Is Climate Change the New Evolution?

sciencehabit writes "Is climate change education the new evolution, threatened in U.S. school districts and state education standards by well-organized interest groups? A growing number of education advocates believe so, and yesterday, the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which fights the teaching of creationism, announced that it's going to take on climate change denial as well."

Comments

Isn't that anti-science?

[elrous0]

I thought one of the fundamental aspects of modern empirical science is that, unlike a religion, it is ALWAYS open to revision and dispute. That's the whole point of the scientific method. Whether there is a significant modern consensus or not, I think it goes against the core spirit of scientific inquiry to EVER say "This matter is settled and no future scientist may ever question it." That's the very kind of anti-empirical position the Creationists themselves take in presenting their religious take on science.

And I'm certainly glad for Einstein's sake that no one ever thought this way about Newtonian physics. "Sorry little German, the matter is settled. Stop being a Newton denier."

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[Dutchmaan]

Well it's a little bit of both actually. Personally speaking I don't believe that climate change deniers are doing so from a science standpoint but rather from an ideological standpoint. You have a vast majority of scientists providing data about climate change and some very vocal naysayers trying to disprove not the findings themselves but the methods by which the results are achieved or the time frame in which the results occurred. In other words climate deniers aren't challenging the data, they're challenging the data collection. Which seems a very left handed way to try and disprove something using a scientific method.

I'm all for gathering as much data as possible because it can only lead to more accurate models, but it seems that climate deniers are putting the cart before the horse.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[forkfail]

So - you do understand what a theory is, right?

And if they're teaching it right, then they're also teaching that if verifiable evidence arises that contradicts it, that the theory is modified or thrown away.

Let's keep in mind that the deniers don't even want mention of the possibility that we humans just might be making a real mess of the eco system that we rely upon to exist. That might cut into profits.

PS: No, not everyone agreed with Einstein all the time.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop talking about issues as black and white and start talking about science.

Except that this isn't really about science. Much like the creationism debate, it's about people who are members of a crazed abrahamic cult that believe they have "dominion" over the earth, don't understand that the original wording was "stewardship" and that they're NOT supposed to fucking wreck the planet, and who refuse to acknowledge when a firm scientific consensus has been achieved because the recommendation of the consensus means they might have to change their lifestyles a bit.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[forkfail]

Damn that chorus of 'true believers' - aka, 97% of the worlds scientists:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[Anonymous Coward]

"why should we punish ourselves when we're just a small portion of the world's population and China and India, who have the vast majority of the world's population, don't give a fuck at all?

How about because your per capita CO2 emissions are at 19.18 tons, while China's are at 4.91, and India's are at 1.31.

In other words... you're the bigger problem, not them.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[sneakyimp]

Creationist beliefs are not scientific. They are religious. It's fine to put them in a history class or a religion class, but they don't belong in a science class.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[SpryGuy]

That's not really the problem. The problem is that one side is claiming there's no data or no agreement, when the objective fact is that there is TONS of data and TONS of agreement.

The side that is on the side of science is tired of having last decades debates over and over and over again because the side against the side of science is just pushing an agenda (protecting the status quo).

Legitimate: Questioning and verifying the science, making sure results are duplicated, etc.

Legitimate: Questinging what policies or procedures should result from the scientific finding (aka "what do do about it" if anything)

Illegitimate: Smearing valid scientific results through ignorant half-understanding or misperceptions, simply because you're a paid lacky of an organization that feels "threatened" by the findings and is scared of what possible formt he solutions might take.

Recently one of the biggest climate-change skeptics, backed with massive funding from climate change denialsts with a huge investment in the status quo and a huge political agenda to push (aka The Koch Brothers) went over all the existing data, brought in new data, and put the entire thing through the scientific wringer (everything from the hockeystick graph, to "heat-island" theories, to solar influence, etc)... and this Climate Change Skeptic came out of it a convert, admitting that Climate Change is REAL.

We need to move beyond constantly questioning whether it's real or not, and get to the "okay, given the scientific findings in this area, what if anything should we do about it, and what are the consequences, pros-and-cons, of any given course of action, including complete inaction?"

There is a legitimate debate to be had there.

But to continue to question whether climate change is "real" is like those continuing to question whether "evolution" is real. Sure, some details almost certainly have yet to be discovered. But you know what? That's science.

Newtonion physics wasn't WRONG. Ensteinian/Relativistic theory just expands what was there and fleshes it out. It didn't throw it in the garbage. For many real-world approximations, Newtonian physics works just fine. For others, Relativity must be taken into account.

Similarly, I'm sure we'll continue to discover more and more about evolution and about climate change and humanity's influence on it. But it's not, at this point, going to completely invalidate all that has come before.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[forkfail]

See, this is the problem with this debate.

Your "side" never publishes facts, just conjecture that will support your view [1]. Yet, your "side" is always claiming to be scientific in approach, and claiming that those who accept the evidence at hand it is happening are somehow the ones who are faith based in their outlook.

However, here's a more in depth picture. That 97%: it's climatologists. The other article was incorrect, as the general scientific community at large is only 90%.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

[1] Conflating weather with climate doesn't count.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Yeah the problem with your argument is it's thirty years behind the times. The arguing over the theory the testing and attacking and checking that IS the scientific method is what scientists have been doing .

Of course they did that out of the limelight and glare of the media.

NOW that they - that is 98% of them- have checked, double checked, reaffirmed and reaffirmed their reaffirmation that the theory that carbon emitted by human activity is causing the temperature to rise faster and will reach a point where civilization cannot be sustained, NOW they are sounding the alarm.

What else did you want them to do?

And here comes FoxNews and the Koch brothers and the oil and coal industry and the whole gullible denier dittoheads , showing up to the party and saying "say... we need to prove these here theories!.. say I have an idea!!!"

You know what this boils down to? You chose the wrong career path to influence this discussion buddy. If you want to be an expert in something, then you have to pay the dues real scientists pay.

care about this topic? climate change denial is brought to your courtesy of the exact same people and PR firms and think tanks who brought you the smoking is not related to cancer meme 40-50 years ago.

And it's taken up by the same demographic who deny evolution, so yes, it is the present day evolution debate in another form.

The only difference between those earlier debates is not accepting Darwinism, while it's a scientific tragedy for anyone who takes it seriously is not going to destroy the habitability of earth.

And smoking kills you and maybe your family, but not everyone on earth.

But this time it's different. the propagation of Climate Change Denial is a Crime Against Humanity pure and simple.

The Nazis objected to their prosecution also. They said it was ex post facto lawmaking to try them for killing the Jews and homosexuals and Gypsies. They argued that they really believed their philosophical load of crap, and they were entitled to make their nation's laws.

And you know what? There was some truth to that argument. Until we decided there wasn't that is and went ahead and charged them for things which had not been crimes before- Crimes Against Humanity- which was just a free floating idea and no law anywhere , until we used it in Nuremberg.

The prosecutor there pointed out that probably the first person to be charged with murder had the same argument- you can't charge me because the law doesn't exist.

Some sociopath somewhere always thinks he's going to use the law to evade the law. I have a right to say whatever I believe!

Here's the bottom line. Criminals decide what laws there will be. If your "free speech and freedom of opinion" results in horrific death and disruption on a scale never imagined before then your "free speech and freedom of opinion" will be curtailed for the good of humanity and in fact its exercise under certain circumstances will be deemed criminal and it will be deemed criminal ex post facto and you won't like that any more than the Nazis liked it and you'll make the same arguments they made and you'll end up just like they ended up. Because criminals determine through their behavior what acts are criminal and society always acts to circumscribe that behavior, no matter what.

It's not that hard to put together a case right now. Essentially they're shouting "no fire" in a crowded theater on that is on fire. That's manslaughter already. And no,. no one cares if you *really* believe it because *you're not qualified to perform surgery and you're not qualified to adjudicate this scientific matter and you know it in both cases.*

No one cares if you think you are and in the future, when the ravages of climate change are actually playing out and the people who are young today are looking to assign culpability they're REALLY not going to give a shit what you *really believed*.

We're not all at fault. It isn't a s

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[blueg3]

That's simply not true. The ancient Greeks knew the earth wasn't flat. Hell, Eratosthenes (of Sieve fame) calculated the circumference of the earth to within a few percent, and that was around 200 BC.

However, we do seem to be approaching the point where 97% of people will believe any kind of shit you tell them as long as they agree with your conclusions.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[Smallpond]

So what? At one time in history 97% of the world's scientists thought the world was flat.

Bull. There has never been a time at which anyone we would call a scientist today believed the Earth was flat. Aristotle is generally viewed as formalizing and promoting the Scientific Method in the West in 300 BC and the spherical Earth was already accepted at that time. Only people who deny the obvious, attack those who disagree and try to rewrite children's textbooks claimed the Earth was flat.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[PopeRatzo]

I take it you didn't catch the episode of Penn & Teller's "Bulshit"...

Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" is an example of the emptiness of pop skepticism. It's not really skepticism at all. In fact, it's every bit as dogmatic as religious fanaticism.

Pop skeptics are only skeptical about the ideas that scare them. You won't hear them be skeptical about the idea that laissez-faire creates a better society, or about their own notions of "freedom". You won't hear them express skepticism about their own dogmatically held beliefs. And that makes them even more dangerous than the religious fanatic: that they will never examine their own prejudices with the same logical tools that they use to approach the low-hanging fruit that they go after. As the great Robert Anton Wilson said about pop skeptics, "They are dogmatically committed to what they were taught in college".

They never examine the border they have created between the things they will apply their "scientific" approach to and things they won't. Their personal agenda makes them very unreliable.

When shit goes sideways, we turn to the reality-based community. And like it or not, the reality-based community is increasingly convinced that certain human activities are having a disruptive effect on climate. It's not one guy who's saying this, it's a bunch of people, thousands of people, with PhDs in sciences actually related to climate all of whom would love to be able to blow holes in the other peoples' theory because that's one way you make a name in science. Not stage magicians. Not politicians or AM radio talk show hosts or TV weathermen with axes to grind, but people who've actually done enough in fields related to climate that their peers have recognized them.

You always have to keep questioning, but when the boat starts to fill with water, you might not want to spend too much time examining the possibility that you will grow gills. At some point, and hopefully before water is over the level of your eyebrows, you'll accept the advice of people who probably know better than you.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[icebraining]

How do scientists funded by climate deniers fit with your point 3?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[budgenator]

But, glaciers and snow packs are shrinking, have been shrinking, for the last 50-100 years. Hard to argue that this isn't the case.

Actually they have been shrinking since the LIA, Little Ice Age, but that was well before anthropogentic CO2.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[Xyrus]

Of course there is climate change that is a constant. The original term was global warming and prior to that it was global cooling. Yes the climate scare mongers claim that that was a single article and not hype but I remember the hype as a small kid so it was not a single passing article.

It was over-hyped because of the media and the media only. Like today, the vast majority of climate scientists were concerned with globally warming. Ironically, it was later determined that at least part of the slightly cooler temperatures experienced during that time was a result of human SO2 emissions, which have now been greatly reduced due to clean air regulations (and thus removed the cooling effect).

As to the 'science' I have an easy test. Have the models contain no data nor assumptions prior to 1990.

All models require initial conditions. You can't just put a model in some random state and run it forward. The results would be utterly meaningless. This applies to pretty much any complex scientific model you'd care to mention.

Then predict the weather of the 2000-2010 time with accuracy.

Climate models do not predict weather. The predict climate. There's a significant difference.

They are claiming they can do that for the future with their models so they ought able to pass such a simple validation.

No scientist is claiming climate models can predict weather. You've made a false assumption and you're proceeding to argue from that false assumption.

Now do it for 2 other 10 year periods in during the 1900's. No way they pass because the models are not as good as they claim

Climate models never have, nor ever will, predict weather. Climate and weather, while related, are different phenomena.

It is also clear you have not done much, if any, real research on this topic. You also don't seem to understand what the climate models do, what they're used for, or how they operate.

Climate models are used as guidance. They're used for ensemble simulations to give scientists likely scenarios of the future. They are not the end all be all of climate science. They are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

Climate models must be validated before they can be deemed useful, and the validation tests are far more rigorous than your trivial example. A typical validation starts the model before the industrial revolution. Then it is run forward to present day or beyond (both with and without human contributions). As it turns out, the models do a pretty good job of predicting our current climate conditions, and have also done a good job of demonstrating the impact our contributions are having on the climate. For a better overview of the models, I suggest the IPCC report. It's a little outdated now, but the fundamentals are the same.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[riverat1]

The IPCC never argued that the Sun has no influence on the average temperature of the planet. That's just a strawman. Solar output has been captured in detail by satellites since the late 1970's and there is no evidence that is has changed enough to cause the change in temperatures we've seen. Further evidence that the Sun is not the cause of global warming is the fact that while the troposphere has warmed the stratosphere has cooled. That is a signature of greenhouse gas warming. If the Sun was causing the warming the stratosphere would warm right along with the troposphere.

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[Tim4444]

If someone where to say, "I don't belive in Einstein's theory of relativity", he would be told he is wrong, or ignored.

Funny you should mention. Some researchers recently published experimental results which, in spite of their best efforts to check and rerun the tests, still contradicts Einstein's theory. Instead of being "ignored" or "told they are wrong" this has sparkd a healthy debate in the community where people either need to determine why the experimental results are not as expected, perform their own experiments to provide meaningful and relevant data for comparison, or they need to accept that the current consensus is wrong (at least to a certain extent) and reflect on this new information we've just learned about the world. That's how science works.

Note that those researchers have received plenty of criticism for their findings but they have chosen to participate in the scientific process instead of doing something childish such as forming groups to lobby the government to prevent Einstein's theories from being taught in public schools. If someone has credible data to the contrary of the current findings and concensus they will get much further by presenting their own data than they will by trying to censor the data and conclusions of others.

BTW. The US Congress isn't exactly a credible authority on matters of science and technology. You would do a bit better to find sources from people who actually have some knowledge about the subject.

You don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate. -Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor

Re:Isn't that anti-science?

[i kan reed]

Sounds like someone never had a philosophy of science course.

There are several ways to study in a manner that most scientists agree is scientific without using the controlled experiment(which is merely the best tool we have, not the only one.)

The underlying mechanic of science is hypothesis rejection by contrary empirical evidence. There are lots of less effective, but still functional, ways to approach this mechanic.

1. Empirical inductive testing: this is how planetary paths became understood. First you build a hypothesis like Newton's third law. Then you make a clear succinct prediction about what observations you could make in the future based on that law.(where you could see a given planet in the sky at a given time). If the data contradicts your prediction, then your hypothesis is rejected. Unless you honestly thing there were controlled experiments to establish the attraction of objects proportional to their mass in Newton's time.
and
2. Data reapplication: Sometimes a hypothesis can be validated merely by taking large quantities of data collected for other reasons and treating deviations from your hypothesis's predictions as invalidation. This is done all the time in early medical research to identify possible approaches to treating diseases without needing human experimentation.

Details, in your face. Go take a philosophy of science class. This stuff is interesting, and you're doing yourself a disservice by not learning it directly from an expert. I don't care that you're probably out of school already, go take some continuing education.

The climate change issue is a waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanity is not going to give up modern convenience for something that will effect future generations.

Nope.

[Toonol]

No.

If the science for climate change continues to pan out for another fifty or hundred years, then maybe those people denying it can be classified as cranks. Right now, though, it's ridiculous to claim that climate change is as well established as evolution. That's insulting to the theory of evolution.

Re:anthropomorphic climate change

[olsmeister]

So is anthropomorphic climate change when you blame it on Mother Earth or Old Man Winter?

does it even matter?!

[rish87]

What bothers me most about the controversy over climate change, is even if it turns out human actions don't actually have a significant impact on climate, we damn well know we affect the environment. We also know fossil fuels won't last us forever and acquiring them is becoming increasingly volatile due to who does and does not have access to their source. So sure, we should be cautious and treat climate science as we would any other science where we need a critical eye, but we need to be taking the same actions regardless of the conclusions (due to our knowledge of other affects). How is reducing pollution and non-renewable resource consumption a bad thing? Who the hell honestly thinks unregulated energy consumption and dumping of various emissions is okay?

Two components to this arguement

[micron]

The climate science debate has two important components to it. This issue focuses on one component, and that is the anti-science attack on climate science. This has the same source of ignorance and zealotry that has challenged teaching evolution in the classroom. This is a stand of religious based ignorance against science. I have not met anyone who understands the scientific process who challenges the theory of evolution. I am using the scientific definition of theory, which is an operating model, and not the "theory is not a fact" arguement that my religious friends pick up.

The second component to climate science is that there are some great issues of modern science and society that can be taught here. To not teach this in the classroom is missing out on a real opportunity to teach critical thinking that children can get passionate about.

You can teach about data collection, and how this can be a source for controversy.
You can teach about computer modeling and statistical analysis. What these tools are great for, and where they fall short.
Plenty to teach about weather vs. climate, and what the climate means for other systems on the planet.
Lab experiements on basic components of the atmosphere, and why they don't always translate to the actual model of the world.
You can teach the ethics of how to prioritze science against society and economic concerns.

Lots more stuff that I am not getting in to.

My point being, this is another area where zealotry is screwing up a great opportunity to train the next generation of scientists.

Also

[Sycraft-fu]

The problem is that people seem to conflate the science, facts, and the politics of climate change. They think if you disagree with any part, you are a "denialist". So what do I mean?

Well first take the fact of climate change: That the average global temperature is changing outside of known cycles. Provided the data on which this is being based, this is true. It is a fact, a simple observation about the world.

Then there's the theory of climate change: That this change is being cause either primarily or exclusively by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as a result of human emissions. This is a theory, it provides a logical proposal to explain the facts. Like any theory it could be subject to revision or dismissal later should more information come to light. Doesn't mean it will be, but it can (if it isn't falsifiable, it isn't a scientific theory).

Now after that you get some additional theories like the theory that this will be a net bad thing for humanity. Remember that this is not a fact, it is a theory, and that the overall theory of CO2 causing climate change could be right, and this could be wrong. As such one could reasonably examine the evidence and accept the first theory and reject the second.

Then you get in to politics or policies: That the only thing to do about it is to massively reduce CO2 output, institute carbon taxes, etc, etc. That isn't a scientific theory there, it is politics. There are other solutions that would work. One example would simply be to prepare for the chance and deal with it. You could argue that even if this particular change is human caused, in the future a change will happen that isn't, so better to spend resources on becoming resilient to change than trying to avoid this one. Geoengineering would be another approach to dealing with it. Different policies can be debated, the costs, the benefits, and so on, there is no one right answer here, there are options.

However if you disagree with any part, you get labeled a denalist. So you can say "I think the Earth is getting warmer, and I think manmade CO2 is the cause. However my examination of the evidence leads me to believe it is not a bad thing, in fact it'll be just fine so we shouldn't do anything," and you get shouted down as "denying climate change." Or you can say "I think it is happening, manmade, and a bad thing. However I think reducing CO2 production is the wrong approach. I think we should do geoengineering because it is cheaper/more effective/etc," and you get shouted down as a "denialist."

That's my real problem, is people confuse the levels of it. There are facts (all scientific theories have to start with facts, observations), theories, and then policy suggestions as a result. Calling it all bullshit can be accurately called denying it. However being skeptical or disagreeing with parts cannot.

Also there's way too much stock put in computer models. Not that they are used, but that people think they "prove" something. No, a computer model proves nothing, it is a model. It makes predictions. If the predictions are repeatedly accurate, it is probably a good model of reality and can be counted on to produce accurate predictions in the future. If they are inaccurate, it needs to be revised. However it doesn't "prove" shit. It models.

So while models should (and must) be used in climate research, people need to stop saying things like "This model proves that X will happen in Y years!" No, it predicts it. Well and good, that's very different from proving it.

Penn & Teller are more bullshit than the show.

[RobinEggs]

I take it you never realized that "Bullshit" is carefully crafted libertarian propaganda rather than independent investigative reporting for entertainment. I don't say 'libertarian' figuratively, either; they cite the Cato Institute constantly, of which Penn and Teller are both research fellows. I'm not saying the libertarian viewpoint is inherently incorrect, but it's hardly the place to go for unbiased reporting.

What is inherently incorrect are their interview tactics and editing techniques; they're even more misleading than Michael Moore's. Ever notice how rarely you hear the question that was actually asked? Penn's voice-over introduces a topic on their own terms, the video cuts to the interviewee answering an unknown question that was asked by a different interviewer off-camera, and he mocks their response - often while they're still talking. It's all trick editing and impatient over-simplification; it's reality TV disguised as an interview.

Believe what you want, but don't go around thinking "Bullshit" segments provide a good justification for any of your beliefs.

Opposing teaching fake science isn't anti-science

[DragonWriter]

I thought one of the fundamental aspects of modern empirical science is that, unlike a religion, it is ALWAYS open to revision and dispute.

It is open to revision in response to, and dispute in the form of, results that contradict the existing explanations and more parsimonious explanations for the results which have been produced.

Defending against pressure to teach, as science, "controversy" which does not actually exist within the scope of the scientific work in a field is not anti-science.

Whether there is a significant modern consensus or not, I think it goes against the core spirit of scientific inquiry to EVER say "This matter is settled and no future scientist may ever question it."

Yes, it would be, but that's not what the National Center for Science Education is saying, so that's what's known as a strawman.

That's the very kind of anti-empirical position the Creationists themselves take in presenting their religious take on science.

And its the anti-empirical ideological-based approach, and the pressure to present the results of that approach as science, that the NCSE is opposing in the two areas in which it is taking stands.

And I'm certainly glad for Einstein's sake that no one ever thought this way about Newtonian physics. "Sorry little German, the matter is settled. Stop being a Newton denier."

Unlike the non-scientific work at issue, Einstein's work was scientific, and there wasn't an enormous amount of pressure to teach "the controversy" between Einstein's models and Newtonian physics in primary and secondary education when no such controversy actually existed in the scientific community, so the issue is in no way parallel.

Re:It's much bigger than you think.

[WOOFYGOOFY]

1 - History. I'm a student of history. I became a skeptic when they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

\

And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics because WHY again?

2 - Statistics/Data Analysis. M&M made Michael Mann's Hockey Stick look like a total fraud.

And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics AND statistics because WHY again?

3 - Physics. Most serious skeptics will grant that CO2 absorbs energy at one important wavelength. They will grant as much as 1.4 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2. The thing they won't grant is the feedback necessary to get dangerous warming.

And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands the relative importance of isolated "facts" in physics he scrapped off some denier's site online because WHY again?

4 - Instrumentation. Anthony Watts has demonstrated the pathetic state of some of our temperature records.

Anthony Watts is a non-scientist, college drop out full blown, outed fraud: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/29/204427/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

It goes on. There are other mechanisms that can explain the late 20th century warming. If you want to seriously talk about skeptics, you really should study them a bit more.

Re:It's much bigger than you think.

[MightyMartian]

And that's the real irony. Skeptics, whether evolution deniers or AGW deniers, will go to almost insane levels of skepticism about the theories they reject, and yet will show almost stunning gullibility when it comes to sources they agree with. In my years frequenting evolution debate forums, it was amazing to watch guys saying things in one breath about how we don't have video tape evidence of evolution of humans happening and then with the next breath proclaiming that Noah's Ark and Paluxy footprints were real.

Anti-Climate-Change is the Core message

[billstewart]

In In case you haven''t paid attention to the Republican Party over the last dozen years, they've got a lot of tightly organized talking points that the party leaders push out through all the different media and craziness groups - Anti-tax, pro-war, anti-gay, Obama's-a-socialist, anti-deficit if the Democrats are in office, don't-worry-about-deficits-we-have-higher-priorities if Republicans are in office, etc. Some of these are core values that the party leaders really care about, and others are tactical positions that are useful for getting different groups of voters involved. The finance folks don't really care about gay marriage, but they'll go along on that because it brings in religious conservative voters who show up at polls and rallies and donate money.

Anti-science is a tactical position; anti-climate change is a core message from their corporate sponsors. Bashing evolution makes it easier to bash climate change science, as well as bringing in religious conservative voters, and gets the rabble in the habit of believing talking points their leaders hand them, but the party leadership doesn't really care about evolution - they care very very much about not having Congress make laws about climate change that would affect Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Agribusiness. And they don't care if it means destroying science education in schools for a generation as long as their bottom line is protected for a while; the kids who are going to be scientists can learn evolution in college.