Some of the same old tired “reasoning” from the members of the (very predictable) conservative echo chamber. Perhaps an easier, and more graphic, way into this is to consider IQ:
The average “collective” IQ of America is (only) 97. This makes us 17th in the world, by country.
Now, studies have abounded regarding one’s political perspective, and their IQ. The bottom line is this:
The majority of Americans whose IQ is LESS than 97, are conservatives. This clearly explains their relative lack of education, as well as a whole lot of other things-such as how they seem to love Trump.
Keeping this little “inconvenient Truth” in mind. is very useful when one hears the brain-dead science related nonsense that this bunch continues to spread around.
I have adopted a little routine that I use whenever one on these “know-nothings” prattles away with their anti-science dribble: Oh !, and what college did you receive your degree in climate science from?”
This generally shuts them up, and they slink away.
Failing to cite studies which do not prove your thesis isn’t helping your non-case. When speaking of relative education, do you consider that Education colleges and humanities degrees generally attract the academic bottom feeders and are also overwhelmingly left-liberal? I’m guessing “no” would be your answer. And when you consider that the least educated people in the U.S. are overwhelmingly clustered in blue counties around the US., your silly little narrative falls apart.
Bonus points if you can count and name the logical fallacy in your second-to-last sentence. Though I must admit that it will be refreshing to see someone who unfailingly restricts his so-called arguments strictly to the field in which he is presumably educated.
Isn’t saying “I believe in climate change but not the idea that humans have any impact on either its cause or its resolution” a little like saying “We send the people of Parkland Florida our thoughts and prayers but we’re still not gonna ban automatic weapons”?
Y’know what I mean, someone starts a sentence on one side of their mouth and ends it on the other.
You might try for an honest depiction of a viewpoint with which you disagree, or you could just mangle it in such a way so that it fits a tortured analogy.
The analogy may be mangled, but “I believe in climate change but not the idea that humans have any impact on either its cause or its resolution” IS someone starting a sentence on one side of their mouth and ending it on the other.
I don’t really care for John Owen’s views on evolution or religion, but he did great work in establishing the Natural History Museum in London.
Personally my politics are republican, e.g. i think that royal privilege should be removed, but the Natural History Museum still maintains royal patronage. I would hope that many scientists or otherwise who are associated with the museum would accept that there is no place for royalty in the modern world.
However, there are no calls for this museum to modernise.
Back to Owen – the debate at the time over evolution was significantly more vicious and challenging to people’s fundamental beliefs than the current debate on anthropogenic climate change.
Nevertheless, the institution was able to cope, and did eventually end up supporting Darwin’s theory. Back then museums did real science, nowadays I’m not so sure.
I’ve been curious since my geology undergrad days about man’s impact on the environment via CO2 emissions. Since .004% of our atmosphere is comprised of carbon dioxide and rising levels intuitively have an impact, been waiting for a comprehensive study showing that man’s emissions contributed 5-10 or whatever percent to warming.
Unfortunately, starting with Mr. Gore’s pursuit of wealth post vice-Presidency, the conversation has been reduced to tribal-like arguments. If you doubt that humanity’s emissions are destroying the planet, you are a “denier” vs. someone seeking truth via scientific fact.
Perhaps one day we can look at a solid piece of science and have an answer. In the meantime, I tell my friends who believe in imminent catastrophe that if they had been around 16,000 years ago, they would have written about God’s wrath on the planet via sea level rise of 150 feet plus in the space of a few generations.
400 parts per million is 0.0004 You were high by a factor of 10
You are correct that 400/100000 is .0004 but this amounts to .04% so Scott understates by on order of magnitude, not overstates.
typo-should read 400/1,000,000
Not only is your math wrong …..
but there are a gazillion “comprehensive studies” out there.
If you actually HAVE friends who believe in “imminent catastrophe”, that would be odd, because most studies do not mention the catastrophe being imminent … merely ireversable past a certain point.
There are extremists on both sides of the global warming issue. Those who believe that greenhouse gasses are the sole cause of global warming and those who believe green house gasses play no role in global warming. Between these groups the real argument involves how many times the atmospheric CO2 will double in concentration in the coming years and what the climate sensitivity is. Until all sides of this issue can work together in a truly free work environment we will never know the answers.
I have never heard anyone claim “greenhouse gasses are the sole cause of global warming”. No one. So screw your depiction of “both sides of the global warming issue”, son.
By and large, we conservatives are not climate change deniers. Changes in climate can be noted in the historical record well before the advent of humanity. However, we remain largely unconvinced human beings are the primary cause of climate change. Some of us think climate change may have something to do with that large yellow ball that rises in the East every morning. Most of us also believe drastic redistribution of wealth on a global scale is neither desired or necessary. Almost to a man (or woman), we do believe Al Gore is a charlatan and virtually all of those most heavily promoting AGW are acting out of ideology and/or self-interest, not as a result of scientific empiricism or the good of humanity–or Gaia, if you’re one of those people-hating fringe environmentalists who view humanity as a blight or a scourge.
As an aside, Al Gore is a billionaire largely as a result of his promotion of the climate change agenda. One of his many mansions is a beach house. When he sells his beach house and moves to a mountaintop to escape the rising waters he predicted, then maybe we’ll take this business seriously.
The thought police are alive and well. Is there a requirement out there for all museum board members to think alike in all facets of their lives, maybe the equivalent of Mao’s Little Red Book specifying what they ought to think? The Left’s idea of diversity is that it’s only skin deep.
Funny, but the Universe itself, from its genesis in the Big Bang to the inflation epoch to the Earth’s Natural History, including the Cambrian Explosion, all jive with and inform my conservative beliefs, including my belief of a Creator.
I don’t see a conflict.
It’s unfortunate to see the use of the term “climate change denialism” from someone who is ostensibly educated at a minimal level in science, history, and rhetoric.
No one has denied or is denying that “Climate change is real”, and there mere suggestion – through this shabby rhetorical gambit – results from the same intellectual dishonesty that drives the premise of the author’s otherwise excellent article. Before railing against strawman anti-science propagandists, it’s best to clear your own eye of any motes.
Such an anti-science argument, to say that someone is a “Trump supporter”, so they must be anti-science. How completely ridiculous. This is the greatest evidence of the failure of American higher education.
This boils down to disciples of the anti science religion of Socialism are upset because Mercer isn’t a socialist.
You’re not going to “fight together”. When people actually work together, each side learns things from the other. You’re obviously incapable of learning anything except your own bizarre delusions that echo in all the chambers of the elite. You have never bothered to read or listen to FACTS.
“Climate change is real.” – Congratulations for your death grip on the blindingly obvious. Here’s another straightforward truth – computer models are not Science. Here’s another – we can’t find even 5% of reality.
Those who would predict Earth’s climate a century from now might consider a little humility before they turn the world on it’s head.
I agree with Aspen’s perspective, yet would make an additional query which has not been explored—do the conservatives who fund museums of natural history never influence the displays at those museums? Boards influence displays of art, culture and history, and have influenced science curriculum in schools. Why would they not influence the contents of natural history museums as well?
Thank you Aspen. As a conservative who doesn’t necessarily agree with all of your views (or anyone else’s, for that matter), I appreciate your well-reasoned response to this issue. I hope it will resonate with others on both sides of politics who seem to want to do their best to exclude the other.
Comments are closed.