The link between global warming and human activity is now reportedly a 95% certainty:
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, who led the study, said: "This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."
The finding comes as no surprise to climatologists like Dr. James Hansen. "Of course they are right," Hansen said. "The evidence for human-made climate change was already growing when I first started to examine it years ago. It has since become overwhelming."
But tell any of this to the poor misled souls proudly carrying the banner of denial and energy industry water and some will fire back that the earth's been through big changes before and got along just fine. And using the same logic, if you find yourself racing helplessly toward the oncoming grill of a mac truck, relax! Don't panic! The roadway will get through it just fine. But lately a more familiar refrain has been heard:
In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss "the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories," including "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
How exactly cloning is lumped in as a theory is a mystery even the most disingenuous would have a hard time resolving. But for the rest, it's worth reviewing what the terms fact and theory really mean in science.
A scientific fact is an observation or a reasonable inference that follows from an observation. A scientific theory is an explanation which 1) unites facts under an explanatory framework and 2) makes valid testable predictions. Creationism has been rejected as a viable theory suitable to be taught alongside evolution for a number of reasons, not the least of which is it either makes failed predictions -- as in the case of Young Earth creationism -- or meticulously avoids making any testable predictions at all.
Conservatives do have one grand unifying advantage of their own though and it's as predictable as night and day. "Teach the controversy!" is as good an illustration of it as any: they lie their assess off.
There is no substantial scientific controversy on evolution or climate change, just as there's no controversy in general over dozens of other political items outside of science, like the use of reconciliation. But that doesn't stop conservatives from lying every which way about them.
That's one big reason why the GOP is so 'good' at framing. It's not that we're not as savvy, or clever, or that we're too hung up on nuance. Pay attention to the parade of commercials in between the talk show segments today. You'll quickly appreciate that coining catchy slogans and finding ways to elicit a useful, irrational short-term reaction is simply easier when you just make shit up with out any concern for accuracy and honesty. It always will be. But in the long term, really big liars often end up burning out their credibility and making fools of their believers.