" Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can't even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that's on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that - that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth."
That's Michele Bachmann speaking, Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota. She has served up a steady diet of crazy talk ever since the election, for example her bit on Congress needing to do something about "unamerican" members, but this one is eregiously ignorant, even for her. Consider the word "natural", please. The Mount St. Helens eruption was natural, right? But I don't think you wanted to watch it up close. The great Thailand/Indonesia tsunami was natural, and wasn't that a bucket of fun! For that matter, wild grizzly bears are natural, let's go pet one.
Bachmann graduated from Winona State University, and later received her J. D. degree from Oral Roberts Univeristy and a LL.M. degree in tax law from the College of William and Mary. She believes in intelligent design, and is therefore eminently qualified to speak on scientific topics. NOT.
If you have spent alot of time here on gather, you probably are aware that global warming is one of the most painfully controversial topics here, arousing great passions. Seriously, abortion, socialism, gun control, bailouts, none of those can touch it. Along with Steve B and David K and David Evans, I spend a great deal of time and effort trying to raise awareness of the realities of this science based threat to the future existence of humans on this planet. Others who will remain nameless, but who will shortly show up on this thread, are adamantly opposed to the concept of human causation of climate change. That's odd, because there are no peer reviewed science publications that concede any real possibility of anything else being responsible for the observed rise in temperatures over the past 40 years. Even the Fox Channel, at the end of each episode of 24, reminds us that the terrorism scenarios in the TV show are imaginary, but that climate change is real. Seriously, no kidding, the Fox Channel.
Here in Virginia, a recent poll revealed that 76% think global warming is real. That means that the denial crowd is swimming against the current, but they don't give a damn. They are probably going to descend on this thread like a swarm of bees, and there will be talk of sunspots, links to science articles that end up being blogs, and plenty of talk about how CO2 is good for you. Hey, you can breathe C02, sure. You can also drink water, but have you ever tried taking a swim in roaring floodwaters? It's a question of how much and where. We have nearly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and the results are clear. My question today for the denial crowd is simple: are you proud that Michele Bachmann is on your team? Crazy talk is her specialty. She was sure to weigh in on this topic sooner or later, and there was never any doubt which side of the argument she would take.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 34
Seriously? No sh*t? I guess I shouldn't be surprised since Murdoch converted a couple of years ago.
That's amazing-- the propaganda station?
Higher than reported here, which is why the denial crowd continues to spout half-truths, distortions, and lies. It is works to some extent.
Long term, when the Colorado River will lose much of its flow due to the continuing drying of the southwest, more minds will change. We can't wait that long, sadly.
In any case, this past week saw Congressional hearings regarding climate change and possible policies to deal with it. Over four days there was testimony from 54 stakeholders running the gamut from liberal to conservative, business to environmental, regulators to regulated, and one end of the ideology to the other. Testimony came from the heads of some of the major corporations as well as advocacy groups, scientists and policy-makers, consumers and utilities, etc. And in a flash of dueling showmanship it also had Al Gore and Newt Gingrich (which unfortunately will be the only thing that some folks remember).
In short, everyone had a chance to speak their piece. All stakeholders could voice their concerns, their ideas, their objections, and their proposed way forward. Sure there was some grandstanding by Congress (it is no accident that the hearings straddled Earth Day). But the message was clear - there is a consensus on the need to do something. Now the hard part is figuring out what that "something" will look like.
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
As I tell my colleagues, it's all well and good that we all know what's going on, but policy is made in part due to public perception and pressure on policy-makers. If the professional denialists and their lackeys are given free rein to intentionally mislead the public, it makes it difficult for policy-makers to make effective policy.
Keep in mind, Chris, that Virginia is a relatively big state in terms of public opinion (but both are "real" Virginia, in case anyone is confused). The northern part is more liberal, more educated, more urban, and more affluent. The southern part is more rural, more conservative, and more inclined to distrust government. So my guess is the percentages of those who understand climate change is a real problem would be higher closer to DC then south and west of Richmond.
One of the tactics seems to be to create the illusion that opinion or belief matters - as if most folks' "beliefs" about climate change matter. Notice the "challenge", often heard from denialists, that you should "think for yourself", instead of "trusting authority". After all, those "scientific institutions" I frequently mention - none of which dispute the IPCC Reports - are "politically motivated bureaucracies" anyway (or so the denialists would have the public think).
The discouraging long-and-short-of-it is that many, even on Gather, continue to say they don't know what to think about climate change, and don't know that science does.
Finally, please never mention Bachmann in the context of a beauty pageant again. I literally lost my appetite, and I can't seem to get that thought out of my mind....
Sorry Steve, I don't actually know her and was commenting just on the first impression I got from her statement.
(Don't ask me about Ann Coulter, please)
You make an excellent point in your comments Chris. The biggest point against global warming is that people don't want to have to deal with it. It has nothing to do with the science itself, it is the fear of having to sacrifice. Sorry, but the science says what it says. Policy-makers and the public then must take responsibility for determining the best policy for the path forward.
But it does highlight the problem. It is insufficient to have a scientific consensus, there needs to be a communication of that consensus to the public in terms they can understand. Something scientists are not always very good at. Meanwhile the denialists have perfected the "public relations" arguments because their interest is simply in selling - it doesn't matter if they are accurate (or even logical), all that matters is that the public buys it. They are adept at hooking into that fear of having to sacrifice that all of us have.
You are rarely proven wrong, Chris W. I hope this is one of those times. Too much energy gets wasted trying to convince the unconvinceable which could be directed to positive pursuits!
I should sue you for damages on that one.
When Bush didn't like the 2001 IPCC Report, he asked the NAS to weigh in. When the NAS concurred with the IPCC, the administration did not challenge the science of climate change further. Instead, the rationale for doing nothing became economic - which is at least more honest. However, it is not clear to me that there is an economic disadvantage in addressing climate change. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.
What we are witnessing is the death of an unsustainable economy. This economy, whether is was fueled by a housing bubble, or transferring wealth offshore to be dependent on foreign oil, or standing up a military presence in the mideast "to protect our vital national interests in the region," was unsustainable. It is very difficult to imagine how this train wreck could self-correct by continuing to do the same things. No. A sustainable economy, presently in the very stages of being born, really does have the potential for economic recovery. Corporations understand that. Increasingly, religious institutions understand that. Finally, the politicians understand.
That's why I simply stated and re-stated that no scientific organization in the world disputes the IPCC Reports. I don't know how many people are aware of that - especially, those, who are "undecided". The Doran Survey, linked above, would certainly indicate that.
I think I have PTSD....
Peer review has weight on occasion but while many of you global warming as mankind's fault (few of us who are critics deny man does not contribute in some manner but we feel its minuscule in context) and think that the science is settled, one wonders about the similar thoughts in the 1970s...the scientific weight there too was seemingly and that didn't quite pan out. overwhelming.
Peer review is essential to scientific method. Compare your statement, "...we feel its minuscule in context." Peer review is exactly what guards against this kind of "feeling" bias. That is exactly the difference between science and ideology.
Charles: "...one wonders about the similar thoughts in the 1970s...the scientific weight there too was seemingly and that didn't quite pan out."
The global cooling myth
Global Dimming
I have every confidence that you will continue to bring up the 1970s, even those these references explain why that suggestion is patently false. I'm sure those of you, who "feel" as you do, won't bother to be influenced by such "contexts" as scientific method - except perhaps "on occasion".
I lived in Minnesota for a few years, around St Cloud from where this idiot comes from.... I really don't get it how she won, St Cloud has lots of normal people too...
Over the last 20 years or so, I personally have noted a general trend toward profits over foresight. Big Biz has been so raking it in, gutting everything in they way. The feeding frenzy has been so great there's been little concern for ethics, morals or even what will happen to their own children or grandchildren. As long as these folks remain in power-- even behind the scenes, I doubt they will have any concern for future (or even immediate) climate concerns-- (Unless their beach house is directly affected). Unfortunatly, it will take their's & everyone's cooperation to reverse any climate trends. It will take tremendous peer pressure or forced mandates to get big Biz to do their part if it costs anything. Personal observation.
I USED to think Minnesotans were pretty level headed people...she is single handedly changing my mind! LOL
People, the lead scientist who takes every opportunity to further the global warming agenda is Al Gore. Oh wait, when did he go school and get a degree to become a scientist? I guess he just got an honorary one for giving a "Earth will die tomorrow unless we do this speach." The earth's possible climate change due to CO2 is the least of our worries. We will obliterate ourselves long before that comes to pass. First it was reptiles (the dinosaurs), next it was mammals (humans), next it will be insects. Roaches will survive the fallout and will evolve.
You go, Chris.
"Steady diet of crazy talk..." is right on.
She makes the ignorant mistake, like the comment above this one does, that something in "nature" cannot change dangerously.