplistic thinking. That Matthews hits on this so hard, and misses Perry's nuance, means he's either a hack or he's very simplistic and can't get beyond the binary answers that would help him put someone on the good team or the bad team.
Even if you assume that:
1) there is a current global warming trend;
2) humans have contributed to the relative speed of that warming; and
3) given current patterns of human habitation and food production, rapid warming will cause problems,
that does not imply that:
4) the United States can take action that will slow the rate of climate change at a cost that will be less than the value of any benefits gained by such action.
And that "OK, but what should we do now?" question is an intensely practical and political one.
Matthews is Exhibit A of why the Irish were almost wiped out when one crop..a fucking potato..failed. That's how "scientific" those shanty Irish are. How's that for hardball!
But seriously, Matthews rant on the "anti-science Republicans" is a concerted effort by the doucheoisie to marginalize Republicans and conservatives as ignorant know-nothings as compared to the awesomely intelligent liberals like... uh, Biden, Pelosi, Reid and our affirmative-action president.
That they think they can sell this shit is laughable.
Meanwhile, filings for jobless claims exceeded 400,000 for the umpteenth week in row, and nothing our affirmative action president says tonight is going to fix that.
"I live in the bible belt, I have not heard anyone express any concerns about Mormon candidates except coastal liberals."
Yeah, the Crazy Channel is big on this meme; that conservative Christians will not vote for a Mormon. They are certain of it.
Can someone please tell me why MSNBC sponsored a Republican debate?
Isn't China the country the reason a whole lot of endangered species are increasingly threatened because of quiet active believes in such things like ground up rhino horn will increase virility?
China is also communist. They have their cultural revolutions and little red books. China really isn't a great example of clear thinking on relevant political issues.
I dare say India also has its fair share driving superstitious behavior, not to mention religious chaos with three competing religions.
What China and India do realize is that running a factory or doing computer work isn't dependent on irrelevant (even if true) declarations on unassociated topics that have little to do with factories or computers.
That Matthews sees the dogmatic assertion of evolution more important as it relates to governance than a driving bankrupt political philosophy that only exists inasmuch as it either represses its own people or allows for increased capitalism says a lot of about his own judgment.
Why do Repub's go to MSLSD for a debate? Maybe they are the stupid party. That network has one goal in hosting a debate and that is to play gotcha with the Repub's and try to get them to attack each other.
Why don't they just debate on Fox, and specify they want questions that allow them to talk about their accomplishments and plans for the future?
Oh. Matthews. This guy was once a serious person. Long time ago. Too bad. In addition, he was the keynote speaker at Fordham the year my daughter graduated. God, worst speech ever. Hard to be that boring. Like he started thinking about what to say on the way over to the event.
kcom said...
"If anybody is leading a charge against modern technology it's the wacky enviro-left (which is leaking into the standard left). They're the ones who seem to want to send us back to the 18th century. Who is trying to shut down power plants in Texas, Rick Perry or Obama's EPA? Who wants to shut down oil drilling? Who wants to limit air travel?"
Exactly. Perry's "anti-science, luddite agenda" is creating more jobs than all the other state's combined.
Who knew that America's job creators hated science so much?!
This is a really good post, Ann.
I'm a life scientist and I confess that Perry's views on evolution in the classroom make me cringe, but I really think that if he sticks with federalism, he can navigate through all of this.
As for the AGW stuff, he needs to practice his delivery (and skip the Galileo stuff), but as long as he sticks to the economic arguments, he'll be fine.
"Their front-runner, tonight, seemed to be anti-science and this country has to win the battle of science in the world against China and India and the other [something] countries."
The reason we're falling behind other countries in science is that we've replaced actual science in our public school classrooms with Greenist nonsense and environmental policy-making.
It's absolutely insane for Republicans to allow the Democrats to define themselves as the party of science.
It's the Democrats who have demonized DDT--without any scientific basis for it--and as a result millions of Africans have died from malaria.
It's the Demcorats who have demonized genetically modified foods--without any scientific basis for it--and as a result millions of black and brown people have starved to death around the world.
When Democrats attempt to label Republicans "racist," they should be eviscerated, in public with those two accusations. Ditto any anti-science charges.
It's the Democratic party that relies on emotional appeals, racial appeals, and non-scientific appeals.
Jim Lacey makes this point brilliantly here.
"That's how "scientific" those shanty Irish are."
The anglos wouldn't let them grow anything else. They were a repressive force that would rather let the Irish starve than change their policy.
Anglos are really into oppressing white people.
TV makes people stupid. I always figured it made you stupid to watch it, but increasingly I think it makes you stupid to be on it.
I was listening to the Red Sox excruciating loss. I don't have time for news commentators.
Even in sports the television commentators are stupider sounding than the radio commentators, barring the execrable John Sterling of the Yankees.
The Red Sox radio team pairs the team's long-time professional, Joe Castiglione, with the unflappable Dave O'Brien. O'Brien also does ESPN games and is almost completely without bias. Thanks to these guys the Red Sox radio broadcasts avoid the adolescent boosterism and yammering excitability that characterizes most broadcast crews.
Matthews is just another yammering booster for a bush league team.
If Al Gore, the Hockey Stick graph and the IPCC is "science", then one has a moral obligation to be against "science".
Why do Repub's go to MSLSD for a debate?
I'm not sure how this works. Nancy Reagan invited candidates to the Reagan library for two debates this election cycle. I'm not sure how MSNBC got into the picture.
I don't care WHO says WHAT subsequent to this, APRIL APPLE wins the thread!
There are fashions in science just as in clothes and it is naive to deny it. AGW is in fashion now, in twenty years the fashion will be something else. The world will keep spinning.
One hundred years from now, AGW will be treated like we treat phrenology or spiritualism. Al Gore will be a figure of derision. The world will keep spinning.
(The Crypto Jew)
Just to save “J” and others the time and trouble….
A-House Smurf-tards, God-Botherers Wiccan-retard Zionist Imperialists shut yr pie-holes, capishay?
"If anybody is leading a charge against modern technology it's the wacky enviro-left (which is leaking into the standard left). They're the ones who seem to want to send us back to the 18th century. Who is trying to shut down power plants in Texas, Rick Perry or Obama's EPA? Who wants to shut down oil drilling? Who wants to limit air travel?"
Who is blocking genetic engineering of crops? Who is blocking irradiation of food?
I bet we could come up with quite a few of these.
MSNBC had Madcow on as soon as the speeches were over and I couldn't hit the channel-switcher fast enough. Went to Fox where Greta talked with Herman Cain (Cain is Able, should be his bumper sticker), but then since when am I my brother's keeper? One of the best moments in the debates was Gingrich saying to his fellow Repos let's stick together and not let the idiot media divide us.
Huntsman seemed to be hunting for something to say. He always seems so nervous.
Romney looked good.
Perry looked like a sheriff. You don't want a weak soft sheriff. You want him to be hard and bad. I liked him a lot better.
They asked him what he was going to do to help black people out of the gutter. I had hoped he would say something about how they have to stick together in families and follow all the known laws, and stop making such weird music and then GOD would help them, but instead he said he would create jobs, and this would lift everyone out of the gutter.
Santorum just can't get momentum. I wish they'd have let McCotter speak.
Now tonight we have to listen to the gutterball himself.
Matthews is a Democrat operative. He worked for Moss and Muskie in the Senate, was Tip O’Neill’s top operative and, seriously, wrote speeches for the great man, Jimmy Carter. Why would anyone ever pay attention to him? Why would not every conservative start a response by disqualifying Matthew?
MSNBC will sponsor Republican debates to demonstrate their "fairness" and "non-partisanship."
The network also sucks in the post-debate viewers afterward.
PS: I meant her first "hockey-stick" post--somehow I missed her second one...mea culpa..
They asked him what he was going to do to help black people out of the gutter. I had hoped he would say something about how they have to stick together in families and follow all the known laws, and stop making such weird music and then GOD would help them
I'm pretty sure that's what Chris Matthews heard him say.
Now, I do believe in evolution, as a reality of change and transformation though not of origins. But still think it weird that someone's governing skills are based on a topic that is almost entirely irrelevant, even in terms of embracing most modern science.
Actually, I can see some public policy stemming from a rejection of modern evolutionary biology. If organisms are not related by evolution, there is simply no justification for animal testing in medical research. So taken to its extreme position, there could be an adverse effect on biomedical research.
(The Crypto Jew)
As to Science and the Left, a goodly number of Liberals, and at least one conservative, are “suspicious” of childhood immunizations…”Science” is stuff I like and helps me, “anti-science” is when you oppose MY “Science”…”False Science” is stuff I don’t like and doesn’t help me.
this country has to win the battle of science in the world against China and India and the other
That's an extraordinarily ignorant thing to say about science. Science is not a zero-sum game. Everybody wins. Replace "science" with any kind of practical application and you'll see how stupid this is.
"this country has to win the green revolution..."
"this country has to win the vaccine race..."
"this country has to win the sub-atomic particle collider challenge..."
"this country has to win the halogen bulb future..." (I throw that one in for climate fearmongers)
What unbelievable idiocy.
Our relationship with China is problematic, but India is an ally and should be the embraced as a democratic, partner.
As far as I know, and admittedly I'm a liberal arts graduate with seminary degrees who has never toured the White House, the President doesn't actually do any biomedical animal research.
Also, even biomedical animal research isn't dependent on believing in evolution in regards to origins, which is where almost all of the controversy is found.
Does it make economic sense to ignore what climate warming and weak infrastructures have cost so far? I guess it depends on what counts as evidence.
Look, as a proven expert in psychology from a distance, and with 27 of psych credit-hours for my undergrad degree from 1973, I feel perfectly qualified to suggest that Chris Matthews is having a Barack Obama homosexual obsession. Matthews feels threatened by Perry, since Matthews feels his penis must be miniscule compared to Perry's probably larger and harder and badder penis.
Matthews should contact his analyst immediately, and not that hack that Woody Allen recommended.
Obama the metrosexual vs. Perry the Texas gunslinger: hell, half of 3% of the population in the country is having vapors as we speak. And they haven't been able to get Presidentially vaporized in some time.
Evolution happens whether the President of the United States believes in it or not.
Chris Matthews notwithstanding.
"roesch-voltaire said...
Does it make economic sense to ignore what climate warming and weak infrastructures have cost so far? I guess it depends on what counts as evidence."
What has it cost Science Boy?
Watching MSNBC makes more sense when you realize it's just a 24/7 infomercial for the Democrat Party.
As far as I know, and admittedly I'm a liberal arts graduate with seminary degrees who has never toured the White House, the President doesn't actually do any biomedical animal research.
Well, I wasn't focusing on the President as much as the broader concept of the Federal government, but insofar as the Feds fund NIH and the President chooses the Secy of HHS, yes, it would matter. Imagine a National Cancer Institute that no longer funded research on mice.
Bear in mind I am taking the rejection of evolution out of the church and into the laboratory. I am not expecting that to happen, but to me it is the logical extension.
Also, even biomedical animal research isn't dependent on believing in evolution in regards to origins, which is where almost all of the controversy is found.
For folks who reject the idea that humans evolved from organisms that have a common ancestor with other mammals, it would be a major problem. There would be no rational basis to do any testing or research on primates, mice, rabbits, etc, if there is not a good reason to believe they are related to man evolutionarily.
Just to be clear, I back Perry. I knew this line of attack would come. Frankly, I disagree with him strongly about the desirability teaching non-scientific theories along side scientific ones in a public school class. But given that I believe that a President Perry would weaken, not strengthen, the Department of Education, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
However, it is a weak point for him that I think he needs to address by sticking with his federalism arguments.
Sorry for the misplaced italics in that last post.
It seemed to me that Matthews had his anti-science rant, a favorite of the Left, all teed up regardless of how the candidates answered questions about climate change. Matthews comments were so off base from what Perry said there's really no other explanation for why he spun it the way he did.
And Harris asking Perry which scientists support his position that the science is not settled reminded me of Katie Couric's question of Sarah Palin about what she reads. Perry dodged it fairly smoothly, but it was disappointing that he couldn't name Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, or even the results of the CERN study recently published which did make a fair amount of news and which Perry should know about it.
Harris got his "gotcha" question in, which was the whole point.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats never have to be cross examined on their own enthusiasm for shaky scientific ideas. The embarassing secret of the science of eugenics is that it was a progressive idea, believed in by all the best people. A fair number of academics still claim that Marxism is the science of history. I believe that such academics now back away from the claim that Freud presented a science of the mind's workings. At any rate, for the past two hundred years, the most enlightened people have embraced some of the most pernicious claptrap and called it science.....I don't't pass judgement on global warming, but the anti business animus of its most fervent supporters is obvious. The paradox is that the cure for the ills of industrialism can only be researched, funded and discovered by a prosperous, industrial nation.....If they can make Bill Clinton out to be a racist for some kind of innocuous criticism of Obama, think of the material that Rick Perry will give them to work with.
If organisms are not related by evolution, there is simply no justification for animal testing in medical research. So taken to its extreme position, there could be an adverse effect on biomedical research.
The extreme left (PETA) believes that animal research is immoral because of the relationship between all species.
Hell, some have sent death threats to researchers.
You won't find conservatives doing that!
Hey, at this point I'll take a "monkey business country". Sounds like fun!
The extreme left (PETA) believes that animal research is immoral because of the relationship between all species.
Sure, I'm well aware of that. When I worked in the Texas Medical Center we had a lock-down every year because of PETA.
Okay, RV, I'll bite.
What has climate warming cost us so far?
Be specific with statistically significant examples.
That's not anti-science. That is a practical man setting a high burden of proof about the degree to which science must be "settled" where the effect on the economy is severe.
Seems like Perry is following the lead of that most scientific icon, Carl Sagan. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The LDS boys stuffed the anti-science Tex Perry into his little neo-confederate hellhole.
King Brigham, in da House
"And that 'OK, but what should we do now?' question is an intensely practical and political one."
What should we do now? We should wreck the economy now,and figure out later if it was a good idea.
One, animal testing dates back to Aristotle. We've been using animals for science for a few thousand years now.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. We can pull all sorts of things from the history of science to support or argue against modern scientific thought. It's not particularly informative.
What I'm saying is that if man is a unique creation on a physical level - and not simply on a spiritual level as many believe (ie: God conferred us with a soul, but did not create us in our current physical form de novo) - then there is no justification that I can see for studying (or testing) mice or primates (or fruit flies or yeast, for that matter).
Modern evolutionary biology shows that we are related on a molecular level.
"Okay, RV, I'll bite.
What has climate warming cost us so far?
Be specific with statistically significant examples."
This oughta be good.
climate warming and weak infrastructures have cost so far? I guess it depends on what counts as evidence."
What has it cost Science Boy?
Actually, the better question would be, "What does it cost that we could have avoided?" Part (the bulk, in fact, not that Chris Matthews paid attention) of Gov. Perry's response was not only that there are questions about what's happening, but that there are questions about what can actually be done about it. It seems to me that, even if one accepts that man-made global warming is absolutely real, there's a heck of a lot of question about whether we can actually make any signficant change by driving more hybrids and capping carbon and the rates currently being discussed.
And if your questions don't actually consider what is actually in our power and the costs and benefits, well, then you're definitely anti-science, and anti-science where it matters.
- Lyssa
Monkey business? He must've been thinking about Gary Hart for some reason.
Can someone please tell me why MSNBC sponsored a Republican debate?
Yeah that kind of took me for a loop as well. Forgetting the obvious problem of allowing what amounts to the other party moderating the “debate,” their audience seems unlikely to be the sort who will actually be voting in Republican primaries which is who the candidates are presumably trying to reach out to.
I didn’t watch the debate last night. My company upgraded to Windows 2010 yesterday so you can imagine the day I had. When I finally got home, I settled in to watch “Kill Bill” volumes 1 and 2 instead.
"Chris Matthews feels something "big" and "hard" and "bad"
Is it circumcised?
The LDS boys stuffed the anti-science Tex Perry into his little neo-confederate hellhole.
Why are you bringing religion into this?
I live in Utah and have lived in Texas. I am confident that the State of Texas is a much better supporter of higher education and biomedical research than the State of Utah. The last I checked, Texas was in the top five in biomedical research funding.
I disagree with Perry on evolution (and agree with him on AGW), but there is simply no evidence that Perry is anti-science or anti-education for that matter. Texas was one of the most favorable research environments I ever worked in and that list includes CA and MA.
Are we sure Chris isn't really a Republican and this is all an act to make MSNBC look bad?
The extreme left (PETA) believes that animal research is immoral because of the relationship between all species.
And, yet, they won't take an official stance on abortion. In fact, their reasoning (the last time I checked) was that since the pro-choice movement had not official stance on animal cruelty, PETA doesn't have one for abortion.
Hypocrisy sounds best in chorus, after all.
Why are you bringing religion into this?
Why are you tossing feed to the troll?
That is what I hear when I hear liberals talk about Republicans. It's the MSNBC talking points that come out. They believe all kinds of strange things about them that are so ridiculous that all I can say is: Do you really believe that?
The result is either just "yea" or some attempt at pretending they are just kidding or exaggerating. But, in fact, they have incorporated that crazy idea into their idea of the person. They accept comedy skits from the Daily Show and others as some form of truth in their heads. It's not a fully conscious thing, but it is absorbed and regurgitated and reabsorbed in that echo chamber floating in the fever swamp.
Many will accept Mathews insanity and pass it on with a little added seasoning of their own.
And, btw, Huntsman is barely LDS. He is not liked here AT ALL. He maintains the illusion of being LDS so he can draft off of the incredible good will his philanthropic father has garnered in the LDS community.
If man is a unique creation on a physical level...then there is no justification that I can see for studying (or testing) mice or primates (or fruit flies or yeast, for that matter).
So were the scientists who did animal testing for thousands of years, pre-Darwin, wrong?
Why did they do it?
Believing that "scientific consensus" means anything is one of the more anti-science beliefs out there. Scientific consensus once held that spontaneous generation was true and that human flight was impossible. It's the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority argument that most progressives seem to love; that their chosen leaders (and by extension they themselves) are better/smarter/more able to direct human endeavors than the Great Unwashed electorate.
What's truly funny about the whole thing is Perry's ultimate response "...climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America's economics in jeopardy..." is substantially the same position that Huntsman holds (that even if it's real and man is the primary cause, there's not sufficient ROI on mandating containment of it right now) just without the genuflection to the greenies.
Why are you tossing feed to the troll?
Well, I don't comment here much, so I did not realize he was a troll and not just a jerk.
Who is Chris Matthews and why should one listen to her?
One year and 9 months after the revelation that so-called scientists in the UK have been doctoring their AGW results and destroying the data the MSM continues to shill for Al Gore and his enviro-weenies.
The evidence to date gives us every reason to deny the evidence of man-made Global Warming. But the acolytes of the AGW HOAX continue to genuflect at the altar.
Mathews is an IGNORANT boor, but he is amusing and good for a laugh or two.
So were the scientists who did animal testing for thousands of years, pre-Darwin, wrong?
Why did they do it?
You may have a much deeper knowledge of history than I do. I have no idea if those folks believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible (Old Testament).
Since the Catholic church was the sponsor of a lot of research, it is possible that these scientists did not believe in a literal interpretation of the biblical story of creation with respect to man being created de novo in his present form.
My arguments have to do with what people are saying now and what logical extensions would come from those arguments.
Mathews is an IGNORANT boor, but he is amusing and good for a laugh or two.
I only watched him during the 2008 primaries. I admit that I watched Hardball every day and admit it freely. It was very entertaining to watch the liberals on that show tie themselves up in knots as Hillary and Obama went at it.
Scott M: you're the troll here, sodbuster, not to say tasteless, illiterate, irrational, etc. You're nothing, dreck
Perry knows that the anti-AGW, anti-evolution line plays well with white trash conservatives (Alt-tards!).
So, that's part of his campaign plan.
Huntsman has the spine to refer to the evidence for AGW, and take on the Herd.
What seems strangest to me is the readiness to put evolution and global-warming theory on the same level. Which would imply that if doubts about the latter turn out to be justified, belief in evolution is less justified! I think people like Gov. Huntsman, and eejits like Chris Matthews, look on science (of course I mean "Science" here) as a new orthodoxy, which all right-thinking people should accept. But why do serious scientists (are there still some?) go along with such nonsense?
"There would be no rational basis to do any testing or research on primates, mice, rabbits, etc, if there is not a good reason to believe they are related to man evolutionarily."
That's tenuous.
A very pragmatic perspective on medical research sees that what is true for one mammal might also be true for another. We're alike enough, for whatever reason, that research becomes worthwhile, even if there's no shared evolutionary connection.
I don't have to believe that I'm related to dogs through evolution to know that I can train dogs, use them for tasks, and find them good companions.
To use a parallel argument, it's like saying believing in God is necessary for morality. Atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in the source of morality.
We can engage in a whole lot of discussion about scientific pursuits without believing that everything arose spontaneously from a single organism created by lightening hitting the pre-historical muck.
Just like we can engage in talk about right or wrong without insisting we share the same belief in God.
It may not be rational to do either, but humanity thrives in its irrational pursuit of progress in knowledge.
PaddyO
Good analogy with the plumber. Reminds me of a line from the Dustin Hoffman movie "Wag the Dog" Great movie, BTW. If you have not seen it, do so
Hoffman's character, a Hollywood producer says something like "Producers are like plumbers. If they do their job, nobody notices. If they screw up, we get shit everywhere."
Perhaps it is time to have a plumber in the White House.
Now that I say that, it occurs to me that Ron Paul is something of a plumber. Not of water piping but of women's plumbing.
He has the same idea. Govt should be insignificant and we should not even notice the president.
John Henry
Wow blogs with no posts, no profile, no info.
You're not LDS, Byro-Anny. You're LSD .
as Huntsman demonstrated, the light of Reason scares the f*ck out of dogmatists (links oder rechts)
Obviously, Chrissy never heard of ClimateGate. Surprise!!!
Basically, Mark O is right; Chrissy's been a Demo hack forever, working for Tony Coelho almost to the second before he was indicted and then jumping on Tip O'Neill's bandwagon.
Rialby said...
I spent a few days with some Progressive family members who kept talking about how Romney is a Mormon (!!!). Soooo scary.
It's not bigotry if you're a Lefty. Last I heard, the Mormons weren't crashing jetliners into skyscrapers.
PS Good slogan, Kirby.
the party of have-it-both-ways opportunism strikes again. when science of the day suits them, they are the pro-science party. when science disputes their preferred narrative, they ignore it.
The Dems' tactic is more "Shame, Shame, Shame" chanting.
The Scopes monkey trial has a long history as sacred scripture to the intellectuals who use it to shame the rubes.
The "CO2 is a pollution" myth has already been destroyed by the CERN cloud chamber tests.
But the last 20 years of intense propaganda to create that Big Lie is still out there for the Dem Demagogues to collect their rents from with chants of Shame, Shame, Shame.
The Warmists' goal is to starve the USA of energy sources by making us adopt voluntary Energy Anorexia. Obama has ORDERED it!
That is a deadly illness, and is not a Science at all, unless you say that that a Psyops attack is based upon the science of mind control.
I'd say Matthews is scared. He's spewing emotion.
I see Chris Mathews and, man, he looks scared.
"bailesworth", eh--your latest lie, eh Byro-Anny (yoDigby--yr boy now supporting the GOP again)
Do Alt-tards know any basic bio/chem, math. or any science except for like remedial Meth Cookin'? Unlikely. Fox and Rush Limblow are not an authoritative source
Now, I do believe in evolution for the most part on a lot of levels, but I'll argue for a non-evolution reason for research, adopting a most drastic Fundamentalistic reasoning.
God created everything as is. God created birds and animals and the sky and water and fishes and creepy crawly things. Then he created a guy and a lady. They were created to help supervise the earth, and the earth, we might say, was adapted in it creation to help serve them.
Inherent in this creation, according to God's wisdom, was a similarity of design so that if we understand one part we can gain insight into another part. We can study animals as sources of knowledge about us, because they were created in a similar fashion with similar enough functioning, that not only allows this, but indeed encourages it.
Thus, biomedical research is both possible and encouraged.
But, obviously, we're not exact, in God's wisdom, so testing on rats is only a first step to see if it works with humans. We're only tentatively similar, by design.
Now, that's not a very rational reason, and terribly dogmatic on its own, but its enough to show that there's all sorts of practical reasons to engage in science that don't rely on how one answers questions of origins.
Humans are exceedingly good about compartmentalizing different forms of knowledge, which again isn't terribly rational, but being too rational isn't always a boon for science either. It can limit taking imaginative leaps into speculation, because the universe often doesn't fit with our understanding of rational either.
Economic policy to control the climate is like volunteering to jump overboard, just because some people say there is gonna be a ship wreck in the future.
You will be left behind to drown in your own stupidity, and accomplish nothing to prevent a shipwreck if there ever is one.
Every dollar that one nation cuts back on production will be picked up by someone else, and likely done much dirtier. It will accomplish the exact opposite of the intent. The people least concerned about it will flourish at the expense of the concerned. There will be no authority that can control that global flow.
The smart thing is to increase American industry which is some of the cleanest in the world. The more we produce, the less damage to the environment.
If the science ever bears out that the planet is warming people will voluntarily flock to those cleaner producers.
Personally, I think warming similar to that often seen in the past would be a good thing for life on this planet, and the science I've seen supports that. Imagine if that becomes the dominate meme. Then science would be winning.
It's funny how people get so adamant about things they simply accepted one day from an article they read, and never looked into it any farther. They then get crazier and crazier all started from that unexamined seed.
My son is an MD. He has an undergrad degree in Biology with a specialization in genetics. He did summer internships in the field at Hopkins, Mayo Clinic and UI Chicago.
He is a coauthor in a journal whose name I can't pronounce on the subject.
He spent an extra year undergrad studying it in a special program in Maryland.
The internship at Hopkins was helping a Nobelist force evolution on salamanders and planarians.
In other words, he knows more about the nuts and bolts of genetics and evolution than 99% of all the people in the world.
He is also a devout Christian and has trouble with the theory of evolution. At least with how it is popularized.
Oh, Well. I guess he is anti-science.
I'm with the others. Whether a person believes in evolution or not is of no concern to me re qualifications for office
John Henry
Evolution - pro or con - has zero to do with being president.
The MSNBC hosts deliberately asked questions...er, cross-examined on subjects like science so partisans like Mathews could spew forth their calumny thereafter.
All for the greater good of our emperor.
Well, I don't comment here much, so I did not realize he was a troll and not just a jerk.
He whose name must be ignored is both.
Anyway, welcome!
Oh he heard what Perry said, Ann. He is a smart shill for the progressive Democrat Party spouting propaganda in an attempt to destroy conservatives. Those were lies of commission.
"Well, I don't comment here much, so I did not realize he was a troll and not just a jerk."
Yea, like America's Politico with extreme foulness in place of humor. I just skip all its comments unread.
Rcocean's usual sophomoric brainfart. Young earth creationists (ie Bachmann, and probably Perry) have pushed for altering the science curriculum.IN Texas they already have altered textbooks (with help from Tex Perry). So it's an issue--related to the First Amendment for that matter. But don't let Reason stop your hype.
Do you bagoh the logcabin puto?
<Maybe someone calling for a tweek test sort of alarms you, eh klangrrl. Same effect on the rest of Althouse perps
Closing time at the Klanhouse
"Evolution - pro or con - has zero to do with being president."
Yea, you would think huh? It appears that someone is very desperate right now - terrified of the big hard truth.
Re Matthews -- what did you expect?
These guys live and will die on their strawmen instead of using the brains God (or their DNA if you want to be "scientific") gave them and listening to what is actually being communicated. (*That* would be too difficult.)
But then if they (and some other people) had done that they would not have voted for Obama to start with.
Oh he heard what Perry said, Ann. He is a smart shill for the progressive Democrat Party spouting propaganda in an attempt to destroy conservatives. Those were lies of commission.
Utter bullshit and absolutely wrong. Matthews? Smart?
Big hard truth of evolution like in your mouth, Baggot (looks like fake site,too perp). Yeah something like that, wicca trash
.Didn't watch any of it.
Sat on the deck, drank some cocktails before dinner, watched the clouds, watched the flocks of geese landing on the harvested wild rice fields below us, listened to old rock and roll through the wireless speakers, discussed when we should harvest the wild plums and whether the quinces were ready to turn into jelly.
Much better use of time.
I don't know who the Republican candidate will be and expect the media lapdogs to lie distort and twist whatever is said in hopes of reelecting Obama.
I would vote for the neighbor's dog over Obama. I would vote for a random person in the phone book over Obama. It doesn't matter, because if we don't change what is going on in the next few years or sooner (and we probably won't).....it just won't matter.
Doom...Doom...Doom.
Others have asked RV for some examples of how much global warming has cost. I can only echo the comment "This ought to be good"
But before you get into that, RV, how about telling us just how much global warming there has been.
Be specific. How many degrees warmer is the world today than 100 years ago.
For bonus points, tell us how precise these measurements are. Plus or minus how many degrees.
For double extra bonus points, tell us how accurate they are, +/- how many degrees, as well.
The world waits in wonder.
John Henry
Hey edutcher you were told to STFU. You don'tknow f*ck about science, and I ve never said I hate mormons either, you lying sack of trash. Book of Mormon
You're the queer here as well--like yr log cabin heroes, .Larry Craig type. got that wiccaqueer?
The sites' going down
He is also a devout Christian and has trouble with the theory of evolution. At least with how it is popularized.
If someone has data that contradicts a theory, by all means publish it and become famous. That's how advances are made in science.
When I have met people who have trouble with a theory, it usually means that it is running up against their belief system. And therein lies the dilemma: a belief system, or a theory that is likely true but is not proven 100%.
As far as politicians go, and believing in a theory, or not, I agree it should not be a main reason for me or anyone to support someone, or even a secondary reason. Maybe tertiary? Quartenary?
How much warming has there been in Honduras, J?
How many degrees?
John Henry
Grim there in the SFV, a steady flat light, tough on faux hipsters, hard to be cool in the flat suburban sprawl, hard to concentrate, gather a single coherent idea into a paragraph, poke through the vile in the throat, the blistering rage. Oh, the unfairness.
Science schmience. It's the economy stupid. Why does anyone pay attention to Chris Matthews anyway. He is nothing but a scientific experiment gone bad.
The problem with this cyber neighborhood is that if you see one of your neighbors thrashing around in the dog feces in his front yard obviously in distress and incoherent, you can't call 911 and get him an ambulance. You just have to hope he snaps out of it on his own.
J said...
Hey edutcher you were told to STFU. You don'tknow f*ck about science, and I ve never said I hate mormons either, you lying sack of trash. Book of Mormon
You're the queer here as well--like yr log cabin heroes, .Larry Craig type. got that wiccaqueer?
The sites' going down
J actually thinks we listen to him.
John. Hard to tell in Hondouras where it is hot already. Was there a few days ago and i will tell you this; they are happily spewing the deisel into the air! Fantastic place, great time. AGW is not on their minds. Not even a little. Noise and deisel fumes and bustle. Love it!
Is it Mikey?
Faux-hipters--you're not even that, trash. You're just another hymie seditionist, and don't have a clue what this is about
Chas Darwin deserves some thanks for jacking the old, ugly ghost stories of the Old Testament--one reason he's still so hated.
As I say, J obviously never heard of the holes Charles Darwin conceded were in his theory and make his ideas next to untenable today.
I would vote for the neighbor's dog over Obama.
How does your neighbor's dog feel about the theory of evolution?
I didn't watch either. School supply shopping for the kid -- spent a whopping $3. Then worked on developing a new class.
You should be listening, Edu the yid, coward, joto --another Alttard too spineless to link to a blog.
I would prefer to have a President who understands and accepts the theory of evolution, but I am more interested in having a President who understands and accepts the theory of supply and demand.
I didn't watch either. School supply shopping for the kid -- spent a whopping $3.
How were you able to get all the things on the list back in 1905?
AS you belch, but you don't know f*ck about it, do you Edu-berg
If I may add on to John's questions:
How about telling us just how much man made global warming there has been. How many degrees warmer is the world today than than it would have been without the impact of mankind.
If we're not talking about AGW, that means you're talking about altering the planet rather than mitigating our own theoretical impact, which is a fundamentally different thing.
you're talking about altering the planet rather than mitigating our own theoretical impact, which is a fundamentally different thing.
Fundamentally altering the fundament?
Junyo,
No, the question about how much man-made warming is irrelevant.
There is no point in looking for causes for something that is probably not even happening.
My point is that the measurement of warming is so sloppy, that it is impossible to tell whether Earth is warming, cooling or staying the same.
We need to focus on answering that question first. Jumping ahead to causes is a fool's errand.
John Henry
*J* makes me miss the calm, cool, rational, logical scientifically-based and wise historical sensibilities of Ritmo..
How does your neighbor's dog feel about the theory of evolution?
He wishes he could evolve some thumbs so he could open up his own cans of food. Being a very evolved dog, he told the cat who informed me of this.
I am more interested in having a President who understands and accepts the theory of supply and demand.
THIS.
@ScottM, these were the things he "forgot" about when we went earlier: Pencils and folders.
Better yet, can we send out a search party for Ritmo? At this stage I longingly pine for his return..
these were the things he "forgot" about when we went earlier: Pencils and folders.
Well, shit. And here I thought you had superpowers.
DBQ for the win.
It doesn't matter!
You think you're seeing republican condendahs ... but you're watching a different fight. Your watching a small group of church goers telling the rest of America who the choices, come next November, will be.
Perry won't win. He may get knocked out in the next few months. Ron Paul, however, won't give up. Even if it means he's now sucking up attention ... and will run as an Independent. As if this would work. He's still too old to run for Harold Stassen's record.
While vanilla keeps obama's hopes alive. It does this because there are lots of people in America who recognize that faith isn't science. And, promising to get rid of laws; be they social security or abortion ... just satisfies a small group. While it ruins the republican label.
And, yes. Dubya shrunk the republican label but good!
How did Jimmy Carter win? Well, he sold himself as a "nuclear scientist" to a bunch of religious fanatics who joined his "born-again" club.
Chris Matthews gets a paycheck from his station. He's gotta say something. It's just like Ebert is always reviewing movies.
Doesn't matter what the review says.
Some films get seen in spite of their bad reviews.
And, some films get made because the person making them has the clout to get others to "invest."
On Wall Street, however, they lost their customers.
And, the problems loom larger, ahead, because the EURO will finally go south. And, everyone will wonder what took them so long. Had the decision been made earlier ... it wouldn't look like a "category 5.")
There is no point in looking for causes for something that is probably not even happening. My point is that the measurement of warming is so sloppy, that it is impossible to tell whether Earth is warming, cooling or staying the same.
If the measurements are faulty, what's your basis for saying the Earth "probably" isn't warming?
It's actually illegal to question or challenge Darwin in school.
You can't even suggest an alternative theory, such as "intelligent design," for the creation of humanity. Liberals claim that it's an establishment of religion.
But intelligent design doesn't have to be God. You could argue, as a hypothetical, that humanity was created by an alien race.
Even if this theory is bad, it gets your brain working trying to figure out why it's bad, why it's wrong, etc.
If science is to go forward, it has to be challenged. That's how thinking happens.
This is why indoctrination is so insidious. It creates a bunch of people who are incapable of original thought, or challenging authority (scientific or otherwise).
The scientific argument that humanity causes climate change is tenuous at best. We have had five frickin' ice ages. The planet was covered in ice! Did we do that? If we didn't do that, how did it happen?
What liberals want to do is indoctrinate children in green dogma. They don't want your children to think. They want your children to obey.
Obviously, J never heard of fossils and how they haven't vindicated Evolution.
PS This does not preclude somebody will come along with a theory that works - and I don't doubt some form of evolution is part of the history of the planet, but Chuck's doesn't seem to be it.
virgil, TY says Ritmo is not dead, as I theorized, but instead has "good reasons" to not comment. Others have hinted that he found a "girlfriend". Yeah, right.
WV: bralstr - hey, that should be in the Nyjer thread.
Perry's comments about AGW, and much of the commentary on MSNBC and in this string, shows the perils of politicizing scientific disputes, and of imagining that the results of those disputes ipso facto dictate sensible policy. That 'climate science' has become thoroughly politicized is much to be regretted. The Church of Gaia takes AGW as holy writ; many here take it to be the devil's delusion (to borrow a phrase). The practitioners of 'climate science' as much as the hucksters trying to make bucketloads of bucks from it (yes, Al Gore, that's you) bear much of the blame, but hardly all of it. The whole sad reality was on display most recently in the treatment of the CERN results, seemingly supporting a hypothesis advanced by Dutch scientists, about the impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Surely that must have been the only occasion in which the director of CERN cautioned his scientists to avoid discussion the implications of their own work publicly. When discussion is stifled even before the results are known, let alone released, even those of us on the outside know that something is rotten in Denmark.
Whether human activity contributes to global warming is, from a policy perspective, the wrong question. Assuming that it does (at least in part), what would the costs and benefits of any proposed response be? That question turns on economics and politics; the economics has been analyzed time and again. The result is that proposed policies to reduce the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2have enormous costs and almost no benefits -- basically delaying the projected impacts of AGW, over a hundred-year time span, by about 1% or so. (The high academic version of that economic analysis can be found in studies by, e.g., Wm Nordhaus, A Question of Balance; the more pop version in Bjorn Lomborg, Cool It.)
Perry backed into that idea when he said that, given the unsettled state of 'climate science,' it makes no sense to commit economic hari-kari. Perry could just as easily have said that, even accepting the AGW hypothesis, none of the policy proposals that have floated around make any economic sense, and none of them are politically feasible because India and China refuse to join the Western worshippers of Gaia in an economic suicide pact.
My point is that the measurement of warming is so sloppy, that it is impossible to tell whether Earth is warming, cooling or staying the same.
It is not necessary to use temperature to determine whether the Earth is warming (unless you want to quantify things). Look at ice in/ice out days on lakes and oceans. How does that change with time? First/last frost dates? Are they consistently earlier or later? How about checking when certain crops come in? That can tell you information on warming -- or the lack of warming -- as well.
Curse blogger and the conflicting edits gremlin. This time I save my comment before posting.
Didn't we go through talking about ice in/ice out on Lake Madison a year or two ago?
Didn't the data vary quite a bit with no clear trend?
I know I have looked at that in other instances and do not find it convincing.
John Henry
Damn! Maguro already got the Gary Hart-Monkey Business line!
Good show!
It is not necessary to use temperature to determine whether the Earth is warming (unless you want to quantify things). Look at ice in/ice out days on lakes and oceans. How does that change with time? First/last frost dates? Are they consistently earlier or later? How about checking when certain crops come in? That can tell you information on warming -- or the lack of warming -- as well.
All well and good, but climate alarmism is mostly based on graphs depicting average global temperatures. Are any of these other non-temperature indicators at all alarming? I live in central Illinios and the climate here is perfect for growing corn and beans, just like it was 100 or even 1000 years ago.
It's these GISS temperature graphs, misleadingly calibrated down to a tenth of a degree, that are driving global warming hysteria.
Mendota's lake ice plot is here.
First it was "tingle up his leg" and now "big and hard and bad." I'm beginning to think Matthews is gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that as they say.
Madison Man,
You can also look here for graphs on about 40 Wisconsin lakes ice in/ice out.
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/lakes/WI-lake_ice-1.html
Lots of variablity in the dates. They do not show trend lines but looking at them superficially does not show me any downward trend in days of ice.
if they had the data in tabular form I could plot it in Excel and figure out if there actually is a trend.
As I said, it is far from clear going by the various other, non-quantitative methods you mentioned.
As for Lake Mendota, yes, ice days show a slight downward trend. How much of that is due to global warming and how much of it is due to having the state capital on its shores?
Madison puts out a lot of heat. Might that affect Mendota's ice?
John Henry
If this was a car showroom, not one single model would get picked. The salesmen would still be looking for the customers!
Even a cooking show wouldn't work with "all the vanilla you can see."
Everything's prepped.
Everyone's been trained to say what you hear.
Nothing new.
And, it doesn't matter.
John
No, the question about how much man-made warming is irrelevant.
Oh, it's very relevant. I can objectively prove that the Earth has warmed or cooled over a given period in the past. And since almost all of those cycles were pre-Industrial age, it basically means that they were naturally occurring. Scientifically, there's shouldn't be any expectation of a steady temperature baseline. So that prompts the question, even charitably assuming that the earth is currently warming, can it be proven that it isn't simply part of a naturally occurring cycle? And has it even been proven that human activity (or lack thereof) can adjust the amplitude or rate of such a cycle, which we have to know before judging the cost/benefit. It's stupid to deny the possibility, but the onus is on the adherents to provide hard numbers.
"My son is an MD. ... he knows more about the nuts and bolts of genetics and evolution than 99% of all the people in the world.
He is also a devout Christian and has trouble with the theory of evolution. At least with how it is popularized.
Oh, Well. I guess he is anti-science."
I have a colleague and close personal friend who I respect as one of the best scientist I have encountered in my career. He, also, is devoutly Christian. I asked him once how old he thought the earth was (6,000 or 4.5 Gy). Not to be mean, but because I was really curious. He got quiet, looked pained, and said "I don't know".
This guy is a better scientist than I'll ever be. I think this issue can be the source of considerable pain for some people. I'm sympathetic. As far as I'm concerned, Chris Matthews and his ilk can go to hell. (Not that I think there is a hell ...).
Science is a tool of whatever group's paying them. Think of Mengele.
Perhaps one of the farmers here can address this better:
Madison Man said we could look at when crops come in for evidence of global warming.
Don't farmers continuously try to make crops grow faster so they can be harvested earlier? Things like better seeds, more/better irrigation, fertilization, mechanization and so on?
I know crop production per acre has increased dramatically around the world over the past 100 years. I would be surprised if crop growing time has not decreased as well for the same reasons.
How do you tease out what of that reduced growing time is due to warming and what is due to improved farming?
John Henry
Original Mike:
That "I don't know" is very similar to my son's answer when we discussed this in depth once. He also said "I don't care". Basically his viewpoint is that the whole issue is irrelevant.
He is worried about where we are going, not where we came from.
He also trusts deeply in the Lord to show him the way.
John Henry
Has RV responded? I'll keep checking back as that should be interesting.
The Physicist and the Climatologist
Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?
Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.
Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.
Physicist; The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.
Climatologist; AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.
Physicist; Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?
Climatologist; Uhm… no.
Physicist; Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.
Climatologist; Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2.
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!
Physicist; see above. (EDIT Sept 9, 2011. SEE SB11!)
Climatologist; Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!
Physicist; how much grant money?
Climatologist; Billions.
Physicist; Billions? Really? BILLIONS?
Climatologist; Oh, easily billions.
Physicist; Wow…
Climatologist; Oh lotsa billions. Hey…. you wouldn’t happen to have any research you need funded….?
Climatologist; Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…
As for Lake Mendota, yes, ice days show a slight downward trend. How much of that is due to global warming and how much of it is due to having the state capital on its shores?
That is a pretty short time line to base anything on regarding the changes in climate of the earth.
How much of the change is the result of the earth (northern hemisphere especially) emerging from the "Little Ice Age" . Your chart starts at about the time the climate was getting warmer. We still are not as warm as the Medieval Warming Period.
I remain completely unconvinced that:
1. Global Warming is caused by man and not mainly by the natural dynamics between the Earth and that big hot thing up in the sky called the Sun.
2. That this (if global warming even exists since this is not proven either) is unusual warming compared to previous and common swings in climate from cool to warm
3. That a warming planet is even a bad thing at all. Global warming in human history has proven to be a good thing in terms of agriculture, husbandry, society having leisure time and in health of the population.
@Mike -- A real physicist knows the difference between Venus and Mars.
@Mike
If that's yours and not a copy/paste, well-crafted, sir.
When liberals say they are pro science and that conservatives are anti science they are merely referring to those scientific postulates that they agree with.
Speaking of global warming, the FBI just raided Obama's glowing example of green industry, Solyndra.
As bad as Fast And Furious from the Administration's point of view?
Madison Man said we could look at when crops come in for evidence of global warming.
I did think of the new hybrids when I wrote that. You'd have to find people who grow heirloom varieties. Fortunately, that's in vogue now.
"Speaking of global warming, the FBI just raided Obama's glowing example of green industry, Solyndra."
Really? Wow. Even if there's nothing there, the optics are bad.
BTW: My friend, the Christian scientist, does not support teaching anything other than evolution in school.
"If the measurements are faulty, what's your basis for saying the Earth "probably" isn't warming? "
If you have no reliable evidence to the contrary then the most likely expectation would be that climate would continue on as it has for millennia. In fact, it should take quite a bit of strong evidence to change that expectation.
If a roulette wheel has been stopping on "0" for thousands of spins, It's gonna take more than a theory to get me to bet all my money and yours on another number.
My friend, the Christian scientist, does not support teaching anything other than evolution in school.
Not even questioning origins? Whether it be aliens, dieties, whatever, isn't there room for asking about the holes around origins?
I think your error, MikeinAppalachia, is the premise that the long-term, steady-state temperature of the system can not change. If you increase the heat capacity of the system, the system's temperature can rise until that heat capacity is filled (for want of a better term). Then the temperature will stabalize at the new, higher temperature.
But what do I know? I'm just a (not very good) physicist.
ScottM - I'm late for a seminar. I'll respond when I get back.
The hyperventilation if AGE believers isnt something somebody really comfortable with the science does. You don't see "The Earth is round" scientists gnashing their teeth that Flat Earthers exist...if course, they also have real science on their side.
AGW supporters, even.
Does it make economic sense to ignore what climate warming and weak infrastructures have cost so far?
How does R-V propose to estimate the costs of "climate warming," unless:
he hows much of such warming has actually taken place,
what its effects are,
and how many of them are positive and how many are negative?
Meanwhile, a reliably active "concern troll," one Gabriel Hanna, has been absent from this thread.
Could it be that Hanna's hard at work getting another editor fired for publishing an intelligent design believer, er, climate skeptic's article?
My experience is that the average conservative is more grounded in SCIENCE through a prediliction to inhabit the business, engineering, military worlds than the average liberal.
The average liberal, on the other hand, is immersed in science to the extent they spout stuff like "1 of every 4 women entering college can be expected to be raped before graduating". Or "race is an irrelevant social construct with no underlying biological basis". Liberals are the main purveyors of schlock "science" like psychology, sociology that pose as science but are really feeeeelings and politics wrapped as science.
Who opposes all NASA spending, building advanced science-based infrastructure, and much basic research like 'useless physics supercolliders? Liberals. Who argue that money would be better used on "the homeless", the "nurturing caregivers", "feeding and housing Haitians or the Katrinians of NOLA", more liberal arts teachers.
The pose of Lefties in the Democrat Part as "The Party of Science" started with Fundie Rubes in the Deep South who opposed evolution teaching ( who actually were loyal Dems until recently) - now extended to calling any who question Green, sociology, pop-psychology Dem orthodoxy as "Deniers" and "Anti-Science".
It would be fun to have a 200-question science and science/economics area simple math test administered to randomly chosen groupings. The Hard Left vs. the Religious Right. Greens vs. Engineers. Businessmen vs. union members.
20 randomly chosen military officers aged 40 vs. 20 randomly chosen Ivy League faculty members.
Stuck in the freaking Valley you would go batshit too. Whether you would sign up for new screen names and comment on your own blog, and answer!, is verging on not so good. You might not go that far even in the fading late afternoon Mediterranean light. Even in the dawn. Or maybe you would, just this once.
I get it: we let the SCIENTISTS run the world and everything will wonderful. That works great until the Eugenics crowd gets involved. Then it's Animal Farm (some are more equal than others.)Dr. Mengele, paging Dr. Mengele.
Too bad Perry wasn't able to throw back the names of some notable climate skeptics: Richard Lindgren, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Joe Bastardi, to name a few. Maybe his team can prep him for the next round of global warming brickbats.
"Not even questioning origins? Whether it be aliens, dieties, whatever, isn't there room for asking about the holes around origins?"
I think the question on the table is, "what do we teach in school?". Science has room for questions, but you don't bring these into the classroom until they reach a threshold of plausibility. And no alternate explanation (e.g. intelligent design) has reached that threshold. My friend acknowledges that evolution is the evidence-based, scientific explanation. His religous beliefs are based on faith, not any evidence unearthed by science.
but you don't bring these into the classroom until they reach a threshold of plausibility
I call bullshit on that. After all, French is taught in schools, and they haven't reached a threshold of plausibility.
Original Mike said...
BTW: My friend, the Christian scientist, does not support teaching anything other than evolution in school.
=======================
I do support teaching of alternate theories of evolution, alternate causes of the Civil War..that sort of thing in school. But as minimal mention...hey kids, just so you know.. there are some not generally accepted ideas, theories outside the core info you need to learn and we will spend minimal time on them, but you should know the "Grassy Knollers, the Fundies" have alternate info you can find and look up on your own if you want. BUT YOU WILL NOT BE TESTED ON IT!
The only problem I see is that when you do open the door to "alternate theory" or "inclusive history" there is a very detrimental tendancy to Give Equal Time, To Be Fair.
Meaning 50% of the school instruction time given to Evolution, 50% to intelligent design variants - with teachers instructed to be neutral and present both sides as plausible and "let the students decide".
The history of the assassination of JFK as mainstream history sees it given 50%, Conspiratists grassy knoll theory given 50% of the time to be fair.
Schools and politicians also have real problems with "inclusion" of groups as well as "adding alternate theory".
Meaning a situation like where men were 99.98% of the casualties in Vietnam and women 0.02% - well meaning efforts to mention the hero women, the 7 dead out of 58,000 Plus on the Wall can translate out into bizarre overemphasis. The drive to mention women as hero nurses, hero intel processors, hero logistics people can grab up 30% of the textbook space devoted to Vietnam service and Vietnam vets. And equal time in politicians speeches as the "men and women" who served in Vietnam, with equal specific mentions by gender carefully worked into speeches.
I am leery of opening the door to unlikely alternates and clear overemphasis on minor contributors because it lessens the time to teach the prevailing, accepted information. It also disserves students by steering them to think that the Truther version, or black WWII aviation is just as important as the REAL prevailing version of history or scientific theory. Which makes students less likely to get the full education in the core knowledge society seeks them to gain in school.
Should astrology be taught in school?
"I do support teaching of alternate theories of evolution, alternate causes of the Civil War..that sort of thing in school. But as minimal mention...hey kids, just so you know"
Sure. No problem with that.
I echo C4. The reality of the discussion over evolution versus creation doesn't go away just because school administrations don't want to talk about it.
Making the students, (high schoolers, for the sake of argument) aware of just how strident this debate is in the country they are growing up in is only a service and does no one any ill. My assumption is that the school boards know this, even the honestly moderate ones, but it's so difficult to codify into lesson plan language...without getting sued...that what we're left with is pretty much what's being taught.
As long as the time spent on it is minimal (this exisits, kids, look into it yourself if you are interested"), I'm fine with that.
Science has room for questions
Room? Science is all questions. Questions, questions, questions.
What's so annoying about our educational system to me is how much of it is indoctrination.
Here is our school system: "Authorities say this. You write it down. Memorize it. And spit it back out on the test."
How do you learn in an environment like that? You have to challenge authority and prove them wrong for society to advance.
If you haven't noticed, the goal of the left is to indoctrinate people with global warming theories, and demonize anybody who would disagree. This is exactly what they did with evolution. You're not allowed to disagree at all. No qualified agreement, no hedging, no moderation. It's all or nothing.
How is that free inquiry? How is it science?
Should astrology be taught in school?
If school is this tool we use to indoctrinate the young, then no.
But if school is this place where people go to think, why would you not spend a day on astrology? Debunk it, talk about it, debate it. Is it bad science? Why? How is astrology different from religion? Is it a religion? Is Christianity more valid than astrology? Why?
You might not want to have this conversation with 10-year-olds. But to say that we shouldn't have this conversation at all? I just find that autocratic and not conducive to learning at all.
If only we could say that "Tingles" is the poster boy of the lamestream media kooks. But no. He's only one of several. These people are dangerous and left unchecked they would destroy our country as we know it. Hell yeah, he's scared.
"Anglos are really into oppressing white people".
Per English taxonomy, the Irish are not white.
Science: The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes of temperature and density. They are non-linear and chaotic. Accurate long term prediction is not possible. That is the science.
My school taught astrology.
My psychology of testing degree, to be precise.
Students were provided a 'horoscope' and asked to describe the degree of conformation with their character. Students who were told it was based on their birth month thought it was 80% accurate.
Students who were told it was based on their birth day thought it was 90% accurate.
Students who were told it was based on their birth minute thought it was 99% accurate.
All students received the same 'horoscope', but had different times of birth.
The results of the survey were provided to all students. This tended to innoculate students against astrology.
In that sense, I support teaching of astrology.
Post a Comment