I am sure many of us regard it as frightening that serious Presidential candidates must deny the science behind evolution or the greenhouse effect in order to receive the nomination of a major political party. In other words, you have to be really crazy (or a liar) to get the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party. And we all know how this has happened. Tea Party madness is fundamentalist Christian madness, and that madness has a grip on the base of the Party. The good news is that the madness of the Republican Party base is regarded as quite crazy by the rest of the country.
I wish I could say that being crazy necessarily spells doom for the Republican candidate in 2012, but there will be other factors in the election – particularly Obama’s failure to solve the unemployment problem, and his failure to regularly challenge the Republican drumbeat that smaller government, placing money in the hands of the rich, and an unregulated market are the keys to solving unemployment.
Nonetheless, the anti-science of the Republicans (not to mention the ideas that hurricanes are messages from God or that Texas seceding from the union might be a good idea) will make for great attack ads. I would look forward to them if they were not a sure sign that partisan political debate in this country is so far removed from serious dialogue.
Perhaps you could explain why your position is rejected by the
overwhelming majority of scientists. Were you responding to a post that
painted anyone as a holocaust denier? It was not mine. What of the
portion of the post dealing with Darwin?
Posted by: Steve Shiffrin | 09/18/2011 at 06:04 AM
Do you take comfort in your libel of Republicans? Seems to be all that the ill-informed can come up with.
And is it not incongrous with the liberal position to 'paint' a world-renowned climate scientist who is of Jewish heritage as anti-science and a holocaust denier?
The issue, as Dr. Lindzen has pointed out, is not that CO2 has an effect but whether there are positive or negative feedbacks.
Government funded computer models show positive feedbacks. Empirical evidence gives evidence of negative feedback.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY
Posted by: Michael Snow | 09/16/2011 at 05:09 PM