-
Obamacare’s Medical Mercenaries
April 13, 2012 | 58 comments
-
Obama’s Broken Promise to Wounded Warriors
March 27, 2012 | 32 comments
-
Obama Sells Out Science for Campaign Cash
March 21, 2012 | 21 comments
-
Netanyahu’s Purim Gift to Obama
March 9, 2012 | 91 comments
-
Republicans Rock the Airwaves
February 24, 2012 | 56 comments
Another Perspective
Rick Perry On Science
The liberal media wants you to think Rick Perry puts ideology over science. He doesn’t.
In writing about Governor Rick Perry’s approach to science, the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait argues:
[Perry] rejects scientific findings when they complicate his theological or ideological worldview. He’s accused climate scientists of running a corrupt scam — a deranged belief that’s increasingly common among movement conservatives.
What’s more, the implications of Perry’s willingness to discard science go well beyond scientific issues. It suggests a general unwillingness to acknowledge empirical results that run counter to one’s ideological dispositions. That was an enormous problem in the Bush administration, but ultimately one, it seems, conservatives are happy to repeat.
Talk about deranged. Chait is claiming that Perry simply ignores reality when it is at odds with ideology. Sort of like EPA administrator Lisa Jackson continuing to link ozone levels to the risk of autism or John Holdren, Obama’s science adviser, writing about global warming: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Or maybe he was thinking about how Centers for Disease Control and Prevention delayed the rollout of the swine flu program. CDC and the White House caved in to the anti-vaccine crazies and pulled multi-dose swine flu shots because they contained thimerasol.
By contrast, Perry follows the science when it establishes a causal link between one event or mechanism and a measurable outcome. When his executive order requiring the HPV vaccine for all girls entering sixth grade was overridden by the Texas legislature, Perry rejected arguments by some social conservatives that vaccinating girls and young women against HPV might encourage premarital sex. In a written message about his decision, Perry said even if they do make wrong choices, the “greater imperative is to protect life.” Perry also said that attempts to discredit the HPV vaccine amount to “hyperbole that doesn’t stand up in light of clinical data.”
As the headline for a National Public Radio report stated: “Perry Position On HPV Vaccine For Girls Followed Expert Medical Advice.” NPR reported, “The vaccine is recommended for girls at age 11 or 12 not just by the federal government’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but also the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.”
During the recent Republican presidential debate,
Bachmann, Santorum, and Ron Paul seemed to suggest that parental
rights trump immunization requirements in every case. (Do they
oppose all immunization requirements for children?) Even then, this
reaction against vaccines crosses party lines. The largest outbreak
of vaccine preventable diseases in America took place in the most
liberal of enclaves: Marin County, California.
What about stem cell research? Chait notes that Perry established the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), a $3 billion, 10-year cancer research fund. He doesn’t note that CPRIT recently recruited Dr. Sean Morrison, leading stem cell researcher — and vocal proponent of embryonic stem cell research — to establish a pediatric cancer initiative at University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
Why did Morrison come to Texas? While I have been spending the last five to six years arguing with the Michigan legislature about what kind of research would be permitted in the state, in Texas they were looking for ways to invest billions of dollars into medical research.
Perry has consistently stated he would veto any legislation to fund ESC research. But he has not supported several bills that would ban it either. More proactively Perry has sought to make Texas ”the world’s leader in the research and use of adult stem cells.”
Regarding climate change Perry wrote: “The complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists…. draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned.”
Chait calls that deranged. But the estimates of climate change used by the Left in developing plans to reduce emissions are the most extreme of six different models. Even the International Panel on Climate Change notes the chance of fast and severe climate change is small. Policies based on the more severe estimates would not only reduce economic growth, particularly among the world’s poorer nations, but also require a decline in living standards. As Matt Ridley notes, a warmer and richer world will be more likely to improve the well-being of both human beings and ecosystems than a cooler but poorer one.
Rick Perry supports science-based health prevention, stem cell research, and environmental regulations by balancing one set of estimates with the impact they can have on human well-being. If that approach meshes with his “theological and ideological worldview,” I’m all for repeating early and often.
About the Author
Robert M. Goldberg is vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and founder of Hands Off My H ealth, a grass roots health care empowerment network. His is new book, Tabloid Medicine: How the Internet is Being Used To Hijack Medical Science For Fear and Profit, was published last month by Kaplan.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (125) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert M. Goldberg
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/12/rick-perry-on-science
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JP| 9.12.11 @ 7:36AM
It's not that Perry is for or against anything. But, he is certainly for being President. Liberals shouldn't fear him too much. Behind that slick hillbilly personna is another Republican Statist who can be rolled.
Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 1:05AM
I watched the debate tonight. Michelle Bachman handed old Rick his head. The guy has a lot of trouble explaining his positions. He is an effective local politician who is out of his depth. He reminds me of Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, an old drinking buddy of mine. Thommy was promoted above his mental grade when he went to Washington As G. W. Bush's HEW Secretary and was a total flop. He also had Presidential ambitions. Of course he didn't have the money behind him Perry has.
I look on Perry as another Rudy Guilianni. He won't sell well in the Midwest, West, and East. He is effective in Texas as a politician but won't sell well over the Arkansas border. He supported Rudy in the last election. Boy is Perry conservative. Oh thats right! He backed Gore in 1988 as well.
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 7:54AM
It is beyond amusing when proponents if Darwinian Evolution (an unproven 19th-century hypothesis that, at it's core, insists that you believe that some untold billions if years ago, inanimate, unloving, unthinking matter suddenly found within itself the motivation to organize) accuse proponents of Intelligent Design of believing in Fairy Tales.
It requires far more blind faith to believe in Darwinian Evolution than in Intelligent Design. the intricacies of life in the natural world, at both the macro and micro levels, literally scream "design!!", but the arrogance of man, who wishes to be his own God, chooses to ignore this.
FYI, I have a BS in Biology, so I'm not exactly whistling Dixie, here. The more one learns about the incredible, intricate nature if life and the amazing co-dependency of the many synergistic systems that sustain life at the cellular level, the ore one begins to understand how this thing we call "life" could never have happened by accident. To believe that us akin to believing that your new desktop computer formed itself out of the plastic, quartz, and metals that comprise it's motherboard.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.12.11 @ 8:35AM
Doctor evolution violates the scientific principle of from order to disorder. Evolution asks us to believe purely through faith that the universe and ultimately life on earth developed from "disorder to order." Sounds like its supporters need to be a little more skeptical of this theory . . .
Mriordon| 9.12.11 @ 9:15AM
Excellent post. Though, I am pretty sure that my laptop evolved from an old alarm clock I stored in the closet. One Christmas I opened the closet and there was my new laptop and the alarm clock was gone! And we all know there is no Santa Claus.
Margie| 9.13.11 @ 10:27PM
Wait! I thought Algore created the computer. Oh no, that's right, it was the internet he created.
DaveS| 9.12.11 @ 9:48AM
I have a B.S. in Biology as well. Life violates the law of entropy. So, random bouncings in the universe cannot even start the beginning.
Insofar as the New Republic is concerned, even the Middle Ages Catholic Church declared that, if science incontrovertibly proves something, the Church must yield. What century does the New Republic think Rick Perry occupies?
I took a course in Evolution as a junior. The faked drawings by Haeckel (sp?) were in the textbook - even after those drawing were proven to be fakes for four decades.
Even Darwin had introspections that caused him to believe his theory was vulnerable. If he had today's (1960+) microscopes, he'd never have published 'Origin...'
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 9:59AM
DaveS:
I find that so much of Darwinian Evolution violates not only physics (as you point out), but itself, as well.
For example, the mere proliferation of millions of species is itself an argument against Darwinism. If only "the fit survive", then nature is telling us that theres A LOT of fitness going on out there! A Darwinistic system would work against proliferation, NOT for it. There should only be a few dominant species, not millions.
In addition, if one posits man as THE dominant species, the why does the Left (the same folks who rally around Darwinism) decry man's total dominance, and seek to curtail his progress through radical environmental laws that protect "less fit" species (like trees, small fish, spider monkeys, etc)??? Seems to me that the Darwinist's should support man's progress towards perfection, rather than impede it.
And Darwinism CANNOT account for ther existence of the Universe. No mater how far back one goes, there must always be an ultimate causality to that which exists. Big bang?? OK...But what made it go "Bang"?? Where did the matter come from in the first place?
Darwinism is a dead concept kept on life-support by those who willfully refuse to accept that there is a higher power and purpose to the Universe.
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 10:09AM
Additionally, how does Darwin account for the EXTREMELY inefficient methods of reproduction used by the planet's dominant species??
Darwinism should have dealt with this eons ago. Mankind's "unfit" reproductive processes should have rendered us extinct, OR prevented from ever existing in the first place.
And look at the new human, once born! A fleshy, pudgy mess, completely incapable of surviving on it's own until several years after it's birth. HOW could that ever be viewed as an evolutionarily advantageous trait???
Ever seen Praying Mantis eggs? When they're ready to hatch, the little Praying Mantis's emerge small but fully formed, and ready to go off and do all of the things that Praying Mantis's do. Wouldn't THIS be a better system for a species to use, if that species assumed the role of dominant?
Evolutionists have all kinds of answers to try and explain this away, but none of them explain how a weak biped with a low birth-rate, high infant mortality, and an inefficient (and often fatal) means of reproduction "evolved" into the planet's dominant species.
Paul from SA| 9.12.11 @ 2:34PM
Carl Sagan once questioned why humans (and all mammals) have not evolved beyond needing sleep. (no need to discuss cholinasterase or diurnal cycles here) Sleeping (being unconscious) is unproductive and can be very dangerous.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 4:29PM
Doctor Right,
To pick a nit, the narrow hips required for bi-pedal life caused human infants to be born, essentially, premature. Or so goes the argument.
My question is how can a species be so reduced in number that it cannot sustain a population, yet a random chance provides a new species? When you begin arguing multiple successive random chances occurring the combinatorial explosion quickly outnumbers the number of reproducing entities. And then there would be all those variants to observe.
No argument here with micro-evolution, but the Galapagos Finch doesn't randomly lay Ospreys.
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 6:33PM
Then how did the species survive before evolution mandated "narrow hips"?
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 7:00PM
Doctor Right,
Knuckle-walking! Kinda like a lot of people today :)
Just to make clear, I don't have a problem with micro-evolution and genetic variation. Neither am I a creationist. I can admit the possibility that we are evolved from ape. From an ontological perspective, the question is irrelevant to me. What I cannot see is that Darwinism explains anything.
Margie| 9.13.11 @ 10:32PM
.."yet a random chance provides a new species?"
How do you know random chance provides new species?
Answer: There is no such thing.
God CREATED each according to its kind. That's what the book of Genesis (God's own Words) say.
Each according to its kind.
mames| 9.12.11 @ 12:13PM
Darwinism is dying as a viable hypothesis and the now Evolution Inquisitors are striking back at true science that is proving daily the impossibility of evolution.
diviz| 9.12.11 @ 9:59AM
All modern life formes have the capacity to evolve into different species as well as evolving new physical and cheical processes.
Soif there was some sort of mechanism preventing evolution: what was it, how did it work, and why did it disappear?
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 10:10AM
There is NO evidence to support your first sentence at all. ZERO.
This has been postulated for over a hundred years, but it has NEVER been observed to happen.
It's nothing but weak supposition.
diviz| 9.12.11 @ 10:26AM
speciation has been observed (wikipedia provides a good article with numerous footnotes), development of new phisical structures has been frequently observed (ie dogs and even youtube videos of people with some pretty wild physical differences), new proteins have been observed (these can be used to map family ancestry). So my first sentence is well supported with evidence.
Therefore on to the second sentence: what was the mechanism that hypothetically prevented evolution in the past. There is no evidence of a genetic device that can prevent evolution and even if there were how would it determine what level of evolution is too much?
DaveS| 9.12.11 @ 10:57AM
There is no evidence that any species has become the parent of another species. You persist, but you are wrong.
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 11:03AM
People with "pretty wild physical differences" is evidence of birth defects, NOT speciation.
Proteins are unliving chemical compounds; they do not "evolve".
And to say that "There is no evidence of a genetic device that can prevent evolution" is silly beyond words. There's also NO evidence of a 'genetic device' that CAN'T prevent pan-cakes from conquering the earth. So??? Positing proof from the lack of a negative is NOT science.
You've been misled.
mames| 9.12.11 @ 4:18PM
Those are called mutations or birth defects and using Darwinian language they almost never aid in the survival of the species and never result in a new species.
DaveD| 9.12.11 @ 4:26PM
And, how can we be CERTAIN that the fossils we examine aren't themselves exhibiting birth defects? How do we know that they reproduced? How can we know for absolute certainty the family tree of a fossil dug up in South Dakota? All we know for certain is that such a critter existed once upon a time. For all we know, it was gay.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 5:47PM
Gay trilobites? Kinky!
big bob| 9.12.11 @ 2:34PM
wikipedia??? For real???
diviz| 9.12.11 @ 10:44AM
as for the mechanism modern life forms have for evolving: DNA and the accumulation of mutations in DNA have both been observed. No mechanism has been discovered that would prevent the accumulation of benign mutations
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 11:58AM
...And HOW did DNA form?
Luck? Blind chance?
Sorry, but you can't be taken seriously.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 5:40PM
Doctor Right,
I've a sister-in-law who insists we are nothing but a bag of chemicals. I note that it is thermodynamically possible for the water in the glass on your bedside table to spontaneously reorder itself as of ice sculpture of the Birth of Venus. That would be child's play compared to reordering that bag of chemicals.
Now, infinity is a big number (OK, it's not a number) and randomness is, definitionally, not uniform. There can be points in the universe, like leaf tips in a fractal frond where such ice sculptures abound. Perhaps we are in just such a spot, ourselves. If so, aren't we lucky? The ontological question still remains.
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 6:36PM
Only the absence of heat can cause water to reorganize at the molecular level into a solid.
Cause -Effect.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 7:32PM
Doctor Right,
Correct as well, but not in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Heat is the observation of the average velocity of the molecules. It is quite possible, though not probable, for a molecule to be absolutely still - i.e. at absolute zero.
Nick| 9.12.11 @ 11:35PM
Doctor Right,
Pressure, also, has an effect at what temperature water changes from one state of matter to another.
DaveD| 9.12.11 @ 4:23PM
However, when we try to force the issue - irradiate fruit flies - we see 90+% of mutations being harmful to the organism. The rest are indeed benign and to date, absolutely ZERO beneficial mutations have appeared. That's thousands of generations of fruit flies we're talking about., Pretty damn clumsy method of introducing change.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 4:59PM
DaveD,
Claude Shannon's work on communication theory can be useful here. For communication, a sender and a receiver capable of receiving the message and knowing its meaning must exist. Information can be though of as the anti-entropy. The conundrum is that sufficient redundancy must be present to ensure error free transcription. In 1977, Sir Frederick Sanger deciphered the "message" of 0x174, a small bacterial virus. The sequence was too small to direct replication in the host bacterium. He determined that the sequences were "stacked". That is, one set of instructions began at symbol 0, and another began further down overlapping the instructions beginning at symbol 0. Thus, even the rules for decoding the sequences were complex. Sanger remarked "Something rather subtle seems to be at work."
For a good read, see "Grammatical Man - Information, Entropy, Language and Life" by Jeremy Canpbell (ISBN 0-671-44061-6). It's a lay treatise of communication theory and its broad applicability to systems in general. It is agnostic on the evolution debate, but the questions are interesting. The book is out of print, but still readily available.
DaveD| 9.12.11 @ 5:44PM
In so far as the genome being an information container - no argument from me. Quite the opposite is the case. The fact that evolution demands that information be passed along through undirected change is one of the main reasons I quit being a believer.
For evolution to work, an organism needs to know that sometime in the future it will need X but X won't work unless Y is done first and magically, Y gets done. For evolution to work, a plant needs to know that animals cannot digest proteins made in a certain way and then goes ahead and manufacture them. For evolution to work, one species has to know that another species, often in a completely different phylum, is a potential food source and how to trick the food source into becoming food. (To fully describe situations like this - there are many - would require 1000's of words.)
I see no mechanism, certainly not natural selection, that can pass this information along. I doubt, seriously, that any competent mathematician is a believer in this silliness.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 5:54PM
DaveD,
It certainly strains the brain. It was Campbell's book which caused me to look at this critically, years ago. The idea that the transcription rules would, themselves, be so complex requires the sender and receiver to have the rule book a priori. It's the meta-data which makes the random variation argument fail, for me.
JP| 9.12.11 @ 2:33PM
Well that's the theory, anyway.
mememine69| 9.12.11 @ 8:04AM
Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading stock markets run by corporations and politicians to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of attempts at climate CONTROL. NOW who is the ignorant, fear mongering neocon eh?
POST American| 9.12.11 @ 8:04AM
---FIRST, it's becoming common
knowledge, autism is caused by the rampant
injection campaigns directed against the our
young.
As for Perry's 'hostility' toward science,
--we just don't see it.
Scientific dictatorship,
the 'rule of experts' is, perhaps, the KEY
modus operandi for the Globalist EUGENICS
takeover.
Perry has proved to be a fervent
booster for the vaccine mongers
--most notoriously with the push for mandatory
innoculations with the deadly gardasil vaccine.
-----KEEP following that capstone cardboard
kiddies!
-----------JUST KEEP A GOIN'!
big bob| 9.12.11 @ 2:35PM
common to whom? says who? science is not the result of the majority.
Skippy| 9.12.11 @ 2:40PM
OK, don't vaccinate.
Just don't expect admission into schools, planes or hospitals.
Please take your disease-ridden progeny back to your mud hut to die.
Does rejecting modern medicine make you a libertarian, or a moron?
mames| 9.12.11 @ 4:23PM
Not taking this injection does not result in disease-ridden progeny. The injection is given to prevent promiscuous girls from getting cervical cancer. If not taken no one is harmed.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 5:19PM
mames,
See my comment below. Unless you have had sex with only one other person who has only had sex with you, you are at some risk. Over half the sexually people are expected to have this at some time in their lives. You grossly oversimplify.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 5:16PM
Skippy,
I skip right passed POST American as a rule. Your response grabbed my attention.
When you can get the HPV that can lead to cervical cancer in math class, then mandate a vaccine. I happen to support this vaccine, but not a mandate as this is not a publicly communicable disease.
Were you aware that half the sexually active men and women get this virus at some point in their lives (it typically clears in about two years). You may, in fact, be diseased progeny, yourself. Of the 12,000 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed each year, almost all are related to HPV.
See: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm
Sean| 9.12.11 @ 6:27PM
If you are vaccinated you have nothing to fear from those that don't.
Dan Mathewson| 9.12.11 @ 6:16PM
Post American is similar to Paul Krugman in what he (?) posts. He'll post something outrageous and doesn't come back to debate any of his scribbles.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.12.11 @ 8:10AM
Doctor Right,
I think it is fair to say that The Judeo-Christian tradition forms the basis for the "scientific method", or science.
Before us and except for us, the gods could change the "laws of nature" on a whim. ie: what might be observable and measureable on Monday could be changed by Friday.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.12.11 @ 8:19AM
Mr. Goldberg,
well spoken.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 9.12.11 @ 8:32AM
"During the recent Republican presidential debate, Bachmann, Santorum, and Ron Paul seemed to suggest that parental rights trump immunization requirements in every case. (Do they oppose all immunization requirements for children?) "
Yes, they do. And that by itself is a sufficient reason not to nominate them and not to elect them. Fortunately, none of these three fringe candidates stands even the slightest chance of winning the Presidency, and all of them are in the teens or, in Santorum's case, in the low digits in the polls, so they are non-players. This is, and will remain, a two-man race.
mames| 9.12.11 @ 4:26PM
So glad folks like you are making sure you force the rest of us to live according to your rules.
spoofproof| 9.12.11 @ 8:33AM
Rick Perry? The man swore up & down that he would NEVER be a candidate for prez and here he is anyway. What happened to his earlier conviction? Isn't Rick Perry yet another professional politician endorsed by Corporate Media? Aren't professional politicians the tools of the Corporate Media Establishment? Aren't the Corporate Media Establishment & the Political Establishment like old Tammany Hall on a global scale. If we don't take action against them they will make us their slaves. Take an hour and read what C.S. Lewis wrote in 1947 about the times we live in today. "The Abolition of Man" tells the whole sad tale: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/aug.....ition1.htm
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.12.11 @ 9:31AM
Spoofproof,
No sale here bub!
communists aren't listened to here.
spoofproof| 9.12.11 @ 12:17PM
Old Texican,
I'm no communist.
I am a firm believer in "that government is best which governs least."
Do you believe C.S. Lewis is a Communist?
He's no communist. "The Abolition of Man" is Lewis' denouncement of government\bureaucratic central planning.
Which "communists" are you speaking of?
How did you derive "communist" from my comment?
Sean| 9.12.11 @ 6:32PM
You have to forgive Ken has a screw loose in his brain. He is often in support of liberals and their causes. Of course C.S Lewis was not a communist.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.12.11 @ 8:40AM
I would suggest Huntsman and other Democrats check out the studies of scientist Danish Henrik Svensmark when it comes to manmade global warming. He uses real science and not rigged computer models.
mames| 9.12.11 @ 4:31PM
Computer models are simply extensions of the premises already programmed in. If the premises are wrong everything will likely be. ie Not including sun activity or misreading the warmth of the sea can through everything off.
Brian Mc| 9.12.11 @ 8:44AM
Darwinian-based scientists are constantly attempting to explain away a 'created' world. In their efforts to shove a god-less world down our collective throats they tell us that, "It's just too complicated for you mere religious types to understand." After all, anyone using 5% of their brain mass believes in Darwin...and if you don't, well...
Paul, in his Book to the Romans, saw this coming. That we believe Paul over Darwin is no stretch. Darwin, if he were to return and suddenly be compelled to glimpse the subtleties of life through the eyes of modern technology would be ashamed at what he has wrought, and back down with apologies in total shame. His followers just look for more 'complicated' ways to explain it all away. And demand that we take their word for it; they know what's best whether we understand, or not. They are the ones who fail to understand. And, they will answer for having led small ones astray. They are the epitome of what Christ infurred in his remarks concerning false prophets.
Communism, Darwinism, Islamism. I regard them all as fascists...bent on extinguishing truth and light as they attempt to lead us through the fog they've created on the way down their slippery slope. I damn their godlessness which includes ALL their false prophets.
mames| 9.12.11 @ 4:48PM
As Jastrow said in his book God and The Astronomers, paraphrase
the advocates of evolution and astronomy have crawled their way up the mountain of knowledge only to pull themselves over the precipice to see a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Ultimately the "first cause" is beyond all our understanding. Evolutionist place blind faith in their hypothesis, Christians place their faith in the reasonable evidence of Christ and his Resurrection. Science and Christianity are perfect compliments of one another. One tells us about what our senses can reveal the other directs us to glimpse what we cannot see, yet. After all it was the witness of Scripture's bed rock assertions that the universe is ordered which lead western man (and the influence of the Old Test on Islam) to investigate the universe. Science tells us "how" Scripture tells us why and by who. As a devout Christian I love science and what it has brought us but the hypothesis of evolution has had plenty of time and evidence to be discarded but the blindly faithful would be left with what?, if it is.
Clint | 9.12.11 @ 8:47AM
"Rick Perry, signed an executive order mandating young Texas schoolgirls to get the HPV vaccine, while his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Rick Perry's judgment was so bad the Texas legislature revolted against him and overturned his decision."
Michael Tomlinson| 9.12.11 @ 9:16AM
RINO/neo-liberal “Wild Shrimp Cowboy” Paul like Forrest Gump’s Bubba has an unsettling affection for shrimp. Shrimp he is willing to spend your money on. In 2007 he got millions of American’s tax dollars for his favorite crustacean -- $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research. Richard Viguerie noted in 2007, Paul "is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function." Ron Paul’s fanatical insatiability for your tax dollars ($400 million in 2007) is disturbing in light of his words about fiscal restraint. Ron Paul is a prime example of why America’s fiscal house is in disorder.
In 2009 fraud Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives ($73 million was specifically for him). For 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork despite the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks. Paul was one of only 4 House Republicans in 2011 to break ranks with the Republican Conference’s earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.
Clint | 9.12.11 @ 9:27AM
" Rick Perry supported Lance Armstrong's 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center. That’s like ObamaCare. That’s not free market.
Rick Perry, secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund for him and just the two leaders of the legislature to dole out to whomever he felt like being friendly to. That’s corporate welfare, a recipe for corruption, and as bad as the TARP bailouts that caused the Tea Parties to explode all across America. In fact, Perry gave 20 million dollars to Countrywide Financial which later went bankrupt.
He supported a new state business tax. He set up toll road tax collection booths all over Texas highways. The Austin Tea Party and the Austin Toll Party booed him on the steps of the state Capitol for that.
Rick Perry, signed an executive order mandating young Texas schoolgirls to get the HPV vaccine, while his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Perry's judgment was so bad the Texas legislature revolted against him and overturned his decision,"
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Carpe Diem.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.12.11 @ 9:34AM
Clint,
and I took the polio vacine...and got polio from it.
STILL, millions of children benefitted from it. Go pound sand.
Clint | 9.12.11 @ 12:05PM
Kenny wants to mandate HPV vacine to Schoolgirls
Let's see ya sell That Crap Sandwich to Real Conservatives, Kenny The Squirrel.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
TURK| 9.12.11 @ 8:55AM
Idiot! You rail against "corporate media". Where have you been the last 50 yrs? Corporate media! Corporate media? Corporate media____Do you mean like the most trusted man crankcase? Or blather/ Or the leftist cheering section at cnn? NYT? Time? Newsweek? CNBC and its cast of the mentally disturbed? What corporate media are we talking. You guys do have gonads!
Michael Tomlinson| 9.12.11 @ 9:15AM
RINO/neo-liberal “Wild Shrimp Cowboy” Paul like Forrest Gump’s Bubba has an unsettling affection for shrimp. Shrimp he is willing to spend your money on. In 2007 he got millions of American’s tax dollars for his favorite crustacean -- $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research. Richard Viguerie noted in 2007, Paul "is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function." Ron Paul’s fanatical insatiability for your tax dollars ($400 million in 2007) is disturbing in light of his words about fiscal restraint. Ron Paul is a prime example of why America’s fiscal house is in disorder.
In 2009 fraud Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives ($73 million was specifically for him). For 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork despite the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks. Paul was one of only 4 House Republicans in 2011 to break ranks with the Republican Conference’s earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.
Clint | 9.12.11 @ 9:30AM
Duuuuuuuuuhhhh !
Senator Ron Paul has never voted for an Appropriations Bill.
Dr. Ron Paul,
"But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
David T| 9.12.11 @ 9:45AM
So Ron Paul thinks Congress should vote up or down on every budget line item? He's even more unrealistic and outrageous than I thought.
Doctor Right| 9.12.11 @ 10:12AM
In fairness, perhaps Ron Paul's point is that there should NOT be so many line items in a budget in the first place.
P.Smith| 9.12.11 @ 9:20AM
He's accused climate scientists of running a corrupt scam...
I wonder how many grants have been made available from the Federal Government for studies that refute Global Warming? Probably not very many, and very likely none. My guess is that most studies that prove man-made global warming have been funded ultimately by government grants, and research which disproves manmade global warming causes is probably privately funded.
It is probable that the publically funded research scientist who comes to the conclusion that man-made global warming is false is quickly shown the door, hidden away or defunded. He has seen his colleagues railroaded for coming to the “incorrect conclusions” and knows that if he wishes to feed his family he will just keep his mouth shut about the true facts and will even falsify information to perpetuate the ”Corrupt Scam”.
DaveS| 9.12.11 @ 9:51AM
..and a self-perpetuating one at that. If a Middle Ages Florence artist had a patron who liked his work, why would the artist change what is delivered to the patron? It would bankrupt him.
Bob K.| 9.12.11 @ 9:27AM
The more I find out about Rick Perry the more he reminds me of our former democrat turned republican turned democrat Senator Arlen Specter who we just got rid of here in PA for a real conservative: Pat Toomey.
Drunken Sailor| 9.12.11 @ 10:21AM
Ahhh, the Perry bashers are out in full force. Good Luck. And it seems Pawlenty has thrown his weight (what little he has) behind Mitt. Now in hindsight doesn't it look like he is vying to be the first on Mitt's VP list?
Of course, if Sarah backs Perry, Romney/Pawlenty will be toast.
Perry is appearing more and more as a pragmatic politician who is not afraid to admit when he was wrong or to re-evaluate something when new evidence is provided. Heaven forbid, we put someone like that in office. (Sarcasm off)
Reagan Loyalist| 9.12.11 @ 1:13PM
"Perry is appearing more and more as a pragmatic politician who is not afraid to admit when he was wrong or to re-evaluate something when new evidence is provided. Heaven forbid, we put someone like that in office. (Sarcasm off)"
I believe this statement to be the tightest description of Gov. Perry posted in weeks. He made some bad calls, some good ones - in the end he is a man who doesn't need a teleprompter because what he says comes from his core beliefs and look - wisdom is earned over time and mostly through errors made and confessing to those errors. RP is a humble guy, stand up man but he is NOT fearful of standing up for what he believes.
Humility and wisdom - now that's the kind of change I'm looking for.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.13.11 @ 2:45AM
RL:
Like the original Reagan the MSM and some in our own Party are trying to portray Rick Perry as amiable, but not Presidential material. This under estimating Perry is going to work to his advantage as Romeny and Bachmann become the defenders of the entitlement status quo.
Redstateboy| 9.12.11 @ 11:26AM
Perry or Hussein....? gimme a min'PERRY!
fundamentalist| 9.12.11 @ 1:12PM
Nice article!
It strikes me as odd that carbon-phobes and evolutionists limit science to just their respective fields. Aren't they aware that science consists of a few more fields than climate and evolution?
Climate science and evolution are the least scientific of all the fields of science, and yet some claim that if you don't agree with those small, ideologically bound field, then you are at odds with physics, biology, medicine, mechanics, astronomy and every other field of inquiry.
Even if the carbon-phobes and Darwinists were correct and Perry disagreed with them, that wouldn't make him opposed to all fields of science, but only those two fields within science.
Because Perry disagrees with the caron-phobes and Darwinists doesn't mean he denies the law of gravity, or the speed of light.
Marc Jeric| 9.12.11 @ 1:22PM
This global warming conspiracy needs to be put in perspective to be properly understood. This far-left attack by government-paid drones started in the 1970′s with the global cooling scam: we should disarm our nuclear bombers and fill them with soot to be spread over the poles and so prevent those new glaciers from descending south and crushing the New York skyscrapers to dust. When that did not work the same fakers invented the global warming hoax in the 1990′s; we should nationalize all industries and organize a UN-sponsored world socialist government based on “social justice” with the fakers in charge. What with 12 years of substantial cooling the fakers switched to the climate change flimflam in the 2000′s; so whatever happens we should…see above under the global warming hoax. And now we are faced with the cap & trade power grab – but the aim is the same as above. Our socialists, marxists, communists, Hollywood stars, university professors in social and political “sciences”, and environmentalists are all clamoring for action while spurring President Obama ("Tomorrow the oceans will stop rising and the planet will start healing") and his 35 czars/komissars to undertake immediate measures to save the planet – with the same aims as described above.
In the meantime our Mian Stream Media are unanimous in spreading this criminal propaganda daily; the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. drive this drivel daily. What is totally ignored are the detailed descriptions of faked data, skewed computer programs, politically revised conclusions by the UN-sponsored far-left clique of biased scientists – all government-paid drones that no private enterprise would hire. Another thing ignored is the “Global Warming Petition” (see Internet) where 31,487 independent US scientists (including 9,029 of them with PhD degrees) dispute decisively the findings of the UN-sponsored panel; also ignored is the “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change” (see also Internet) where a smaller number of competent world scientists, about 712, including 142 pure climatologists, state the same – i.e., that the man-caused catastrophic global warming is a farce. The books by Christopher Horner, Robert Carter, and AW Montford describing the lies, fakes, phony data, opposite conclusions, redacting by UN political hacks, reverse graphs, etc., have exposed this far-left propaganda in painful detail.
In the case of the above mentioned Petition, several "environmentalists" had submitted phony names with phony credentials in order to sabotage that effort. It took several years of painstaking and expensive effort (we contributed a lot of private money for that) to clean up the list from those saboteurs and verify all academic and professional data of the signatories.
To put this whole conspiracy in terms of numbers, let me say that the projected world-threatening increase of carbon dioxide of 100 ppm (parts per million) by the end of this century would increase the termal absorptivity of the atmosphere by one-eighth of one percent; that is the definition of something totally negligible. On the other hand the sun cycles of cooling and heating are thousands of times more powerful with regard to the carbon dioxide in the air; when the sun is cold the oceans absorb many millions of tons of it; and when the sun heats up the oceans release the carbon dioxide in quantities thousands of times bigger than anything the mankind could produce. To illustrate this point in more accessible terms to somebody who who is not a climatologist or a scientist or an engineer; the argument of catastrophic anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming issued by our panic driven socialist/marxist government-paid hacks is like saying that a burp of a lonely wolf in Alaska will transform Florida into a Sahara-like desert - immediately!
As for that bloviating gasbag Al Gore and for Dr. Mann who inverted cause and effect in his "studies" - they should be brought to the The International Court in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity.
Marc Jeric (signatory of both documents referenced above)
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 2:47PM
Ha ha - this is one of the funniest set of comments I've yet read here as you desperately squirm to avoid the obvious truth: if by some dreadful application of unintelligent design by the great American public and Perry made POTUS we'd be the laughing stock of the world.
Drunken Sailor| 9.12.11 @ 3:13PM
To late Jack. Obama has already made us the laughing stock of the world. Of course if all you watch is msnbc or Jon Stewart you probably don't know this.
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 4:18PM
No - in recent years it was GW Bush that made us a laughing stock (or would have done if his actions hadn't killed a million or so people), although I grant that Clinton had his day too.
Wayne| 9.12.11 @ 4:22PM
So Mr. London, tell me, did you once have gill slits and a tail?
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 4:54PM
Why yes Wayne, as you know we all have vestigial gills and tails as embryos, and you're probably sitting on the remains of your tail right now. I guess you're going to tell us they are planted there by God as a test of true creationist belief.
Wayne| 9.12.11 @ 5:57PM
No we don't Mr. London and this was proven decades ago, but you see obviously you do not follow science because you would know its just nonsense.
Wayne| 9.12.11 @ 6:01PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
Even Wikipedia disputes the old recapitulation theory that Jack London seems to prescribe to. Maybe its because its propaganda was forced upon in High School Biology.
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 7:21PM
So it's your contention, is it, that our bodies are not walking records of our evolutionary past, and that embryos of different species have similar features before maturing, and we don't share 95% of our DNA with chimps?
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 6:01PM
Jack London,
One doesn't need to be a creationist to find Darwin's theory, particularly macro-evolution, to be a wholly inadequate explanation of the process. I reject both and hope I may still be called a Christian.
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 7:28PM
There's no scientific dispute about the observation and theory of macro-evolution. Your objection therefore is non-scientific.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 7:34PM
Jack London,
There is obviously scientific dispute. Your conclusion is not logical.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 7:37PM
Jack London,
PS. Check out non-falsifiability in the scientific method.
Margie| 9.13.11 @ 11:02PM
Of course you can be called Christian. Christians believe God and not the rebel against God, Darwin.
Christians are called Christian specifically because they believe every Word of God.
Darwin says we evolved.
God says He CREATED Man in His image, and then the animals, each according to its kind. (Genesis).
Therefore, "Evolution" is a fraud.
And I'm so glad! My faith remains in the Creator of the universe, and of Mankind. He created all that we see with our eyes~ and it is all the evidence that one needs.
Yet Mankind wants to believe a lie~ because it is much more comfortable that way, and allows for excuses to disobey God. Because after all, if God is a liar (to them), and He really didn't create everything according to its kind~ and we didn't "evolve", then what good reason does one have to serve Him?
In Genesis, God says that He created Man in His image, not in the image of the animals, which He created separately, and each according to its kind.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the Creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools.." Rom. 1:18-22.
Margie| 9.13.11 @ 11:05PM
Correction: "and if we didn't evolve", should read, "and we did evolve."
Michael Tomlinson| 9.13.11 @ 2:47AM
Dumb ass we are ready are with Obama in the White House. Even has vaunted outreach to Islam has made things for us worse in that world of intolerance and bigotry. You need to avail yourself of some education in current affairs.
Margaret| 9.12.11 @ 2:59PM
"Another thing ignored is the “Global Warming Petition” (see Internet) where 31,487 independent US scientists (including 9,029 of them with PhD degrees) dispute decisively the findings of the UN-sponsored panel"
LOL! My friend sent in a "signature" for his dog for that petition. 'Gave the pooch a PhD. That petition is not scientific. It's merely an opinion survey that anyone (even a dog, apparently) can sign. It's not worth the paper it's written on.
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 3:35PM
Hey - I'll have you know that Dr Doberman Pinscher is accredited at the highest level in sniffing out scientific fraud, not to mention a juicy bone of contention.
Drunken Sailor| 9.12.11 @ 4:00PM
Maybe your friend did submit his dog on that partition. But on the sites FAQ sheet # 5 spells out how they address those issues.
5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?
Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 4:16PM
That 'partition' is junk for goodness sake and was a fraud originally funded by ExxonMobil.
As for some of the 'leading' climate change deniers, as I said the other day:
Fred Singer - once in the pay of the Moonies
Richard Lindzen- credibility comprehensively demolished
Roy Spencer - believes in intelligent design
William Happer - a deluded non-climate scientist
Syun-ichi Akasofu - woeful ignorance of climate modelling
Patrick Michaels - junk science and in the pocket of industry
David Douglass - limited science taken apart by real experts
Freeman Dyson - admits he knows little about it.
Drunken Sailor| 9.12.11 @ 4:36PM
And on your side we have Al gore, inventor of the internet and practioner of Chakra release. Enough said.
Oh and lets nor forget Steven Chu, Energy Secretary, who wants to paint rooftops and roads white to combat Global Warming.
Yep, you have a bunch of heavy weights on your side too.
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 5:00PM
Painting things white is rock solid physics. If you go to very hot countries guess what color they paint their houses.
Wayne| 9.12.11 @ 6:03PM
What does this have to do with the green house effect?
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 6:13PM
Jack London,
You may recall that Chu wanted to mandate ALL roofs be white. One size fits all. Even in Alaska. Pitched, flat, no matter.
Ventilation of the roof makes the color inconsequential. Brilliant physicist, maybe, but practical home builder he is not.
An, of course, we know because of those green house gases that changing the color of a roof, even ignoring the fact that a trivial amount of the earth is roofed, would NOT change the albedo of the planet. To give Chu credit, I recall his argument was to save energy so its generation wouldn't contribute to greenhouse gases. As if the people paying the electricity bills didn't have enough motivation, already.
Jack London| 9.12.11 @ 7:23PM
'To give Chu credit, I recall his argument was to save energy so its generation wouldn't contribute to greenhouse gases.'
Yup.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 7:56PM
Jack London,
Glad we agree on that :) As I mentioned, the color of my well ventilated roof does not contribute to my energy bill. A perfect black body is not only a perfect absorber by also a perfect reradiator. When the solar load on my dark roof roof stops, the heat absorbed is reradiated. Not a good plan when your goal is to maintain a constant temperature, but incidental as I do not air condition or heat my attic and my ceiling is insulated. I simplify, but the physics is, as you say, "rock solid".
Now if you are talking about an unventilated, or flat, roof you have a point. From my airplane I observe a lot of white roofs on "big box" stores. And that was done without Chu's encouragement.
Margaret| 9.13.11 @ 12:52PM
Drunken Sailor, Al Gore is a journalist -- not a climate scientist. He tries to publicize results, but he does not work on the science. However, look at the qualifications of the people who actually do the science -- those that worked on the science section of the most recent IPCC report. Every single one of them has a PhD. Every single one is a renowned expert in his/her field. Some are Nobel prize winners. BTW, Steven Chu won a Nobel prize in physics in 1997. Do you think perhaps he might know something you don't know?
As for that absurd Oregon Petition, it is merely an opinion survey. Anyone can send in a form claiming to agree with the petition's rather vague claims (although you can't disagree with them -- gee, I wonder why.) The authors of the petition claim to verify the existence of signatories, but don't explain how they do so. I suspect they might do a cursory check to see whether given name corresponds with address provided, but that they don't check out credentials. My friend was never contacted about the existence of his dog or whether his dog's PhD was in a climate-related field. Nevertheless, the dog's name and qualifications were published!:-)
Nick| 9.13.11 @ 8:00PM
Margaret,
Give it up.
Nobody believes that you have any friends!
Margie| 9.13.11 @ 11:10PM
They may have PhD's but that doesn't mean they have common sense or integrity.
Kingofthenet| 9.12.11 @ 3:20PM
As Matt Ridley notes, a warmer and richer world will be more likely to improve the well-being of both human beings and ecosystems than a cooler but poorer one.
Tell that to Bangladesh and some Pacific Islands, gonna be hard to be 'well' when you are under 10 ft of water, not to mention the worsening droughts in Africa. How about those Cowboys?
DaveD| 9.12.11 @ 4:20PM
Where do you think 10' of water is coming from? Antarctica - nope, if all the ice melted tomorrow, sea level rises 6-9 inches. North Pole - nope it's already floating, the North Pole melts and seal level rise is difficult to measure it's so small.
Also dead wrong about droughts. Warmer temps means MORE rain not less.
Margaret| 9.12.11 @ 9:19PM
"Also dead wrong about droughts. Warmer temps means MORE rain not less."
Not necessarily. Note the record heat AND drought in Texas. Temperature increases bring about climate instability, so we get flooding in the east and drought in the southwest.
Nick| 9.12.11 @ 11:56PM
Margaret?
I can't believe that you would dare to show your moniker around here, anymore, after the complete smack-down that me and Skip gave you, a couple of months ago.
Did you happen to see the study by CERN, published in Nature, that claims that the main contributor to the warming of the Earth is.....The Sun!
Gee, where have I seen this claim before? Oh, yes, it was when I used it to rebut your AGW Hoaxer comments, in that other thread, and you dismissed them. Do you also dismiss CERN?
Well, you have had over two months to research and study. Can you now explain the difference between Latent Heat and Sensible Heat? How about enthalpy? Can you explain this scientific term, yet?
Margaret| 9.13.11 @ 9:01AM
Oh, this Nick moron again!:-O
On another thread about global warming, Nick was beaten to a bloody pulp on every single argument he made trying to prove AGW was a hoax. Because he was quite unable to respond to the science of my rebuttals, he then decided he was going to ask 8th grade science questions and refuse to respond to my refutations until I answered them. This is known as "special pleading" and is bad logic and bad manners.
Nick, if you think you know something that's eluded the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions in this world, have the guts to come out and say it. Do you understand that our planet's energy is not a closed system. Explain why the concepts of enthalpy applies in this case. I'm waiting ....
Nick| 9.13.11 @ 7:58PM
Margaret,
"Oh, this Nick moron again!"
How very scientific of you. And, you know the deal. You answer my questions first.
"Nick, if you think you know something that's eluded the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions in this world, have the guts to come out and say it."
I just did. Is English your second language? Also, CERN now has the experiment that proves it.
Margaret| 9.13.11 @ 9:59PM
For anyone following this thread: Nick made several easily refuted claims on another thread. He introduced some of the "usual suspects", viz. arguments against AGW that are made so often that they've been collectively debunked at http://scienceblogs.com/illcon.....ceptic.php . He then found some denier website that listed "scientific articles" that supposedly refuted the science of AGW. Very few were recent (some were from the 1950s and 1960s!) and many had absolutely no bearing on climate science. Nick never responded to any of my arguments, but simply repeated former claims or went on to make others that were equally invalid. In a fit of pique, he then declared he would not continue with the discussion until I answered certain questions. This was clearly a dishonest way of ducking out of an argument he was losing.
Nick, I can provide your answers, although doing so is pointless as you have no real interest in the science. My 10yo knows that sensible heat is heat that is applied when temperature changes, while latent heat is heat that does not result in a change in temperature because a state change is in progress. Enthalpy is a state variable that reflects change in the internal energy of a system plus work done by that system (as measured by the area under the graph in a good old pV diagram.) Where pressure is constant, enthalpy is the heat released or absorbed by a reaction. Do you think the IPCC scientists don't know this? How would you use this information to refute AGW?
Margaret| 9.13.11 @ 10:19PM
" CERN now has the experiment that proves it."
Er, actually that's not so, Nick. Why don't you read the actual article before you drink the Kool Aid provided by the conspiracy theorists. Haven't they told you before about the latest "bombshell that blows a hole in the global warming hoax"? It's just that they never get it right.
Nick| 9.14.11 @ 12:13AM
Margaret,
"Er, actually that's not so, Nick."
Is that what your AGW Hoaxer websites have told you to paste at other websites?
The CERN study explains why the global temperature has not risen constantly, while CO2 emissions have risen constantly, for the past hundred years.
If more CO2 meant higher temps, the temperature would keep rising. Not rise, then fall, then rise again. We are witnessing the death of the AGW Hoaxer movement.
Nick| 9.14.11 @ 12:06AM
Margaret,
Anyone can see how bad Skip, and myself, decimated your Hoaxer arguments, and that it was you who ran away, here:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....tcontainer
Also, that is a nice paraphrase of the wiki definitions of those terms. But, you really haven't explained them, have you?
Plus, you have shown that you don't know what you are talking about, because enthalpy, as it pertains to the global climate system has little, if anything, to do with "the heat released or absorbed by a reaction." I'm assuming that the source you have reworded is referring to a chemical reaction.
At least this time you didn't plagiarize, like you did, last time, in the linked thread. Margaret likes to copy and paste the work of others, an pass it off as her own, you see.
Don't worry, Margaret, you might just come to understand these elements of thermodynamics. Someday.
I have my doubts, though.
Margaret| 9.14.11 @ 10:09AM
Nick, I did not "run away" -- I stopped reading your asinine posts as both you and Skip stopped saying anything new, repeated claims I'd already patiently refuted (meaning there was no point in explaining the flaws in your arguments to you all over again,) and were becoming increasingly incoherent and tedious.
Clearly you don't understand enthalpy at all as the explanation I have provided is perfectly standard. What you're actually thinking of, apparently, is what is commonly called the enthalpy of fusion, but you don't have the scientific know-how to understand the difference! In fact I referred to this very phenomenon in my previous discussions of arctic ice in the former thread!!!
So why don't you put your money where your mouth is and explain how enthalpy of fusion provides the "bombshell" that "blows the global warming hoax out of the water."
Either put up or shut up!
Nick| 9.14.11 @ 7:39PM
Margaret,
I never claimed that it "provides a 'bombshell'" or that it "blows the global warming hoax out of the water." Why did you put those in quotes? Do you know what quotation marks are used for?
Of course you don't. Or else, you would have used them, and given attribution, in the other thread. Instead of plagiarizing.
And, you know the deal. Answer my questions and I'll answer yours. Even though you have proven, over and over again, that all you know how to do is copy from others. You can't explain any of the science involved.
Margaret| 9.14.11 @ 10:27PM
Nick, I've answered all the questions you asked! You asked me to explain enthalpy, latent heat, and sensible heat. Of course, it turns out you don't actually know what enthalpy is and had it confused with a different term. So tell me what you think enthalpy (or even what you misunderstand as enthalpy, which is something I discussed in my explanation of melting arctic ice) has to do with AGW?
And, no, it is not plagiarizing to cut and paste to save time. This was basic information known to most middle school students. The same information, almost to the letter, is repeated on numerous websites with encouragement from the authors to use it whenever necessary.
And now you have many, many of my questions to answer. I look forward to your explanations.
Matthew| 9.12.11 @ 9:30PM
"Not necessarily. Note the record heat AND drought in Texas. Temperature increases bring about climate instability, so we get flooding in the east and drought in the southwest."
Not to mention more tornadoes, more floods and drought in several parts of the word, and wildfires.
Russell | 9.13.11 @ 1:33AM
Er, yes Nick, I have my copy of Nature in hand and it says no such thing. The authors instead warn against misrepresentation of the CERN results by assorted loons trying to turn the science policy arena into a place where all politics is yokel .
If no Texas crude was created before 4004BC, the drop off after Hubbert's Peak is going to be a doozie.
POST American| 9.13.11 @ 1:43AM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
We haven't had a single vaccine in decades,
and have NEVER been seriously ill.
Meanwhile, neighbors, clean living, by the books,
obedient family sorts, are now dealing with
everything from bizarre neurological disorders,
to bizarre, and lethal cancers, to endless allergies
----and, need we add, death ---in their 40s and 50s.
Injections have traditionally been classified
by medicine as 'invasive surgery'. You can never
'un-do' an injection. It's in your system forever.
That this is being made mandatory ---is
CRIMINAL by ANY standard.
Just a few weeks ago we tried to find a few
old school mates ---they're all three DEAD.
AS we've pointed out, the head of the ULTRA
RICH and TAX FREE, Globalist foundations
mafia, David Rockefeller, just last November,
called openly and publicly for the next round
of 'progress' ---RAPID and MASSIVE world
DEPOP.
---------Really, Google up the cover up on
Fukishima, or the Monsanto GMO takeover
of the biosphere sometime, just for starters.
Then do the bakcground on EUGENIST
Jonas Salk's polio vaccines and the LIVE
cancer viruses in them. They sleep in your
DNA until your hormones change in middle
age. -------------THEN
-----Better than X-FILES.
Matthew| 9.13.11 @ 12:57PM
Y'know, being conservative doesn't mean you absolutely have to be a scientific illiterate. Jon Huntsman appears to have a functioning nervous system. He's smart and sane, and I can't say the same for some of the other candidates. Why doesn't he get more support? The Republican Party is turning into an embarrassment. What are all these lunatic candidates about?!
Naturalborn Texicanette| 9.13.11 @ 8:25PM
If anyone can find the perfect politician, who says and does EVERYTHING perfectly from the day he/she is born....I'll vote for him/her......
I like Rick Perry precisely BECAUSE he learns from his mistakes, and he is NOT afraid to admit it and take the high ground. He is willing to change his stance when he LEARNS that there is a better way.
Of course, he is not perfect...but then neither and I....and neither are you................
Matthew| 9.14.11 @ 4:04PM
"I like Rick Perry precisely BECAUSE he learns from his mistakes, and he is NOT afraid to admit it and take the high ground. He is willing to change his stance when he LEARNS that there is a better way."
He wasn't willing to change his stance about Cameron Todd Willingham, despite expert testimony that Willingham was convicted on the basis of junk science. Perry has not been open about investigating the case, even though it appears an innocent man has been executed.
Russell | 9.17.11 @ 12:24AM
"I like Rick Perry precisely BECAUSE he learns from his mistakes, and he is NOT afraid to admit it and take the high ground. He is willing to change his stance when he LEARNS that there is a better way."
Does this augur his return to Texas A&M to master animal husbandry ?
Seeuinoz | 9.21.11 @ 1:45AM
WOW... didn't know how screwed up America was until I got on this web site... I just get done reading how we finally got over “don't ask don't tell” in the military... 20 years after Canada... right there tells you how backwards we, as a nation, have become... and now I read all these bogus comments about science... unbelievable... since the articles about Perry let me ask who was in Texas praying for rain ???? come on... don't be shy... oh.. and by the way... wasn't there huge fires right after that prayer event ??? -1- more thing... tell Perry the next time he wants to hold a "rain prayer" event to first check weather.com... wait until it say's it's going to rain... then hold your "prayer event"... and when it rains all the sheep will be like "WOW"... works every time...