[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker

Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain?

Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish'

Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow?

Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest

Death Certificates Reveal FBI 'Revised' Murder Stats Still Bogus

A $110B bubble on $500M earnings. History warns: Bubbles always burst.

Joy Behar says people like their show because they tell the truth, unlike "dragon believer" Joe Rogan.

Male Passenger Disappointed After Another Flight Ends Without A Stewardess Frantically Asking If Anyone Can Land The Plane

Could the Rapid Growth of AI Boost Gold Demand?

LOOK AT MY ASS!

Elon Musk Responds As British Government "Summons" Him To 'Disinformation' Hearing

MSNBC Contributor Panics Over Trump Nominating Bondi For AG: Dangerous Because Shes Competent

House passes dangerous bill that targets nonprofits, pro-Palestine groups

Navy Will Sideline 17 Support Vessels to Ease Strain on Civilian Mariners

Israel carries out field executions, massacres in north Gaza

AOC votes to back Israel Lobby's bogus anti-Semitism definition

Biden to launch ICE mobile app, further disrupting Trump's mass deportation plan: Report

Panic at Mar-a-Lago: How the Fake Press Pool Fueled Global Fear Until X Set the Record Straight

Donald Trumps Nominee for the FCC Will Remove DEI as a Priority of the Agency

Stealing JFK's Body

Trump plans to revive Keystone XL pipeline to solidify U.S. energy independence

ASHEVILLE UPDATE: Bodies Being Stacked in Warehouses & Children Being Taken Away

American news is mostly written by Israeli lobbyists pushing Zionist agenda

Biden's Missile Crisis

British Operation Kiss kill Instantly Skripals Has Failed to Kill But Succeeded at Covering Up, Almost

NASA chooses SpaceX and Blue Origin to deliver rover, astronaut base to the moon

The Female Fantasy Exposed: Why Women Love Toxic Love Stories

United States will NOT comply with the ICC arrest warrant for Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Mississippi’s GDP Beats France: A Shocking Look at Economic Policy Failures (Per Capita)


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Republicans Against Science
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/o ... ml?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Published: Aug 30, 2011
Author: pk
Post Date: 2011-08-30 12:24:06 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 94
Comments: 4

Republicans Against Science By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: August 28, 2011

Recommend Twitter comments (582) Sign In to E-Mail Print Reprints Share

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us. Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal Related

Times Topics: Rick Perry | Mitt Romney

Readers’ Comments

"Allowing charlatans to control Washington will be a disaster of the greatest degree."

Paul Zorsky, Maryland

Read Full Comment »

To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming. Warnings that we may face civilization-threatening temperature change by the end of the century, once considered outlandish, are now coming out of mainstream research groups.

But never mind that, Mr. Perry suggests; those scientists are just in it for the money, “manipulating data” to create a fake threat. In his book “Fed Up,” he dismissed climate science as a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart.”

I could point out that Mr. Perry is buying into a truly crazy conspiracy theory, which asserts that thousands of scientists all around the world are on the take, with not one willing to break the code of silence. I could also point out that multiple investigations into charges of intellectual malpractice on the part of climate scientists have ended up exonerating the accused researchers of all accusations. But never mind: Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.

So how has Mr. Romney, the other leading contender for the G.O.P. nomination, responded to Mr. Perry’s challenge? In trademark fashion: By running away. In the past, Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has strongly endorsed the notion that man-made climate change is a real concern. But, last week, he softened that to a statement that he thinks the world is getting hotter, but “I don’t know that” and “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” Moral courage!

Of course, we know what’s motivating Mr. Romney’s sudden lack of conviction. According to Public Policy Polling, only 21 percent of Republican voters in Iowa believe in global warming (and only 35 percent believe in evolution). Within the G.O.P., willful ignorance has become a litmus test for candidates, one that Mr. Romney is determined to pass at all costs.

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

And the deepening anti-intellectualism of the political right, both within and beyond the G.O.P., extends far beyond the issue of climate change.

Lately, for example, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page has gone beyond its long-term preference for the economic ideas of “charlatans and cranks” — as one of former President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisers famously put it — to a general denigration of hard thinking about matters economic. Pay no attention to “fancy theories” that conflict with “common sense,” the Journal tells us. Because why should anyone imagine that you need more than gut feelings to analyze things like financial crises and recessions?

Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect. A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 29, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Republicans Against Science.

comments (582) Sign In to E-Mail Print Reprints

Get Home Delivery Get 50% Off The New York Times & Free All Digital Access.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: tom007, farmfriend, christine, CadetD, randge, Ferret, all (#0) (Edited)

Krugman and the NY Slimes are credible only as DISINFORMATION.

I could spend a couple hours slicing dicing this but just a couple of things that stand out:

To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Notice the exclusion of Ron Paul as a "serious candidate". The real purpose of this sentence is to plant in the mind of the reader that Ron Paul, who leads the two lightweights mentioned in any honest poll, is not a "serious candidate".

The sentence is part of the subtle conditioning going on to make Ron Paul a non-person and to influence the sheeple into accepting that implanted meme.

It should be clear to anyone of any awareness, which excludes the slack jawed drooling mouth breathing defectives of FreepTardia, that there is an active behind the scenes campaign to eliminate Ron Paul.

“I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

Here again Krugman shows he is carrying water for the elites as he pushes the discredited "Glowbull Warming" charade. The statement that he is allegedly objecting to is: TRUE.

I don't care for Huntsman and he is just another toady to the elite, but the point is that the theory that he is breathlessly trying to sell is:

A. A theory.

B. Contradicted by a large and growing body of evidence.

C. If one is practicing the Scientific Method then when one is presented with conflicting evidence that is validated then the correct scientific response is to either modify the theory to account for the new evidence or throw it out in its entirety and start over with a new theory that better explains the observed data.

Krugman is making an argument which is logically FALSE it is an Appeal To Misleading Authority which is one of the classical logical fallacies. Since Mr. Krugman is a highly paid writer for a major newspaper he has to know this is false so in addition to committing a logical fallacy he is willingly and knowingly l-y-i-n-g.

"In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming."

That statement is patently false. The only people who are still pushing it are people who are being paid, usually by "grant" bribes money to push it. (The recent climate record suggests that we are cooling not warming.) That and the Robber Baron Foundation supported pseudo environmental movement (more like a bowel movement).

"Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. "

Another Krugman Whopper™. To follow his reasoning if you follow the actual evidence of the climate record, and other related data such as solar radiation levels, then you are being unscientific because you disagree with the paid experts.

Earth to Paul Krugman!

Earth to Paul Krugman!

Uh, Paully baby - science is not about experts it is about what the data says not what the authority figure says the data says. Your whopper there is just about as unscientific as you can get.

Remember The White Rose
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-08-30   13:04:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Original_Intent (#1)

Questioning man-made warming is the only thing that pointy-boots has correct.

Break the Conventions - Keep the Commandments - G.K.Chesterson

Lod  posted on  2011-08-30   13:31:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Lod (#2) (Edited)

Krugman is a propagandist pure and simple. If he ever accidentally comes close to the truth it is only to support the propaganda he is catapulting, or in his case "slinging".

Remember The White Rose
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-08-30   13:35:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Original_Intent (#1)

I could point out that Mr. Perry is buying into a truly crazy conspiracy theory, which asserts that thousands of scientists all around the world are on the take, with not one willing to break the code of silence. I could also point out that multiple investigations into charges of intellectual malpractice on the part of climate scientists have ended up exonerating the accused researchers of all accusations. But never mind: Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.

Krugman pointedly leaves out the word "climategate" and the name Phil Jones when alluding to intellectual malpractice on the part of climate scientists. Despite a blizzard of article claiming that "climate scientists have been exonerated" on the basis of investigations by Parliament committees and US and British universities, we find that the term "exoneration" applied to the actions of Jones et al is quite a stretch.

According to a paper Understanding the Climategate Inquiries by Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., a Professor of Environmental Economics at University of Guelph (September 2010), "The world still awaits a proper inquiry into climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it leads."

A fifty page analysis of the charges leveled against the scientists involved and the subsequent official whitewash leads McKitrick to the following conclusions:

7. Conclusions

Where do matters now stand? Returning to the five issues raised at the start, we can say that the evidence points to some clear conclusions.

1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.

2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes. Despite being asked by Parliament to conclusively resolve this issue, Sir Muir Russell did not attend the interviews with Jones and, as reported in UK media, his inquiry did not ask Jones if he had deleted emails.

3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.

4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future. 5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. These ended up being subjective, he-said-she-said disputes, and in some cases the documentation was too sparse. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.

There remain two other questions needing to be addressed:

6. Is the IPCC a reliable source of information on climate change? In light of the answer to question 3, and the findings of the IAC that fundamental reforms are needed, the answer is that, even if one assumes that the existing problems did not compromise the validity of previous IPCC reports, as of the present, the IPCC should be viewed as unsound until and unless fundamental reforms are implemented. It has become tendentious and conniving, and its review process is compromised. Understanding the Climategate Inquiries Ross McKitrick September 2010 50

7. Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel. Sir Muir Russell’s team had no mandate to assess CRU scientific work, though they nonetheless ventured into making superfluous claims in support of the conventional view. The IAC made clear that they were not investigating or commenting on the scientific issues. The House of Commons inquiry and the Penn State inquiries were also too limited in focus to examine the scientific issues. Consequently none of the inquiries addressed the question.

rossmckitrick.weebly.com/...8045/rmck_climategate.pdf

randge  posted on  2011-08-30   14:08:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]