Tag Archives: climate skeptics

The Prevarication Model On Climate Change In the Romney Camp

November 2, 2012

“The best things carried to excess are wrong” - Winston Churchill

According to a statement made by Mitt Romney’s campaign press secretary, Andrea Saul back in July of last year.

“Gov. Romney does not think greenhouse gases are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and he does not believe that the EPA should be regulating them … CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Humans emit it every time they exhale.” (emphasis mine) SOURCE

Andrea is correct. CO2 is indeed a naturally occurring gas that humans emit every time they exhale. As a walk away statement you simply want to shrug your shoulders though and say, “Okay?” However, what Andrea was primarily doing here in the larger context was giving Big Oil and Big Coal a wink, letting them know that Romney would remain in their back pocket. On a lower level she was assuring those climate-denying conservatives, who were still undecided at the time if Mitt was their man or not, that he too is climate-science challenged.

But what’s even more deceptive about this statement is the suggestion underlying it that CO2 is nothing to be concerned about. It’s natural and it’s been here since Adam and beyond. This is reflective of the half-truths that climate deniers are good at spitting out and that poorly informed people are good at swallowing, as if it were a whole truth.

If there is no need to worry about CO2 then we clearly don’t need trees, flowers, wild grasses and other flora that take this toxic CO2 and regurgitate it into healthy oxygen necessary for all life on this tiny blue dot.

Remember how all of this was explained to us in grade school?

As long as there are the natural (or “God-given” if you prefer) capabilities to convert this seemingly harmless CO2 into a more life friendly molecule, there is no reason to be concerned.

But let me add something to the knowledge base here for those who may have thought Ms. Saul was a gifted thinker. When you extract CO2 from beneath the surface where it is an inert substance – which essentially means that it has little or no ability to react with our biosphere – then you offset the natural balance whereby our planet can exchange CO2 at a rate that still allows us to have adequate oxygen to breathe and process life. Let me make this even simpler for those whose heads are fixing to explode if all of this is beginning to shine a light into your cave.

Put a plastic bag over your head and see how pleasant the CO2 your emitting is compared to the O2 you have now deprived your lungs of. Uncomfortable isn’t it? What’s happening ought to be clear because it happens at such a rapid rate. But this is exactly what is happening to the planet we live on; just at a slower rate that keeps you from noticing it – UNTIL IT’S TOO LATE. While you were busy buying those material creature comforts that require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy to make, your ability to survive was and continues to be, slowly squeezed off.

When we destroy millions of acres of forest to put up a new mall or housing development we are changing the balance nature has provided us to exchange CO2 for O2. Remember also that we lose millions of trees from wild fires which will be growing and spreading quicker over the coming years. Combine this along with all of the CO2 we extract lying out of harms way far below the Earth’s surface as fossil fuels and impose it upon the natural balance that allowed life to develop as we know it, then we dramatically alter the means to provide sufficient food sources, drinking water and healthy air that every living species on this planet requires to sustain itself.

So get one of those life’s Ms. Saul and all of you that thought she and others who parrot this half-truth knew what they were talking about. Join the majority of people who believe man-made global warming that impacts climate change is nothing to mock, like RMoney Romney did at the Republican National Convention just a few short months ago.

I wonder if those people laughing at Romney’s shallowness in this video are laughing now at those people on the East coast that have recently suffered immense property damage and the death of a loved one from one of the worst natural disasters in our history? A natural disaster that was made worse from higher than natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that has resulted from burning oil, coal and natural gas. This imbalance has warmed the planet at unnatural rates and in so doing has rapidly enhanced ice melts in Greenland and the Arctic that elevated sea levels along the East coast and generated warmer ocean waters to make Sandy the ‘Frankenstorm” it became.

Will Romney and those who follow him realize too late that by helping us and our families requires something more than knowing how to invest other people’s capital and making yourself rich? Jobs will be the least of our children’s worries as they try to deal with water and food shortages and the inundation of climate change refugees.

Science Denial and Andrea Saul -Romney 2012 Campaign Spokesperson

Posted by lbwoodgate in Climate Science/Global Warming Tags: Clean Air Act, Climate change, climate deniers, climate skeptics, Fossil fuel, frankenstorms, hurricane sandy, increasing natural disasters, man-made global warming, Mitt Romney

14 comments

Do Political Leaders Need To Pass a Mental Health Test Before Becoming Eligible for Public Office?

August 8, 2012

In my fantasy world every politician would have to demonstrate normal cognitive skill capabilities before becoming eligible for elective office and rather than picture IDs to vote, certifications of sanity for each voter.

We’ve all heard of the unpretentious ignorance by people who selectively ignore the facts to support an idea that serves a subjective purpose for them. “Don’t bother me with the facts. I’ve already made up my mind” is often the expression that comes to mind when we hear of such people. And though we may chuckle at this, there are also chills that go up one’s spine when realized that this is played out everyday. It’s a little spooky to realize that this is likely occurring at a mildly effectual level in the general public only. But when it seems common place in the leadership positions of this country, it becomes downright frightening to realize that critical decisions that will seriously impact our lives have been and are being made by people whose cognitive skills are apparently damaged or may have never fully developed. At least not in all ranges.

Cognitive abilities are the brain-based skills we need to carry out any task from the simplest to the most complex. They have more to do with the mechanisms of how we learn, remember, problem-solve, and pay attention rather than with any actual knowledge. Any task can be broken down into the different cognitive skills or functions needed to complete that task successfully. SOURCE

Among the cognitive abilities the brain is capable of producing are what Dr. Pascale Michelon calls Executive Functions. Some of the characteristics of Executive functions are Anticipation: prediction based on pattern recognition; Decision making: the ability to make decisions based on problem-solving, on incomplete information and on emotions (ours and others’); and Inhibition: the ability to withstand distraction, and internal urges.

These characteristics, when properly functioning should allow individuals to recognize problems arising from clear and consistent patterns, utilize the available data at their disposal to offer viable solutions to confront the issue, and finally be able not to be distracted from lesser or inconsequential influences that don’t compute with the overall analysis.

In other words, if your brain is healthy and functioning as it was designed, you’re not going to circumvent the natural path that these skills lay out for you and decide that you “don’t believe that’s correct.” To do such a thing could indicate that there is perhaps some malfunctioning going on with your brain’s ability to properly sequence events in the order that a healthy brain would.

It will probably come as no surprise to you to find out that more than a few congressional leaders are making decisions that appear to be occurring with a weak set of cognitive skills. One current example is that of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama.

The Koch Brothers continue to use their oil wealth to fund campaigns, front groups, think tanks, and politicians to sabotage climate and clean energy policies.

The climate deniers in Congress, almost exclusively made up of Republicans, had some recent hearings on the subject of climate change. The oil-industry lackeys on the Senate’s Environmental and Public Works Committee, including minority Chairperson James Inhofe of Oklahoma and fellow climate denier Jeff Sessions of Alabama, were on their game and brought in one of the handful of real climate scientists who is actually a certified climatologists, unlike all those “thousands of other scientists” that skeptics refer to as proof that there is no consensus about man-made global warming. A notion that has been adequately debunked.

One of the top witnesses called by the Republicans was Dr. John Christy. His full written testimony can be viewed here.

Indeed, a significant portion of the discussion was dominated by debate over Dr. John Christy’s particular brand of denialism, a well-trod debate.

Nonetheless, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) was more than surprised when informed by Senator Barbara Boxer that roughly 98 percent of climate scientists, contra Christy, accepted that anthropogenic warming was real and serious — he was outraged:

Sessions: Madam Chairman, I am offended by that, I’m offended by that — I didn’t say anything about the scientists. I said the data shows [sic] it is not warming to the degree that a lot of people predicted, not close to that much…

Boxer: The conclusion that you’re coming to is shared by 1-2 percent of the scientists. You shouldn’t be offended by that. That’s the fact.

Sessions: I don’t believe that’s correct.

SOURCE

The fact that the preponderance of actual climatologist do not concur with Dr. John Christy’s assessment of extreme events and their relationship with human-caused climate change disasters is deemed to be incorrect by Jeff Sessions. Sessions doesn’t produce anything a logical person with fully functioning cognitive skills would consider as evidence to produce this view. He simply passes off all of the testimony from the almost exclusive peer-reviewed literature that has isolated John Christy and the other few men like Richard Lindzen who keep insisting, not that global warming is occurring but that there is still inconclusive evidence that shows a strong correlation between global warming and human activities.

Let’s see how Sessions’ response - “I don’t believe that’s correct” – measures up to someone whose cognitive skills in the areas I mentioned above may be deficient.

Anticipation: prediction based on pattern recognition. Over the last 10 years there have been some clear climate patterns that have produced record droughts, flooding and ice melts in glaciers and polar caps. This should raise some concern with even the least scientific amongst us. If there weren’t alarms being sounded by people who study this phenomena, known as climatologists, it could be passed off as nothing we haven’t seen before over time. But once the alarms have been raised and a clearer picture shows the degree by which we have experienced these patterns increasing, then our anticipation capabilities should become more heightened, not remain in neutral or even become dormant.
Decision making: the ability to make decisions based on problem-solving, on incomplete information and on emotions (ours and others’). With the increasing evidence laid out by the preponderance of climate scientists that man-made global warming is real, a healthy normal reaction would be to bring in the experts who share this view and arrange a system by which all the expertise can be made available to allow the greatest efficiency for potential problem solving. The fact that absolutes are not primarily present shouldn’t offset the need to expect the worst. The overreactions by some should not be viewed unworthy and tossed out in an integral plan to prepare for the worst scene scenario. Caution, not dismissiveness, should be employed with emotional responses and incomplete information.
Inhibition: the ability to withstand distraction, and internal urges. As the science of climate change has evolved it has always pointed a finger at our growing use of fossil fuels contributing to the accelerated rates of CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing the green house effect. The fossil fuel industry has clearly waged a war against this view. Not from any authority on their own but, in the early stages at least, on the reliance of a few scientists they paid to find any evidence that would question the rising tide of peer-reviewed studies that concluded man-made CO2 was likely have negative consequences on our biosphere. Once the greatest share of these challenges were reasonably debunked, this distraction should not carry equal or greater weight in determining what policy actions we and our government should take.

Even if Mad Hatter Sessions had an extra set of eyes would he still be unable to see the signs of man-made climate change?

Sessions has apparently lost the cognitive abilities of prediction based on pattern recognition and allows his decision-making skills to be unduly influenced from the distractions and internal urges he harbors about the funding he receives from the fossil fuel industry. The oil and gas industry are among the top 10 donors to Sessions re-election campaign. I’m not sure how else to assess such a mindless response like “I don’t believe that’s correct” in face of the overwhelming evidence that says it is correct.

The people of this country have a right to know that the health of their leaders is sound and will not inhibit their ability to function at the highest level of efficiency. Though no laws exists that I am aware of demanding a physical health exam be made public for each candidate, the tradition to do so has been there by some to allay any fears voters may have. Might it not now be a good idea in this era of fringe politics to also inquire of and expect a report on the soundness of a candidate’s mental health as it relates to cognitive skills. Voters need to know that a modicum of common sense will be entertained by their representatives when critical decisions are under review?

RELATED MATERIAL

Climate Gate Sacks Hack Attack Part 1 Video asks and answers the question, “Are people really that stupid”?

The 8 Minute Epoch: 65 Million Years with James Hansen

19th Century thinking on pollution is alive and well today

Beware of false balance: Are the views of the scientific community accurately portrayed?

Posted by lbwoodgate in Climate Science/Global Warming Tags: climate deniers in congress, climate skeptics, cognitive skills, Executive Function, Global warming, Jeff Sessions, John Christy, no political will, Republicans, Senate’s Environmental and Public Works Committee

10 comments

Defining What A “Hoax” Is So Even Senator Inhofe Can Understand the Difference

April 2, 2012

Senator Inhofe displays his response to the question that asks how many facts are in his new book “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future”

A hoax is something that is intended to deceive or defraud people. This implies that plans were made and strategies were laid out by an individual or a select group of people to carry out this hoax. Financial rewards are often an expected outcome. Hoaxes are “distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment or rumors and urban legends that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes”.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has gained much notoriety by all sides of the global warming issues since referring to this impending threat to the planet as a “hoax”. He first made his conjecture public on the floor of the U.S. Senate back on July 28th, 2003. He was quite verbose and for those who share views with Inhofe on who their enemies are, he might even have appeared to know what he was talking about.

But he isn’t even out of the starting gates with his assault on climate change proponents before he exposes himself as nothing more than a conspiracy theorists, or worse – a hoaxer himself . He appears to be the voice of calm and reason as he informs us that, “Too often emotion, stoked by irresponsible rhetoric, rather than facts based on objective science, shapes the contour of environmental policy.” But this is all a facade.

Irresponsible rhetoric punctuates the man’s entire speech from his erroneous claim that NASA’s finding back in 1992 dismissed the existence of an ozone hole in our stratosphere to the belief that there is “overwhelming evidence” by those who say global warming poses no grave harm to the planet. Not only was there an ozone hole back in 1992 but the physical evidence of one today from newer technology has been validated by a new study led by NASA. And contrary to Inhofe’s views that more people say global warming doesn’t pose a threat or that humans contribute to it, there is now not only an “overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it”, but this consensus is growing by leaps and bounds.

But one of the indicators that marks those people who attempt to blow smoke up the asses of other people is their frequent vilification of others. I have yet to find any source truly reliable that hasn’t demonized and denigrated their adversaries throughout their public challenges. Employing this tactic helps set unrealistic expectations as it conceals a failure to present documented data relevant to the narrative.

Recall also that our definition of a hoax points out that they are “distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment”. There has to be willful intent “to deceive or defraud people”. Inhofe’s allegations to support a hoax do not stand up to this criteria, even remotely and his frequent use of disparaging remarks toward “alarmist and lunatic environmental extremists” is apparent throughout his Senate speech.

Was Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector back in 2003, sounding “both ridiculous and alarmist” as Inhofe alleged then following Blix’s comments earlier that year that expressed his concern about being “more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict”? Was it really “sheer lunacy” as Inhofe saw it when Science writer David Appel shared Blix’s concern, stating in an article that “[global warming] would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of chaos of the global wars of the 20th century, and so in this sense Blix is right to be concerned. Sounds like a weapon of mass destruction to me”?

When it was pointed out to Inhofe in an interview while in Copenhagen back in February 2010 that the Pentagon had identified climate change as one of the biggest threats to our national security, Inhofe put his foot in his mouth and retorted that the Pentagon made no such claim. He was then informed that the DoD’s Quadrennial Defense Review stated, amongst other things, that:

“climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. … While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.” SOURCE

But the kicker for me is where Inhofe has to now shamefully admit that his intent to use only facts based on objective science to form policy lacks any credibility following his comments in an interview with the Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason. Earlier this year he appeared on that program to promote his new book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. He tells Eliason that global warming, a scientific theory, is disputed by a subjective religious view he finds in the Bible’s Genesis 8:22

Inhofe: Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. Source

Image of BP oil spill from outer space. Can man’s actions change the environment?

Now try as they may to both incorporate science into their theological views (i.e., Creationism) while simultaneously denouncing science as Satan’s tool, most people within Christianity would not be inclined to view the Book of Genesis as “objective science”. It is a part of their faith system that they say they don’t have to account for its veracity through the scientific method. Faith alone is all that they need to sustain them.

Yet here’s James Inhofe who, when heading the Committee on Environment and Public Works back in 2003, affirmed that the decisions his committee makes, because they “have wide-reaching impacts, influencing the health and security of every American” would have three guiding principles, where using “the most objective science” heads the list. Suffice it to say that neither of the other two guiding principles employed the use of scripture to help establish policy.

So, Mr. Inhofe. A true hoax is more like what you’re doing to sell your book and curry favor with the oil and gas companies who faithfully and generously contribute to your political campaigns. By claiming to battle an alleged hoax you have exposed yourself to the criticism you have set for yourself in your own comments.

By using the Bible in a cheap attempt to validate a scientific proposition, it seems only fair that we should use a verse from scripture to describe you. I think Micah 2:11 fits neatly here. “If a liar and deceiver comes and says, ‘I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,’ he would be just the prophet for this people!” “This people” being those who bankroll and re-elect you.

Are the uninformed and undereducated getting duped by climate deniers?

Posted by lbwoodgate in Climate Science/Global Warming Tags: climate deniers, climate skeptics, Global warming, global warming hoax, inhofe's ties to big oil, man-made global warming, NASA, Pentagon, Senator James Inhofe

9 comments

Tag Archives: climate skeptics

The Prevarication Model On Climate Change In the Romney Camp

“The best things carried to excess are wrong” - Winston Churchill

According to a statement made by Mitt Romney’s campaign press secretary, Andrea Saul back in July of last year.

“Gov. Romney does not think greenhouse gases are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and he does not believe that the EPA should be regulating them … CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Humans emit it every time they exhale.” (emphasis mine) SOURCE

If there is no need to worry about CO2 then we clearly don’t need trees, flowers, wild grasses and other flora that take this toxic CO2 and regurgitate it into healthy oxygen necessary for all life on this tiny blue dot.

Remember how all of this was explained to us in grade school?

As long as there are the natural (or “God-given” if you prefer) capabilities to convert this seemingly harmless CO2 into a more life friendly molecule, there is no reason to be concerned.

Do Political Leaders Need To Pass a Mental Health Test Before Becoming Eligible for Public Office?

Defining What A “Hoax” Is So Even Senator Inhofe Can Understand the Difference

Search Blog Content

America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians

Bet on solar power

What I have written recently

Blogroll

Archives

Follow “Woodgate's View”