« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Great Green Newt Turns Into A Chameleon

Gingrich?s Political Chicanery Reveals the Power of Conservatives to Shape the GOP

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

Prior to this year’s Presidential Primaries, I had primarily ignored the continued existence of one Newt Gingrich. To the extent that my opinion matters in picking the next GOP Presidential candidate, my ignoring him worked to his benefit. When he announced his run, I learned some fulsome and scurvy truths. One aspect of his record that particularly made me want to give him a good going over with the wire brush was his chumminess with Environmental Activists who considered their chosen cause of greater value to the commonweal than the continued growth and welfare of the US Economy. This lead me to initially call for “The Great Green Newt” to go extinct.

I wrote in haste last May. This was before Mitt Romney and Ron Paul actually began to gather serious momentum. Thus, I later welcomed him back into my personal subset of somewhat decent politicians. I was even willing to tolerate his dalliances with intellectual velleities pushed by power-hungry scientists and bureaucrats. Perhaps his recent axing of his favored advisor on climate science, Dr. Katherine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University, is a sign that I was right to grant Newt absolution for his environmental flights of fancy.

Perhaps instead this is a sign of something even better. Perhaps this is a sign that we, the Conservative movement are truly winning. It was The American Right that led the fight against the bunko schemes of Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and pseudo-intellectual purveyors of fraud like James Hanson and Michael Mann. While Newt chummed with that Good Old Bean Senator Kerry, Senator Inhofe manned the barricades against carbon taxes, cap and trade and rationing. All of this would have sent American industry on the slow boat straight to China even faster than Barack Obama’s stimulus dollars facilitated the emigration of General Electric’s wind turbine plants from American Soil.

So how do I proclaim Conservative victory? That comfy chat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi has put The Great Green newt on the hot seat. Newt Gingrich now admits it was the dumbest thing he’s done in four years. He is now attempting to make his reputation as an environmentalist completely disappear.

This is probably not a sincere break with AGW by Newt. It takes more than a barrage of overwhelming evidence to make a smoker stop smoking, a crack-addict destroy the pipe, or a political junkie turn down untrammeled power. However, the case against Global Warming as an existential threat looks overwhelming. In case you wonder why I hold AGW-Rapturism against potential GOP Nominees, Steven Goddard offers up the knowledge below.

• Temperatures are below Hansen’s zero emissions after 2000 Scenario C
• Global temperatures are declining this century
• Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003
• Arctic ice extent and area is the highest for the date since 2005
• Temperatures in western Greenland last year were the coldest since 1996
• Temperatures in Antarctica have been declining for 30 years
• Antarctic ice has been increasing for 30 years
(HT: Real-Science.com)

As the great Richard Feynman famously said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Any rapid increase in hot air over the North American Continent comes from the dissipating smug clouds that previously surrounded the self-congratulating, new-Malthusians pompously promulgating the IPCC’s latest fictions. But the good news is that now Newt Gingrich wants to run from these people like the lepers that they truly deserve to be.

When Newt’s new book about how Newt Gingrich and only Newt Gingrich can truly save America hits the local Barnes and Noble, the most interesting chapter to me will be the one he axed. This would be the chapter written by Dr. Katherine Hayhoe, who once famously asked “What would Jesus do on a warming planet?”

The part of me dedicated to religious faith would like to believe Jesus subtly offered us his answer to Dr. Hayhoe’s sacrilegious query. But I don’t think Jesus would waste time sweating the details. Dr. Hayhoe got abruptly cashiered because The GOP is overwhelmingly winning the debate on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

From Senator Inhofe, to Rush Limbaugh, to the outstanding Climate Depot blog all the way down the VRWC food chain to small-time minnows such as me; we are carrying the day and winning back our society one hard-fought block of real estate at a time. Candidate Gingrich has seen his career dissipation light flicker. We, the Conservative activist community, are turning The Great Green Newt into a chameleon.

COMMENTS

  • edintexas

    Is this like a deathbed conversion (i.e. subject to some speculation as to whether occasioned by fear of the possible consequences of failing to change)?

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      It is occurring because the Conservative Right won this arguement and forced him to pander. Newt would rather jam AGW scams down our throat and assume all the Big Government power that come witht he prefered remediations proposed by our current parasitic political and scientific upper castes.

      • edintexas

        I’ll quit being obtuse, we’re both saying the same thing. :-)

  • gipper823

    Your lead quote there actually came from an acclaimed physicist. He said it with humility, recognizing that there is much we don’t understand in life.

    You open with it, as if he meant to wholly denounce science.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Denouncing people who parrot Michael Mann and James Hanson as if they were legitimately practicing science in no way demeans actual science. The whole point of this diary was to point out that because people on the right refused to just shut up and listen to the experts, we have now forced the political hacks who fight for our primary votes to pretend that tey never bought into experts either.

  • d_lamar

    I watched Newt on C-Span Sunday night deliver a short speech during his tour of Iowa. In that speech, he bragged about how he had been in the forefront of the federal mandate regarding the use of ethanol in gasoline. He said it was then referred to as gasohol.

    Obviously, he has no problem with the federal government mandating what kind of gasoline we must use in our vehicles, and also mandating that we all carry medical insurance.

    Anyone who thinks he is a small government conservative is not paying attention to his record and what he says.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      We made him convert or go away.

      • edintexas

        d_lamar believes Newt’s conversion is not genuine (and I agree with that position). You say “not at all”. Do you mean you believe Newt’s conversion is heartfelt and genuine? Above you stated it was pandering for votes (which I also agree is true).

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          In saying “Not At All”, I was agreeing that he was politically pandering.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    he at least wanted to take a conservative free-market approach to it.

    • d_lamar

      How is giving subsidies to ethanol producers and mandating minimum ethanol use in gasoline a free market approach?

      A free market approach would have allowed the use of ethanol in gasoline on a voluntary basis with no subsidies or mandates.

    • edintexas

      Like the conservative free-market approach to the individual mandate in health insurance – the government requires you to buy health insurance, but from a commercial entity selling health insurance?

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        –no–text–

    • ss396

      Pulling the trigger doesn’t destroy the target, but the target is destroyed nonetheless.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      If I were a factory-owner and had a business plan that depended upon my ability to emit 25 metric tons of CO2 or CH4 this year to execute, what would be a totally free market approach to make cut those emissions to 20 metric tons and not significantly damage my business?

      • d_lamar

        if there is a demand for a technology or service, such as reducing the amount of carbon emissions, then there will be an incentive for someone to develop that technology or service so that they can sell it to you to make a profit.

        But why, under a free market system, would you have any incentive to cut your emissions? Perhaps, if a competitor of yours was promoting their product to the public as being more “green”, and you were concerned about your public image.

  • josephine

    I have noticed that redstate is constantly slinging mud on Newt. At times I have even stopped listening and reading out of pure exasperation.
    I believe we are looking for a candidate who will have the know how and the personality it will take to change the direction of our country. I realize you all are all Perry people. I believe the media will ridicule Perry into defeat.
    Newt is 90% conservative. I think that says it all.
    Sure, he may have been romanced by the environmental group-but that is miniscule in proportion to his accomplishments. We have to remember that your leading person was so gung ho on Nikki Haley and look at the job she’s doing. Her record is not so good. She endorsed Romney also. This group is scoffing the one candidate that has balanced the budget with a Democrat Congress and a very slick President. Against all odds he saved us in the 90′s. He worked hand and hand with Reagan in setting policies that led to our boom in the 90′s and the early 2000′s.
    Perry is a good guy. He has money. I like his ideas. But there is a communication difficulty that just can’t be overlooked.
    These are my observations.

    • edintexas

      Voted for gun control in the Clinton Crime Control Bill.

      Stated strong support for the general idea of Romneycare.

      Supported Scozzafava in the NY-23 special election.

      Supported Charlie Crist until it became clear Crist would not come close to winning the FL primary.

      Trashed the Republican nominee in the DE Senate election.

      Supported the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd.

      Supports the universal health insurance.

      All those are positions a 90% Conservative would take? And there’s more, but why bother.

      • d_lamar

        I remember those days after he became speaker, and I was totally disillusioned by his apparent disinterest in reducing the size of government.

        How many programs did he end? Did he stop the growth in the departments of education or labor? Did he do anything to promote school vouchers? How many federal departments did he zero out their budgets.

        His record is that he didn’t do anything to make the federal government a lesser influence in the way things are done.

        I have no use for him.

        • Common_Cents

          In vetting today’s candidates and examining their past, much gets pulled out of context.

          And how many real small government representatives were there in congress at the time? If that was the goal, why wasn’t a small government conservative elected speaker? Not long before that, Perry was a Democrat. There was no tea party.

          In comparing candidates, I have hardly seen any rational discussion on this. Between Romney and Perry as Governors for example, who believes Perry would have a chance to get elected Gov in MA? Who would believe Romney could get elected in TX? Romney would have had to veer right to get elected and govern, Perry would have had to veer left.

          All politicians are going to be swayed by the electorate, whether that be the qualifications to get elected in the first place, or how they govern once in office.

          The whole point of the exercise is we get the government we deserve. That’s why Cold Warriors precinct project is so important.

          I look at candidates like I do trading stocks. It’s not where they’ve been, but where they are going that matters. Yes, the past history is a factor, but it has to be in context. You must look at today’s conditions and anticipate future conditions in order to pick the right one.

          • edintexas

            Unfortunately Newt’s history is both years ago (1994) and recent (2010 for his dabbling in the elections and lastt week IIRC for his stated support for ethanol).

            Politicians can change, and do so as a result of demands of the electorate. Perry changed from Democrat to Republican, along with much of the electorate in Texas. But then, Texas Blue Dog Democrats were closer to being Republicans than most NE Republicans.

            And some politicians change as the polls seem to lead them.

  • Common_Cents

    We get the government we deserve. Isn’t that the whole point?

    It’s disturbing to see more and more people wishing for some Reagan channeling political figure to save us from ourselves. There will never be. Fantasizing about dream tickets, jumping from candidate to candidate, proclaiming they are the one to transform the country!

    Didn’t the left try that in 2008? Hope and Change was more like Dope and Mange.

    If the people become more conservative and assertive, our government will reflect that.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      And that’s what made Newt “change his mind” on AGW and memory-hole that chapter of his save America book.

    • YnotNOW

      Exactly. The long-term game consists in impact on the culture, and then the representatives of that culture will inevitably reflect their values (eventually, and not perfectly, but reflect they will).

      Of course, that doesn’t mean we don’t push the short-term (hold representatives accountable) and medium term (elect increasingly principled conservative leaders) games as well, because they are just a few of the ways we impact the culture.

      • Common_Cents

        Except most emphasis is on the short term, not enough on the long term strategic game. That is what gets us into trouble.

  • MOlsen6

    … but he should not be the Republican nominee for POTUS. He is prone to flights of fancy, becoming enamored with bizarre intellectual ideas, and using his intelligence to evade rules for everybody else but him. He can play an important role in developing conservative thought as a director of a think-tank, but he is simply an inconsistent candidate with a large amount of political baggage. Both are disqualifying against a well funded encumbent opponent. In short, Newt does not pass the “smell test”.

    The second comment I will make concerning Newt is that many folks forget the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence and wisdom are not the same, and while individuals of high intelligence are common, leaders with great wisdom are not. Great political leaders, such as Reagan or Churchill or Thatcher had wisdom. Yes, there is a certain level of intelligence needed, but above a certain point, wisdom is far more important. Newt simply is not wise in his political choices, partly because he loves ideas and follows the flavor of the minute in his own mind.

  • david1313

    He may very well be only one who can stop a President Obama or President Romney in 2013. Just saying.

  • natedogg

    I think this whole anti-science (e.g., all presidential candidates except Huntsman) and anti-intellectual (e.g., Palin) movement within your party can only hurt you in the long run. Even the Vatican accepts evolution in principle. The Vatican! These are the guys who once told Galileo he was a fraud and only said “oops” a few hundred years later.

    Kindly take a look at the following study on the scientific consensus of global warming:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

    (Sorry, the link to that blog you cited called “Real Science” ain’t gonna cut it. Neither does oil-funded research from AEI, Cato or Heritage Foundation. These are political and not scientific research organizations.)

    Now ask yourself: Why does being a conservative and/or free-market Republican have to mean denying that there is a basic scientific consensus, about a topic that you may not have the training to fully understand yourself? Why can’t we just defer to climate scientists the way we defer to geologists who tell us there is going to be a big earthquake in California in the next 30 years? I don’t fully understand the details of the science myself, but if they’re all in agreement, maybe they’re on to something.

    If you turn science into a debatable political point, are you not just like the Vatican telling Galileo to repent?

    I hope folks will respond to my specific questions and not attack me because I am being upfront about my party affiliation.

    • lineholder

      in the primary interest of advancing science and science alone, natedogg, then more of us would be receptive to it. But that hasn’t been the case.

      The so-called “evidence” that was presented to support AGW was biased for political reasons and for the purpose of advancing a specific socio-economic agenda. What’s more, there are members of the scientific community who are speaking out in relating to people worldwide that this is exactly what has taken place.

      In other words, rather than starting with a open-ended hypothesis and either or proving or disproving it, which is the normal manner in which scientific evaluation takes place, members of the AGW and academic community who support specific socio-economic and political polices USED science as a means to support specific outcomes that they wanted to implement into governmental policies across the world.

      • natedogg

        What you are presenting sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument, and it is the argument that I’ve heard on Fox News. But it doesn’t make it true.

        Did you look at the link I provided and the source?

        Let’s look at intentions. You say that 97% of climate scientists have a socio-economic agenda. You don’t think that the 3% who disagree may be the ones with an ulterior motive? I’m sure you can imagine what the financial ulterior motive would be for saying that global warming is not real. My point is that for all of the radical environmentalism out there, greed is one of the most powerful impulses (look at the Congress). If you’re looking for an ulterior motive, you should really look at that 3% and the indisputable moneyed interests behind it.

        • lineholder

          Power is another. Status is another. There are numerous factors that play into the situation.

          And saying that it is the 3% who should be evaluated makes no sense in the context of human nature, natedogg. It is far more likely that it is members of the 97% who have jumped on the latest “fad” for the sake of money or power or status or name recognition.

          People often do such things, and justify their behavior as being “acceptable”, even though this doesn’t necessarily make it right or support science in purest form.

          • natedogg

            97% of people of a given profession are more likely to engage in questionable professional practices than 3%? This doesn’t sound intuitive to me. I have never heard of any profession like this. I think even mafiosos have a better record. Is this really how you view the scientific community?

          • lineholder

            When it put is in the context of being a law, natedogg, people have to make a choice between complying to the law or refusing to comply with the law. And in a capitalistic system, this can often mean that even though they don’t agree with the law or any of the so-called “scientific evidence” that supports the law, in order to survive economically, they are left with few options.

            So they comply, and on the surface it would seem that their compliance indicates agreement with and support for the law, even though that isn’t exactly what it seems to be.

            That’s what I believe the 97% you’re referring to has done. And it occurs in others sectors of industry as well.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            And they might even go as high as 98 or 99 percent.

            First, I do respect proven science, and it’s good not only to challenge, but to be challenged. However, the scientific community that pushes global warming is the same that pushes evolution as proven fact rather than theory. And as for deferring to geologists, not everything they say is set in stone either (pun intended). Please consider reading the following as another view of scientists & geologists which I fully disclose are from a religious point of view although a couple are written by scientists. These are 1-2 page articles, so they shouldn’t take but a few minutes of your time and consideration.

            here (written by Dr. Michael Houts, who holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT and has a distinguished career record)

            here (written by Dr. Jeff Miller who received his B.S. degree in Physical Science with minors in Bible, French, and Mathematics, and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA). He received M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from UTA and Auburn University, respectively, with emphases in Thermal Science, Biomechanics, and Navigation and Control of Biological Systems. While at Auburn University, he also served as an engineering course instructor, teaching courses in Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Heat Transfer, as well as Statics and Dynamics. Active & recognized member of the scientific community.)

            And these written by Dr. Brad Harrub who holds an earned B.S. degree in biology from Kentucky Wesleyan College, and an earned doctorate degree in anatomy and neurobiology from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. Author or co-author or several books and numerous scientific publications in science journals.

            here

            here

            here

    • westcoastpatriette

      “Why can’t we just defer to climate scientists the way we defer to geologists…” You can’t be that naive can you? If we “defer” to their opinions, government tyrants will continue their attempts to strangle the economy and business using the threat of climate change as an excuse to regulate and force change to save us from their contrived catastrophe. Can’t believe you would even ask the question.

      And my answer has nothing to do with you being a democrat.

      • lineholder

        In the context of how government often uses both the realm of science and academia, I see it as going back to theories of behavior modification (i.e. Pavlov, Skinner, etc.) Would you agree? Or do you see it another way?

        And I mean modifying behavior in a way that allows them to have greater control over our lives and to reduce/restrict individual freedom, just for the sake of clarification.

      • natedogg

        At your job, people defer to you for things that you know. It’s fine if someone is going to disagree with you, but they need to do it from a position of knowledge. If 97% of climate scientists are saying something, on what do you base your contradiction?

        This comes across as arrogant and Palin-esque.

        • lineholder

          human psychology. Through and through. You’ve been a bit too quick to jump to conclusions on that one.

          • lineholder

            established in this realm of science, i.e. human psychology, as a means of implementing and achieving various goals.

            It’s very simple…one of the best ways to bring about broad-spectrum societal change that conforms to specific goals defined by those in government is to implement legislation, such as regulatory measures, that apply pressure on society to conform.

          • natedogg

            human-made climate change?

          • lineholder

            than denying it.

            Let me ask you this…in the very simple context of supply and demand, during the past two decades, has the demand for scientific evidence been greater for “evidence” that supports AGW or denies it? And how has that demand been generated? And who has been financing that demand? Why was that demand generated?

          • natedogg

            Has to do with data becoming available, and people building on previous studies, as things happen within the scientific community. The fact that we are talking about this means scientists themselves are probably becoming interested in it. I’m sure there are grants that support climate research, objective and otherwise.

            If a scientist is honest, he/she will not be swayed by the source of funding. Case in point is a Koch Brothers funded study. Not friends of global warming, but the scientists had no option but to accept the facts that were before them:

            http://bit.ly/qR9h5I

          • lineholder

            which is what is now being revealed (and you can see RMJs post below for data pertaining to this FACT), then it distorts everything that follows.

            And for government to CONTINUE make use of faulty data, even when there is now evidence to the contrary that is being presented, only goes to prove that it is the socio-economic and political agenda that they are concerned about, not the science.

        • Finrod

          There are plenty of statisticians that have complained to high heaven about how climate scientists have abused statistics to get the numbers that they did. The usual answer from warmists is “they’re not climate scientists, they don’t have the authority to question them”.

          But that ignores the plain and clear fact that statisticians are experts in STATISTICS, which the warmist scientists are abusing. Isn’t it hypocrisy of the highest order to say that statisticians don’t have the right to criticize other scientists for abusing their own field?

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      Science is debatable, and the “big truth” that so many hold dear is often destroyed over time. Man made global warming as a theory sounds plausible and strikes a chord of mans’ centrism, such as his belief he is the center of the universe etc.

      Fortunately the facts don’t back up the theory once the fraud and political chicanery are stripped away.

      Unfortunately there are many who buy into the corrupted viewpoint of man-made global warming and won’t take the few seconds to do a google search for overwhelming contrary evidence.

      • natedogg

        I think you are highlighting the weakness of this Inquisition-era approach to science: It is not true because it somehow contradicts my narrow view of religion.

        I personally think religion is more powerful than that and doesn’t need to shield itself from basic, non-controversial issues like climate change. If saying that people can wreck havoc on the planet is somehow a threat to one’s faith, then perhaps one doesn’t have faith to begin with.

        • natedogg

          of shining a light on these issues.

          Here’s a Jon Stewart video. Watch it for the laughs, but see what it says about the *current* Republican Party (this is not your daddy’s Republican Party):

          http://bit.ly/smX6Cs

          Would love to get someone’s thought on this.

          natedogg

        • westcoastpatriette

          nothing

          • pttx333

            their stupidity always comes to the forefront – that is just their nature.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Thanks for a hardy morning laugh. This guy has come here to pick a fight and insult us. So, let’s pile-on before he gets banned!

          • pttx333

            subtle for very long – they jus’ cain’t hep it! ;-)

            (That last phrase does not have any typos!)

        • d_lamar

          You obviously are not paying any attention whatsoever to the fraud behind the scientific conclusions. No real scientist who is proposing a theory desires to destroy the evidence, silence his critics, and end the debate.

          AGW promoting scientists are not scientists at all. They’re just promoting a political agenda.

          The same was true with Darwin and his progeny. Every piece of evidence supporting evolution has now been shown to have been fraudulently manufactured for either political or financial gain. But that doesn’t stop the believers from promoting the fraud. It’s still in the text books today, after having been shown to be a fraud more than a hundred years ago.

        • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

          …let me explain some history to you. For decades, the better part of a century even, there has been an attempt on the part of progressive politicians to co-opt the latest “non-controversial” science for political ends. First evolution proved the superiority of Europeans to Malays and Africans. Then eugenics offered a way to purify the peoples from the horrors of amalgamation. After that support switched to reducing population through abortion on demand because the population boom was taxing the ability of the earth to feed itself and the West had to take the lead in cutting population down to manageable levels.

          Global warming is just another one of a long chain of pseudoscientific crusades in order to support a hostility to business practices, a desire to decrease the standard of living for supposedly “guilty” first worlders who are making the rest of the world starve and suffer by their consumption and affluence, and redistribute their wealth to poorer countries without causing any sacrifices for the political and cultural elites who fly their private jets from meeting to meeting talking about “inconvenient fallacies.” And the fact that such miserably transparent and biased “science,” based on totallly fallacious and often fabricated computer models, is gospel truth in many political circles and many parts of the world is deeply galling. To have the nerve to call it “non-controversial” suggests you don’t have any idea about the real stakes of the matter.

          • natedogg

            The economic stakes are huge. If we limit green house emissions, it could hurt our economic growth. If China and India do, it could hurt their development. I understand all of this. And I’m not arguing that one solution is better than another.

            All I’m saying is (and please look at the link) if 97% of people within a particular field are trying to tell us something, on what basis are we calling it pseudo science? Because a few websites told us? Or because Fox News said it? Or because in our gut, environmentalists annoy us and anyone who provides gives them ammunition must be dismissed? That’s all I’m asking.

            And again, as silly as this sounds, please look at the Jon Stewart clip. They put a mirror to folks who not only attack climatologists, but scientists in general. It anti-intellectualism is a very, very dangerous trend within the conservative movement. Like I said, it is a modern and milder version of the Inquisition. Can’t be good for the country in the long run.

          • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

            ….but as an intellectual it is insulting to be told that one has to believe in evolution or global warming, both of which are supposedly supported by a consensus of scientists but both of which are woefully lacking in supporting empirical data and are supported largely for unacceptable worldview reasons outside of the ground of science, all while trying to wrap themselves up in scientific legitimacy to push bogus agendas. In such a mindset, to appose anthropological climate change in some fashion (in the 1970′s it was the threat of “global cooling” and now the supposed threat is global warming) is automatically anti-intellectual and anti-science. And that is extremely bad scientific practice at all. The best science looks to question the accepted groupthink of our time and counteract it by making it more rigorously empirical. Don’t buy into the groupthink yourself.

          • JSobieski

            said the world was warming in the 90s, and are now saying more generally that the climate is “changing” now.

            I don’t buy the 97% number either—at least not for scientists asserting that mankind is a material contribution to global warming.

            Maybe 97% would say the earth is warming.

            A smaller subset would say that man is contributing to it in some non deminis way.

            I am science geek as well as a lawyer (I am a patent lawyer). Nobody would call me anti-intellectual.

            People who try to assert that global warming is beyond reasonable doubt are the people who are anti-intellectual.

          • JSobieski

            Its possible to make funny jokes about a lot of things without proving or disproving the underlying subject matter.

            It is the politicization of science, and smug intellectuals like Jon Stewart who never passed a college chemistry course who are the danger the republic.

        • texashistorian

          is not always correct. We can point to thousands of examples throughout history, can we not? There once was a scientific consensus in this country that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites, to pick an obvious and controversial example. There was once scientific consensus that diseases were caused by certain types of air. The real problem is that those that question the consensus on AGW are tagged with labels like “anti-science” and “anti-intellectual.” Why is that? Because AGW has been loaded down with all sorts of environmental and social baggage that have little to do with the scientific question. Your point about Galileo can be seen from a different angle- those that challenge the prevailing view on AGW are like Galileo, and the inquisition is the media and liberal establishment who are interested in promoting the theory, and will not brook disagreement. Galileo gets labelled a heretic, AGW skeptics gets branded as anti-intellectual, or country rubes, and often as village idiots- in short, heretics.

    • rocketeer

      http://icecap.us/index.php

      Answers “science” with Science!

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Despite our partisan differences, I appreciate you joining thismorning and offering good, constructive criticism. One should not dogmatically attack science. One should be professionally skeptical. For example. A leading senior researcher at NCAR, Tom Wigley, informed the UN IPCC as early as 2007 that they had no objective physical methodology to evaluate the magnitude of any climactic forcing.

      In other words, Dr. Wigley informed Dr. Hanson and Dr. Mann both that based on an increase of xxx ppm of say CO2, there was no mathematically viable method to determine how much of an upward bias that this would introduce on global temperature. This is then further borne out by the result I cited above. Namely, the actual in situ measured temperatures, even with continued, higher CO2 emissions, were lower than the temperatures Dr. James Hanson projecte din a scenario where CO2 emissions were capped at a steady state.

      If AGW is accurate theory, how could the in situ temperatures, given a continued positive 1st deriviative of CO2, still be lower than what Dr. Hanson projected using a zero 1st derivative? This is not a dogmatic question. This is a query aimed at reconciling the theory with the reality. If CO2 forces climate, where is the upward focing? If what Dr. Wigley told Mann and Hanson was true, how would these genetleman know if it happen right under their noses?

    • rocketeer

      I thought that science represented the acquisition and analysis of data, then discussing how valid and repeatable the result are. I haven’t understood science as being “who paid you, baby?”

      Yes, you *can* create biased results from advocacy studies. That is what review is for. So, has the research from the “shunned” researches proven to be false? Or merely ignored because they didn’t come from the correct places?

      It seems that silencing research based on where the funding came from amounts to anti-science, too. Flinging “oil money” phrases around is the modern equivalent to “la la la la la”.

      So don’t give me “scientific consensus” from philosophers and historians and bridge engineers on AGW, nor people who scheme to “advance the cause” and shut out researchers not in their clique.

      • natedogg

        Here is a study funded by the Koch Brothers — Tea Party backers galore and no fans of the man-made global warming position. But the researchers saw the data and confirmed that global warming was man-made. They were being honest, even when getting industry money. What makes you think the rest of the 97% of climatologists are frauds?

        Here’s the link:
        http://bit.ly/qR9h5I

        • natedogg

          I really believed that half of the responses would be favorable to the overwhelming scientific consensus. I didn’t think I would get 100% pushback. It’s not like this is a debate about abortion or economics. Anyway, there’s only so much back-and-forth we can have on this issue. I appreciate any additional replies but I have to run for now. Thanks for discussing.

    • unclefred

      There are a number of very basic problems with the work that underlies the “science” which claims to prove that AGW exists. Not that the climate changes but that it is man made, or even that man is a significant contributor to climate change.

      I am not a climate scientist. I am a software professional with nearly forty years experience. No small part of that is in developing computer models of various types. Based on a fairly extensive analysis of the models and the programmer’s notes about the failed attempts to resurrect the models that were published when the IPCC emails were outed on the internet, I have concluded that the models, the data handling, and the process surrounding them were utterly unreliable. In the private sector, producing forecasts based on work of that quality would be pretty good grounds for fraud.

      The overwhelming effort, by so called climate scientists, to prevent real peer review, where skeptics could attempt to reproduce the work and test the conclusions, flies in the face of general scientific process.

      For these reasons I, and many others, consider the people who produced and have profited from this work to be anti-science, not the skeptics whose skepticism seems more justified every day.

  • renl57

    …he flips in your general direction temporarily to get your vote?

    Wow.

    It’s the classic pattern for candidates of either party to take stronger stands during the early part of the primary process, to appeal to the party’s base. And then to dump those stands after they get nominated and head for the general election (that’s called “moving to the center”).

    So some folks are happy that Newt flip-flopped on AGW. They’re not applying the same standard that they applied to Romney: A flip-flopper who flips your way now, can flop back the other way later.

    Have you ever seen a politician flip-flop in a direction that would cost him votes?

    • MOlsen6

      It is a political gaffe. Happens all the time, and is almost always follwed by a “clarification” or “restatment” or “amendment of the record”.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      than you have to flip them. I have no cherished illousions that any more than 25% of our governing class has any intention of supporting an agenda of limited government. It’s a case where they’re intrests and America’s intrests as a society are in no way aligned. You have to flip them and make them govern in a decent manner against their will. That’s the sad reality of being a Conservative.