Science

Chris Mooney, author of the bestselling book, The Republican War on Science, responds to Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer's efforts to end U.S. funding for the United Nations' climate change research: 

Time was when I, and many others tracking and critiquing the climate "skeptics," would linger on their manufacture of uncertainty, their sowing and merchandising of doubt. “Doubt is our product,” as the infamous tobacco memo put it....

But that’s not really what you see out there anymore. A decision to defund the IPCC, rather than attack or criticize it, doesn’t bespeak a strategy of doubt-mongering. It signals extreme certainty that one is right, that we don’t even need to consider (skeptically or otherwise) any more new results from climate scientists...

In one of her final newsletters as a State Representative, Cynthia Davis turns her attention to evolution.   And by "turns her attention to evolution," I mean completely demolishes the whole idea.  

Our Planet Earth is Special

The planet Earth is also exceptional because we are the only place in the known universe that can sustain life. Scientists have spent exhaustive amounts of time and money to see if they can find life anywhere else and after searching billions of light years and almost every known galaxy, they have come up with nothing.  For them, if the Earth is the only place they can find life, it also shows there must be a creator because this couldn't just happen.  If evolution had merit, it would be duplicated somewhere else.  If it can't be duplicated then the Earth is exceptional.

Happy Friday. 

Depressing stuff from ThinkProgress: "A comprehensive Wonk Room survey of the Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate finds that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution...Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, only one — Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware — supports climate action. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line."

As you probably know by now, Roy Blunt believes "There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth."

World-renowned scientist Jerry Nolte (R-Gladstone) sponsored a forward-thinking and well-researched resolution last week (HCR 32) calling for Congress to reject any cap-and-trade legislation to reduce climate changing emissions. 

In addition to expressing concern with the modest increases in energy costs that would come from such a system -- costs that would be nowhere near what Republican leaders and their industry allies have promised -- Nolte's resolution follows the lead of Missouri's top climate change denier, Blaine Luetkemeyer, in criticizing the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 Despite months of fearmongering, lies and attempts to muddy the waters on climate change and global warming, there is still very strong support for a cap and trade proposal to reduce global warming emissions:

Six in 10 Americans support a "cap and trade" proposal to cut pollution, according to a new national poll.

Sixty percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say they favor "cap and trade," a Democratic sponsored plan in which the federal government would limit the amount of greenhouse gases that companies could produce in their factories or power plants. Thirty-seven percent oppose the proposal, which would penalize companies that exceed greenhouse gas limits with fines or by making those businesses pay money to other companies that producer smaller amounts of pollution...

Via ClimateProgress, I see there are a slew of organizations that Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer ought to shut down for engaging in "junk science" and "dubious science." 

Yesterday, scientists from 18 organizations sent a letter to the Senate yesterday affirming the climate is changing, human activities are the primary driver, and that "If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced." From their letter (emphasis added):

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

Progressive Media released a new video about the recent batch of corporations chosing to leave the Chamber.

In today's Post-Dispatch, Kit Bond poo-poos all of "the paths laid out thus far" to reduce global warming and climate changing emissions, and suggests that the climate legislation before the Senate right now is only supported by nefarious coastal elites. "This is being pushed, absolutely, by the people of California and the people of New England who don't rely on coal for electricity," he said.

Released yesterday:

Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program.

The new overview of global warming research, aimed at marshaling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year, highlights the extent to which recent scientific assessments have outstripped the predictions issued by the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. [...]

Despite all the scare tactics, misinformation and outright lies, a strong majority of voters in 16 battleground states, including Missouri, support the energy bill being debated right now in the Senate. Politico:

In a poll obtained by POLITICO of likely 2010 voters in 16 states, many of them home to targeted senators, 63% of those sampled said they supported the energy bill while only 30% said they opposed the measure.

Further, 60% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill while just 26% said they’d be less inclined to re-elect their senator for backing the “American Clean Energy and Security Act.”

The liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund commissioned the poll, which was taken by veteran Democratic pollster Joel Benenson, who is also President Barack Obama’s pollster.

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

This may not surprise you, but it looks like Blaine Luetkemeyer used more bad information yesterday to explain his opposition to the proposed cap-and-trade legislation under consideration by the Senate.

First, Luetkemeyer claimed the Waxman-Markey legislation would create "the most insidious tax you will ever find," and said the cap-and-trade legislation would cost "anywhere from $1,800 to $4,000 per family, depending on which [discredited] study you want to look at," which is true enough.  But in reality, the legislation would cost about $175 per household per year, according to the Congressional Budget office.

"Scientists for Truth" kicks off their global warming denying conference in Springfield today, with what's sure to be an enlightening discussion. 

One of the key speakers at the event to take on "climate change myths" is Marc Morano. Believe it or not, Morano was actually the first to publish unfounded claims from Vietnam Swift-boat veterans about John Kerry's military service in 2004.  Morano was also "previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington” as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show." 

What, you thought the "Scientists for Truth" panelists would be interested in truth?  Or truthiness? 

I'm not sure what he can do, but I sure hope esteemed climatologist Blaine Luetkemeyer figures out a way to hide this "junk science" from the public:

The Union of Concerned Scientists reported today that Missouri will encounter hotter summers, heavier downpours and significant challenges to agriculture if something isn’t done about the increase in pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.

By the end of the century, St. Louis could experience more than 100 days each summer with high temperatures above 90 degrees, and almost a month-and-a-half of days over 100 degrees, the scientist group predicted...

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

Blaine Luetkemeyer has been absorbing some well-deserved criticism the past couple of weeks for his efforts to shut down a Nobel Prize-winning climate change research panel at the UN, which he says is "fraught with waste and is engaged in dubious science."  Their science is so dubious, in fact, that Luetkemeyer can't even stoop to reading its research before dismissing it as "junk."

As Fired Up! first reported Wednesday, Blaine Luetkemeyer wants to prohibit United States contributions to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His misguided and misinformed efforts have since been covered by the Post-Dispatch, UN Dispatch and The Grist.

This afternoon, Ben Armbruster of ThinkProgress weighs in:

Far from “junk science,” the IPCC is generally regarded as the world’s top authority on issues of global warming and climate change. The U.S. National Resource Council has praised the IPCC, calling its conclusions “accurate.” The Royal Meteorological Society referred to the IPCC as “the world’s best climate scientists.” In fact, the Nobel Committee seems to think so too, awarding the panel in 2007 with the Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.”

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

The Post-Dispatch has more on the ridiculous press release from Blaine Luetkemeyer we flagged earlier today, in which Blaine calls for the US to cut funding for the United Nation's climate change research panel.

The panel in question, which included hundreds of scientists from more than 100 countries, famously authored a series of reports two years ago concluding that global climate change is “very likely” to have a human cause.

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like