Isn't it funny how those who couldn't perform a Scientific Experiment, or even understand the results of one, if their livelihoods depended on it, -- are usually the ones that appoint themselves as uniquely qualified to pronounce blanket statements about the credibility of Scientific findings, as if by some sort of Divine Fiat. Because of their deep wells personal wisdom, presumably. Peers-reviewers move-over, there's a new critic in town.
Senator Inhofe is one such self-appointed "scientific debunker" -- even though he no doubt relies on scientifically-designed jets on a regular basis, in order to spout his special brand of zealotry, all over the nation. Funny Mr Inhofe, I thought Senators were supposed to be our representatives, not God's ...
by Brad Johnson, thinkprogress.org -- Mar 9, 2012
In a radio interview with Voice of Christian Youth America, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that his belief that global warming is a hoax is biblically inspired. [...]
Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.[...]
In the interview, Inhofe did not mention he has received $1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $90,950 from Koch Industries.
Hmmm, Inhofe's reliance on Genesis to "disprove global warming" may sit well with his secret oil sponsors, but by not disclosing his backers isn't Inhofe putting himself into that biblical "bearing false witness" territory? Even zealots must be held to "certain standards" -- if they are to be given any pretense of credence, down in the public square for long.
If would seem this example of Conservative Climate Zealotry is a problem that is starting to back-fire for some of them. Even dyed-in-the-wool red-state conservatives, can't much tolerate know-everything hypocrites, year after drought-ridden year.
Especially when they don't -- know everything.
by Coral Davenport, NationalJournal.com -- May 9, 2013
“There is a divide within the party,” says Samuel Thernstrom, who served on President George W. Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality and is now a scholar of environmental policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “The position that climate change is a hoax is untenable.”
A concerted push has begun within the party -- in conservative think tanks and grassroots groups, and even in backroom, off-the-record conversations on Capitol Hill -- to persuade Republicans to acknowledge and address climate change in their own terms. The effort will surely add heat to the deep internal conflict in the years ahead.
Sooner rather than later than ole GOP Climate Denial-dog is going to just stop hunting.
And deniers like Inhofe will soon be find themselves with-all-seriousness declaring:
When and if that No-More-BS day comes, these Koch-sponsored shills, may just actually have to face those still-inconvenient hot-house Climate facts ... with a bit more evidence than constantly repeating:
"Sea levels are rising because Jesus is crying."
"Climate change is a Hoax."(... if they hope to keep their incompetent jobs that is.)
"Climate change is a Hoax."
"Climate change is a Hoax."
Memo to Deniers: Repeating 'it's a Hoax' over and over again, does not make it so ... political homages to the Great Oz, notwithstanding.
Science has standards. Science has protocols. Science is evidence-based.
Those who would deny the findings of Science, by personal fiat -- have none of these things.
by Naomi Oreskes, sciencemag.org
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
"Peer-review" is what real Scientists do to vet the finding of facts, presented by other real Scientists. If there is a case to be made for new discoveries, let them make it. Let the conclusions of Scientists, disturbing or otherwise, be subject to the scrutiny of their intellectual peers. Proclamations of Science Facts should not be made lightly, not if they are to be widely adopted; as real, as accurate, as serious tenants of knowledge (and serious drivers of policy).
If only politicians had such ethical-veracity standards, with regards to their assertions of "facts" eh? ... If only politicians were subject to an automatic grilling by a jury of their "peers."
Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it
by Dana Nuccitelli, guardian.co.uk -- 16 May 2013
In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of 928 peer-reviewed climate papers published between 1993 and 2003, finding none that rejected the human cause of global warming. We decided that it was time to expand upon Oreskes' work by performing a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011.
Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.
Why is this important?
However vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
Perhaps we can perform a little Experiment ourselves here -- what result would you have expected if our nation, our media, our representatives were NOT led like Lemmings into this USA-only Climate Inaction Cul-de-sac?
What would have happened to a modern society that actually leaves room for real Science and real Scientists ... where Lemmings-wranglers like Luntz, never made millions by INTENTIONALLY muddying the public discourse? A world where 100% "certainty" was not some artificial prerequisite for even the smallest of preventive governmental actions ... to err on the side of caution.
Well this Experiment in Science-based governing has already been running ... with some surprisingly, responsible corrective results -- in a world without Luntzisms, down under:
Dept of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change,
Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Our climate is changing, largely due to the observed increases in human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing. Changes over the 20th century include increases in global average air and ocean temperature, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global sea levels. The extra heat in the climate system has other impacts such as affecting atmospheric and ocean circulation, which influences rainfall and wind patterns.
Another serious impact of increasing carbon pollution is ocean acidification. Around a quarter of the carbon dioxide produced by humans is absorbed by the oceans. As the carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water it forms a weak carbonic acid, making the ocean more acidic. There are early indications that some marine organisms are already being affected by ocean acidification.
In the past century, the global average air temperature has increased by around 0.8 degrees Celsius.[i] The observed increase in temperatures has occurred across the globe, with rising temperatures recorded on all continents and in the oceans. World Meteorological Organization records show that the decade of 2001-10 was the world’s warmest decade on record, and that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s which in turn were warmer than the 1980s. In Australia, average air temperatures have increased by around 0.9 degrees Celsius since 1910, and each decade has been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s.[ii]
Summer 2012-2013 heat records -- Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology
Australia has region-decimated Firestorms, year after year;
America has baseless politicians, mostly in one party -- who just parrot that Climate Change Hoax line like some sort of magic-mantra.
They must think all those record-breaking Aussie heat-waves are all in your mind ... and that their country is full of Science-respecting "heretics" ... (Good thing for the Denialists however, the US media mostly ignores Australia's ever-intensifying Climate-Change problems, and others. Rationalizing: "It's their business, afterall ... for choosing to live there ... on that forsaken corner of Planet USA".)
The Australian government however, well they've had a decidedly different evidence-based response:
Joint Science Academies’ Statement: Climate Change Adaptation and the Transition to a Low Carbon Society (pdf)
from the Science Policy page of the Australian Academy of Science
• Take appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.
• Promote science and technology co-operation, innovation and leapfrogging, e.g., by transfer of some basic critical low-carbon and adaptation technologies.
• Urge governments to support research on greenhouse gas reduction technologies and climate change impacts. As national science academies, we commit to working with our governments to help implement these actions.
[Signed, by Hoax-heretics from around the globe: ]
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Académie des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Royal Society, United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Some conclusions from our Luntz-free Experiment:
In a world without policy-by-zealotry, we would actually grant the intellectual credence to "those with the evidence" -- and those too clueless to refute, or even understand the scientific evidence, they would not even get the time of day down at the public square. Their special brand of hypocrisy would get all attention that they deserve -- perhaps a passing pitiful glance; perhaps not even that.
In a world without well-paid anti-science politics-by-zealotry, perhaps OUR public agencies formed for the constitionally-mandated pursuit of Science -- well THEY would get the full attention their efforts in discovery truly deserve.
In such a Science-based world, the finding of facts by Scientist would receive the serious audience by concerned citizens and concerned representatives, that their findings deserve -- and not just the blanket dismissals by political posers who've no doubt failed every test of real science they've ever faced.
Rick Perry may hate the Environmental Protection Agency (when he is prompted to do so) -- BUT that does not mean the rest of America should follow his lead. Having a clean, healthy, sustainable Environment, is one of the great things that help make life worth living. Free Markets don't guarantee that -- standards-enforcing agencies like the EPA do.
If only agencies like the EPA got the credibility they rightly deserved ... in this surreal land that decades of GOP-inspired procrastination, has now created.
Environmental Protection Agency -- United States
Many other government and nongovernment websites also provide information about climate change. Here are some examples:
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international authority on climate change science. The IPCC website (www.ipcc.ch/index.htm) summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge about climate change.
• The U.S. Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov) is a multi-agency effort focused on improving our understanding of the science of climate change and its potential impacts on the United States through reports such as the National Climate Assessment.
• The National Academy of Sciences
(http://nas-sites.org/...) has developed many independent scientific reports on the causes of climate change, its impacts, and potential solutions. The National Academy’s Koshland Science Museum (https://koshland-science-museum.org) provides an interactive online Earth Lab where people can learn more about these issues.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is charged with helping society understand, plan for, and respond to climate variability and change. Find out more about NOAA’s climate indicators and other activities at: www.climate.gov.
• NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center website (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html) provides access to data that demonstrate the effects of climate change on weather, climate, and the oceans.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides extensive information about the relationship between climate change and public health at: www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/default.htm.
• The U.S. Geological Survey’s Climate and Land Use Change website (www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse) looks at the relationships between natural processes on the surface of the earth, ecological systems, and human activities.
• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) maintains its own set of climate change indicators (http://climate.nasa.gov). Another NASA site (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/...)
discusses the Earth’s energy budget and how it relates to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
• The National Snow and Ice Data Center’s website (http://nsidc.org/...) provides more information about ice and snow and how they influence and are influenced by climate change.
• The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s website (www.whoi.edu/main/climate-ocean) explains how climate change affects the oceans and how scientists measure these effects.
For more indicators of environmental condition, visit EPA’s Report on the Environment (www.epa.gov/roe). This resource presents a wide range of indicators of national conditions and trends in air, water, land, human health, and ecological systems.
Sorry Climate Change Deniers, the Scientific Facts simply ARE NOT on your side. If you have a case to make to back up your bold pronouncements, that "Climate Change is a Hoax" -- then make it. ... Where is your preponderance of evidentiary facts?
Something tells me however, the evidence backing up their Mantra-called-Hoax, will be sorely lacking ... If and when they are ever pressed to present it.
by Alisha Mims, RingOfFireRadio.com -- April 15, 2013
[...]Well let's recap that current Credibility Score:
Inhofe’s position is not at all surprising, given his list of top contributors, which includes: Koch Industries, Murray Energy, and ConocoPhillips, among others. During his career, Inhofe has received over a million dollars in contributions from the Oil & Gas industry, and has said he is proud to be a climate change denier and obstructionist, even though the majority of scientists agree that climate change is real.
Climate Change concerned Scientists: 13,926;
Climate Change Denial experts: 24 !
(Hardly seems like a fair fight, does it?)
Them damn "peer-reviewers" will burst your credibility bubble every time, Imhofe-Big-Oil-clones ... unless you're willing to stick to your guns that the whole scientific world is wrong, while only your merry band of Oz-seekers, are the ones who are always right ...
Just because the Bible (and Exxon-Mobil) tells you so (or pays you so), eh Senators?
Now if only the wider band of informed voters -- would wake up from their uniquely American "scarecrow-stupors" and become their "peer-reviewers" -- the next time they are asked to render their verdict on the credibility of all those baseless Climate-Hoax claims.
That's just the way their Denial-Lucre-industry would crumble, if there were any kind of karmic justice in the world, at all that is.
If we lived in a just world where "baseless liars get a permanent time-out" ...
down at far from the common public square.
PS. Perennial Liars really don't have OUR best interests at heart, either. Where's the profit in that?