Monday, June 30, 2008

Anti science "progressives"

In a Pot Kettle Black article by a liberal, apparently he's concerned that conservatives are "anti science".
Conservatives put on a spectacular display of scientific ignorance this month in the U.S. Senate. During the debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would regulate carbon dioxide by setting a cap on emissions and allowing emitters to trade carbon allowances, most Republican senators questioned the reality of human-caused climate change or ignored the climate threat entirely and repeated the talking point that the bill would raise gasoline and electricity prices. It was as if they had been locked in an isolation booth for the past decade. Let's go to the highlights.
  • Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.: "The vast majority of scientists do not believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor to climate change."
  • Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: This bill means "people must turn off air-conditioning in the summer."
  • Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "This bill will attack citizens at the pump" and "increase job losses."
  • Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.: This bill will "leave us less competitive in the world marketplace."
  • Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.: This bill "could bankrupt U.S. air carriers."
  • Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.: "Nobody in their right mind" believes we can get half our power from wind and solar or drive a "fleet of golf carts."
  • Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.: "It's unclear as to what the long-range trend is as far as the temperature of the Earth is concerned."
  • Conservatives sure are good at staying on message, even one that has no basis in fact. None of their scientific or technological claims is true and most of the economic claims are a wild exaggeration based on studies funded by fossil fuel companies. This may be a defining moment for humanity according to the world's increasingly desperate climate scientists, but to many conservatives it's apparently just another moment to score political points at the expense of future generations.

    A couple of things for Mr. Science.

    First, conservatives are still waiting for the "science" on global warming. Maybe the priest of global warming, Al Gore, will allow some critical questions as to this "science" some day.

    Second, I think you'll find liberals are the ones most likely to ignore science; like the law of supply and demand, law of diminishing marginal utility etc. When it comes to the economic policies, they like to think they can over rule the law of gravity.

    By the way, the score of the global warming challenge through 6/29.

    Warm 180
    Cool 193

    We are now half way through the global warming challenge and I'm more than willing to extend the challenge to any liberal willing to take a $100 bucks from me.

    See, in my very unscientific mind, the challenge is a 50-50 proposition. But if you are a global warming believer, what could be better than taking $100.00 from a conservative heretic; it's a slam dunk. You can even use the money to buy some carbon offsets somewhere near the Al Gore estate.

    Well, except for the first six months of this year. I guess that was just some sort of variance that actually proves global warming.


    Mukesh said...

    What's liberal vs conservative got to do with it? It's science!

    gordon gekko said...

    You apparently didn't read the article. A liberal is criticizing conservatives for not following "science".

    As it pertains to global warming, I ask.... What science?

    For every moon bat proclaiming the end of the earth, I can produce a scientist who claims otherwise.

    Anonymous said...

    With liberals there's only one science that matters: political science. I actually think that they believe that all the world's economic problems can be solved by passing a few laws:

    1) It would be illegal for any energy company to make a profit.

    2) It would be illegal to become wealthy from energy related activities.

    3) Alternative fuel development will be funded solely by taxes on energy profits and energy wealth (note the conflict with 1 and 2).

    4) No fuel approved by the governement will be allowed to create any pollution.

    5) Any fuel approved by the governement will be required to be manufactured for free and disributed equitably to the poor.

    6) If the earliest an alternative fuel will be available is beyond several months into the future it will not be considered because we need a replacement for oil now and we have no time to waste.

    7) Since it is impossible to do all of the above due to the laws of economics and nature, American politicians will enact legislation to override those laws and mandate this ideal fuel be produced.

    There. Problem solved.

    Anonymous said...

    You might not believe in global warming, but I guess gas costs +$4.00 a gallon because there's plenty of it to go around.

    No. Whether you believe that the world is overheating or not, this country can't continue to waste away on oil alone.

    This is one issue that shouldn't be forced to kneel before party politics, because in the end, we're all suffering.

    Anonymous said...

    but you do bring up a good point. politicians are not scientists, and they need to stop talking about what they think is going on, and address people who actually went to school to understand complex issues.

    i wouldn't trust your average american to have a good idea of what to do about climate crises. yet that's basically what politicians are trying to do.
    Politician: here, let me just write in this superficial policy to get you a short term fix so you'll vote for me... *nonchalant whistling*