Conservative War On Science

[jbg]

Why on Earth would a scientist be forbidden from talking about a 13,000 year old flood? Unless of course there are more Creationists in the Tory caucus than they care to let on.

I hope you're not saying that creation science is trumping evolution teaching in Canada. Since creationism ain't science.

[Molly]

I hope you're not saying that creation science is trumping evolution teaching in Canada. Since creationism ain't science.

We aren't immune from that idiocy in science-responsible branches of our federal government, so why would be immune from it in our schools?

If it was rare and obscure, folks would laugh about it instead of getting angry.

[waldo]

an almost lone voice of sanity in the vast U.S. Republican war on science... from the recent U.S. Congressional testimony, Rep. Bob Inglis (ranking member of the Committee on Science and Technology) offers a rebuke to the GOP and right-wing pundits for their denial fever. Of course, that lone voice has been lost; having been ousted in his own Republican primary.

... on the record!

[bush_cheney2004]

an almost lone voice of sanity in the vast U.S. Republican war on science...

...and would be an even more "lone voice"...in Canada!

[Shady]

Looks like we've found the only honest AGW alarmist on the planet...on the record!

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.

Link

[waldo]

Washington Post - Can the party of Reagan accept the science of climate change?

I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world's top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems." Our nation's most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn't make it any clearer or more conclusive.

The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry - the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity - are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it's also bad politics.

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn't deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.

The National Academy reports concluded that "scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming." Party affiliation does not change that fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess this "war" crosses the Canadian border!

[waldo]

... identifying the members of the 112th U.S. Congress that are on record challenging the scientific consensus on AGW climate change:

The Climate Zombie Caucus Of The 112th U.S. Congress

In January, 2011, the 112th Congress will open session, with a huge contingent of Republicans who have explicitly rejected the threat of man-made global warming pollution. These climate zombies express the classic variants of global warming denial: that it is not warming, that cold weather refutes concerns about global warming, that man’s influence is unclear, that climate scientists are engaged in a hoax, scam, or corrupt conspiracy, and that limiting greenhouse pollution would have no impact on global temperatures. Of special note are the conspiracy theorists who argue that hacked emails from climate scientists prove corruption, calling for kangaroo trials against practicing researchers.

Well over half (55 percent) of the incoming Republican caucus are climate zombies. Thirty-five of the 46 (76 percent) Republicans in the U.S. Senate next year publicly question the science of global warming. Of the 240 Republicans elected to the House of Representatives, 125 (52 percent) publicly question the science.

Of the freshmen Republicans — marked in boldface below — 36 of 85 in the House and 11 of 13 in the Senate have publicly questioned the science. There are no freshmen Republicans, in the House or Senate, who publicly accept the scientific consensus that greenhouse pollution is an immediate threat.

[bush_cheney2004]

... identifying the members of the 112th U.S. Congress that are on record challenging the scientific consensus on AGW climate change:

...and how this is germane to Canadian federal politics ? Must be another slow day!

Edited November 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

This thread should be titled "social conservative war on science".

Theres a lot of scientists, and entrepreneurs in the Conservative tent that embrace science and technology just as much as anyone else.

[Shakeyhands]

I guess this "war" crosses the Canadian border!

Kinda like this one going the other way....

Topic you shouldn't care about

funny I guess.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Shakeyhands

[bush_cheney2004]

Kinda like this one going the other way....

Topic you shouldn't care about

funny I guess.

This forum has a dedicated area for US Politics...funny...I guess.

[waldo]

I guess this "war" crosses the Canadian border!

Kinda like this one going the other way....

Topic you shouldn't care about

funny I guess.

what our plucky impersonating yawnkee fails to distinguish is that Harper Conservatives long ago outsourced Canada's climate policy to the U.S.... so... clearly, highlighting the changing dynamics of the 112th U.S. Congress and it's preponderance of AGW climate change denying Republicans is quite apropos for this forum. Just sayin.

[bush_cheney2004]

so... clearly, highlighting the changing dynamics of the 112th U.S. Congress and it's preponderance of AGW climate change denying Republicans is quite apropos for this forum. Just sayin.

A failed domestic Canadian policy (e.g. Kyoto) cannot be diverted with constant references to the "denying yawnkees", their government, their national scientific organizations, or even their broadcast and cable television networks.

....all while cooking up vast amounts of tar sands bitumen for export to the very same 'Merkins!

[TimG]

There are no freshmen Republicans, in the House or Senate, who publicly accept the scientific consensus that greenhouse pollution is an immediate threat.

U.S. Congress

As usual, you spew propaganda and pretend it has something to with science.

There is absolutely nothing in the science that justifies the position that "greenhouse pollution" is an immediate threat" and rejecting that proposition does not mean someone is ignoring "the science". The people who claim that CO2 is an "immediate threat" are largely political ideologues who see "greenhouse pollution" as a excuse to impose a variety of policies that they want to impose anyways (i.e. if CO2 was not an issue they would find some other reason to impose the same policies).

Edited November 21, 2010 by TimG

[Smallc]

I'm sorry, but right now my community is experiencing the immediate threat - the worst flood in its entire history.

[jbg]

I'm sorry, but right now my community is experiencing the immediate threat - the worst flood in its entire history.

And implementation of Kyoto's going to solve it? Or even help?

[Evening Star]

It may help reduce the risk of similar events in the future.

[Smallc]

And implementation of Kyoto's going to solve it? Or even help?

They may prevent such situations from getting worse. Eventually all governments will be forced to sign on I think. They will be forced because the reality of the situation will become too much.

[bush_cheney2004]

They may prevent such situations from getting worse. Eventually all governments will be forced to sign on I think. They will be forced because the reality of the situation will become too much.

But Canada did "sign on", and did far less than the USA, which didn't ratify the treaty.

[TimG]

They may prevent such situations from getting worse. Eventually all governments will be forced to sign on I think. They will be forced because the reality of the situation will become too much.

Ah - the suggestion that a 0.7 increase in global temps is responsible for increased flooding in your community today is utter hogwash. The suggestion that "doing something" about CO2 will reduce the risk is also absurd. If you are really concerned about such events then the government should be spending money on traditional flood protection and prevention measures. Every cent that is wasted on carbon credits or useless windmills is money that will not be available to do the things that we already know will help communities like yours. Edited November 22, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ah - the suggestion that a 0.7 increase in global temps is responsible for increased flooding in your community today is utter hogwash. The suggestion that "doing something" about CO2 will reduce the risk is also absurd. If you are really concerned about such events then the government should be spending money on traditional flood protection and prevention measures. Every cent that is wasted on carbon credits or useless windmills is money that will not be available to do the things that we already know will help communities like yours.

You really don't understand how the hydrologic cycle works do you? Every bit of increased warming means more water can be stored in the atmosphere which means when it rains it rains harder and droughts get worse because there is less water in the soil.

[jbg]

It may help reduce the risk of similar events in the future.

They may prevent such situations from getting worse. Eventually all governments will be forced to sign on I think. They will be forced because the reality of the situation will become too much.

So a panicky, unresearched response is appropriate? Because of some naive belief in "doing something" about a non-problem?

[Evening Star]

Kyoto isn't exactly unresearched. The IPCC does study peer-reviewed, published scientific research, whether or not you like their findings.

[jbg]

Kyoto isn't exactly unresearched. The IPCC does study peer-reviewed, published scientific research, whether or not you like their findings.

Virtually anything that the U.N. does is suspect IMHO.