Got this courtesy of Think Progress:
Continued Republican House and Senate majorities would likely mean more of the same on climate. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he would oppose global warming mandates if Republicans control the 110th Congress. “I think the information is not adequate yet for us to do anything meaningful,” he said.
Yep. Inadequate. Grossly inadequate.
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Stupid scientists and all their stupid scientific rigamarole:
1995 was the hottest year on record until it was eclipsed by 1997 — then 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Melting ice has driven Alaska Natives from seal-hunting areas used for generations. Glaciers around the globe are shrinking so rapidly many could disappear before the middle of the century.
As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other’s work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it’s going to get worse.
“There’s an overwhelming consensus among scientists,” said UW climate researcher David Battisti, who also was dubious about early claims of greenhouse warming.
Each year hotter than the last. Each year more campaign contributions from Big Oil to Republicans. Each year Republicans claim there isn’t enough evidence of man made causes of global warming, or there is no clear consensus among the scientific community, or global warming is just a hoax, or Michael Crichton said it ain’t so, or whatever baloney they need to say to please their paymasters.
Get the picture?
Republican Lies about Global Warming
Good catch. One diary I won’t have to write.
Here’s the scary part:
Maybe if they tried giving this stuff of theirs to Al Gore he might just be able to help em out…whacha think?
Gore is great for people who will actually listen to him. His movie is remarkably nonpolitical and puts the issue where it should be.
But in seeing the reaction to him and the movie on various sites, including debates I’ve been having wth skeptics on Soul of Star Trek which got more comments on this topic than all my posts on the subject on Dreaming Up Daily.–Gore is a lightning rod, a figure easily identified as partisan and also easy to mock, thanks to the disgraceful media coverage of his 2000 campaign. It’s been clear to me that people who mock his views on the Climate Crisis have not seen the movie. And they won’t.
What’s the answer? I don’t know, but I’ve got some ideas. So now maybe there is a diary in this after all…
And that is why so much scientific evidence is discounted when they do try.
Most scientists don’t know how to communicate their complex results to the public.
I don’t buy that it’s a matter of not KNOWING how to communicate (although some professors can be pretty boring), from what I’ve seen it’s a matter of REFUSING to get down in the mud and play the game by the current rules the media have set up. The “he said this, you say that” style of debate which gives any wacko idea equal credibility (step back and look at creationism as if you just arrived here from Mars) is quite often literally repulsive to people trained for years in the scientific method of painstakingly collecting evidence and building a case for an idea, of couching your conclusions with words like “likely,” “probable,” etc. because you will be “banished from the realm” if you make claims that are not demonstrably, repeatedly proved by the data.
Scientists were happy to speak to the media during the moon landings, for example, when they were asked for their professional opinion and presented it as such. When they didn’t know something, they admitted it, and it was accepted as part of the audience’s being present for cutting-edge exploration. Today, if a scientist was commenting on whether there was life in space, the conversation would go like this: “I’m Chris Matthews. Tonight we debate life on Saturn. I have with me astronomer Carl Sagan, who says the temperatures and atmosphere of Saturn cannot support advanced life forms, and jazz musician Sun Ra, who says he is from Saturn.”
People that become scientists are generally by both temperament and training not likely to seek or to be good at facing down corporate shills, fundies, etc. It’s a different set of skills. Some may have what it takes, in the same way that some professional athletes are good cooks, but that’s not to malign the rest.
And to those who would say “Well if scientists don’t do it we’re doomed to a dark age,” I would say if the problem is that critical, the need to respond goes far beyond the scientific community – the problem is in the education system, the mass media, and the philosophical assumptions of the overall society: Who decided that presenting point-counterpoint news was the best way to inform? More likely the format was developed because it entertained. And if that is an acceptable state of affairs, we’ve got deeper problems than whether scientists go on TV or not – the overall culture has entered “bread-and-circuses” territory.
In addition to accurate data, the methodology has to be sound to arrive at an accurate conclusion. And, the second can be (and has been) played with, in many instances, to come up with a completely ridiculous conculsion.
People that become scientists are generally by both temperament and training not likely to seek or to be good at facing down corporate shills, fundies, etc.
It is my opinion that people who are into most types of research work more effectively independently, sometimes tend to be loners, are absolutely brilliant, really enjoy the nature of their work/research even though it may be perceived by others as boring, don’t care much about what others opinions of them are and are the greatest people on the face of the earth.
Who decided that presenting point-counterpoint news was the best way to inform?
It’s not, as the actual debate of the point-counterpoint is emphasized, as opposed to the content of the discussion. However, it does give the appearance of objectivity and balance. In that sense, it is nothing more than a marketing ploy/contest to determine if there is a winner of a verbal duel.
we’ve got deeper problems than whether scientists go on TV or not – the overall culture has entered “bread-and-circuses” territory.
I believe you are right. However, the difficulty is that everyone feels that their own issues takes priority over others and are unable to prioritize things. I’m no exception to that. However, Steven D’s writing re: his experiences during the 2004 (S)election really influenced me to get more interested in voting rights, as opposed to health care and disability rights. (Without the first, there’s no way in hell the second and third will ever come to pass–pun intended.)
But that does not mean I am going to keep quiet and wait until 2008, like some have suggested. As I do have the facts to support my beliefs, I’m going to keep speaking up, when I see distorted priorities. And if I am continuously expected to STFU and be grateful that I am “allowed” to live below the poverty level, see others denied medical treatment, and run the risk of the same, it’s not going to happen.
BTW, as I have Part D, one of my prescriptions was changed and I had a serious reaction to one of my prescriptions that was changed, and now has been changed back to what worked. I slept for two days, was so dizzy I could barely walk w/o hanging onto walls and so nauseous it was tough to keep water down. And I am not the only person in the country that is going thru this. W/that in mind, what’s more important, people with disabilities being guinea pigs and risking their lives in the process so insurance carriers can make billions, or gay marriage?
Everyone knows the answer.
should be more of a risk of the same. (I take three prescriptions.)