RSS Feed MenuThe liberal British philosopher John Stuart Mill once famously dismissed conservatives as the stupid party. Intellectual arrogance is something we have come to expect from liberals, but great conservative minds like Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and William F. Buckley dispelled the notion that conservatives are somehow cerebrally inferior.
Those gentlemen put conservatism on the road to intellectual respectability and kept on driving. Today, I’m afraid that road has developed a few potholes.
Nowhere has this problem been more evident than in the recent discussion of climate legislation.
At a House Energy and Commerce hearing last week on climate change, ranking Republican Joe Barton expressed concern that erecting more wind turbines would slow the wind down and make the earth hotter. Barton said:
Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up?
Say again, Joe? If turbines slow the wind down, then following his idea to its logical conclusion means that we’d have to outlaw tall trees, buildings, and mountain ranges.
Barton also asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and into the Arctic Ocean? Isn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn’t a big pipeline that we’ve created from Texas and shipped it up there and put it under ground so we can now pump it up?
Chu, a scientist who has won a Nobel Prize in physics, patiently explained that tectonic plates have moved around throughout earth history. Later, the GOP liveblog called Chu’s answer “perplexing.” What’s perplexing is why the blog writers find one of the basics of geology to be so difficult to grasp.
At a previous hearing a few weeks earlier, Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) postulated that reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would starve the earth’s plant life. He said:
It’s plant food … So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? … So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.
Shimkus did not make clear how plants got along before coal-burning power plants were invented. Perhaps he should enlighten us.
Then, there was the emphatic statement from House Minority Leader John Boehner appearing on ABC’s This Week:
…the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical.
True enough, but no one has ever claimed that carbon dioxide is carcinogenic. Boehner’s might be an understandable mistake, since the news is filled with confusing advice about preventing cancer. Drink coffee. Don’t drink coffee. Drink wine. Don’t drink wine.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says congressmen must be scientific whizzes, but it is probably safe to say that these remarks do little to increase public confidence in the GOP.
Utah Governor Jon Huntsman was correct when he said earlier this year, “We cannot become the anti-science party and succeed.”
The Economist offered a similar warning after last year’s election debacle:
Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party’s electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn.
In a 2007 climate hearing, Conservative Republican Congressman — and scientist — Roscoe Bartlett made much the same point when he drily said:
I think it is probably possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot.
The comment drew an annoyed grin from Barton.
Republitarian // Apr 29, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I think there are plenty of questions that have yet to be answered about anthropogenic global warming before we impose the biggest tax in the history of the of the Republic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that there are any Republicans that are smart enough to either ask them. Contrary to what Al Gore and many others would like you to believe, the debate certainly isn’t over in the scientific community and AGW is far from settled science. However, the GOP legislators that want to drive this point home, should get their ducks in a row lest they look like high-school dropouts and do further damage to their arguments, no matter how well intentioned they may be.
danbmil99 // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:33 am
Rightos picking fights with Science is up there in dumb-land with Lefties picking fights with Religion.When it comes to science, these elected officials are a laughing stock.That said, my liberal friends whisper at night that climate change is “way more complicated” than the tree-huggers would have us believe. Both sides are guilty of scientific cherry-picking. The left just does it slicker, because they tend to have more science-friendly pals to keep them from sounding like complete morons.
Churl // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:16 pm
In case readers here come away with the leftist idea that only Republicans are ignorant about science, the ruminations of Henry Waxman on polar climate and geology are herewith submitted to a candid world:” Were seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldnt ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, theres a lot of tundra thats being held down by that ice cap.. . You can watch the performance and read the transcript here:http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090413_waxman.htmldanbmil99, Lefties seem to pick fights with science, geology, cartographics, ocean navigation, and geography as well.
sinz54 // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Mr. Jenkins omitted the most egregious example of all–the flirtation of some conservatives with creationism.160 years after Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and 80 years after the Scopes trial, the Theory of Evolution is as firmly supported as any other theory in biology–far better supported than is, say, string theory in physics. Yet Ann Coulter attacked the Theory of Evolution in one of her columns; Huckabee evidently believes in creationism; Jindal may as well. And just this past month, the Oklahoma State Republican Party included in its Platform, support for the teaching of creationism (whether or not evolution is taught!) in Oklahoma public schools.http://tinyurl.com/cwwdnn(you need Adobe Acrobat Reader)While there are still a very few global warming skeptics, there are no scientists of any repute who think that all species, from trilobites to dinosaurs to mammals to humans, were all magically created together within a week, all separately, rather than some evolving from others. That the Oklahoma State Republican Party could give credence to such nonsense makes us all look like laughingstocks in the eyes of the young, the college educated, and especially those with backgrounds in science.
djenkins // Apr 30, 2009 at 10:08 pm
sinz54, I’ll have to take issue with you on this. Attacking creationism in such a broad way comes pretty close to attacking people’s belief in God.Just as people of faith need to acknowledge certain realities when interpreting scripture–like basic geology, those with a more secular outlook must be willing to acknowlege that theories do not represent solidly established fact.Take the big bang theory for example. As best I can tell, this theory is essentially based on the premise that at some point, by random chance, something resulted from nothing. What are the odds of that? Surely a belief in that theory takes a leap of faith similar to a belief in God.
danbmil99 // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:53 pm
djenkins: on creation “science”, the problem is that you are politicizing something that simply cannot be politicized, if you want to live in a free society. This is the kind of nonsense that the USSR did and China probably still does. Knowledge cannot be beholden to politics, nor can it be held hostage to the sensibilities of particular religious groups.Just as we cannot accept Muslim Americans practicing Sharia Law, we cannot, in a secular society, allow one denomination to bulldoze public policy on an issue as mission critical as educating our next generation.You can teach whatever you want in Sunday School, but you really have to leave this one out of political discourse.You really should read the Oklahoma platform. It’s an absolute disgrace. It’s as if the Vermont Dem platform promoted teaching socialism in school as the only way to free the proletariat. That is exactly how this sort of thing makes rational, middle-of-the-road people like me feel.
danbmil99 // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:54 pm
replace socialism with communism. It’s really that incendiary.
djenkins // May 1, 2009 at 6:06 am
danbmil99: You read more into my comment than was intended. I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools.sinz54 seemed to be broadly attacking any Christian conservative that believes that God created the heavens and earth, not just the the issue of what should be taught in our schools.A disdainful attitude towards religous belief by the more secular scientific-minded among us is one reason we have so many Christian conservatives reluctant to believe the warnings about climate change.While I am not willing to give a pass to those who selectively interpret the bible to justify personal or political biases, neither am I willing to give a pass to those who attack basic Christian beliefs.We need to reduce the polarization between science and religion if we are to win broad public support for addressing the current and future problems that scientific research identifies.
djenkins // May 1, 2009 at 6:22 am
danbmil99: You read more into my comment than was intended. I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools.sinz54 seemed to be broadly attacking any Christian conservative that believes that God created the heavens and earth, not just the the issue of what should be taught in our schools.A disdainful attitude towards religous belief by the more secular scientific-minded among us is one reason we have so many Christian conservatives reluctant to believe the warnings about climate change.While I am not willing to give a pass to those who selectively interpret the bible to justify personal or political biases, neither am I willing to give a pass to those who attack basic Christian beliefs.We need to reduce the polarization between science and religion if we are to win broad public support for addressing the current and future problems that scientific research identifies.
sinz54 // May 1, 2009 at 6:27 am
djenkins: The teaching of the Biblical model of creation, as if it’s a legitimate scientific theory, does NOT belong in public schools or in any other government-run institution. Thank God that we live in a nation where the First Amendment prevents the Government from endorsing any religion.We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want about the Universe. But not everything we believe is scientific. Science has discovered things about the origins of the Universe, the origins of the Earth, the origins of life on Earth, and the origins of Homo Sapiens. Those are proper subjects for teaching in public schools.The Biblical model of creation does not belong in public school or in any other goverment-run institution. It can be taught anywhere else by anyone who does not have official government imprimatur.How would you feel if a public school somewhere in the United States taught the Hindu model of creation to students, as if it were the scientific truth?
sinz54 // May 1, 2009 at 6:54 am
danbmil99: Actually, the First Amendment does not ban Government officials from advocating socialism (and Senator Bernie Sanders does).The First Amendment does NOT allow government officials to advocate any religion.I wonder how “djenkins” would feel if public school teachers, say in a heavily African-American area, began teaching that Jesus was not the Son of God and that Islam is the only true religion, to a classroom full of Christian students.
djenkins // May 1, 2009 at 7:29 am
sinz54: What part of “I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools” do you not understand?If your intent was to only address the issue of creationism being taught in schools, then be specific. You seemed to be attacking conservatives (like Huckabee) for their Christian beliefs. That is what I took issue with. Please do not read more into my comment than that.
barker13 // May 1, 2009 at 11:41 am
Re: Sinz54; 6:27 AM –”Thank God that we live in a nation where the First Amendment prevents the Government from endorsing any religion.”Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Hmm… ESTABLISHMENT.Nothing about “endorsing.”"We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want about the Universe.”True.Re: Sinz54; 6:54 AM –”The First Amendment does NOT allow government officials to advocate any religion.”Again… the word you’re looking for, Sinz, is “ESTABLISH.”Yes, yes… we could spend weeks dueling case law, but stipulating that various Supreme Court decisions have to an extent linked “establish” to “endorse” and “advocate,” the truth is that by your logic we shouldn’t be able to have “In God We Trust” on our money because… (the question of whether atheism should be treated as the “religion” of non-religion aside)… that favors a Unitary God over multiple gods or Satan or any other spiritual concept of a higher authority that isn’t necessarily one single Higher Being.Btw, Sinz… you ARE aware I assume that even after the Constitution was ratified and became the law of the land (inclusive of the Bill of Right) there were several states which had ESTABLISHED religions.Indeed, Connecticut continued retain a “state Church” until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment.BILL
Mheer // May 13, 2009 at 8:18 pm
First, windmills do slow down the wind. That is a scientific fact. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. If you generate electricity, then you must take the energy out of the wind. The wind therefor slows down. Probably not enough to make this a cogent argument, but it is not untrue. I think this guy has no concept of scale. Which is partly what the AGW crowd fails to understand.This is rich, the ignorant on the left making fun of the ignorant on the right. At least the guy on the right does understand physics a little.
N K Whiton // Jun 27, 2010 at 12:25 am
I enjoyed reading your column. You are doing what I’ve always wanted REP to do. Tell the truth and let the chips fall… When the R’s get it right praise them and when they’re wrong tell them and don’t hesitate to admit when the D’s get it right. That’s the only way to cut through the seemingly endless “spin” that hurts us all. REP should be the reliable source of accurate information no matter what the daily republican party “talking points” are. Who decides that stuff, anyway? Is it limbaugh? hannity? boehner? rove? God?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Theory”
You wrote: ” …theories do not represent solidly established fact.” Saying that puts you solidly in the camp of those who believe that creationism/intelligent design should be taught in public schools as an alternative explanation for species diversity because “Evolution is only a theory.”
To correct your misperceptions I have gathered some information for you.
From The Oxford English Dictionary, a definition for you:
“Theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.”
A Theory, in Science, is different from an unconfirmed hypothesis, a guess, a conjecture or a speculation. Theories, in the Scientific sense, are not facts as laypeople think of facts. Instead, Theories are based on facts, explain facts and synthesize facts. Thus, Theories occupy a higher level of Scientific thought than facts. A ball thrown into the air falls to earth – that is a fact. The Theory of Gravity explains why it falls. Evolution – change over time – is a fact. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains that fact and explains that fact so well that the Theory of Evolution has been accepted for more than a century. Scientists have heated debates over specific mechanisms, but there is no doubt about the Theory itself.
These statements are not an attack on anyone’s religious beliefs. They are facts based on evidence.
If someone’s religious beliefs are in conflict with Scientific fact and/or Theory, that’s their problem. They have to deal with it. The natural world will not change to fit someone’s doctrine and doesn’t care if someone is offended by it’s reality.
I respect everyone’s right to freedom of conscience and belief, but I will fight them with all my strength if they try to bring their religious beliefs into public schools and/or into government policy. I will not sit silent when someone trashes Science from their religious perspective. Unfortunately for us, there exists a vocal minority who think that if Science conflicts with their beliefs, whether it’s Evolution or Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, Science is wrong and Science must change. They also try to rewrite the definition of Science to fit their religious doctrine. If they succeed, America will lose it’s Scientific and technological supremacy and the people of the world and the planet itself will suffer.
The Big Bang Theory doesn’t make sense to you? I’m sure you know that your lack of understanding has nothing to do with it’s validity and acceptance by world-wide Scientific consensus. I don’t understand how music comes out of thin 4 1/2 ” diameter discs either but I love the sounds. Get a copy of Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time.” By the time you get done reading it, you will understand The Big bang Theory.