Josh Marshall On Those Science Hating Republicans

This new item front-paged at TPM just now is something of a head scratcher. See today's relevant headlines via Memeorandum. Either Marshall believes the best defense is a good weak offense, or his brain is melting down faster than an ice flow in the South Pacific.

There's been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing. I think that trend is fairly classed under the general heading of Republican/conservative hostility to science.

Much deserved and now proved valuable skepticism is not hate. The alleged scientists pushing this weak science have never even addressed prudent skepticism, now we know that they can't due to their own actions. Marshall's suggestion is untimely, at best. And incredibly blinded by his own political bias, under the best of circumstances.

Comments

[Bob]

"And incredibly blinded by his own political bias, under the best of circumstances."

A person has to wonder, then, what it is that global warming denialists find so compelling about their own side's arguments. Certainly it can't be that their "data" is coming from the majority of experts in the scientific community. Global warming denialism represents a tiny constituency in the scientific community. People who think that global warming is a real phenomenon are going with the majority of data from the majority of experts in the field. Isn't it much more likely that those who inexplicably chose the tiny minority side of the debate -- the side that just happens to coincide with the wishes of industrialists with vested interests -- are the ones who base their choice on political bias? Yes, of course it is, and everyone knows it. Global warming denialists are shills for industry, and the fury of their rhetoric is supposed to cover up this painfully obvious fact.

[Lala]

Like these industrialists with vested interests?

Companies such as Starbucks, Levi Strauss and Company and Nike are members of the Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy -- a group that supports aggressive federal laws to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and limits on construction of coal-fired power plants.

General Electric, BP, Shell and Johnson & Johnson are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership - a lobbying group comprised of corporations and environmental special interest groups that have been active in supporting cap-and-trade legislation.

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-not-emails.html

[Earl T]

Uh...Bob, just what planet are you on and talikng about? Global warming skeptic/scientists have always outnumbered the pro-AGW folks. But then, you'd have to stop reading omly the LSM, the Huffies and the Koz-Kids to learn that truth!

Go get a life, read some actual factual data, then come back with a rational thought, I'll settle for but one from the likes of you---that drivel you posted is so far from reality, it seems a parody.

[The Conservative Gazette]

Hey Bob, what about sleazy eco politicians like Gore who have profited millions over this hoax? Even O-Bow-Ma's science czar is involved in the scam.

http://conservativegazette.com/climategate-drama-now-includes-obamas-science-czar

[Gary Maxwell]

Fiddle with the data and hardwire the model to generate the desired result regardless of the data and then lie, withhold data, block other's from publishing anything that does not parrot the accepted wisdom, I could go on and on BOOB. But what would be the point of all of the above, if the facts and all all the experts were just as you say? In other words, smart guy, tells us why behaviour that looks like fraud and a coverup and stonewalling, is consistent with your view that everything supports the warmists.

And please tell me where to go get my check now, as it seems I have been left off the industry payroll.

[Lala]

Jim Treacher has a funny post up. It almost sounds like he's talking to Bob

http://jimtreacher.com/archives/002138.html

[North Dallas Thirty]

Actually, paid whore Bob, your side doesn't have any data. You threw it all away.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

[Bob]

"Companies such as Starbucks, Levi Strauss and Company and Nike are members of the Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy . . ."

I never said that ALL industries EVERYWHERE denied global warming. It's the ones with vested interests in the status quo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

"In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum[25] written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." As part of a US$ 5,000,000 strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," the document mentioned:

A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, [which] would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited expressly "to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"

[Bob]

"Uh...Bob, just what planet are you on and talikng about? Global warming skeptic/scientists have always outnumbered the pro-AGW folks. But then, you'd have to stop reading omly the LSM, the Huffies and the Koz-Kids to learn that truth!"

You have no proof for this dubious statement. You just made that up, didn't you?

[Jim Treacher]

Bob is going for the record for Most Logical Fallacies in a Single Comment, isn't he?

[Bob]

"Bob is going for the record for Most Logical Fallacies in a Single Comment, isn't he?"

Such as?

[Jim Treacher]

"Such as?"

You're adorable.

[Bob]

""Such as?"

You're adorable."

Jesus, Jim. That's some weak rhetoric you've got there. Were you trying to prove something? It looks like you're just dicking around.

[Darth Venomous]

"You have no proof for this dubious statement. You just made that up, didn't you?"

We have all the proof we need to expose you for the dumbass you are: Your own words.

Now _dance_, beeyotch! (guffaw)

[fischölkapseln]

The views and the opinion on the republications of the Science reforms are on the hand of the John Marshall.I agree that there's been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing.Global warming scenario is created by the man.The science has been the boon or considered as the ethics for the environment.The ratio of Hating is increases the Global Warming is the reason for the prime destructions.I want to know more such reasons.

[mark l.]

i feel for you bob.

I've been denying global warming for the past ten years...

btw-I've been right.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

"at the moment"...the past ten years?

so what if the earth maintains, or cools, over the next ten years?

[Jim Treacher]

"Jesus, Jim."

Make up your mind.

[Rich Fader]

I believe global warming ought to be taught in school. Just not in science class.

[Bob]

"Jesus, Jim."

Make up your mind."

So it IS just dicking around, isn't it? All we see from your side are personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations. Your own comments, Jim, are so incoherent that it wouldn't even qualify as an "argument." Apparently you're afraid to go out on a limb and state your beliefs, probably because you realize how weak of a case you have to make. In all of the responses from the right wingers in this thread, not a single person has tried to make a factual rebuttal. It's all petty personal attacks and incoherent snottiness.

[Jim Treacher]

"So it IS just dicking around, isn't it? All we see from your side are personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations. Your own comments, Jim, are so incoherent that it wouldn't even qualify as an 'argument.' Apparently you're afraid to go out on a limb and state your beliefs, probably because you realize how weak of a case you have to make. In all of the responses from the right wingers in this thread, not a single person has tried to make a factual rebuttal. It's all petty personal attacks and incoherent snottiness."

Please, do go on.

[seekeronos]

"--- Actually, paid whore Bob, your side doesn't have any data. You threw it all away. ---"

Methinks that calling Bob a paid whore for the lefties would be stretching things a tad. He is more likely an unpaid slut, who gives tirelessly of his services for nothing but the joy of massaging his oversize sense of (perceived) intelligence.

[Philip McDaniel]

"...not a single person has tried to make a factual rebuttal."
Here's one Bob: "You're certifiably a moron."
Buuhahahahah!

[Bob]

"Here's one Bob: "You're certifiably a moron." Buuhahahahah!"

OK, then I win and you lose, Philip, because none of you apparently have the wherewithal to even attempt to defend your position. When challenged, the "best" that you seem to be able to come up with is juvenile demonstrations of your own stupidity like "Buuhahahahah!" Actually, it should be, "Duuuuuuhhhhh!," because that's really what you're saying. Obama nailed it during the campaign about Republicans: "It's like they're proud to be ignorant."

[Jim Treacher]

Despite the evidence that the climate scientists who are behind the theory of AGW tampered with the data to fit the desired conclusion, tampered with the peer-review process to eliminate their critics, and generally behaved like religious zealots instead of the scientists they're supposed to be, the White House is insisting Climategate doesn't exist.

It's like they're proud to be ignorant.

[Bob]

"Despite the evidence that the climate scientists who are behind the theory of AGW tampered with the data to fit the desired conclusion, tampered with the peer-review process . . ."

The anti-climate-change faction is backed by industries with a vested interest in the issue, and they've gone at their "research" right from the start with a partisan axe to grind. Their stated aim has always been to sow doubt and confusion by picking out certain tidbits of data to criticize, implying that their nit-picking invalidated the entire body of research. It's not honest inquiry, it's propaganda. It's not science, but rather politics. This latest "controversy" follows the same pattern: Pick some isolated set of data to find fault with (however dishonestly), make lots of noise about how unfair the mean stuck-up scientists are to the poor skeptic community and declare that the whole global warming story is a massive fraud. As always, Al Gore has to be dragged in and accused of some kind of ethical breach of conduct because the rubes always love to make fun of Al Gore. And my, isn't the timing of this "controversy" convenient, too. Just days before Obama goes to Copenhagen to talk about regulating carbon emissions. The phoniness of wing nut rhetoric is amazing to behold, and even more amazing that so many rubes like you keep falling for it.

[Philip McDaniel]

Ah...Actually, I sort of misspoke, Bob.
Here's what I meant to say:
"You're certifiably a drooling moron."
Buuhahahahah!

[North Dallas Thirty]

"The anti-climate-change faction is backed by industries with a vested interest in the issue"

But of course, Al Gore isn't going to make a penny off selling "carbon credits", right?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

We keep going over this again and again, Bob. You whine and scream about lobbyists, only to be slapped with how you tongue-bathe Obama over hiring them. That's the whole point of Treacher's comments; your addiction to Obama talking points and complete inability to admit that your liberal heroes might be wrong about anything makes you first a hypocrite, then a nitwit, and now a farce.

[Jim Treacher]

Bob seems to think there's more money behind pointing out there's no proof of AGW than there is in telling us "the science is settled." And of course, he completely ignores the evidence from that CRU leak. He's so cute!

[Bob]

"Bob seems to think there's more money behind pointing out there's no proof of AGW than there is in telling us "the science is settled."

Jim, there's lots of proof for AGW. To claim otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous, or in your case, most likely, both. Here's just a sampling of scientific observations that track with the projections in the earlier IPCC report:

http://www.realclimate.org/

The ice sheets are both losing mass (and hence contributing to sea level rise). This was not certain at the time of the IPCC report.

Arctic sea ice has declined faster than projected by IPCC.

Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to track the upper bounds of IPCC projections.

Observed global temperature changes remain entirely in accord with IPCC projections, i.e. an anthropogenic warming trend of about 0.2 ºC per decade with superimposed short-term natural variability.

Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001.

---------------
The interesting trick is for wing nuts to disregard mountains of such evidence and continue to claim that they respect or understand the scientific process. Apparently they think that personal insults are supposed to substitute for data or insight, or something.