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:
Bill-1374265..Most Tea Bagger and the Party of No could care less about the environment..They only thinks about tomorrow or maybe next year. They could give hoot about 25,50 or 100 yrs down the road.
Also funny that your supposed science is being proved fraudulent. How about the chap that started the polar bear scare? Seems he saw 4 drowned polar bears the day after a bad storm then jumped to the conclusion they are going extinct. The supposed peer review study he did was reviewed by his wife. That's being real scientific there then it was published by a green group. By the way polar bears are doing fine estimated population of 59000 far exceed the previous estimate of 20 thousand.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/17/139714742/fresh-allegations-leveled-against-polar-bear-scientist
...Texas A&M climate researcher Andrew Dessler is quoted as saying that none of the credible (1) atmospheric scientists in Texas agree with the governor. "This is a particularly unfortunate situation, given the hellish drought (2) that Texas is now experiencing, and which climate change is almost certainly making worse (3)," he said.
(1) If you disagree or in anyway attempt to objectively criticize the AGW hypothesis, you aren't credible. Genuine actual scientists like Freeman Dyson and Harrison Schmitt found that out the hard way. They may not have the title "climatologist" in their resumes, but they have spent considerable portions of their careers applying the scientific method and looking critically at data sets and computer models. Dyson, probably the foremost theoretical physicist of our time, was once considered avante garde enough to be referenced in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Now he is considered a leper by "mainstream" science. Schmitt made lunar field geology into a viable science and walked on the moon. But naah, these guys (and countless others) are just boneheads because "the debate is over."
(2) What? Texas has never had a drought before? The droughts of 1918 and 1956 are still considered to be worse. And those are just years we have historical records for. This drought, while unfortunate for those affected thereby, is within the historic norm. It is exceptional, but not unprecedented.
(3) Data please. Not suppositions.
It's funding of mr grover's gop, birthers, & teapot party by soviet petro dollars, the world's largest. Surpassing the saudi's last year. They will tell you not to worry that texas has 150 degree heat on their freeways when your car breaks down. They are mind control experts.
They will convince their gop minions of anything. They do it by sending subconscious mind control messages over the airwaves. The soviets have done it for decades in hungary, poland, czechoslovakia, all of the countries they completely controlled. It's the only way they suppressed revolution.
But it's what defines the mr grover position along with no new taxes no matter what. Global warming. The gop are convinced that it's not happening. That nothing can be done about it. That we could spend trillions and nothing will be gained. That global warming will only result in many good things that will only make you a happier person. I tell you the gop have been subconsciously mind controlled by the kgb and mr grover and fox news.
all those Tea Party nay-sayers should be relegated to the back of the line when the CO2 eliminator masks are handed out, just in case there are not enough...
Sure are a lot of bigoted Liberals here tonite that are psychologically disturbed.
It appears as though the split between the Democrat and Republicans is rapidly shaping up into a split between the intellectual and the uneducated. The thought of having one of these Republican candidates leading this nation in the 21st century is frightening. By their own admission, they reject post-Darwinian science and accept the teachings of pre-Darwinian science. Intelligent, well-educated people know what that means while the uneducated think such a statement is meaningless. They're right, of course. It is meaningless to them. If the Republican Party nominates one of these people to become President of the USA, I cannot believe any intelligent, well-educated, self-respecting person will vote for any of them.
The uneducated ones are the Liberals as they actually believe fraud is Science.
They ignore Facts like all the temperature predictions and sealevel predictions of the Cliamte Frauders are wrong. Look back at the predictions from the 1990's. Flat Earth Liberals, Liberal Luddites
044110: You're out of your element in these debates. Your wild accusations show a lack of formal education beyond high school at best. In fact, you are a perfect example of my statement above between the intelligent and the uneducated.
Explain to me why people farmed in Greenland in 1000 AD. And why no climate predictions from the 1990's have come true?
If you can't I demand a personal apology. I don't appreciate your personal insults and obvious bigoted hatred of people that are not exactly like you. YOU should be ashamed of yourself
044110: Ok, let's lay it out. What is your point about people farming in Iceland in 1000 BCE? Two, what specific climate predictions were made in the 1990s that haven't come true? What time line was set on those particular predictions? Who made them? What were their credentials? If you're getting this information from right wing bloggers on the Internet, then you need to understand there is an enormous amount of BS out there that is directed to you. Many of them think it's funny that they can easily con you. I don't think it's funny, but they do.
The questions about global warming are serious, and the consequences will affect all of us on this planet, including you and your family for years to come. Do not dismiss what is being said here by the scientific community. There is an enormous amount of evidence that, within a high degree of probability, their predictions are accurate.
Example of Liberal Science Fraud from the 1960's:
Dr. Timothy Leary, a lecturer in psychology at Harvard University, was the most prominent pro-LSD researcher. Leary claimed that using LSD with the right dosage, set (what one brings to the experience), and setting, preferably with the guidance
of professionals, could alter behavior in dramatic and beneficial ways.
Dr. Leary began conducting experiments with psilocybin in 1960 on himself and a number of Harvard graduate students after trying hallucinogenic mushrooms used
in Native American religious rituals while visiting Mexico.
His group began conducting experiments on state prisoners, where they claimed a 90% success rate preventing repeat offenses. Later reexamination of Leary's data reveals his results to be skewed, whether intentionally or not; the
percent of men in the study ho ended up back in prison later in life was
approximately 2% lower than the usual rate.
While it is true that Leary's experiments did not lead to any murders, he willfully chose to ignore the bad trips which occurred, as well as the attempted suicide of a woman the day after she was given mescaline by Leary.[citation needed]
They then set up at a large private mansion owned by William
Hitchcock in New York, known as Millbrook, where they continued their
experiments. Their research lost its controlled scientific character as the
experiments transformed into LSD parties. Leary later wrote, "We saw
ourselves as anthropologists from the twenty-first century inhabiting a time module set somewhere in the Dark Ages of the 1960s. On this space colony we were attempting to create a new paganism and a new dedication to life as art."
Pretty Good example of a liberal as a scientist
By 1962, faculty discontent with
Leary's experiments reached critical mass. Leary was informed that the CIA was
monitoring his research (see Government experiments below). Many of the other
faculty members had harboured reservations about Leary's research, and powerful
parents began complaining to the university about Leary's distribution of
hallucinogenic drugs to their children. Further, many undergraduate students
who were not part of Leary's research program heard of the profound experiences
other students had undergone, and began taking LSD (which was not illegal at
the time) recreationally. Leary described LSD as a potent aphrodisiac
in an interview with Playboy magazine. When Leary left the University for an
extended amount of time during the spring semester, thus failing to fulfill his
duties as professor, it was the last straw. Leary and another Harvard
psychologist, Richard
Alpert, were dismissed from the university in 1963.
044110: Why do you attach "liberal" to O'Leary? Why not attach the name, "Conservative?"
Leary was Leary. I don't think anybody wants to claim him anymore.
Because he supported Liberal and Progressive Causes. I realize Marxists like to rewrite history. If you want to rewrite history, I suggest moving to N Korea.
Finally, 044110 reveals his true colors and even more precisely demonstrates the type, source and depth of his ignorance of science. Using Tim Leary as an example of scientific malfeasance or unreliability is not only an incredibly weak argument , it's actually funny.
Hey Perry, the heat and drought in Texas are not a part of climate change? How are prayer sessions working to bring rain and cooler temps, not so much? Maybe you should get back to Texas and hold another vigil???
And I supposed the CO2 back in 1932 caused the dust bowl for 10 years right?
It is a normal climate cycle.
Ghostmaker - the dust bowl was man made. Caused by the removal of the original growth to farm. When the farmed product was harvested - all that remained was loose topsoil with nothing growing (when not in season). The winds and snow eroded the loose topsoil - leaving bedrock in many places.
This is what the dust bowl was - it had nothing to do with climate change, but everything to do with stupid people not understanding their impact on the environment (just like now).
And the same type of erosion event is happening right now in AZ, California, and the other places where wildfires have burnt the ground cover - leaving just dirt.
Really? I guess the drought that lasted for 10 years had nothing to do about it?
"Poor agricultural practices and years of sustained drought caused the Dust Bowl"
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/dustbowl.htm
May I suggest you restudy American history. They obviously do not teach you young kids anymore.
The Reverend Rick only believes in one thing, the Reverend Rick. Anything this guy says or does is meaningless. He is a bottom feeder just like Bachmann; I wouldn’t be surprised if he joined the “Flat Earth Society” just to get the “Republican Base” to vote for him.
Most reasonable people are fed up with the “Republican Base” because their tired of the ignorance and the “My way or the Highway” attitude. These people comprise the bottom 25% of our society, you know the really dumb people we try to politely avoid as we past though life. These Neanderthals have had the microphone for far to long, it’s time the rest of us with functioning brains tell them to shut the hell up.
It is the responsibility of the top 75% of us to show up at the voting booth in 2012 with the intent of sending ALL the GOP empty shirts like the Reverend Rick into permanent exile.
Sure are a lot of bigoted Liberals here tonite that are psychologically disturbed.
God (Darwin) is in the process of visiting plagues - hurricanes, floods, forest fires and droughts (like He / She / It did to the Egyptians about 3,000 years ago), on those who think like Perry / Bachmann / Palin / Paul (either one). The biggest plague will come with the second term of President Obama when he asks them to read a science book.
Actually you might have a point. And God sure doesn't seem to much like Tea Party country. All the biggest disasters seem to be hitting the areas where those people come from. Hmmm....
And you just seem to hate anyone or anything that doesn't follow your lack of critical thinking. Terrible the waste of your mind. You obviously never question anything your told.
For your information I do think you may find those Democrats that also believe in a Supreme being. One being your lord and master OBAMA.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Unfortunately the non-NASA professor who did the "research" has a history of using simplistic "toy" climate models and questionable statistical methods. And the journal Remote Sensing is not a climatology or atmospheric sciences journal.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is one example of a very REAL problem patients and doctors face every day. A disbelief in evolution and natural selection is as preposterous as believing the sky is not blue. It's an insult to all the rational hard-working people who use FACTS every day to make informed decisions for the greater good.
I agrees with Perry, wwe all knows that bothe climate and gravity are just a liberal hoax, That mean instaed of burning oil we can all flap our ears and fly away.
I believe in climate and gravity as I also believe in a supreme being. I do not believe in small minded individuals. DO tell me how you and the great liberal minds intend to control the weather? For some reason I seriously doubt stripping money from first world countries and giving it to third world countries has an effect on the weather.
Please tell me why the ice packs are reforming? Explain to me why the Arctic ice pack is greater then it ever was. And currently did not melt back to your minimum.
Also explain to me why your libtard scientist did not account for the SUN in the computer models. Why until recently they had no idea that clouds were formed by the solar cosmic field effected by the sun.
I'm sure your far more knowledgeable then me in this subject. Did you get all your information from the latest green rag. Or did you actually look into the science?
Wow - your god has clouds forming in space to protect the earth? I am impressed. If only it were true...
Ice levels in the arctic are WAY below average, and are just shy of hitting a new record low.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I am an astronomer, and I am afraid that I have no idea what you are referring to. Does this phenomenon go by another name?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/why-2011-is-not-likely-to-be-close-to-2007/
Please read?
Clouds link
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/
Link to PDF of study
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf
Glad to help! I just question all things. Please review the above links and I kindly thank you for not attacking me.
It's true that at least one well-known man-made climate change denier (Fred Singer) has claimed a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, however most other scientists don't consider this a serious explanation for recent warming, in part because there is little evidence for the changes in cosmic ray flux or cloud cover that would be required. Have you noticed any trend towards sunnier weather in your location?
And the world is flat and the sun revolves the Earth. Idiots, the Teapublicans. I will take science over the fictional lives of elitist Republicans and their celebrity imprint on American culture.
Then explain why people farmed in Greenland 1000 years ago, bright boy scientist
04110 - That was Southern Greenland along the coast - Then in a brilliant ad campaign the Norseman named the island that supports a farming/fishing population Iceland and the island that is almost totally covered in ice Greenland. Note that Republicans are not the only ones that can play with peoples minds by the creative use of names.
The Medieval Warm Period was real for Greenland, but very likely only slightly warmer globally, not as warm as today. See the temperature graph in the wikipedia article, for example.
I think we should take Michelle Backmann's position and let us decide which science we like and which we don't. We could all vote on it. I don't much like gravity and would love to vote it out of existance. Getting up stairs would be so much easier. And how about all those cancer causing agents we ingest. If we can get enough people to agree that it is all rubbish science, we could probably cut the cancer rates in half. Let's just pick and choose the science we want to agree with, from a standpoint of total ignorance, and go with it. The world would be a much better place. Wouldn't it?
Rubbish science is to use an incomplete computer model programmed with cherry-picked data that piles inference upon inference and predicts results that are swallowed up by its own margin of error to set our economic priorities for the next 100 years.
What did the computer models back in the 90's predict for 2010. Nothing they predicted has even started to come true.
The people calling people that do not support a historically failed fraudulent theory as "stupid" were expecting to obtain some tax dollars from us as part of their fraud.
GCV: I agree with you. By the way, before we get started, " Let's all wish Elvis a Happy Birthday. Happy Birthday, Elvis." We all know a Michelle Bachmann in our lives. The one running for President is no different from those we know. The shameful thing is not Bachmann, but the people who seriously think she would be the appropriate leader of the United States of America.
GSV,
I think we should take Michelle Backmann's position and let us decide which science we like and which we don't...
I'm not crazy about how the Earth is not the center of the universe. Which candidate can I vote for?
Thanks for the good humor.
Gov. Perry took a tour of a laboratory and talked to people wearing safety glasses, and now all of a sudden he's an expert in science? Wow.
And how many States have you run ?
stands -> stance
Any and all controversies since president Obama was selected to run for the presidency ties directly to the confrontational TEA party! The bottom line is Cantor, Boehner, Bachmann and Perry are all bottom feeding TEA party exacerbations! Each requires a cervico rectal dis implantation! They has no mental capabilities, much less telepathic abilities. These Yahoos again try to deflect the issue towards the president when "It's the Congress' responsibility to effect job generation capabilities through legislation." It's the president' leadership abilities the confrontational TEA party members are working to inhibit or destroy! The TEA party has subverted any sanity, the once proud and now defunct GOP had, and made them irrelevant! All confidence in America has been abrogated due to the TEA party! All job initiatives will not be allowed to pass by the TEA party elite who are intent to stop president Obama by any means necessary! The prejudiced and bigoted Sen. Mitch McConnell, the bigoted Republican from Kentucky, the minority leader with the greatest cunning and sharpest knife, signaled his party's true purpose last year when he proclaimed: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."These Yahoos are not representing the American people they are on a bigoted crusade to take down a black president! This is the TEA party's only agenda! Rick Perry and all the TEA party Yahoos are the same!
Sure are a lot of bigoted Liberals here tonite that are psychologically disturbed.
How are those ruby slippers working out for ya there, 044110? Keep clicking those heels together, sport.
And the one thing mr grover's gop, birthers, & teapot party funded by ussr petro dollars will never talk about is how animal and plant life are dying off at mass extinction rates. Sure they talk about how religious they are but look the other way when hawks overheat & die.
Their body temperatures are less than 100 degrees, have no sweat glands and cool only by deep breathing. But when temps exceed 100 degrees where's the cooling. It's like running the death valley marathon in the afternoon in the middle of summer. Where's the cooling.
But the bottom line is that because soooo many animals and plant life are dying off, the gop regardless of what the kgb tells them know that their creator also created the animals and plant life. And the creator is going to be pissed with the mass extinction that is going on because of the severe weather and climate changes. And they know deep inside what happens when you are on the wrong side opposite of the creator. They have seen it before and they know what happened to those who were on the side who opposed the creator. They know but they block it out of their minds. Because it is a thought too horrible to contemplate.
There are times when they, the gop, must rise above their kgb handlers and reach out to the hand of their creator and say i am with you, not against you. Save yourselves. Repent. There is still time left. Let the animals be your guide. Saving the animals will save your soul.
Please cite URL's. Liberals afre known liars regarding anything to do with science
There are many plants and animals dying off. The prime culprit is habitat destruction, not carbon dioxide.
IS that like the millions of dying folks from lack of health care in the US?
I'm still waiting to see the pictures of all them dead folks lying in the streets.
Get a grip on life. You guys act as if the earth is a static thing. Trust me it changes. Every day new species are born and other species die off. In 1000 years we may be extinct and the cock roach will inherit the planet. You act as if humans own this rock. We live here on borrowed time just as the dinosaurs did. None of them roaming around is there?
This is Wall Street quarterly profits vs the scientific community. Republicanism is a religion, mostly devoid of reality. When the pope on Wall Street tells them there is no global warming, nothing will change their minds. They regurgitate and follow blindly.
Using your great logic. Since Obama is a religious man we should immediately remove him from office right?
So a bunch of liberal "scientists" (and I use that term loosely) reviewed climategate and found out that the original liberal "scientists" who created the original study had no faulty science??? Oh... ok. I guess we should all just trust them then! hahahaha anyone remember when in the 50's and 60's it was man made "Global Cooling" that was going to kill us all?!?! hahaha You liberals are BRILLIANT!!
Sometimes I wish there was a Bachmann/Palin ticket that would win in 2012 just to make all of the screaming libs move to Canada/europe. That would be a win-win. If you disagree with the Liberal half-baked, scientifically weak theoretical dogma, then you are a 'moron'. When the dust settles, if I am wrong I'll admit it. But Al Gore never will if he is wrong, that is guaranteed.
No comment.
Hopefully climate change is a political issue without a factual basis.
But on the chance that climate change is real, the government should act responsibly and have the government paid climatologists review the studies and determine the validity of the claim that climate change is significantly caused by human activity.
But if we cannot agree today on the need to review the science, then our society can wait and see if climate related changes occur. In the future, if humans are able, they can study the history of climate change and its effects on Earth's environment.
It looks like it is up to history to reveal the facts about climate change. In a hundred years climate change will either be a footnote or catastrophe.
The real scientist you know the ones not on government grants. They are predicting a general cooling of the average temperature over the next 10 years. This is far worse then warming.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/noaa-now-begins-time-in-1999/
About the droughts
1.
I really do not know about climate change. But I do know that the world, and especially the US, is overpopulated.
In 1941, US went to war with a population of 139 million people. We out produced and overwhelmed our enemies on every front.
In 2011, US has a population of 330+ million and we can't even afford to keep our city's storm sewers clean.
Even in labor intensive projects, 50 years ago crews of hundreds worked to install sewer and water projects for cities. Today, the same work is done with the help of 25 to 50 people using new techniques equipment.
Could it also be because your local politicians did not see anything exciting about upgrading and improving your storm sewers? See that doesn't garner one many votes. Better to spend money on other things that attract the press.
I would also add that there has been a general decline in civic virtue. Not long ago, people took pride in themselves and the towns and cities they lived in. People came together, whether through government or private civic groups, to fund community improvements. A new bridge, or water system, or other public improvement was seen as a sign of "progress." There are still many such people around, but there are far more looking for a free ride now.
when 50% of the population pays no income tax, and 48 million are on welfare, and poor people who cannot support themselves are allowed to have children, and overpopulation destroying everything, any quality of life that there was is a thing of the past. if the breeding of the poor does not stop, the planet is doomed. what is needed is a plague that would wipe out 80% of all humans. i hope mother nature defends herself before it is too late.
Thanks. But it is quite apparent to me that you all completely missed my point. Thanks anyway.
@Forrest: The War Machine is the government, guided by the Bankers and Wallstreeters.
@Ghost: Politicians, usually, are more beholding to the money interests than the people who elect them.
@Chris: I agree. Civic interest has declined because of Supply Side Economics which has muted incentive for public betterment. The new incentives are intangable numbers on meaningless pieces of paper shuffled around Wall Street that are funded through ordinary citizens who receive no benefit.
@toad: It is unfair to blame the poor. However, I agree with you in this sense.
US should never have put itself into the "baby business." If one is receiving govt. help, under no circumstance should birth be covered.
Raising children is a sacrifice, personal and monetary. All child tax credits should be rescinded. Parents should be required to contribute 50% of education costs for their children. Doing this would upgrade the quality of US population.
Tell you what Barry I'll go out on a limb here. I agree with you.
@barry-barry-libcon,
Why
do you think parents should pay for 50% of their kids schooling? I have no kids
why am I paying for it at all? You if you have kids should be paying 100% for
your kids schooling but because we are paying back the younger generations for
what their parents did for us I have no problem paying for yours. It has been
this way for as long as I remember and it shouldn't change. We all are rewarded
by having kids in some way whether they are yours or who ever Stop crying and
pay your share. That goes for your taxes also. Only by doing that would we
upgrade the quality of the US
population.
Berry boy sheesh ww2 destroyed every industrial base on the planet except ours and Canada's
The Catholics and the Muslims put the whole world in the baby business and they will not relent.
@Confussed: Because the children are the parent's responsibility. The society as a whole should also have a stake in educating for the future, but sacrifice and responsibilty on the part of the parents will result in better parents, better children, and hense, a better society.