Call These Scientists Crazy

August 19th, 2011 at 11:47 am | 42 Comments |

| Print

On August 18, a few days after Rick Perry went off on climate scientists as money-grubbing carbon cultists, Jon Huntsman had some craziness of his own to share.

“To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy,” the presidential candidate and former Utah governor Tweeted on Thursday afternoon.

Huntsman’s top strategist, John Weaver, got in a dig of his own at Perry: “We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party,” the Washington Post quoted Weaver as saying.

Perry’s rap against scientists has all the hallmarks of playing to his brand as a regular guy who has more in common with plain Americans than pointy-headed elitists.

The other day, Perry devilishly contrasted himself with that other Texas governor, pointing out that he went to school at land grant Texas A&M – getting an animal science degree, in case you’re wondering – while George W. Bush attended Yale. Presumably with his nose in the air.

Man-of-the-people Perry may have bones to pick with scientists, but his alma mater is a top-notch research institution. Just look at all those A&M Ph.Ds beavering away on climate change research.

Apparently, they’ve arrived at some conclusions. Nearly two dozen of them, including Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, signed a statement stipulating that the climate is warming, it is “very likely” that human activities have a lot to do with it, and a do-nothing policy would result in a degree of climate change that risks “serious adverse impacts.”

Call them crazy.

Recent Posts by Jim DiPeso

42 Comments so far ↓

  • indy

    I don’t need to call them crazy. Plenty of the regulars will be around to point out that their opinion on climate is more valid than all the climate scientists combined.

    • TerryF98

      Cue Jimboob and smarg (same person), jjv (liar) and Carney the tool.

      • agustinvicente

        These two got nothin’ but insults. It gets old. I used to comment on a local forum in my community but I got tired of the insulting and/or straight up talking points. I liked this forum because everyone seemed to be so smart and there wasn’t a lot of silliness. I was intimidated to comment for a while but I will say smarg and jimbob made me feel right at home. lol

      • PatrickQuint

        You’ve been around long enough to know that Carney is *strong* advocate for a flex-fuel mandate in the auto industry. He’s not a climate change denialist.

        This is the wrong place to make assumptions about how any given member will respond to a topic. Few commenters here agree on everything.

        • balconesfault

          [B]You’ve been around long enough to know that Carney is *strong* advocate for a flex-fuel mandate in the auto industry. He’s not a climate change denialist.[/b]

          Actually, I’m not sure if Carney comes to support a statist regulation like mandating flex-fuel compatibility because he accepts climate change science, or because of the national security implications of continuing to rely on oil.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    Hell Balsz on the other thread said this: That is because this is less of a scientific theory and more of a political movement that demands control of the means of production, right now, by popular consent.
    Here is a press release from the National Academy of Sciences (USA) which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It recognizes the international consensus of the IPCC (2001), IEA (2004), and UNFCCC. It is signed by:

    National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
    Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
    Royal Society, United Kingdom
    Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
    Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
    Royal Society of Canada, Canada
    Academié des Sciences, France
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
    Indian National Science Academy, India
    Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
    Science Council of Japan, Japan

    Yep, they are all secret socialists out to run ebay and facebook.
    Next up, Balsz theory of cancer: It is a myth propogated by the health care industry to bring about Single payer and one world government.

    In the end, you can’t reason with lunatics.

  • balconesfault

    Now I see why many in the GOP are so determined to undermine the tenure system.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    And the thing I find most amusing is that most of the people who think Global warming is a liberal conspiracy to end our addiction on foreign oil hate the Arabs and Islam with a passion.
    Doing measures that can lessen our impact on foreign oil would be a win win for Conservationists and Conservatives, but the teabaggers would not even do what they consider to be in their own best interest if it meant making one Liberal happy.

    • jakester

      Compromise and deep analysis aren’t part of their evolutionary DNA.

    • balconesfault

      By the same token, those interested in the long term security of the United States should be those making the strongest pitch for us slowing down on the extraction of domestic natural gas and oil, so that those resources will be continue to be available in the future.

      Yet ironically, those who are most nationalistic, and most opposed to a future where the fate of the US is intertwined with the greater global community, are those who are most fervent supporters of a “drill now” mentality that seeks to maximize short-term consumption of the natural resources of the United States.

      • jakester

        Actually I think the “drill baby drill mentality” at least on land, is not such a bad idea. Of course, we need to ramp up enforcement and anti-spill technology. Otherwise we would just be consuming oil produced elsewhere at much lower environmental standards

        • advocatusdiaboli

          Drill Baby Drill will increase the world’s availabe oil by 0.5% by 2030, OPEC can easily cut back production by that much. the estimate is that it will drop gasoline prices by $0.03. Stop beating that dead horse. It sounds great until you actually look at the facts, then it evaporates.

      • greg_barton

        I agree. And likewise the environmentalist left are blinded by ideology to the fact that nuclear is our only low carbon energy alternative.

        • Bagok

          Politicians are going to avoid discussing nuclear energy for a few years. You have to let people forget how bad a nuclear accident is before pushing for more power plants.

        • balconesfault

          The environmental left is well aware of the virtues of nuclear, but is also aware of its drawbacks.

        • anniemargret

          No, Greg. There is no rigidity within the ideology of the Democratic party. You will find plenty of rigidity in ideology on the far right, where your party is now wallowing in.

          Nuclear power is a force to be reckoned with. I am quite amused how flippant you all appear to be about the nature of nuclear energy as a primary source, given we haven’t yet seen the full repercussions of what happened in Japan. As we speak, the horrors continue and will continue for decades to come. I notice the mainstream news media pretty much has stopped reporting on the tragedy there…. perhaps they don’t want to upset the apple cart here in the USA for the pro-nuclear supporters.

          I am deeply concerned about nuclear energy. Where do you put the waste? Which state, where, how? What do you do to offset a full blown catastrophe of a more radicalized weather pattern, with hurricanes and tornadoes with more intensity, and/or flooding, or perhaps terrorist infiltration into the power plant themselves?

          What about the reactors right now in the US, like the one in southern CA built right on the edge of the Pacific, in a earthquake zone? It is wise? Is it efficient? What do we do about those?

          The travesty that would develop should there be a major nuclear meltdown and spread of radiation into the atmosphere, water, soil cannot be minimized or downplayed.

          THAT’s my problem. Because every time I read a nuclear proponent talk about the impossibility of development of renewable clean energy sources as the primary goal, I also read that there is precious, if any, concern for the inherent dangers of a nuclear catastrophe, which would make a terrorist attack on this nation a kindergarten exercise in comparison.

          The children and babies in Japan are showing signs of radiation poisoning already. The economic fallout from the tsunami and earthquake in Japan should make everyone pause….a long, long pause.

        • PatrickQuint

          Nuclear is among the safest forms of power generation out there.

          It kills a hell of a lot fewer people than coal, oil, natural gas and the like. This includes accidents as well as lost years of life due to exposure to toxins, which easily matches the lost years of life due to radiation exposure of nuclear workers (far and away, just ask a coal miner).

          When you consider the mining and waste disposal operations associated with tens of thousands of tons of machinery involved in wind and solar power, I’m not sure that nuclear is more environmentally damaging, even in the long run. In the long run we’re looking at using the far safer Thorium reactor technology, now in late-stage development. With a reactor already up and running it shows at least as much promise as hopes for wind and solar.

          So long as biofuels cut into the production of food (as they do now, significantly), the human cost of this technology will dwarf that of nuclear power.

          The left has its fair share of intellectual rigidity. Much of it, however, is hidden by the cowardice of leftist politicians and the right-wing Democrats inside and outside the Blue Dog caucus, many of whom are Republicans of yesteryear with a D beside their name.

        • balconesfault

          When you consider the mining and waste disposal operations associated with tens of thousands of tons of machinery involved in wind and solar power, I’m not sure that nuclear is more environmentally damaging, even in the long run.

          You do realize that there are quite a few tens of thousands of tons of machinery that would be required to expand the amount of nuclear power generated in the US, don’t you?

      • agustinvicente

        I agree. Plus, I don’t want to tear up our environment. Remember the old saying, ‘don’t sh*t where you eat.’ Let other people rape their lands and sell their goods to us. I want to keep our environment as untouched as possible and to explore alternative energies instead.

  • Rob_654

    Of course Rick Perry was fine with science when he used stem cell therapy for his spine operation.

    I wonder why he just didn’t use the power of pray to heal his back instead of that crazy science stuff…

    • Houndentenor

      Because he knows it would be about as effective as his prayers for rain in Texas.

    • agustinvicente

      So he doesn’t mind benefitting from science? Of course not… Suddenly that crazy science started making more sense when he needed it.

  • agustinvicente

    Do Americans really want a guy who doesn’t understand the basics of science? Yikes. I hope not.

    • balconesfault

      There are a substantial number of Americans who would, given an arbitrary choice, rather national science policy be directed by a devout Christian with a minimal understanding of science, than by a respected man of science who is also an atheist.

      • advocatusdiaboli

        And unlike the EU, that is a serious shortcoming of the USA. Einstein was an Atheist. He just didn’t wear it on his sleeve.

  • agustinvicente

    To balonesfault-But that is not the choice. It appears that Rick Perry not only doesn’t undertsand science but is a bit distainful of it as well. You can be a devout Christian and still understand or at least have respect for science. It also devalues Christianity if you can’t be a Christian AND a scientist. Who made up this rule? Very misguided if you ask me and I hope a substantial number of Americans agree with me. As a Catholic, I will be praying for that agreement.

    • anniemargret

      Good point. I agree, since I am still a Catholic in heart and mind, although I’m not as adhering to all the church tenets.

      There really is no conflict between a belief in Divine Power or God and pursuit for the Truth, which is what Science is, or should be. Truth is God. God is Truth. What’s the problem for some people? That it doesn’t conform literally with the Bible? It was never meant to be taken literally, just allegorically, but for those that cannot do this, they will spend the rest of their natural lives twisting their own decent, God-given common sense to justify absurd beliefs that defy science.

      That is not the way. If people are afraid of the Truth, not matter where it takes us (perhaps we originate from aliens? Hey, who knows?), then they are grasping a childish fantasy that keeps reality at bay.

      That is a ‘religion’ we all can do without.

      • agustinvicente

        Well, I’m not recommending much of what the church teaches either and I won’t go into the long list of things I find abhorrent about the Church. Still, I was born and baptized a Catholic. My spouse is Catholic and so are all of our children. Now they’ve no choice. Until they excommunicate me, I am speaking my mind as a Catholic. But being Catholic does not have to be synonymous with stupid fool, I hope? lol
        My next questions are: how can you take someone seriously who believes such ridiculous things as Perry? No global warming, no stem cells, no evolution…the earth is only 6,000 years old? Seriously? This is the kind of person we want representing us to the world? This is OK to the GOP? A fool who doesn’t know fifth grade science? I’m not asking for an engineer or doctor, just a person who knows and understands (and most importantly accepts) fifth grade science. Oh good lord, this is what is acceptable? Say it ain’t so?

        • anniemargret

          It’s so. Let’s lament the former USA, which used to be a brave new world.

  • Graychin

    Huntsman is crazy if he thinks those gratuitous remarks will win him any Republican primary votes. But I commend him for being the sanest one in a crazy field.

    With heretical opinions like that, he will need to run as a Democrat if he ever hopes to be president.

    Now what was it he said about unemployment being the fault of the EPA? That IS crazy.

    • anniemargret

      Agree. The present mode for the GOP is to keep the extremists happy and fulfilled. How any sane, intelligent person seeking honesty and truth can be a Republican and proud of it is beyond my comprehension.

      Republicans now stand for extremism and fantasy thinking. What a party.

    • balconesfault

      I’m thinking that Huntsman is definitely throwing in for 2016, and just laying claim to the leadership of the “non-crazy” faction of the party just in case Republicans ever come looking for it.

      • Kevin B

        Good one. Also, maybe he has integrity (for a politician) and is, in fact, not crazy.

  • SF_Bubble

    I really wanted to understand the conservative rejection of climate change, so I spent some time googling “arguements agains climate change” and variations thereof… (this was a few weeks ago so I don’t have any of my results handy). I expected to find at least SOME reasonable basis for doubt and skepticism. In fact the doubters used so many obvious logical fallacies I concluded that, while there may be some debate about the mechanics, timeline, severity, etc of climate change, that’s not what the deniers base their arguments on. Many “begged the question”, arguing against the claim based on what would be necessary to combat the effects (namely strong government regulation of industry and international standards and cooperation). That was a BIG red flag for me. Depressing that anyone would be swayed by that illogical thinking.

    • easton

      yep, real classy, send your employers readers over to another website, one full of crackpots and cranks. From the link:
      If Huntsman really does not know that global warming alarmism is at best a hotly debated theory

      Wow, this is not even logical English. Global warming “alarmism” is not a hotly debated theory by anyone, moron. The question is what this clown defines as being alarmist, but any geniune alarmism is laughed at…
      As to man caused climate change, only a fool would not accept that it is real. The only debate is how much the impact is and what to do about it, not to pretend it doesn’t exist.
      And that report is sheer idiocy. 18 “scientists” are all that the skeptics can muster? Hell, I can find 1,000 people who will state the earth is flat.
      However the National Academies of Sciences in every major industrialized country has submitted to the reality of man made climate change. Somehow I doubt the Russian or Chinese Academies are subject to Hollywood brainwashing. Hell, Russia of all the countries would most benefit by global warming but the scientists there have too much integrity to deny readily observable truth, unlike creationists like JJV who thinks that the Flintstones were a documentary.

      • anniemargret

        But they love representing “Boobicus Americanus” in all its glory . Deny, obfuscate, deny, keep the fantasies alive! Does anyone think the GOP has the country’s best interests at heart anymore?

        • agustinvicente

          Best interest? No, but they may be hell bent on destroying us though…

        • anniemargret

          Well, if I let my utter cynicism shine thru, I would say you are correct. Perhaps they DO want to burn us to the ground, so that they can build the type of society they prefer from the ashes….

          Certainly it describes the Tea Party to a “T” (no pun intended).

  • John Q

    “We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party.”

    Become? Already happened.

  • vishnu

    only in America does someone need to call himself “crazy” for simply accepting reality and science and not embracing myth and superstition and BS instead.. this guy has no hope of becoming the nominee of a political party that is about three centuries behind when it comes to science and so much else…

    some folks are saying Huntsman is setting the stage for a 2016 run.. well, I don’t think in four years the GOP will have joined the real world and left their extreme ideology and irrational thinking and everything else behind… Huntsman will have to run either as an independent or as a Democrat…;-)

    • anniemargret

      vishnu. It still sounds like a cop-out to me. To say, “call me crazy’ sounds a bit apologetic to his party. He should be blasting them to kingdom and embarrassing them for their utter dig in the heels stupid fantasy,which half of them don’t believe anyway.

      All this is about is politics. They won’t admit scientists are correct on this issue, because it was progressives in the Democratic party who have been raising awareness of this problem for years. The party of so-called ‘conservation’ (which is where their conservatism supposedly came from – they would probably despise Teddy Roosevelt’s propensity to save the land), is reduced to tears and twisting themselves into pretzels as long as they don’t have to agree liberals are right on this issue.

      We can’t have that! Better that the U.S. becomes a follower rather than a leader addressing this issue than letting progressives have the last word. Total idiots in the GOP.