GOP still 'the stupid party'

  • Follow Letters

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has proclaimed his own Republican Party to be “the stupid party.” Thanks to a large group of conspiracy-minded, science-denying people, a.k.a. the Tea Party, the GOP is attempting to purge itself of stupid candidates.

In looking at the last GOP primary, that is what it had in Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and the poster child for stupidity, Michele Bachmann.

How can a party with members who denies global warming, evolution and rape pregnancies turn itself around when this is what so many of its voters want?

Fox, conservative talk radio and conservative newspapers carry endorsements of the worst sort of this ilk because “they are one of us.” Their editorials, many taken from far-right conspiracy blogs, inject “stupid” into the mainstream. We have witnessed the birther/Barry Soetoro nonsense down to the idiotic “unanswered” Benghazi questions. It is the pro-life party that wants to keep its guns and ban Obamacare.

The language of “stupid” is epitomized by the phrase “socialist agenda.” Recently the words “nullification” and “secession” also have entered its vocabulary.

Good luck, Bobby.

Comments (81) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 05:15 pm
4
3
Burninater- Read the "read me

Burninater- Read the "read me Harry file" from climate gate fame. The coder for the data from the Phil Jones studies at East Angila University admits he just made up data. The original data was thrown away by Jones Making it impossible to analyse his data. Is that good enought for you? Judy Curry was a co auther of the Best Study that was the most comprehensive analysis of Temperature data to date. Curry's co author ran out and held a press conferance in which he falsely reported results of the study indicated the temperature of the world was dramatically rising with out informing Curry. Curry called him out on his lie, and said there had been no warming in 16 years. Then we have the famous Micheal Mann "hockey stick " graph that showed a slow rise in temperature then a sudden upward spike down the road. The only trouble was that it was very bad statisitcs, You could put random numbers in his method of analysis (which people did) and get the same results. The temperature on Mars has increased about the same amount as the temp on earth which to me would indicate it was a solar cause. Is this good enough? Now we also have the fact that Jones and Mann worked to prevent publication of articales that refuted anthropogenic global warming!

Bizkit
35555
Points
Bizkit 02/13/13 - 05:14 pm
4
2
What is obvious too is that

What is obvious too is that all this supposed energy policy is just another teir of bureacracy with carbon credits and industries payin' big bucks to buy carbon credits from Peter (forestry, wetlands, etc) to give Paul (keep my pollutin' cause it's cheaper to do business like this -basically a shake down). It is't going to do crap for the carbon footprint-and we already have a fairly good record of reducing emissions of all sorts so really the issue is more like China building a coal plant a month dumping huge amounts of mercury and god knows what else into the air which floats around the planet because they have no consumer protection. Money is driving this more than altruism or trying to save the planet. Obama should use those diplomacy skills he brags about to bring all the major nations to the table for a Global-Climate and Resource strategy for the planet. We stand united or fall is the basic premise-so as a planet the nations will have to choose to think about global problems with our waste and byproducts of our activity and how all the resources are really everyones-because they are limited. I wager they choose "poorly". Most scientist believe the Doom's day clock will tick away to our demise-we are already in another extinction event apparently with significant loses of various insects, frogs, reptiles, etc. Apparently it's time to bend over and kiss it good-bye. Don't worry bacteria will still survive-no matter what.

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 05:48 pm
3
5
Is there one shred of proof

Is there one shred of proof that man has had ANY effect on the earth's climate one way or the other?
---------
Earth's heat balance, yes. Earth's climate -- that's still up for debate.

This link does a decent job of summarizing the heat balance data:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

In summary, anthropogenic increase of atmospheric CO2 levels is occurring. Simple fact. Satellite measurements of atmospheric heat energy release show increased absorption at CO2 and methane spectra -- in other words, these molecules are retaining heat that would normally be radiated into space. As their atmospheric levels increase, the amount of heat retained by the system increases. Empirical evidence -- our activity is increasing the retention of heat by the Earth's atmosphere.

What this will do to the climate is the debate, and various models show various results. Almost all credible models indicate general warming. The early '70's potential ice age hypothesis people bring up to try to discredit the work is a false canard that well-illustrates the scientific method. It was never a consensus view of climate scientists, and even at the time, numerous workers felt the ice age hypothesis was based on flawed methods. The hypothesis was examined, the empirical data did not support the model, and the model was invalidated.

It would seem that year-on-year increases of heat retained by the system would eventually produce climactic warming -- but the climate does not necessarily behave linearly in response to increased heat in the system.

Knowing, however, that 1) human activity is empirically shown to increase heat energy stored by the earth system, and 2) climate is a function of the absolute level and relative distribution of heat in the earth system, the conclusion that human activity can have no effect on earth climate is strongly contradicted.

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 05:52 pm
3
6
Carcraft, if the discredited

Carcraft, if the discredited studies you cite were the only evidence of AGW, then slam dunk, you are correct, it's a hoax.

The problem for that line of thinking is with those false analyses thrown on the rubbish heap of hubris, there is still overwhelming evidence, compiled by thousands of other scientists, that support AGW.

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 06:09 pm
3
5
And BTW, numerous non-Mann

And BTW, numerous non-Mann analyses of global temps, using different methodologies, show the same trend as the Mann plot. Here is a one-stop starting source that documents this, as this piece summarizes over 2 dozen independent studies that confirm the Mann plot increase in global 20th century temps:

Frank, David; Esper, Jan; Zorita, Eduardo; Wilson, Rob (14 May 2010), "A noodle, hockey stick, and spaghetti plate: A perspective on high-resolution paleoclimatology", Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1 (4): 507, doi:10.1002/wcc.53.

OJP
7738
Points
OJP 02/13/13 - 06:46 pm
4
5
It's the willful ignorance that gets me.

Evolution is one of the most factually supported theories in all of science. Denying it is no less absurd than denying gravity. But I always say that you shouldn't reap the benefits of science you don't accept. So... no flu shots or any vaccine that is dependent upon the theory of evolution to be effective year over year.

I hope a bunch of rational undecideds read these comments. It only makes the GOP's chances moving forward smaller and smaller... Texas is about to turn blue and Georgia won't be far behind! We can't afford a major party that is so willfully scientifically ignorant.

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 06:58 pm
4
3
You left out this part, chas.

You left out this part, chas. Wonder why?

"Michael Ledo joined the Navy and was the leading engineering laboratory technician aboard a nuclear submarine. Since then, he has worked as a radiological chemistry technician and as a certified radiological controls technician. Currently, he lives in Windsor and works at a national laboratory. He has a passion for mythology, history and religion and has published numerous books on the topic."

The old "you can tell just be lookin' at 'em!" schtick really doesn't help if one's goal is to counteract the stereotype advanced in the LTE.

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 07:05 pm
2
2
Burninater- here is a link to

Burninater- here is a link to an article about how Michal Mann’s graph has flaws. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6192/Head-of-UK-Royal-Statistical-Society-... Gee I think this guy is qualified to report on statistical analysis. Now why don’t you move on to the Judy Curry Best Study conflict. I stick by my original claim that Mann used bad statistical analysis.

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 07:18 pm
2
2
Burninater, Maybe you should

Burninater, Maybe you should look at this, Of course Muller has been controversial for a long time and does have trouble with statistical analysis! He even criticized Michal Mann’s hockey stick graph…So do you believe Muller or Curry? It seems some independent analysis of the data supports Curry. Of course since there is Koch money involved you can just dismiss it because it isn’t good science…OH well http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055406/Scientist-claimed...

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 07:21 pm
2
2
Of course since these folks

Of course since these folks started measuring temperature data at the end of the last ice age I to would be expecting the world to warm. Gee I wonder why they left out the medieval warming period which may well have been warmer (acording to climate scientist Phil Jones) than the present period!

harley_52
25872
Points
harley_52 02/13/13 - 07:22 pm
2
2
"And BTW, numerous non-Mann analyses of global temps....

....using different methodologies, show the same trend as the Mann plot. Here is a one-stop starting source that documents this, as this piece summarizes over 2 dozen independent studies that confirm the Mann plot increase in global 20th century temps:"

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of studies showing all manner of results that support the man-made global warming scam. Problem is that every time one is subjected to any kind of critical, scientific analysis it is ALWAYS flawed. Once the cat got out of the bag about intentional misrepresentation of data among the scientific community those supporting the scam lost all credibility. Not just the "scientists," but the scientific journals that published the fake data and conclusions have been damaged such that many people (including me) believe nothing "scientists" now report as fact.

There is no proof man has ANY impact on climate change. period.

faithson
5526
Points
faithson 02/13/13 - 07:23 pm
2
3
being on the 2 to 3 percent side is not exactly the strongest...

Rubio's climate change skepticism is not newfound. He said earlier this month that he has heard "reasonable debate" about whether climate change is man-made. In fact, a study, published in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 1,372 climate researchers and found that 97 to 98 percent of them agree that climate change is anthropogenic. huffpo

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 08:19 pm
1
3
Harley -- "Problem is that

Harley -- "Problem is that every time one is subjected to any kind of critical, scientific analysis it is ALWAYS flawed."
----
BS. There are a small handful of dubious studies that get regurgitated over and over again -- out of over 60 years of study. Every one of the studies of the past 60 years has been flawed? The exact opposite is true, and it is evidenced by the constant return by AGW deniers to the same handful of flawed studies, out of thousands upon thousands of related studies. And note carcraft's opposition experts below: even in the studies that are quoted as the most egregious cases of fraud out there. The conclusion is that their errors WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO ALTER THE CONCLUSIONS.
-------------
Carcraft, for Pete's sake. Do you even read things to see if they actually say what you assume they say? This is from your clearly qualified guy that heads the Royal Statistical Society:

"Sceptics claimed that the hacked messages showed scientists were manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming.
However the review, led by Lord Oxburgh into the research carried out by the centre, found no evidence of 'deliberate scientific malpractice'.

Lord Oxburgh said the scientists at the research unit arrived at their conclusions ''honestly and sensibly''.

But the reviewers found that the scientists could have used better statistical methods in analysing some of their data, although it was unlikely to have made much difference to their results.
That was not the case with some previous climate change reports, where 'inappropriate methods' had exaggerated the global warming phenomenon.

Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this.

He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated - although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming. He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to."

Your expert source says the following:

1) Climategate was the result of error in methodology, not deliberate attempts to falsify results. MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, THE ERRORS DID NOT ALTER THE AGW CONCLUSION.

2) Mann's analysis yielded a hockey stick ... INSTEAD OF A FIELD HOCKEY STICK. In other words, same warming affect, but at more of an exponential rate than a linear rate. Curved temp increase in the 20th century, not straight.

Does it EVER seem significant that even the sources you say disprove AGW actually support their conclusions? Does that ever seem like a possibly relevant fact!

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 08:20 pm
2
1
This is the type of BS that I

This is the type of BS that I find real interesting http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
There are a lot of “could have caused” type phrases etc. yet no real imperial evidence supporting CO2 increases causing earth temperature increases. Logic tells us that as temperature increases biodiversity increases leading to increased CO2, not the other way around.

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 08:23 pm
2
1
Burninater was Michal Mann's

Burninater was Michal Mann's hockey stick graph exagerated? Yes. Did the read me harry files indicate that data was fudged or made up, yes, to what degree, well we don't know because Phil Jones threw the original data away. You now you need to explain why the medieval warming period was left out and you still have not discussed the best study and Judy Curry.

Gage Creed
19399
Points
Gage Creed 02/13/13 - 08:24 pm
2
1
Those good folks in Windsor

Those good folks in Windsor are looking to trade their village idiot....should we tell them that Flavor Flav is available?

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 08:32 pm
1
4
Looked into Curry,

Looked into Curry, carcraft:

"Climate skeptics have seized on Curry’s statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic&page=3

On the Mann graph, the critical analysis said it should be a field hockey stick, not a hockey stick. You do know what a field hockey stick looks like, right?

You do understand that when critics expose the flaws in work BUT MAINTAIN THE FLAWS ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO ALTER THE CONCLUSIONS, that you yourself are presenting further evidence that the evidence supporting AGW is robust. You understand that, right?

harley_52
25872
Points
harley_52 02/13/13 - 08:36 pm
3
1
"In fact, a study, published in 2010....

....in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 1,372 climate researchers and found that 97 to 98 percent of them agree that climate change is anthropogenic. huffpo"

Which 1,372 "climate researchers" were surveyed? Those working in government offices and for institutions supported by federal grants, or independent "climate researchers?"

As for the "97 to 98 percent" claim, it's worth noting that scientific proof is not a matter of consensus, but rather cold, hard PROOF. It doesn't matter if everybody THINKS something is true, what matters is whether or not it has been PROVEN. Anthropogenic climate change is an unproven, agenda driven THEORY.

Let me know when there's proof.

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 08:38 pm
1
4
Carcraft, in regards to your

Carcraft, in regards to your 8:20. Once again, climatologists KNOW about the natural climate inputs you cite. THEY KNOW. And after factoring those inputs out, THERE'S STILL WARMING. Not only that, but the warming can be shown to track anthropogenic CO2!

It's the SAME science, carcraft! The SAME science that discovered those natural cycles is showing a link between warming and anthropogenic CO2. Even the critics you present agree to that link! The debate among SCIENTISTS is how does the data indicate this increased heat will affect climate, and how will further inputs of CO2 affect the amount of heat?

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 08:41 pm
1
4
Harley, climate is not heat.

Harley, climate is not heat. Climate is a response to heat. My 5:48 shows empirical evidence of increased HEAT as a result of anthropogenic CO2. That is not the point of debate among climatologists. AGW has an empirical basis. CLIMATE CHANGE is the point of contention. 97 to 98% think AGW will induce CLIMATE CHANGE.

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 08:42 pm
3
1
Sorry but do we go on your

Sorry but do we go on your say so bad science and statistics?

RMSHEFF
18741
Points
RMSHEFF 02/13/13 - 08:46 pm
3
1
Burninater

Burninater, the big difference is the progressive liberal democrats have convinced many that global warming not only exist but man has caused it and we must now act to stop it. They are making three assumptions , none which are proven. They have built this thesis, stacking one apon another. The big problem is their solution to a problem that does not exist would cost untold billions and job losses. In my humble opinion this whole Global warming scam is designed to redistribute wealth to the undeveloped (3rd word countries) as part of Obama's get even with the rich plan…ie Fundamental Change. You may remember that during the Gulf oil crisis Obama halted permits and drilling in the gulf ( and has not to this day completely lifted the ban) while at the same time making billions of dollars in loans to Mexico and other third world gulf countries to drill for oil in the same area american countries were banned from drilling.

Where your "minor change" scenario fall flat is that the Koch's saying there is no global warming does not "pick my pocket" like cap and trade or some other scam would. These low information voters don't realize what effect fighting non existent global warming war will have on their standard of living, but then again, Obama like poor people so much he wants to create many more of them.

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 08:54 pm
1
3
No carcraft, you go on the

Sorry but do we go on your say so bad science and statistics?

------
No carcraft, you go on the experts. Even the experts YOU posed as disproving AGW say the opposite. Even the people you consider authoritative critics of others' methodology agree the data conclusively shows AGW to be real.

You want to continue to consider a fraud the consensus of the overwhelming supermajority of specialists, around the globe? A consensus built not by fiat, but by exhaustive analysis of the data by critics and supporters alike? That's your prerogative. But don't be surprised that people react with the conclusion that your acceptance of science is selectively agenda-driven, not based on the evidence.

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 08:54 pm
4
1
CO2 production has increased

CO2 production has increased over the last 10 years yet the best study data indicates global warming has been flat!

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 08:58 pm
3
1
I didn't say they disproved

I didn't say they disproved AGW, the simply fees my skepticism. If you control CO2 production , you can control all most all of human activity!

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 09:10 pm
1
3
CO2 production has increased

CO2 production has increased over the last 10 years yet the best study data indicates global warming has been flat!
------
Global SURFACE TEMPERATURE is flat. Those same 10 years have seen unprecedented glacial melt and open water in the Arctic. The added heat is clearly in the system, as melting ice takes a lot of heat.

Again, its not AGW that is being debated by climate scientists. It is the effect of AGW on climate. And you are correct, 10 years of flat avg temps, even with added heat in the system, clearly shows the simplistic more heat = higher temps model is not necessarily true. But don't confuse warming with surface temps -- that miniscule skin of air around our planet is not the only place where warming can be stored. Storage by the oceans may be even more problematic, as water stores heat much more efficiently than air. Or, it may mitigate the affect on surface air temps. We just don't know.

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/13/13 - 09:10 pm
1
3
I didn't say they disproved

I didn't say they disproved AGW, the simply fees my skepticism. If you control CO2 production , you can control all most all of human activity!
-----
And if individuals control their own CO2 production, then everyone is their own master.

If people only visualize change leading to absolute dictatorship, I can understand their fear of it. But we are not babbling victims. We are the agents of our own change. It is how we choose to act, not how someone else tries to act upon us, that defines our world.

But if fear of the worst case makes us ignore the evidence of our scientific inquiry, we could be setting ourselves up for a heap of hurt.

Debating evidence is good and necessary. Ignoring it is not.

carcraft
28457
Points
carcraft 02/13/13 - 09:25 pm
3
1
Well It's not a hockey sick

Well It's not a hockey sick it is now a field stick, it is not global warming it is climate change, it was supposed to keep warming but it is flat because of Ice melt except the bearing sea froze last year and it snowed in Israel. Scientists won't release their data (Micheal Mann) or threw it out (Phil Jones), leaked data tells us these same scientists worked to suppress studies that didn't support there suppositions. The earth was warmer during several other periods when we didn't influance climate that much yet we are supposed to believe we are now causing the warming because scientists such as Phill Jones had false or erroneous data entered into their records then threw the raw data (how then can you know if the study is valid) oh never mind, Michael Mann used bad statistics and refuses to allow others to view his work and data. These two clowns worked to suppress studies that did not support them. The UN is publishing BS reports of Ice melts in the Himalayas and using studies erroneously to support vegetation changes in the amazon. I could go on for hours with this BS and you wonder why I am skeptical? I wonder why you aren't! You still haven't expalined why it was good science for Micheal Mann and Phil Jones to suppress studies done by other scientists. Then we get into the whole area of lost weather stations and extrapolation of data. I had a ong day to day and need to go to bed, I will have a long day at work tomarrow also, I am not on welfare and those on welfare need me to work to support them, yes I am a stupid Republican for being responsible and believing scientist should not fudge data, suppress others studies or publish false UN reports!

harley_52
25872
Points
harley_52 02/13/13 - 09:28 pm
2
1
" Climate is a response to heat....

.... My 5:48 shows empirical evidence of increased HEAT as a result of anthropogenic CO2. That is not the point of debate among climatologists. AGW has an empirical basis. CLIMATE CHANGE is the point of contention. 97 to 98% think AGW will induce CLIMATE CHANGE."

Baloney.

AGW has not been proven. So, some empirical evidence SUGGESTS it MAY be present, still no PROOF exists.

You're making claims and assertions that have no basis in fact. That's the usual trick employed by AGW cultists.

RMSHEFF
18741
Points
RMSHEFF 02/13/13 - 09:29 pm
3
1
Since 1998, 31,000 scientists

Since 1998, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition agreeing with the fact that there is no scientific evidence or consensus that man-made global warming exists while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the support of only 2,500 scientists. Yet, for some reason it is accepted that global warming is scientifically undeniable.

New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 15 years. In fact, the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997. The report suggests we are headed toward a new solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are in now. This data largely contradicts the accepted theory among the public that carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that we are actually heading toward global cooling.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Daniel Field removes trees, lights structures in airspace

Daniel Field, managed by operations company Augusta Aviation, has spent more than $30,000 conducting land surveys, removing 30 trees and installing red blinking lights on top of the Newman Tennis ...
Search Augusta jobs