Skip to main content

Pennsylvania Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey continues to prove his disconnect from reality. On climate change, he'd already joined the club of Republicans against science, and he's standing firm. Greg Sargent:

Here's the exchange, at around the 15 minute mark of the  interview on WTIF radio:

QUESTIONER: I have a question about global warming and what Toomey's position is on that and what he believes is going on there.

TOOMEY: My view is, I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it's clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated. If we go down the road of legislation like this cap and trade bill...

Right, but who, exactly, is doing the disputing and the debating here?

Once again, a joint statement (pdf) by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research:

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. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment.

The scientists don't dispute it or debate it. Toomey, like all of this year's GOP Senate nominees, is in a debate with reality. And it's only our collective future that's at stake.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:00 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Toomey is an ass... (7+ / 0-)

    a very wealthy ass, but an ass just the same.

    Sestak will beat his assinine self.

    "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine

    by third Party please on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:05:22 AM PDT

    •  And here in PA, we get Anti Sestak ads non stop (4+ / 0-)

      Last night, there were 3 in a row...then 10 minutes later, 2 more...changed the channel....3 more anti Sestak ads...
      And none of them are paid for or sponsored by Toomey; they are Chamber of Commerce, NRA, Club for Growth, some new group called 60 plus, and on and on...groups whom I have never heard of.

      But Chamber of Commerce has been running anti Sestak ads since June.  

      Toomey does not even have to spend money on ads, these groups are all running ads.

      •  what do you expect? (0+ / 0-)

        the ruling class, corporations and rich people are annoyed at you for trying to even suggest that you have a say in how they operate.  Now you know what power is and why they never were really worried because the dems never  built a grassroots movement with any teeth.  They just depended on a little Obama celebrity which was a fad.  They knew they had the Tim Geithers and larry Summers in their pockets.  His organizing was for one thing -- get enough money for his campaign people who demand their cut.  They did get it thanks to you,  and now they are working for others and the cycle repeats.  Remember almost every dollar you spend in this so called grassroots organizing here and other progressive blogs goes to the democratic industrial political complex... the Republicans love to spend that money but their real strength is they are still spending on grassroots too.  We spend nearly nothing on grassroots paid help and centers.  We have no grassroots machine and therefore the coporations are glad to give the Repuplican Political Industrial Complex lots of money too. It's just a little insurance to make sure you know who is boss. Karl Rove is a very wealthy man on all this stuff.  You my friend are barking up the wrong tree.  You should have been organizing and demanding the Dems pay you for your work at organizing and the fact that your forgot to demand money for organizers is the reason that commercials are now your only option.  And guess what -- you don't have enough money to buy that kind of coverage. Do you control the Democratic Party?  No  and 99% of those who post on these blogs are just talkers and have no power except you think sending money to some West Virginian to shoot a gun at a cap and trade bill will somehow keep you in the game.  

        Pass new laws to end media monopolization now.

        by john from vermont on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 08:05:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How is Sestak going to beat his ass? (0+ / 0-)

      Toomey is way ahead in the polls.

      A guilty conscience never feels secure.

      by Flyswatterbanjo on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:36:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, it does not look good. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Flyswatterbanjo, shanesnana

        Toomey's lead seems to be holding up as we approach the closing days of the race, even as Sestak begins his ad barrage.  If he wins it will be a real stunner, as he will be the most conservative Senator the state has elected in decades.

        From RealClearPolitics
        Toomey will be another Santorum at best and I can't think of what could be worse.

        "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine

        by third Party please on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 07:00:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  And Toomey "did not believe the data" (14+ / 0-)

    on real income for Americans either.

       Mr. Toomey says he favors making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for all Americans — which would add $700 billion more to the deficit over 10 years than the plan advocated by President Obama to let the lower rates expire for the rich. But he also expresses a desire to reduce the deficit.

       At the ironworks shop, Mr. Toomey brushed aside a question from a local reporter who pointed out that real income for American workers dropped after the Bush tax cuts, saying he did not believe the data.

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    He doesn't believe it because it doesn't fit his narrative.

    Disclosure: I'm working as an unpaid citizen journalist covering the Sestak campaign/ PA Sen. race for Huffington Post's "Eyes and Ears 2010" project

    by joanneleon on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:06:17 AM PDT

  •  It's not the science...it's the money (10+ / 0-)

    Cap and trade.  Cap and tax, as the Alaskan Grifter likes to call it.  It's going to cost the Koch brothers money....and lots of it since they are the pigs in the businesses that cause all the damage.  So, Toomey and his like-minded friends will admit the science of climate change (and sound somewhat reasonable to their base), but when it comes to paying to stop it.....no way.

    •  cigarettes (8+ / 0-)

      This is deja vu all over again--remember when they said there was no proof that cigarettes caused health issues?  Money talks and many Americans are unbelievably gullible.

      Apres Bush, le deluge.

      by melvynny on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:22:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. Money, money, money. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, shanesnana

      The new conservative meme that GW is happening but the cause is "debatable" is a sideshow for their gullible supporters.

      It's like saying, "Well, that forest fire that's about to burn down those homes was started by natural causes, so we won't do anything to put it out or save the home.

      The military -- which the conservatives purport to worship -- is way past the debate stage and is taking active steps to deal with the consequences of (real) climate change.  After all, says Rear Admiral David Titley, the Navy cares that old arctic ice has melted much faster than new ice can replace it because, "Well, we tend to build our bases at sea level."  

      I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B Anthony

      by NoMoJoe on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 07:45:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans make their own reality (11+ / 0-)

    They're not constrained by mere facts or overwhelming scientific conclusion.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:06:58 AM PDT

  •  two words for these denier idiots (8+ / 0-)

    carbon sink

    ain't nuthin' but humans deforesting the planet.

    so QEfuckin'D and shit.

    Die with your boots on. Gonna try? Well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

    by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:07:18 AM PDT

  •  Toomey was a Wall Street derivatives trader (10+ / 0-)

    Actively engaging in one of the very practices that caused the financial crisis should be enough to disqualify ANYONE from holding public office.

    Go to hell, Toomey, and take your Wall Street bankster mob buddies with you.

  •  Any time I read something like this... (6+ / 0-)

    My view is, I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it's clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear.

    I want to ask a few follow-up questions.  Okay, you say you've seen that the "data is pretty clear."  What data did you see?  What convinced you that surface temperatures are increasing?  As for your second conclusion, what lead you to that opinion?  Was it a conclusion you made on facts, or is it just regurgitating someone else's opinion?

  •  I read that as 'WTF' radio. (6+ / 0-)

    Quite apropos.

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:16:08 AM PDT

  •  the other side (0+ / 0-)

    Are there any recognized scientific bodies that question climate change?  It's impressive to see the list of organizations in the joint statement, I was just wondering did any group refuse to join in?

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:19:34 AM PDT

  •  It's not just the Toomey's of the world... (6+ / 0-)

    The MSM constantly reinforces the narrative that there is some sort of heated scientific "debate."  

    There is no fucking debate.  Gravity exists. The Earth is round. Evolution is fact. GW is caused by humans.

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:22:55 AM PDT

  •  Toomey opposes the minimum wage (5+ / 0-)

    and thinks that corporations should not have to pay any taxes

    Winning Progressive - When Progressives Vote, Everyone Wins

    by Winning Progressive on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:23:42 AM PDT

  •  You do know that the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    American Society For Plant Biologists represent these:

    Plants are living organisms belonging to the kingdom Plantae. They include familiar organisms such as trees, herbs, bushes, grasses, vines, ferns, mosses, and green algae. The scientific study of plants, known as botany, has identified about 350,000 extant species of plants, defined as seed plants, bryophytes, ferns and fern allies. As of 2004, some 287,655 species had been identified, of which 258,650 are flowering and 18,000 bryophytes (see table below). Green plants, sometimes called Viridiplantae, obtain most of their energy from sunlight via a process called photosynthesis.

    They aren't even Americans! Plants are from the Kingdom of Plantae! C'mon! I don't care about these weird beings or their Photosynthesis magic! In fact, it should be outlawed! Lord knows what Photosynthesis can lead to!

  •  So what heat is causing the ice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    to melt. If it isn't human activity what is it?

    You can't live with blinders on. Let's send all the deniers to the desert. When they come beggin' for water we can just shoot them. Harsh, but sorry it is time to eliminate certain gene pools.....

    Vote 11.2.10 the penalty for refusing to participate in politics you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato

    by coffejoe on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:25:13 AM PDT

  •  The zombie infection (5+ / 0-)

    is a powerful thing to fight.  Poor Toomey must have been bitten, and is joining the mindless march off the cliff of climate denial.  

    The only way to fight a zombie infection is to fight it, aggressively.  Every time a leadership-type figure or candidate makes up science, it should be a scandal, an outrage, an opening for a morally righteous Dem to declare that we don't run away from the Big Fights.  

  •  Sestak should come back at him (6+ / 0-)

    with all the urgency of DoD's energy assessment itself as well as in the global community. Conservatives in England, France & Germany uphold cap & trade as the most reasonable means of countering the climate crisis.

    Toomey should be exposed as an idiot for the oil megalopoly in vitriol that we have not seen since Lieberman heinously blocked Medicare buy-ins.

    Pennsylvania residents are not undecided at all on the problems of unbridled oil and fracking gas ventures in particular that pollute their water, and they are vastly in favor of regulation.

    Cap and trade is our only hope for sanity. Sestak should use the opportunity to portray Toomey as an oil whore unfit to lead.

  •  Scientists Are a Special Interest Group (3+ / 0-)

    As are the occupants generally, both of whom are too far left of the adults in both parties.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:29:24 AM PDT

  •  Okay, even if you believe it's not clear... (4+ / 0-)

    ... as to whether or not global warming was caused by human activity - why wouldn't you want to monitor temperatures as we reduced carbon for scientific testing? Seems pretty clear cut to me that a prudent course of action would be to at least make sure we're not the cause.

    On another note, I think Toomey killed Woodsy Owl.

    hink

    Hyperbole will be the death of us all!

    by MrHinkyDink on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:33:20 AM PDT

  •  There are many credible scientists (0+ / 0-)
    that do not agree that man is causing AGW. There are many scientists within the groups that you just referenced that do not agree. I think Dr. Harold Lewis sums it up well in his resignation letter to the APS, whici I am a member of.  

    Dear Curt:
    When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence--it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

    How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

    1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

    2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

    3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

    4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind--simply to bring the subject into the open.<

    5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

    6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

    APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

    I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

    I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
    Hal

    Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
    Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

    •  If by "many" you mean the ones (6+ / 0-)

      bought and paid for by Big Oil - yeah you'll find some.

      Other than that, not so many.

      •  That is an old meme. (0+ / 0-)
      •  Another tirck in play as well. Most of these (3+ / 0-)

        high profile scientist deniers, whether in climate or evolution, are not experts in the field. To most of our scientifically illiterate population "scientist" is interchangeable and a physicist=chemist=biologist=climatologist. That is true only to a very limited extent and be illustrated by a medical analogy.

        One would be very unlikely to accept a brain surgeon as the one to do very delicate work on a fractured spine or a spinal orthopedist to do very delicate brain surgery. One might be quite comfortable with both sitting on a panel dealing with operating room conditions or general medical ethics.

        Thus, a specialist in one field such as Lewis might well be acceptable in peer review of the general adherence to scientific practices while absolutely unacceptable as a peer reviewing data outside his field of expertise. An argument he might make on a pure physics aspects, certain details of heat transfer as an example, would also be acceptable in scientific peer review. He would not be a "peer" in aspects outside pure physics. He is no more qualified to be a peer in atmospheric or ocean science than would one of those specialist be in Lewis' explicit field in physics--or a brain surgeon=spinal orthopedist. I emphasize "peer" explicitly because I am sure back in the days Lewis would have screamed bloody murder if one of his physics papers had been peer reviewed by a scientist well outside that field of expertise in the matters of the physics of the paper.

        A somewhat interesting aspect of these out of specialty deniers is age. "Emeritus" and last quartile numbers often appear with their qualifications. This introduction to "The Traveling Salesmen of Climate Skepticism" in Spiegel Online is telling:

        A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action.

        With his sonorous voice, Fred Singer, 86, sounded like a grandfather explaining the obvious to a dim-witted child. "Nature, not human activity, rules the climate," the American physicist told a discussion attended by members of the German parliament for the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) three weeks ago.

        Whether this is symptomatic of senility, an eagerness many of us "oldsters" have to "be in there" and be recognized or just a leftover from days of their youth when science was much more "general" who knows. What is evident is that they swim against current peer reviewed science and fall into bed with political and corporate special interests as mouthpieces of denial to a gullible public.

        People, such as the one you reply to, are part of that game and I highly doubt they would accept being wheeled into OR to go under the knife of a world class orthopedist for removal of a tricky brain tumor. Then I might be wrong about that. I suggest they give it a try to demonstrate their belief in specialty equivalence.

        The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

        by pelagicray on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 07:20:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You say many credible scientists do not believe (7+ / 0-)

      that it is caused by man.  Really ?
      And then you quoted this man who said...

      It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist

      Really? Are you serious ?

      •  If nothing else this is good for a good (3+ / 0-)

        chuckle:

        the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it

        You know, if "scam" was left out of that sentence, it'd wouldn't be that far off the mark . . .

        But with "scam" - geez, trillions of dollars?  I'd like to see an itemized breakdown of that!

        As someone else pointed out just above, the guy most likely *is* senile to have written something that bizarre - or maybe somebody stole his password and is just writing nonsense to discredit him.

    •  well, if the icecaps aren't still melting (4+ / 0-)

      and the glaciers haven't disappeared from Glacier National Park in 20 years (oops, they'll be gone much sooner than then), then I'll give your side's ideas credence.

      russia ablaze. pakistan afloat.greenland aslush. gibbs doesn't matter.

      by terrypinder on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:59:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  uh huh (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis, buzzybodhi

      Scientists who know whereof they speak endorse AGW:

      Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

      A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:

         (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[94]

      For more on Harold Lewis's statement, see Climate Progress's takedown.

      Lewis doesn't understand the basics of climate science. He has stated:

      I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help

      ... which belies a remarkable ignorance. Most climate scientists would say the climate has been basically stable for that period, and, further, that there was planetary cooling around 1650 or so.

      Mr. Lewis may be great in his field, but he needs to inform himself before taking up climate change.

      APS says this on the topic:

      Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

      The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

      Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 07:59:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well bullshit! (3+ / 0-)

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research are just part of that little "closed network of friends" supporting climate change experts Joe Barton speaks of in his letter today to the Washington Post.

    Those scientific peers, involved in "peer review" are nothing more than a cabal of buddies conspiring for ill according to Barton, Cuccinelli and Toomey.

    Here is my suggestion for them. Next time they find themselves in a medical emergency, any life threatening emergency, lets question the surgeons, rescue teams and demand they open their decision process on how to save these worthless asses to a forum of idiots. I'll be more than happy to toss in my demand that open heart surgery requires a hatchet or that blood clots in the brain are benign.

    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

    by pelagicray on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:43:41 AM PDT

  •  Pa is really going to have regrets (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, Matt Z, judyms9

    Hard to believe that this idiot is going to be in the senate. I think he will be a one term nightmare for Pa. This guy is totally against the working man but they will vote him in. Where is the logic?

  •  Don't forget their role model (4+ / 0-)

    Tobacco denial. The idea is to string this out long enough that the eventual remedies are insignificant to their profits.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:47:16 AM PDT

    •  These are good examples. It might be good to have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      a documented list of cases in the past where people denied science to push for their own ideas - sun revolves around the earth, e.g.

      •  And explore the reason why (0+ / 0-)

        We all know about Galileo running afoul of the Pope - but he also got zero support from his fellow scientists, because his methods threatened their positions.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 07:51:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  and Toomey is actually one of the more (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, charliehall2

    sane candidates they've fielded this year.

    russia ablaze. pakistan afloat.greenland aslush. gibbs doesn't matter.

    by terrypinder on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:57:24 AM PDT

    •  Bullshite! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, shanesnana

      He is probably the most dangerous and loony of them all.  He's just pretending to be a moderate and has his corporate buddies trying to buy the election for him.  I suspect he's running the most expensive Senate campaign this cycle when you factor in the third party spending.  

      Grassroot passion comes and goes - Corporate interest in consistent. Message being that if you want to stay elected then sell-out, it's safer.

      by Jonze on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 07:31:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In looking at his 2004 run (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        charliehall2

        his record in Congress, and his current run, he doesn't have the religious lunacy that many of the rest of them have. It is certainly true that his sole purpose is to end government, period, but by and large he's not that insane. If he is, he's been keeping it successfully quiet for a very long time.

        russia ablaze. pakistan afloat.greenland aslush. gibbs doesn't matter.

        by terrypinder on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 07:41:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Of course global warming is debatable. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, mightymouse

    I mean, it's only all the world's scientists that are saying global warming is real and man-made. Where are all the other voices? What do the laypeople think? After all, we need to hear all sides of the debate...

  •  Hard for me to believe it (3+ / 0-)

    Toomey is the right-winger from hell - zero corporate taxation, against the minimum wage, anti-labor, anti-choice, wants to privatize (read "abolish") social security, championed the very deregulation that was a major factor in bringing our economy to the brink of a depression while in Congress, was making a killing on Wall Street while our guy was defending the nation from terrorists....it goes on and on.

    Yet despite all of this - Toomey seems to be on the verge of being elected to the US Senate...unreal.

    I am left with the feeling that that PA voters must be stone-cold stupid - or something.

    I've been volunteering some 20 plus hours a week - phone banking, canvassing, even handing out literature in front of community centers and libraries on my own....here in Philadelphia which is key to getting Sestak elected....

    Please help.

    TJ

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site