E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTexas Gov. Rick Perry says climate scientists are manipulating data.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry stirred up a fresh scientific spat today with his claim that scientists were manipulating their data about climate change "so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects" — a view that serves to highlight the differences among the GOP presidential candidates on science-related issues.
During a town hall meeting in Bedford, N.H., here's what Perry, one of the front-runners for the Republican nomination, had to say about the state of climate science:
"I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think there are a substantial number or scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we're seeing, almost weekly or daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climate has changed. They've been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into a group of scientists who have in some cases [been] found to be manipulating this information. ..."
The comments are pretty much in line with what Perry has said in the past. He's playing off the suspicions raised by the "Climategate" e-mail controversy that broke in 2009. That flap revealed that the most outspoken climate researchers are all too human when it comes to talking about their intellectual adversaries in private — but in the end, they were mostly cleared of scientific malfeasance (although one published graph was judged to be "misleading").
The criticisms of Perry's view follow well-worn tracks as well: On the left-leaning Think Progress blog, Texas A&M climate researcher Andrew Dessler is quoted as saying that none of the credible atmospheric scientists in Texas agree with the governor. "This is a particularly unfortunate situation, given the hellish drought that Texas is now experiencing, and which climate change is almost certainly making worse," he said.
Think Progress goes so far as to list more than three dozen scientists who disagree with Perry.
Brian Snyder / Reuters
Texas Gov. Rick Perry extends his arm toward a lab worker during a tour of Resonetics Laser Micromaching in Nashua, N.H., on Wednesday. Resonetics CEO Chris Banas is to the left of Perry, and Cliff Gabay, the company's president, looks on from the right.
The Texas governor's views come in contrast with those of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, an early front-runner in the GOP presidential field. Romney has said "I believe, based on what I read, that the world is getting warmer" and added that "I believe that humans contribute to that."
As a result, he said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in June, "it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors." However, he said any measures to stem greenhouse gases should be applied on an international basis. He opposed putting a carbon cap-and-trade system into place because it would put America at a competitive disadvantage.
The Perry vs. Romney climate split may be the latest and buzziest difference to emerge in the race for the GOP nomination, but when you look closely at the candidates, you'll see other differences as well. Here's a rundown on four of the leading candidates, related to four hot-button scientific topics: climate policy, evolution education, stem-cell research and science funding:
Climate policy:
We've already summarized Perry's and Romney's views.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota opposes climate change legislation, saying that carbon dioxide is a "harmless gas." During a town hall meeting in South Carolina this week, she said that all the issues surrounding climate change would have to be "settled on the basis of real science, not manufactured science."
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has called the concern about Earth's changing climate "the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years, if not hundreds of years," based on the Climategate reports (see above). He's opposed to energy subsidies as well as government efforts to control greenhouse-gas emissions. "Pollution can be better taken care of under a private market system, under private property," he said.
(President Barack Obama, by the way, favors policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but the current "climate" in Congress has severely limited any progress on environmental initiatives.)
Evolution education:
Perry says he is a "firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution." Intelligent design is the view that the complexity seen in nature is best explained as resulting from the efforts of an intelligent designer — for example, God, or an alien civilization. But in Perry's case, certainly God.
Romney said during his presidential campaign that he believes "God designed the universe" and that he believes God "used the process of evolution to create the human body." As Massachusetts governor, he opposed the teaching of intelligent design in public-school science classes. "The science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are any other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed," he told The New York Times. "If we're going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that's for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class."
Bachmann says "evolution has never been proven" and believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside the evolutionary view of biological change. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide," Bachmann told reporters at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans in June.
Paul says "nobody has concrete proof" for evolutionary theory, although he acknowledges that "it's a pretty logical theory." In his view, the intelligent-design concept has more to do with personal beliefs rather than science. "In a libertarian society these beliefs aren't nearly as critical. When you have government schools, it becomes important," he said. "'Are you fair in teaching that the earth could have been created by a creator or it came out of a pop, out of nowhere?' In a personal world, we don't have government dictating and ruling all these things; it's not very important."
(Obama favors the current legal view that teaching the intelligent-design concept in public-school science classes would be unconstitutional.)
Stem-cell research:
Perry is opposed to human embryonic stem-cell research, which involves destroying human embryos to harvest the therapeutic cells. But he's a strong supporter of less controversial adult stem-cell research. In fact, he was a beneficiary of such research when he received an infusion of his own lab-grown stem cells to speed recovery from a back injury.
Romney has voiced support for embryonic stem-cell research in the past, but he says his position has changed over the years, and he now opposes such research.
Bachmann is opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but favors less controversial initiatives that use adult stem cells or reprogrammed cells (also known as induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells).
Paul says the federal government should have no jurisdiction over the conduct of embryonic stem-cell research. He has, however, sponsored legislation that would use tax credits to encourage less controversial stem-cell studies, as well as the establishment of stem-cell and cord-blood banks.
(Obama has favored expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research — an issue that has been tied up in lengthy legal proceedings. Most researchers hope that reprogrammed cells will eventually provide a way out of the moral and ethical controversy.)
Science funding:
Federal funding for the National Science Foundation has become something of a hot potato in some GOP quarters, in light of recent criticism of the agency from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Neither Perry nor Romney has made his views on NSF funding widely known, but in the past the Texas governor as well as the Massachusetts governor have touted NSF grants that came to institutions in their states.
Bachmann has faced criticism from the right-leaning Club for Growth for her "questionable" vote to reauthorize spending by the NSF. However, Bachmann did recently seek to reduce NSF funding to 2008 levels for a budget reduction of $1.7 billion.
Paul voiced strong opposition to federal funding for science education in 2000, saying that "Congress has no constitutional authority to single out any one academic discipline as deserving special emphasis." More recently, Paul was one of two members of Congress voting against a resolution to mark NSF's 60th anniversary.
(After he took office, Obama vowed to double NSF's $6.5 billion budget, but this year's $6.8 billion figure falls well short of that goal.)
What to add?
I realize I'm missing many other worthy GOP candidates, and many other worthy issues relating to science and technology. Feel free to add your comments about the candidates and the issues, but please keep the conversation civil. This isn't the place to talk about the debt crisis, or chew over the immigration issue, or handicap the horse race. That's what the First Read blog is for. Check in with First Read and msnbc.com's Politics section for daily coverage of the 2012 presidential campaign.
Update for 10:30 p.m. ET Aug. 18: Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, another GOP presidential hopeful, stirred the pot by sending along this Twitter tweet: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." This follows up on The Washington Post's quote from Huntsman's chief strategist, John Weaver: "We're not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party."
Although Huntsman accepts the view that greenhouse-gas emissions are contributing to climate change, he told Time's Swampland blog in May that cap-and-trade systems haven't worked and that "putting additional burdens on the pillars of growth right now is counterproductive."
On the stem-cell issue, a spokesman for Huntsman told LifeNews.com that the Republican supports research that involves "adult stem cells, non-embryonic stem cells and certain types of embryonic stem cell[s]" but does not support federal funding for research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. Such a stand appears to be consistent with the policy that was in place during George W. Bush's tenure at the White House.
Huntsman has generally been supportive of science funding: Among the efforts he supported as governor was the Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative at the University of Utah.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
First off I would like to say that the only one that seems to have any credible knowledge here is Junicon. Looking through these comments it is clear to see that just about everyone uses the media as their source of education on the subject.
The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Look up the Milankovitch cycle. This describes how the earths precession causes ice ages and warming periods. These cycles are approximately on a 25000 year cycle. the earth warming to temperatures higher than today is nothing new. The earth cooling to temperatures cooler than today is nothing new. What is new is that this time around there are 7 billion people living on the planet.
The earth warming is part of its natural cycle before it goes into another cooler period. The concern is the rate at which is heating. The rise in temperature is synonymous with the rise in population. More people mean there is more use of greenhouse gases which trap in the IR radiation the earth emits which means the earth will heat up. Through all these comments there has been no mention of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a group of many climate scientists that have studied climate and put together models and graphs showing the relationship between population and the rate at which the earth is heating.
The question that should be on every ones mind is how will the earth react? In 4 billion years the Earth has never experienced such dramatic unnatural changes as it does today with 7 billion people living on it. We have changed the global carbon cycle, the hydrological cycle and many more of earths natural cycles. So what has this done for our planet? With everything unnatural we put into the environment we make changes. Now we need to realize how those changes will affect the planet.
The warming is natural and "man made". It is "man made" because in our everyday lives we add levels of CO2 that would not have been added naturally. We also add CH4, NO2, and CFC's (which are man made and one CFC traps in as much heat as 10000 CO2 molecules do) but it is also natural in that as the earth heats up there is more water vapor in the air and water vapor is the most abundant green house gas.
Lets forget the politics and the media science and start considering what we need to do in order to live comfortably on this earth in the future
The issue isn't everyones knowledge of global warming. It's that we have canidates for president that won't even consider it, who won't even listen to (nor understand) the debate.
Thanks -- well spoken Mile high 33
While I agree with your observations, your holier than thou tone is rather off putting... Where do YOU get your information? Please be specific so we can all educate ourselves to your level of understanding.
I apologize for the off putting tone. Some of these comments on here absolutely baffle me which wrongly influence the tone of my reply.
I am an atmospheric science major in my fourth year. Just about all of my professors have contributed information and provided related graphs for the IPCC reports. My information comes from what I have been taught and from papers published related to the field.
I personally think that when it comes to a science that can be considered controversial (climate change, evolution) then it is best not to get information from a book that can be bought in a Barnes and Noble or any other big name store. Books sold in most stores are commercial and the authors are only looking for a profit. An author can present a topic in two very different ways depending on what information they include and how they choose to include it. Personally I find it best to stick with text books and peer reviewed research papers.
the real issue is that you guys don’t understand human nature. your solutions won’t work. fact. mile high, you might want to read what the nipcc has to say. personally i trust non-government over government any day of the week. unless you dont believe in government corruption. ask yourself, which organization most benefits by getting their way? it’s easy to see how government benefits, whos paying the nipcc? i see it must be the evil corporations who want to keep pumping c02 into the atmosphere to feed the insatiable appetite of the human being? wait, who ultimately is to blame for anthropogenic greenhouse gasses? oh yeah, humans. let me know when you can get humans to stop consuming.
The issue is not about getting humans to stop consuming, but instead to consume a bit less (for example, higher car mileage standards) while developing alternative clean energy technologies.
make it more efficient and people will just go farther.
Iambergas
The NIPCC is a very weak source. To actually think of that as credible just because you don't trust government funded research is irresponsible. People that conduct research of our earth are no of the same mind set as politicians. I am not going to school for eight years to be told what I can and can not research. I can safely say that just about all scientists feel the same way and I can say that because I have been a research assistant to professors conducting research with government grants.
The NIPCC is a bunch of straw man and red herring descriptions. their main argument against climate modeling is its associated uncertainty (mistaking it for knowing nothing, and ignoring that uncertainty goes both ways). That doesn’t stop them from putting forward hypothetical feedbacks that have no evidence whatsoever of operating on a globally significant scale. By the way, climate modeling is mocked in the report as merely being “the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing”. Doesn’t sound like they know what a climate model really is.
The NIPCC is written by skeptics for skeptics.
As I read the NIPCC report it reminded of those 9/11 skeptics that try to convince everyone that 9/11 was just a big government conspiracy. Same tone and and same construction of arguments.
You are a naive child: "I can safely say that just about all scientists feel the same way and I can say that because I have been a research assistant to professors conducting research with government grants."
Government grants? No conflict of interest there...
government grants don't go to the person, they go to the study/project.
Iambergas
Maybe you should try going to school so you can understand how all this works.
I think what you are thinking of is a pay off or a bribe. Grants are neither of the two.
Like I said, naive children, how does the study/project get the money??
same way a business gets money from a bank. They make a proposal and if the people that receive that proposal feel that the project has merit, funding is approved.
Why are we doing this? Somebody remind me again who all these cartoon characters are!
Why are they on TV spouting all these ridiculously moronic statements about things that are obviously beyond the scope of their intellectual capacity or are their own delusional myths they wish to impose on the world.
It's bizarre that with such real issues facing our country that some of us revert to our childhood to again visit the cartoons and make believe land.
One problem is that many of these candidates are well aware that anthropogenic global warming is reality, and have said so in the past, but they have to deny science and their own views in order to compete well for votes in the Republican Party.
The bible thumpers in the GOP may accept science if Rush Oxycontin Lintball tells them to......he apparently is the GOP's God.
http://www.nipccreport.org/
Texas has a long history of drought. Spanish explorer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca
noted that it had not rained for two years in an area now known as the Presidio.
In 1720 a summer dry spell in Coahuila killed 3,500 of the 4,000 horses that the Marqués de Aguayo, governor of Texas, was prepared to bring to Texas.
A drought in Central Texas dried up the San Gabriel River in 1756, forcing the abandonment of a settlement of missionaries and Indians.
There was a drought in 1882, and one of the worse droughts recorded was between 1884 and 1886.
In the one hundred years between 1882 and 1992 there have been 16 droughts in Texas lasting a year or more.
But the global warming nuts won't let the facts change their minds.
Scientists are not saying that global warming is the cause of droughts, only that warming could potentially increase the frequency and/or severity of some extreme weather events.
Republicans make me sad.
I see, "scientists" are held to such a higher standard of accuracy than politicians and if they do the same thing politicians and businessmen do - massage the data a little to get more grants - all of a sudden they are evil and under criminal investigation, while the politicians and businessmen get kudos for being so clever. Clearly a double standard.
It's getting to the point where I notice that pretty much anyone who gets publicity in the media these days use it as an opportunity to tout their propaganda and egregiously exaggerate to the point of untruth. When people in the future look back on this time, they will just shake their heads and wonder why we were so stupid as to believe all this propaganda that people keep spitting out. I realize this is just a phase we are going through, sort of like being hypnotized, but I thought once Bush was out, this sort of ignorance would stop. I guess ignorance has a lot of mass and hence intertia.
I'm curious, only because there are certainly some unbelievably knowledgeable people here. Was the dust bowl caused by global warming? It was a LOT worse than the current drought in Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
The "Dust Bowl" was caused by a combination of drought and bad farming practices. The average temperatures in the United States were about the same back then as they are now (with a dip in the intervening years), although the GLOBAL averages are higher now.
When are Republicans going to stop lying and when are their sheep-like followers going to stop blindly believing anything their leaders say?
To: Stephen-3584703
Those who have been drinking the main stream media's Kool Aid all their lives make me sad.
Try thinking for yourself.
Here's just what we ( don't ) need at this time while our economy is struggling: "leaders" who discount science but spend time in mystical ideation.
Our science won WWII. It put us on the moon and ahead of the rest of the world. It won the Cold War. It created our computers, the internet, and the prosperity of the 1990's. It has been, is now, and forever will be an important factor in whatever greatness America had, has, or will have.
Those who question science simply don't understand it. They are mentally lazy and prefer to have simple answers spoon fed to them by talking heads. They are taking this nation toward mediocrity. Never give them peace.
I can care less if there is global warming or not. I am in the later part of my life. I will die of something...It just won't be from global warming. As far as Human life continuing on..It will end someday. Nothing lasts forever. Why worry about it?
The gift of life and a stable climate for human life was what you were born into and helps make your life possible. It seems to me that even us older folks should try to avoid destroying that for future human life.
Meanwhile, enjoy the Cancun weather, which is made possible by our current world climate.
you guys dont understand evolution. in order for dna to survive it must have survival as an instinct. along with that is consumption. every single organism on this planet has this desire, including human beings. the only way to stop consumption is to destroy a species. you cannot legislate it. you cannot slow it down. it is more impossible to stop a species insatiable appetite than it is to turn off the "heater" you guys call global warming. so humans will continue to consume, and in order to do so will invariably continue to release carbon dioxide. do you really think you are going to ask everybody on the planet to stop living? good luck..
oh heres the good part. millions of other species on this planet with the same insatiable appetite for consumption consume, guess what, carbon dioxide. they are more than happy to consume our excess, will consume our excess, and ARE consuming our excess. which is why the threat is a joke.
iambergas.....
Your convoluted, concatenated, cacophony of malarkey is exactly the epitome of current Tea Party climate nonsense.
Congratulations on capturing the inane essence of Rick Perry and his ignorant teanut gallery.
Guess what? Trees are the best consumers of carbon dioxide. Guess what? Human consuption is destroying/deforesting trees and thereby destroying the the very thing that could consume our excess.
In addition, nature does not consume like humanity. Even zebra don't run away from the lions at the water hole. (they keep their distance, though). Once the lions are full, they are full. They don't kill a zebra just to kill it, or to eat until they are fat.
Actually nature consumes exactly the same way humanity does. Have you not seen PBS lately? Have you EVER seen a lion kill where the lions did not eat EVERY OUNCE of the prey they captured???? They stop eating because they run out of food, and they lay down and SLEEP because they are STUFFED, like a 400 pound man at a buffet.
Ian, thanks for proving your point. FYI, evolution will select against you.
Iam
At which point the carrion will come in and keep on eating.
The most disturbing thing about the GOP candidates statements is how often they say "I believe..." This is not a place for belief, it is a place for concepts supported by evidence. People used to believe the sun revolved around the earth, but evidence showed otherwise. Climate change, greenhouse gases, and severe weather patterns are a matter of evidence. Just ask the people of Joplin, Missouri.
http://www.nipccreport.org/
The concepts never seem to point out that climate change has happened before and without people around to blame it for. Some of the changes have been abrupt and very very dramatic, sending thousands of species into extinction.
When using truth make sure you use all the truth, not just the truth that is politically satisfying.
Personally, all politicians should be concerned about ALL pollution. Do that and it takes care of everything else. I also think all politicians should be thrown into the ocean with cement shoes but that might be frowned upon. Probably kill off too many marine species.
Jack-2510943.....
Gigantic (volcanic, meteor impacts, etc.) explosions occurred on Earth prior to human existence or without human contribution also. So what? Do you suppose the surviving witnesses of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb shrugged it off to some such non-human cause?
You folks are suffering from a common malady. It is an inability (maybe unwillingness) to think with logic as your tool and guide.
It (logical thinking) can be learned you know. There are many (even online) treatises on just this subject. Spend less time removing all doubt (about your rationality) and more time learning.
Science is your friend, even if you don't understand it.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said "I believe" quite a bit. I don't remember him being Republican.
Jack: "The concepts never seem to point out that climate change has happened before and without people around to blame it for."
Yes they do. All climate scientists are well aware of this. The question is why YOU think it means that humans cannot be affecting the climate NOW.
Which 'global warming' or climate change are we talking about?
The one 400 thousand years ago which got much much warmer than now?
The one 300 thousand years ago which got much much warmer than now?
The one 250 thousand years ago which got much much warmer than now?
The one 100 thousand years ago which got much much warmer than now?
Then there are those that are more recent and more easily studied. The ones warmer than now happened 7 thousand, 6 thousand and 3 thousand years ago.
If you are literate all you need to do is do a search for PALEOCLIMATE. If you are too stupid to do that and instead like the political rhetoric which is mostly useless fine. But I would like to point out that people were not producing 'green house' gases three thousand and more years ago. Ok, maybe they were. There just weren't so many politicians blathering about it.
Jack,
The difference now is that humanity is burning lots and lots of oil and coal which releases lots and lots of previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. The CO2 released by fossil fuel combustion has isotopic markers that can be identified as to the source from which they came--human energy consumption. This time it's us that is changing the climate, and we're doing it really quickly by geological standards. We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere in a way that will have dramatic and potentially damaging impacts on our own species survival, not to mention many, many other species.
Jack, every climate scientist is well aware of the paleoclimate trends and many study them very closely. They are also intelligent enough to know that those facts say NOTHING about whether or not we can affect the climate ALSO. So before you accuse others of being "too stupid" to understand this, perhaps you should ask yourself why YOU do not seem to understand the basic logic of the AGW argument.
Also, the claim that it was "much warmer than now" so often in the past is questionable; one person posted about a National Geographic article regarding warm temperatures 130,000 years ago, but it turned out the estimated temperature was not global but instead only for the Antarctic region, which can be strongly influenced by air circulation patterns connecting this region with the rest of the world.
Science, like religion, doesn't mix well with politics. Don't know if there is something that mixes well with politics other than lies, greed and the desire for power.....
Politics mixes well with adultery.
As ususal Michelle's mindlessness keeps up with her, Is there anything science she is actualyy for?
Probably not. Read,by the way yesterdays story about only32% of US students are proficient in science. Ironically Texas and Minnesot are the nation leader ispercentageof students deemed proficient, In Texas 58% are proficient,in Minnesota it's 53%.
Actually, I think that was math, but still. We have some very intelligent people in Texas, but we also have some numb-nuts.
When I was in school (70's?), you could take honors history, science or math, *or* you could take history, science or math with a coach as the teacher. What class taught you something and what class was blow-off?
If anyone wants the truth about global warming and the effects of greenhouse gases, then look up research by Dr. Roy Spencer of University of Alabama-Huntsville. The research is not based on computer model estimates but uses real world data from NASA's Terra satellite. The greenhouse gas effect is grossly exaggerated by politicians trying to bolster support for taxing the gas that every living thing on the planet exhales, CARBON DIOXIDE. There is warming but carbon dioxide is a minor factor. Another scientist that belives there is warming but thinks the "world is ending" mantra of extreme environmental activists is a little over the top is Freeman Dyson, a world renowned physicist and mathematician. Sometimes it is good to look at all views before deciding one way or another. Dyson was considered a heretic on his views of global warming even though he is one of the brightest scienctists still alive today. I think there is more work to do before our government decides to put the U.S. deeper into an economic hole by capping and taxing carbon emissions.
When you make a statement about wanting "the truth", then it becomes clear that you don't have a grasp on the principle behind the scientific method. In science, there is no "truths" and there is no "proof" that some principle is valid or invalid. Now what you said about Dr. Spencer may indeed be correct, but that does not necessarily invalidate other studies, some of which are based on measuring the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases present during periods of excessive warming. Any attempt to "exaggerate" data to support some political agenda would ultimately be caught and refuted by the scientific community. So far, this has not happened.
G.C.
I checked out Spencer and he is a Free Market advocate. The first half of his page was about data which supposedly challenges and conflicts with NASA C02 data. Scrolling down the page, I was a bit surprised to see an image of Al Gore on fire, above which was the heading "FundanomicsL: The Free Market, Simplifed", his new book. Hmmm.
Where does Al Gore enter in the discussion as any expert? And I guess if you are a Free Market supporter and a scientist then you are a loon and nothing you can say matters. Label me a heretic along side Freeman Dyson pioneer in the work of quantum electrodynamics, which I have studied. Anyone else here study QED? I know there is a warming trend but carbon dioxide is not the culprit alone. Theory doesn't give us answers. Proof of theories gives us answers.
Of course the "world is ending" mantra is over-alarmist, and no climate scientist has ever said that. Listen to the scientists, not the political advocates. The vast majority of climate scientists are now quite confident of their prediction of future anthropogenic warming.
And G.C., you cannot predict the future without using models. The current warming trend is not direct evidence for future warming, so it doesn't even matter whether it is "real" or not. The argument of whether we can see a global warming signal yet is kind of beside the point.
Even more important, Spencer has been strongly criticized by other scientists for his use of simplistic "toy" climate models and questionable statistical methods. His papers have been rejected several times, but this time he managed to get one published in a journal that isn't about climatology.
Once again, Ron Paul comes out sounding like the most sensible candidate. He'll get my vote.
Ron Paul views AGW hypotheses as a hoax. I like some of Ron Paul's views and find them refreshing and worth bringing the national policy arena, but man is he ever missing the rationality boat on this one.
Gumps,
Indeed, with both AGW hypotheses and evolution theory, all that would be needed is scientific evidence that negates all the evidence to this point. That hasn't happened with either, yet. Considering the weight of supporting evidence for both, I would think humanity would be able to deal with that in a rational and thoughtful way. But sadly that is not the case right now with people like Perry and so many in the GOP.
There is no intrinsic conflict between Intelligent Design and Evolution. It is when people get into believing that the earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago that a conflict arises between science and religion. I think this is what Perry is doing and I don't agree with that.
However, I've never really understood the hostility between Intelligent Design and Science....not if you don't try and add religious beliefs on top of Intelligent Design. Unfortunately that seems to be the rule than the exception: Intelligenct Design = Creationism. They are not even close to being the same.
While it is probably best to leave Intelligent Design to be addressed in philosophy classes, a knowledgable person could also discuss it in an Evolution class. In "pure" science, they believe in randomness and change by chance. In Intelligent Design, they believe this randomness and change is guided...by whatever (or perhaps "Whatever", lol). One man's randomness belief is another man's religious belief. The difference being that one is more an observation and labeling in a mathematical way what is going on (randomness), while another is making some sort of judgment about what is causing those "random" changes: an Intelligence. The latter has importance related to helping humans understand at a different level than just saying it is "random". It also affects how we view the Universe. Thus, I'm still in favor of Intelligent Design, but only if applied...Intelligently!! LOL.
But evolution is not "random." Natural selection IS design; just not "intelligent" design. It is fine to believe in Intelligent design in ADDITION to what we know about evolution, but there are several problems with ID in the way it is usually discussed:
1. Many people take their faith in ID as a foundation to deny the science of evolution without even looking at it. They are not even aware that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, because they have already assumed it is not true so there must not be any evidence.
2. Intelligent design is not a testable hypothesis, so it is not Science. If someone wants to believe there is a intelligent designer behind evolution, it is just that: a belief.
3. For the overwhelming number of people ID does equal Creationism. This became obvious in the Dover trial, when it was shown that after the Supreme Court ruling that religion can not be taught in science classes, a new edition of "Pandas and People" came out that had globally replaced evey instance of "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design."
The problem with intelligent design is that it requires people to "give up" the pursuit of discovery and truth through science because it appears to be an unatainable goal (understanding the process of evolution). Much like the defenders of global warming give up their ability to rationally debate the subject because they dont hear anything that does not support their belief. Literally, their minds are swarming anytime something refutes it, not considering the communicated evidence on its merits, instead concentrating on how they will "prove" it is true with their next statement.
Native americans had it right. Respect your nature. What you take from her; you must return to her.
Romney's religion is firm in it's stance on Science. They teach that the world is 6,000 years old.. period. There was no death before the "fall of Adam".
Carbon 14 dating as far as they are concerned is hogwash.
They also teach that a group of Jews sailed to the Americas about 600 BC and are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans. They aren't concerned that DNA evidence proves otherwise.
Anyone who doesn't think climate change is a problem should study the Permian
mass extinction and see what we are headed for!
Is the global warming on Mars caused by human use of fossil fuels"
Yes, according to Al Gore. Our Mars Rovers are contributing too much exhaust, and it will get worse when Curiosity gets there, being an SUV compared to the other two.
Bob, we do not know how much global warming is on Mars or what is causing it. The assertion of warming was largely based on some differences in photos of the ice caps in recent years, but the ice caps vary so much with the seasons it is hard to be sure what that means. And a few years does not necessarily imply a long-term trend.
Mars has different orbital anomalies than Earth, and it's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2, so it is going to behave differently. Also, even if those recent changes WERE due to the sun, it would not change the fact that adding greenhouse gasses to the Earth's atmosphere is still likely to warm the climate.
mars also has a much thinner atmosphere which changes the heating dynamic as well.