Republicans Against Science

[HoustonDavid]

I know, I know, Paul Krugman is a notoriously liberal Keynesian economist, but here he
is talking about an issue that should scare the pants off of any reasonably intelligent
citizen of a country sadly in need of a reformed education system; unfortunately my home
state of Texas teaches its children that evolution is a "theory" and "intelligent design" is
an acceptable alternative to scientific evidence, not a religion-based doctrine.

Republicans Against Science

by Paul Krugman
The New York Times
August 28, 2011

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.

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.

[Cosima___J]

Oh Krugman's at it again. Taking a few quotes here, a few there and making a mountain out of a molehill. Not to worry David, Republicans are not "against science" no matter what the lefty Krugman's of the world say. Are there not Republican scientists? Are there not Republican inventors? Are there not Republican college students majoring in the sciences? Krugman's being absurd --- again.

[IcedNote]

It's not that all Republicans are anti-science nuts; it's that all anti-science nuts are Republicans.

-G

[IcedNote]

-G

[Modernistfan]

The tragedy is that there is no intrinsic reason why Republicans or conservatives should be anti-science. Over the last 30 or so years, most of the attacks on science have come from the Left as part of the postmodernist assault on the idea that there is objective identifiable truth subject to the scientific method and the tests for falsifiability incorporated as part of the scientific method (i.e., reproducibility of experimental findings and the ability of a hypothesis or theory to make predictions that are confirmed or not by subsequent experiment or observation). Science has been attacked by the Left as male chauvinistic and racist. Much of the postmodernist, multicultural Left holds to the idea that particular groups favored by the Left, i.e., women (at least in some contexts), gays, African-Americans, Latinos, and some others, possess knowledge on an essentialist basis that is valid despite the fact that this "knowledge" is readily proven as inaccurate or nonsensical by the traditional tests of the scientific method. If you think I am exaggerating, please read "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science," by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt, both biologists.

One of the essential bases of the scientific method is that it does not matter who does an experiment or where the experiment is done as long as it is done properly. If the amino acid sequence of human insulin is determined by a Catholic working at Boston College, an Episcopalian working at Oxford, a Jew working at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, a Muslim working at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, a Buddhist working at Beijing University, or a Hindu working at New Delhi University, they will all come up with the same answer (presuming that they know how to determine amino acid sequences of proteins and their equipment does not malfunction). The Left has done its damndest to attack this philosophical underpinning of modern science; following the thinking of the Left would bring us back to the days of witch doctors.

The behavior of the Republicans has seriously damaged their political appeal in many areas depending economically on scientific innovation. Twenty years ago, Silicon Valley was mostly Republican. Today, it is hard to find a Republican there. Hopefully, Huntsman's views, and the views of other moderate Republicans, will prevail on this, but I am not optimistic.

[BWV 1080]

It's not that all Republicans are anti-science nuts; it's that all anti-science nuts are Republicans.

-G

really?

I think RFK jr is much more dangerous than any creationist. At least believing literally in Genesis won't kill children.

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2009/ ... g-disease/

Anti-vaccination – a left wing disease?
Wired has published a dazzling and timely story on the rising toll of childhood diseases in the U.S. due to the increasing numbers of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. Author, Amy Wallace, correctly notes that this issue has bridged those on both sides of the political spectrum (we’ve observed vaccination being framed on the far right as some sort of tool of one-world health care, a division of one-world government); but the inescapable fact is that the anti-vaccination movement’s ringleaders are firmly on the liberal-left-Hollywood side of politics, which is a disaster for public health. Here’s how her article begins:

“To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams Offit as a ‘biostitute’ who whores for the pharmaceutical industry. Actor Jim Carrey calls him a profiteer and distills the doctor’s attitude toward childhood vaccination down to this chilling mantra: ‘Grab ‘em and stab ‘em.’ Recently, Carrey and his girlfriend, Jenny McCarthy, went on CNN’s Larry King Live and singled out Offit’s vaccine, RotaTeq, as one of many unnecessary vaccines, all administered, they said, for just one reason: ‘Greed.’”

It doesn’t matter that RotaTeq protects children against the Rotavirus, whose symptoms of severe diarrhoea lead to some half-a-million deaths per year, there is simply no reasoning against the anti-vax movement’s belief that big pharma is evil. So while many Democratic politicians would be appalled if asked to denounce evolution as a tool of “big science,” they appear happy to minister to the idea that vaccination is not scientific. As Wallace notes:

“There are anti-vaccine Web sites, Facebook groups, email alerts, and lobbying organizations. Politicians ignore the movement at their peril, and, unlike in the debates over creationism and global warming, Democrats have proved just as likely as Republicans to share misinformation and fuel anxiety.

US senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Chris Dodd of Connecticut have both curried favor with constituents by trumpeting the notion that vaccines cause autism. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a scion of the most famous Democratic family of all, authored a deeply flawed 2005 Rolling Stone piece called “Deadly Immunity.” In it, he accused the government of protecting drug companies from litigation by concealing evidence that mercury in vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids. The article was roundly discredited for, among other things, overestimating the amount of mercury in childhood vaccines by more than 100-fold, causing Rolling Stone to issue not one but a prolonged series of corrections and clarifications. But that did little to unring the bell.”

Wallace and Wired, by contrast, have produced a model of science journalism – the article needs to be read for one of the best descriptions of how virulent measles is once one person is infected, and for how elegantly and economically it manages to dispel so much patent nonsense put out by the anti-vax loons. We can only hope this article gets the National Magazine Award it so richly deserves, that it shames Arianna Huffington and her friends (who have turned the Huffington Post into a venue for all manner of anti-vax vapidity), and that those on the liberal left stop patting themselves on the head for not being creationists, and realize that left-liberal irrationality might actually do more harm than Bush’s war on science ever did.

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2009/ ... g-disease/

[Modernistfan]

Yes, the anti-vaccine movement is exactly what I am talking about. Many liberal areas, such as very affluent Marin County in the San Francisco Bay area, now seriously lag in childhood vaccinations.

[John F]

There's very little here that I can take seriously. Who cares what random celebrities think about vaccination? Most of this is just name-calling.

The controversy surrounding Paul Offit has to do with the fear some have that vaccinations can cause autism in children. As far as I can tell, this is voodoo medicine with no real scientific basis, and even if it were true, those who have attacked Dr. Offit personally are as despicable as those who attack abortion clinics and doctors. Whether or not the anti-vaccine people are predominantly Democrats is not shown and anyway is beside the point; no Democratic office-holder or candidate for office is beating that drum. The issue isn't politics but public health.

As for whether the Republicans are "the anti-science party," or may become it, Paul Krugman cites one of today's Republican presidential candidates, John Huntsman, who has said, "“The minute the Republican party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 out of 100 climate scientists from what the National Academy of Scientists said on what is causing climate change, and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and in a losing position.”

Huntsman isn't speaking theoretically but is aiming directly at his leading rival for the Republican nomination, Rick Perry, who has taken exactly those positions. But Perry hasn't won the nomination yet, and has made a good start at talking himself out of it. Even if he does get nominated, that won't prove that the Republicans are the anti-science party; the nomination and the 2012 election aren't going to be decided on attitudes toward science, pro or con.

[keaggy220]

Yes, I think, just maybe, the science books are safe.

Huntsman is using this science thing for all it's worth and the puppets are cooperating...

[living_stradivarius]

It's not that all Republicans are anti-science nuts; it's that all anti-science nuts are Republicans.

-G

really?

I think RFK jr is much more dangerous than any creationist. At least believing literally in Genesis won't kill children.

RFK, Maher, et al are harmless if the creationists make sure there is no R&D or funding for vaccines.

[HoustonDavid]

If I remember correctly, the autism/vaccination/mercury-in-same debate arose several
years ago when an English researcher published erroneous "data" correlating autism with
vaccination. Other researchers were never able to duplicate his results and it was finally
proven that he had falsified his work.

I believe he was actually charged with a crime in England - not sure what the crime might
be - but he still publicly proclaims his data is correct despite overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. All of the publicity regarding autism and vaccinations arose from his one published
report, in Lancet I believe.

Of course, the nay-Sayers supporting him and his anti-vaccination work are loudly proclaiming
that "big pharmaceuticals" are behind a nefarious cover-up of the truth about vaccinations in
order to keep the money coming in. Unfortunately, they are these publicity hounds are the
ones believed by many people, not reliable scientists who have demonstrated and published
the truth of the matter.

The communicable diseases spread to others by children who have not been vaccinated
because of this man's false information are the real crime, and it is continuing because
people still believe him despite the many published reports proving his "research" was bogus.

[RebLem]

This notion that vaccine effeciveness deniers are as bad as evoluion and climate change deniers is a huge, smelly load. Fact is, NO Democratic candidate for the House, Senate, or Presidency is making vaccine effectiveness denial part of his or her campaign, whereas evolution and climate change denial is one of the central themes of many Republican campaigns for office at all levels. There is simply NO comparison, and the perpetrators of this falsehood know it.

[Teresa B]

This notion that vaccine effeciveness deniers are as bad as evoluion and climate change deniers is a huge, smelly load. Fact is, NO Democratic candidate for the House, Senate, or Presidency is making vaccine effectiveness denial part of his or her campaign, whereas evolution and climate change denial is one of the central themes of many Republican campaigns for office at all levels. There is simply NO comparison, and the perpetrators of this falsehood know it.

"Vaccine effectiveness deniers" are not especially a big influence on any group of politicians that I know of--and this foolish idea stems from a far different sort of human foible. When people have an autistic child who appeared to be developing normally, and then starts showing signs of autism, they are understandably devastated by this. Because vaccines were given (as they always are at specific ages in babies and toddlers), the parents naturally try to connect cause-and-effect. The emotional origins of a strong belief in vaccines causing one's child's autism are going to trump the scientific studies.

Since autism has apparently risen dramatically in incidence, vaccines are an obvious target for incrimination, and it's appropriate that they be studied. But since they have been quite effectively proven not to be the cause, and the devastation that can be wrought by the prospect of recurring epidemics of "childhood" diseases such as measles, polio, diphtheria, pertussis is far greater than the danger of the vaccines, it's very unwise to leave children unprotected.

Teresa

[BWV 1080]

This notion that vaccine effeciveness deniers are as bad as evoluion and climate change deniers is a huge, smelly load. Fact is, NO Democratic candidate for the House, Senate, or Presidency is making vaccine effectiveness denial part of his or her campaign, whereas evolution and climate change denial is one of the central themes of many Republican campaigns for office at all levels. There is simply NO comparison, and the perpetrators of this falsehood know it.

this vaccine issue came up in response to this

all anti-science nuts are Republicans.

-G

[John F]

Concerning the vaccine - autism dispute, there may be something in it after all. This from a very long article last February in the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kir ... 17879.html):


David Kirby

The Autism-Vaccine Debate: Why It Won't Go Away
Posted: 02/11/11 08:39 AM ET

I have been speaking to young parents in my neighborhood of Park Slope, Brooklyn lately about vaccines and autism, which science and the media have once again pronounced as completely debunked for what I believe is now the sixth or seventh time.

These are highly educated, affluent and politically progressive people -- doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, writers and other successful professionals. And like half of the American population in one poll, many of my neighbors (though certainly not all) say that there is, or may be, an association between autism and the current U.S. vaccine schedule.

Although some Park Slope parents refuse to vaccinate their children at all - an unwise and dangerous choice in my opinion -- the vast majority makes sure their kids get immunized; although many do so on a schedule worked out with their pediatrician.

In general, it is the most highly educated parents who are now eschewing the CDC schedule and vaccinating their children at a different pace. In one recent presentation of data, for example, mothers with masters degrees were significantly more likely to forego the Hepatitis B vaccine birth dose than mothers with an 8th grade education.

Why do so many educated, successful parents still believe that the current vaccine schedule can hurt a small percentage of susceptible kids, and that some of those injuries might result in an autism spectrum disorder (ASD)? Despite all of the population studies showing no link, high-profile court cases that went against parents, insistence of omniscience by health officials and the public mauling of Andrew Wakefield, I don't think that many people around here have changed their minds.

That's because evidence of a vaccine-autism link did not come to them via a 12-year-old study published in a British medical journal, nor from Hollywood celebrities: Not very many had heard of Wakefield until recently.

Some of these parents actually keep up with the science, including a new review of autism studies in the Journal of Immunotoxicology which concludes: "Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination."

Some of their evidence also comes from life -- from friends, family and business associates whose children had an adverse vaccine reaction, got sick, stopped talking and never recovered...

Parents who say the vaccine-autism link has not been debunked are, like me, hardly "anti-vaccine." Why on earth would anyone not want to protect children from dangerous diseases? That is the epithet hurled upon most of them anyway. And it's what people will say about me as well, even though, as I said, I think parents should vaccinate their kids...

Most parents in Park Slope are pro-vaccine, which is why they vaccinate their kids. They know the answer to the question, "Could vaccines be involved in some autism cases?" is not "Stop vaccinating all children now."

Instead, like me, they believe that more children today are more susceptible to vaccine injury and other environmental triggers, thanks to toxins such as heavy metals, air pollution, pesticides and a universe of endocrine disruptors unleashed into the environment. Other risk factors might be at play, such as vitamin D deficiency, parental age, closely-spaced births, caesarian births or even the stress of everyday life.

Such factors, both pre- and post-natal, might harm mitochondria, damage DNA and potentially result in immune and autoimmune disorders. These problems could then, in turn, increase the risk in some genetically susceptible children for early life problems like complex febrile seizures, myelin damage, and what has been called "mitochondrial meltdown." All three have been identified in medical journals and/or the U.S. federal Vaccine Court as plausible triggers of regressive autism. And all three can occur with, or without, vaccines.

They should be studied more, in my opinion.

The answer is not to stop vaccinating -- that would lead to widespread disease and suffering. The answer is to find out which children might be particularly susceptible to which vaccines, vaccine combinations or vaccine ingredients, and devise a schedule that is individually tuned to their specific conditions. This will build parental trust and strengthen, not weaken, the national vaccine program.

Even the CDC states: "Although some may call it a "one size fits all" approach, the recommended vaccine schedule is flexible, and it does account for instances when a child should not receive a recommended vaccine or when a recommended vaccine should be delayed. Those decisions, however, are best made in consultation with the child's doctor, and parents shouldn't be reluctant to have such discussions."

Until science can tell parents which children are most genetically vulnerable to neuroimmune injuries, more people around the country will probably "go Park Slope," if you will, and devise their own selection of vaccines at their own chosen schedule...

[BWV 1080]

Concerning the vaccine - autism dispute, there may be something in it after all. This from a very long article last February in the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kir ... 17879.html):

I am surprised you would find this credible. Kirby is a journalist that has been an anti-vax propagandist for years and has a long track record been morphing his ad hoc theories to fit the evidence after every new study comes out finding no evidence for his previous speculations on an autism-vaccine link. Of course you cannot prove a negative (something that Kirby seems to not understand) science cannot disprove an autism-vaccine link anymore than it cannot disprove cell phones, UFOs or elves cause the disorder. What is known is that the issue has been studied for over a decade and no body of repeated, peer-reviewed scientific studies ever demonstrated any link. Hence no reputable medical organization supports a link, including the America Academy of Pediatrics. Kirby has been most vocal on the supposed link between the mercury contained in the preservative thimerosol which up until 2001 was used in dead-virus vaccines such as Tetanus or Polio. Now that the preservative has been gone for ten years without any reduction in the rate of autism diagnosis Kirby has had to alter his speculations. Its important to note that what is known is only that the rate of autism diagnosis has increased, whether this is related to an actual increase in the frequency of the disorder is uncertain and a subject of current debate.

Also worth noting even if the increase in autism diagnosis reflected a real increase in the prevalence of the disorder and that increase was entirely attributable to vaccines - it would still be no justification for not vaccinating children. Autism is not a fatal condition. The certain, otherwise preventable, deaths of children from Measles or Rubella or any of the other vaccinated diseases would outweigh the costs of the observed increase in autism diagnosis.

A point by point dissection of Kirby's recent garbage can be found at the links below:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/ ... _an_an.php

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/ ... _at_cb.php

[John F]

Whatever the author's background, and indeed regardless of who wrote it, I say this particular piece is credible on its face, if read with an open mind. You aren't actually refuting it, or even speaking directly to it. For example, you say, "even if the increase in autism diagnosis reflected a real increase in the prevalence of the disorder and that increase was entirely attributable to vaccines - it would still be no justification for not vaccinating children." But Kirby agrees: "I think parents should vaccinate their kids." Where's the beef?

The article is way too long to be quoted here complete, so I cut to the conclusions while leaving out the extensive supporting arguments. Anyone can read it all by following my link. Have you done so? I see nothing in your comments to show that you have.

[BWV 1080]

Whatever the author's background, and indeed regardless of who wrote it, I say this particular piece is credible on its face, if read with an open mind. You aren't actually refuting it, or even speaking directly to it. For example, you say, "even if the increase in autism diagnosis reflected a real increase in the prevalence of the disorder and that increase was entirely attributable to vaccines - it would still be no justification for not vaccinating children." But Kirby agrees: "I think parents should vaccinate their kids." Where's the beef?

The article is way too long to be quoted here complete, so I cut to the conclusions while leaving out the extensive supporting arguments. Anyone can read it all by following my link. Have you done so? I see nothing in your comments to show that you have.

I provided two links attacking this specific article, not that there is anything in it remotely resembling a real claim. I will not waste my time looking at depth into anything David Kirby claims. I do not need to have an open mind to unproven medical speculations from a journalist with a history of promoting quack medicine, anymore than I need an open mind toward the claims of the Discovery Institute, the IHR or the Church of Scientology. Having been discredited after campaigning for years and writing books trumpeting thimerisol as the cause of autism he has simply moved the goalposts and now has this nebulous web of environmental effects (one of which is vaccines) interacting with certain susceptible children, all designed to be utterly untestable and unfalsifiable. As the parent of an autistic child, I studied this subject for several years and there simply is no evidence to support his claims. Yes there are a few one-off statistical anomolies just like there are in alleged environmental or dietary causes of cancer, but the evidentiary standard of scientific medicine is that takes a body of repeated, peer reviewed studies to demonstrate a causual link between vaccines and autism. A host of studies have been done around the world for over a decade and the opposite has occurred - the evidence overwhelmingly supports that there is no link between vaccines and autism. A partial list of these studies can be found here at the American Academy of Pediatrics:

http://www.aap.org/immunization/familie ... tudies.pdf

[Teresa B]

This notion that vaccine effeciveness deniers are as bad as evoluion and climate change deniers is a huge, smelly load. Fact is, NO Democratic candidate for the House, Senate, or Presidency is making vaccine effectiveness denial part of his or her campaign, whereas evolution and climate change denial is one of the central themes of many Republican campaigns for office at all levels. There is simply NO comparison, and the perpetrators of this falsehood know it.

this vaccine issue came up in response to this

all anti-science nuts are Republicans.

-G

Obviously not all "anti-science nuts" are Republicans; but I think Rob was getting at the point that the political impact of the "liberal" anti-science folks who are specifically anti-vaccine is pretty much nil.

Teresa

[John F]

I will not waste my time looking at depth into anything David Kirby claims.

Then you might as well not waste your time discussing it.

As for the two pieces by "Orac" to which you linked, they are long on ad hominem sarcasm but short on substance, such substance as there is being provided by an ABC News correspondent. That may be good enough for you, but it doesn't persuade me that I'm a dummy for not dismissing "The Autism-Vaccine Debate: Why It Won't Go Away" unread, as you say you've done.

Let's be clear. I'm not taking sides on this issue. I don't know enough to, and it doesn't affect me personally. What I said, and still say, is that the kind of arguments I read in "The Autism-Vaccine Debate" are not anti-science or even anti-vaccine in character, though they dispute a widespread scientific view, nor are they specifically Democratic. This granted, I'm happy to leave the interested parties to carry on their debate, and have no stake in how it comes out.

[rwetmore]

I'm late, but I want to jump in here. Krugman obviously doesn't know anything about science, let alone anything about climate science. This is something I don't think I'll ever get over. Total ignoramuses who think they're the enlightened ones.

No one well educated in climate science (myself included) believes humans are having no impact on the climate, or that CO2 is greenhouse gas whose increase likely has some warming effect. Of course, we are impacting the climate and have been since the dawn of time - to some degree at least. In addition, I would argue that the evidence strongly suggests our impact is likely very small, and it's not even clear whether our activities are a net warming or net cooling influence.

Krugman says:

"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."

This statement is blatantly false. If anything, so-called 'projections' have needed to be downgraded or canceled due to a lack of warming in the last decade. And Energy Conservation (basic first law of thermodynamics) precludes any kind of runaway or catastrophic effect, but Krugman wouldn't know anything about that, would he?

[rwetmore]

Krugman says:

"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."

This statement not only demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of Krugman, but unfortunately the public at large. So-called 'percent of researches' or statements of 'consensus' have absolutely nothing to do with science. They bear no scientific significance whatsoever. Zero.

What was the last scientific theory proven because 'x' percentage of polled scientists claimed it so?
What was the last scientific theory proven because there was a declared 'consensus'?

There has never been one, and there never will be.

[rwetmore]

In fact, I would even go a step further and say that if the public at large was scientifically literate they would not only know that these kinds of things are absolutely meaningless scientifically, but also major red flags of a lack of genuine scientific foundation.

[rwetmore]

John B,

I was going to respond to your post, but you deleted it.

I don't think you've done much digging on this subject, have you? There are far more than just a scant few kooks or oddballs in the scientific community that have come out against the so-called climate 'consensus'. In a lot of ways, many of them are much more accomplished scientists in their particular fields related to climate. This of course does not bear any scientific significance, but if you want to make the argument there aren't very many 'credible' scientists who dispute the 'consensus', it's just not true and easily refuted. It's a silly, completely unscientific game to play, which is why I don't play it.

Also, I absolutely agree that most conservatives or Republicans are rejecting the 'consensus' solely because they reject the accompanying political ideology and not because they understand the evidence. This still has no bearing on any scientific truth or reality in regards to climate and the direction and/or magnitude of man's influence on it.

By and large, people are not forming a point of view on the subject from any effort to objectively analyze or understand anything. I realize of course that people have different aptitudes when it comes to math and science, but people are not even making any effort within their own limits. This is fundamentally the problem, and why mixing something like this in with politics is so incredibly dangerous.