Slashdot Mirror
Climate Contrarians Seek Leadership of House Science Committee
An article at Ars examines three members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are seeking chairmanship of its Committee on Space, Science, and Technology. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said in an interview, "My analysis is that in the global warming debate, we won. There were a lot of scientists who were just going along with the flow on the idea that mankind was causing a change in the world's climate. I think that after 10 years of debate, we can show that that there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have come over to being skeptics, and I don't know anyone [who was a skeptic] who became a believer in global warming." James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has a similar record of opposing climate change, as does Lamar Smith (R-TX). Relatedly, Phil Plait, a.k.a. The Bad Astronomer, has posted an article highlighting how U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, has declined to answer a question about how old the Earth is, calling it "one of the great mysteries."
I don't know anyone [who was a skeptic] who became a believer in global warming.
You mean like Richard Muller who quite famously denounced anthropogenic global warming only to come to the same conclusion by his own means? Yeah, that opinion piece by him opens with "Call me a converted skeptic."
Oh, I get it, after it turns out that his research didn't back up your "beliefs", he must never have been a skeptic to begin with, right? Or perhaps when you made that statement you meant that you just don't know Richard Muller personally?
Political word games have always been such a pain in the ass.
But you are right that while peer reviewed journals move one way, the population moves the other:
The most striking result is the increase in the proportion of Americans who express strong doubt or rejection of the reality of global warming through their free associations. In 2003, only 7% of Americans provided “naysayer” images (e.g., “hoax,” or “no such thing”) when asked what thought or image first came to mind when they heard the term “global warming.” By 2010, however, 23% of Americans provided “naysayer” images.
My work here is dung.
I do believe global warming is happening, however, I am not sure mankind is responsible for a majority of it. However, I do believe we must cut pollution for the sake of pollution regardless of whether it puts a dent into the overall problem of global warming.
Agreed.
"Look at all the skeptical scientists (that we retained as hied shills)! CLEARLY our side of the debate has won! (Nevermind that the basis of the global climate change scenario is firmly rooted in uncontested scientific principles and repeatedly documented characteristics of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane gasses. We assert that because humans are magical, that humans can release all of those gasses that they want, and NEVER release enough into the atmosphere to upset anything at all! Sure, we are releasing it faster than nature can re-sequester it, and the effects are sustained and cumulative, but damnit, a volcanic eruption spews out more "greenhouse gasses" in a few hours than mankind does in a year! Nevermind that volcanic eruptions are not a constant and growing emission source like human activities; and therefor our comparison is lopsided and specious-- don't think too much about that, it's our story, and we're sticking to it! No, those aren't the icebergs you are looking for! Move along!)
Admittedly, that *is* a rather shameless strawman I just thrashed, but the likeness of that scarecrow to the real thing was alarming.
Seriously, is this woman simply delusional, or does shw think she can bribe the weather when shit comes apart at the seams?
Back in the 1980's, the [so-called] Moral Majority spent a lot of time stealthily taking over local school boards. By stealthily, I mean they concealed their true colors, while running, then used their winning of elections to argue that they had a mandate to undermine the teaching of science and critical thinking in public schools. The fact that people can be elected to Congress and make such fatuous statements with a straight face makes me think that they -- in a certain sense -- did "win": these Congresspeople are the children of that age. It's sad, of course, that people think that "winning" means one has the right to determine the conceptual course of the nation's children -- regardless of actual facts.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
It's interesting to see how fragmented the anti-science people are.
That 23% of people who express doubt, are actually a bunch of different doubters. People who think it's not happening and lah-lah-lah (fingers in ears).
People who believe it IS happening but its natural.
People who believe it's man-made , but there's nothing we can do about it.
If you watch Fox (it's the only US news I see on my cable), they can't keep their story consistent between which of these they are. I suspect all they really care about is that you use fossil fuels as wastefully as possible at as high a price as possible. Whenever energy efficiency comes up, they're all screaming 'unAmerican' as if anyone would be against doing the same thing for less money!?
But it does show that you don't actually have 77%-23%, you have a more fragmented 77%-10%-10%-2%
Senator Barack Obama in 2008:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.html
These guys are politicians. Part of being a politician is to not annoy anyone who might vote for you, unless you have a really good reason. Privately, both Rubio and Obama might well believe the science is settled and that the literal word of the Bible is just wrong... but why would they say so? Why not just give a non-answer that annoys the fewest number of people?
So, is it stupid and wrong when Rubio does it, but okay when Obama does it? If you have that kind of double standard, then shame on you.
Yeah... it is a great mystery, but the bible says less than 10k years, which is obviously wrong, and obviously what is being fished for in the question. And to think that religion is really about seeking truth. I went to the creation museum -- intellectual vapid bunch if ever there was. Funny how the "holy" can be so disingenuous about their motives. I'm sure Jesus would tear town their temple and decry the corruption of the Pharisees.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Hi. Nice to meet you, Dana. I go by the name Sarten X, often represented with a hyphen.
When The global warming concerns were first being voiced, I was skeptical. Surely humans' influence couldn't be that severe? Then I started learning. I learned about how CO2 traps heat. I learned how human CO2 production has been increasing exponentially. I learned how small shifts in ocean temperatures put far more moisture into the air, producing more severe storms.
I learned too much to doubt. Even if half my knowledge turns out to be wrong, the other half still leads to the same conclusion: Our society is royally screwed because of global warming, and we're making it worse every day.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope that we've been terribly mistaken in our analysis. I hope the solar system drifts into a previously-unknown dust cloud, and the greenhouse gasses save us. Hope, though, will not explain to my great-grandchildren why they can't leave the tunnels during storm season.
At this point, I am still skeptical of many of the claims. A world covered in poison ivy by 2015? I doubt that. The east coast of the United States submerged in a decade? Probably not. Regardless of what preposterous scare-tactic forecasts are made, there is still too much evidence for me to ignore. Though the outcome is uncertain, the trend is clear. We, as the current dominant species on this planet, should do what we can to reduce the approaching threat of a warming planet. We should strive to make our pollution as harmless as we can, and keep our industrial processes as flexible as we can to allow future change if similar problems are discovered. We should have been more cautious in our designs over the past century, and we may not even have another century to live if we do not change our ways now.
I am Sarten X. I was a skeptic of global warming, and I now support the efforts to fight it.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
If the choice is between having an iDevice and cheap transportation, and having a world outside that I don't need an environment suit to survive in, I will take the latter one.
Unfortunately, that's not the choice most people are confronted with. Instead the choice is (1) have cheap tech, transportation, be able to waste resources, etc. NOW, or (2) have a world where your grandchildren or great-grandchildren might have to wear environmental suits many years from now.
I think the general pattern of the debt crisis, people unwilling to plan for paying their mortgage next month, let alone planning for retirement or grandchildren, gives a general sense of where most people's priorities are. "If it makes my life easier or just more fun today, I'll worry about that other stuff later..." even if that othet stuff means complete financial ruin or disaster.
If people are willing to gamble in these ridiculous ways with their futures just to buy the slightly larger sunmer house, you really think they're motivated to worry about the quality of people's lives a century in the future? A lot of people say stuff like how they don't want to ruin things for their kids or grandkids, but few of them seem to really do much about it other than buying a more energy efficient light bulb or recycling a tin can.
BTW, I don't believe in global warming. Facts just show that it is happening.
I agree with what he says, "I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.".
However this is not what he (and his accomplices) actually mean.
Despite what the words say, the underlying intention is radically different.
- not "parents should be able to teach..." but "schools must be forced to teach"
- and not just teach, but with every word imply ABSOLUTELY equal standing with science (eg Intelligent Design, which is nothing more than christian creationism with SCIENCE branded all over it)
And, of course, the WORST part of their hypocrisy is that they want THEIR religion mandatorily taught everywhere, but not any OTHER religion.
You want the worldview of your religion taught in schools, sure - GO AHEAD - as long as EVERY other religion also gains equal airtime and equal status.
For Example:
- Hindus
- Buddhists
- Mormons
- Zoroastrians
- and yes, even Scientologists.
It's called having a secret agenda and they're doing the same thing with Global Warming.
The entire "debate" has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with MONEY.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Rock and minerals are mosly recycled by our active planet. The oldest rock is 4.03 billion years old (gniess from NW Canada), and oldest mineral is 4.3 billion years (zircon crystals from west australia). But neither tells us the age of the Earth. That is done by assumption from meteorites and moon rocks.....true age of Earth is honestly a mystery.
Actually there's a reason for most of the rock being not much over 4 billion years old. I think it was around 4.5 billion years that Earth was impacted by a body that was maybe as big as Mars. It's what caused the Moon to form. Most of the surface went back to being molten for a few hundred million years so the oldest rock was after that impact. In truth it's hard to give an exact date because it cooled for so many years that it's hard to given a specific date when you can call it a planet. The material collected and solidified over hundreds of millions of years then it was still hot for hundreds of millions of years and once it became liveable there was the impact event. There's even a debate if life evolved twice on earth both before and after the impact.
By that reasoning almost everything is a mystery because very little can be isolated to perfect accuracy and precision. Consider, "how long does it take you to bake chocolate chip cookies?" "Well," I reply, "it's a mystery: last time it took 14 minutes plus or minus approximately 20 seconds, so I can't say."
Things we know are, outside the bounds of mathematics and pure logic, generally known only within reasonable bounds. If the earth is 4,540 million years old, a senator needn't stumble over the +/- 10 million error bars. What he means is that the age of the Earth is either a mystery to him because he's ignorant of such things, or just as likely isn't sure how to answer the question without fear of pissing someone off, so he chickened out. Maybe he believes the earth is 6000 years old but didn't want newspaper headlines the next day pointing out his conflict with all available scientific data suggesting this is wrong by approximately 4.54 billion years. Or perhaps since he's a Republican he didn't want to piss off his party's large fundamentalist wing by noting the scientifically indicated age of the Earth. It's a mystery.
What's not a mystery is that the Earth is quite surely about 4.5 billion years old. Saying it's a mystery does a serious disservice to the overwhelming amount we do know about its age.
"The science of age of the Earth is the basis of nuclear medicine & power. Should our leaders understand it?" Maybe not understand it mathematically, but I think everyone should understand what 'radiation' and 'nuclear' are. There are so many misconceptions that some people fear everything other don't fear anything. People don't understand just how many discoveries and applications nuclear physics and nuclear medicine has brought. Bill Nye is being polite, since I'm online, I won't. If he wants to deny the age of the earth, then deny him X-ray's, most cancer treatment, MRI's and so many other or our medical treatments. (I'm exaggerating of course, I'm from Saskatchewan where the first medical treatment of cancer using radioactive material was invented and performed, and as a physicist in training, I'm damn proud of that.)
The main reason for global warming denying is to avoid having to change how rich corporations do business. Energy companies want to keep burning coal and auto companies preferred to make gas guzzlers. The joke is the very ones denying global warming tend to be the ones buying beach houses. Those same beach houses won't be around in 50 or 100 years due to global warming. They can assume it'll happen after they are dead but like what just happened in New Jersey many will be lost in the next 25 years. In truth I think the majority of deniers believe it's happening they just don't want to change how they live so it's easier to just claim it's all a lie.
It is a pity when insane people are allowed to embarrass themselves in public so.
That's all well and good, but if you read the full quote, Senator Rubio was suggesting that the world was made in seven days:
Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.
Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gE6zipFWmo
and you'll know why you're a "skeptic."
thegodmovie.com - watch it
or can anyone get in?
I think we can fix both. Say all those oil/coal subsidies we give to that segment of the population... save it and use it to give incentives when the market moves towards alternative fuels/solar/wind/nuclear. The sticking point with most rational people (people who aren't of the 6,000 year old earth variety) isn't whether or not we should do something about it, but whether or not we use a stick or a carrot. I vote carrot, because in the area of new technology, the United States still kicks major ass. We can, and should, reward them (not giving stupid bulk grants to failing companies like Solyndra) and use the government's meddling in the market for good (for a change.) OR, we can level the playing field so that the market corrects itself (that'd be removing subsidies to the oil/gas/coal too). When people want to change, it's easier to get them to. Beating them over the head "you're killing Mother Earth! You're killing your children! Martians are laughing at us!" will get us nowhere... it hasn't worked in a society not ruled by an iron fist. And I am not for giving Obama a big iron glove to beat us all over the head with his agenda.
Markets work when we let them... meddling for the most part has been shit... because it isn't really market manipulation in the strictest sense... it's rewarding the established players (specifically: those who give the most campaign money). If they want to manipulate the market... shift the balance and see where it leads. Will oil companies piss and moan? Yes. But as a libertarian, I'm tired of them sucking on the government teat and charging ME $4/gallon gasoline for no other reason than they can. Something that has inelastic demand should have a limited fluctuation in pricing when there is sufficient supply (we've not had a "shortage" since the 1970's... and that was artificial.) But I'm going offtopic.... time to submit...
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
This whole business is a large part of why I can not vote for a Republican, at least in national races. Between the people mentioned in this story, and we all remember Todd "In the case of a legitimate rape" Akin and Paul "Lies straight from the pit of hell" Broun, both who were/are also on the House Science committee. I mean, a Republican can say, "Hey, yeah, that is looney, but we're not all looney!". But I have to ask, "Who let these people serve on the science committee, and what does that say about... their concern for the nation?" Its this unbelievable horror story that these people are in an elected office, just utterly baffling. Sometimes I expect Rod Serling to step out from around a corner and tell us all that this was all just an odd trip into the Twilight Zone.
Just asking.
No, you're "just trolling". If you were "just asking" you would listen to (or at least respond to) the answers you have been given in the past. But that's not what you do, you keep repeating the same discredited claims over and over again like a broken record. Another possibility is that you have a learning disability, but I doubt that since you seem like a rational human being on politically neutral subjects.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You wrote: "They know that without the sciences, their comfortable lives could not be what it is today."
I suspect a large fraction doesn't know that. I doubt these are people who, when they flip a light switch or run hot water in their kitchen or flush a toilet, even occasionally think of the infrastructure that lets them do those things. They not only don't know what they don't know, they aren't curious about it. Much less capable of changing their minds in light of scientific evidence that conflicts with their faith/beliefs.
how is putting gas in my car, that damages the engine, in turn making my car that used to last 15-20 years only last 10 "helping"
so while I may be "polluting less" in the short term, i need to buy a new car sooner (along with hundreds of millions of other humans
so, I ask you this. What is the cost/benifit/polution ration of using a fuel that will kill your car faster, gives you less power per gallon of gas (some 20%less efficient than regular unleaded) and therefore a car that runs for 100K miles, will use MORE fuel that is eth based than gas based
my issue is not with future times, my issue is with forcing high cost alternatives early rather than allowing them to mature.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
and removing TSP (trisodium phosphate) removed an antropogenic source of phosphorus that was aggravating eutrophication of lakes; see, for example, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/phosphorus/HSphosphatepresent.pdf Lowered oxygen->fewer fish, etc.
and removing sulfur from diesel reduced the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere, which reduced the amount of SO3 -> H2SO4 production, which reduced the acidity of rainfall, which has a number of beneficial effects which you can explore if you're interested.
The price rises for consumers simply indicate the fact that the full costs weren't being accounted for in the first place. As we learn more about the various complex processes that sustain our lives, we're better able to determine what it actually costs us to live. Don't expect those data to be especially comforting.
Go buy some coastal property somewhere. Just make sure you sign a waiver forfeiting governmental help a couple of decades from now.
Why do we still pretend it is okay for uneducated people to make policy decisions?
Before politicians are elected (and particularly before they get into any committee with science in its name) they should have to pass a written examination.
How much longer did this nonsense have to continue?!
How long can you tread water?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I was impressed when John Huntsman (R) plainly said "I believe in evolution and I trust scientists on global warming."
It's sad you have to make sure you say that so people don't mistake you as the typically wrong thinking (in this aspect and much more) republicans.
He's a Mormon but he also created Dream Theater day in Utah when governor and is the ambassador to China. Funny thing is if he had been made VP you would alinate the far right but gain so much at the middle. Instead their strategy was to alienate not just a political spectrun but 47% of Americans which includes a large part of Republicans. Maybe they just didn't want to vote after that.
Funny thing, Paul Ryan maintained he loved Rage Against the Machine and it was funny how Tom Morello called him out and basically told him he was a hateful ass they didn't want as a fan. Bitch slapped by your favorite band, and a guy with a Harvard education.
Horseshit.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
The lack of tax is artificial because there are many external costs to oil that are not reflected in the market, for example the military costs of maintaining a semblance of stability in the Middle East to keep oil prices down, the environmental costs of pollution (in terms of reduced crop yields, increased medical costs for people exposed, etc.), and the long-term costs of global warming which will incur phenomenal costs on the whole planet as we're forced to abandon or massively fortify all our coastal cities to protect against rising waters and stronger storms. All of those costs can be laid directly at the doorstep of fossil fuel consumption, yet none of them are reflected in the price of oil - in Economics they are what is called externalities and it is understood that a free market can't directly address them. By taxing them so that all of those costs can be entirely paid for from those tax revenues you make the at-the-pump price reflect the actual cost society is paying. Without the taxes all those externalized costs are just a massive socially-funded subsidy for fossil fuels.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.