Right Wing World: Climate Change Still Happening, Deniers Still Denying

Of all of the strange things I've blogged about over the years, probably the most frequent one is the bizarre fact that virtually every issue has become a left vs. right shouting match, even those things that don't have a logical, political divide. Climate change may be becoming an even bigger one than abortion or gay rights.

Let me start with what is strangest about it to me: conservatives should probably be on the conservation side of this one, but aren't. Given their heavy saturation with religion, you'd think that wantonly raping and pillaging the earth to wring every drop of fossil fuel out of it might bother them. You'd think potentially ruining the beauty of vast regions and making parts of the planet  inhospitable for "God's creation" would also spur a twinge of guilt. And you'd think the regimentation and repeatable nature of science would align with that rigid, upright (tight assed) reputation that conservatives always use to have. Nope.

Yeah, let's just ignore the scientists.
That never goes wrong.

Long ago, anything to do with nature, science, conservation, regulation, safety, caution, concern for future consequences (in anything beyond the national debt, or a nuclear Iran) all became dirty hippie, granola munching, kale and arugula eating liberal stuff. Somehow, a scientific consensus (and that is what there is among climatologists, a high 90-percentile on board with man-made global climate change) is just a liberal conspiracy, invented by Al Gore after he made the internet, just so he could put the screws to energy companies. Or something.

See, part of my problem is the motive. For a believable conspiracy, you need a motive, and "So Al Gore can feel important and get rich(er)" doesn't seem like enough to me. Sure, you'll hear some conservatives try to say there is a "climate change industry" that will allegedly get rich too, somehow, though I've seen no through-thread from climatologists to Solyndra. But even if a credible "truther" movement had gelled, HOW did it overtake the majority of conservatives' and Republicans' world view, from the layperson to high elected officials?

All of this ignores the fact that of course man can affect the ecology with pollution. We've seen acid rain, state-sized oil slicks and garbage patches, ozone holes, rivers and lakes and sometimes tap water that are combustible. We've seen earthquakes that coincide with fracking patterns. Smog in big cities to the point of severe health alerts. In China, the air is practically a solid. Go back to the early industrial revolution, there were blackened cities from coal. And hey, how 'bout Chernobyl? Clearly, it is possible for us to affect our immediate area, surrounding areas, down-river areas and beyond with the things we as humans do. Why the hell is it even remotely hard to believe that it could accumulate, grow, become something that is a global concern? Why? And how exactly is that left or right?

My guess is, conservatives think that if they're wrong, we will either
get a rapture or The Jetsons, so what's the problem?

The answer is kind of easy: huge monied interests, gigantic corporations with deep pockets would really rather not have a lot (or any) regulations. They'd rather not be forced to change at all until there is no fossil fuel left to exploit. Full speed ahead, dirtier and more dangerous methods of extraction, it doesn't matter as long as there is profit. So, anything that puts the brakes on hurts profits, any caution would anger shareholders. Corporations and their shareholders rarely plot out contingency plans beyond the next quarter(s). Their concern is profit, now. So forget that forging new, cleaner plans for energy could make them a bundle too. Forget even making plans to contain inevitable clean-up necessary for more difficult fossil fuel extraction. Profit, profit, profit.

So, they fund think tanks, they fund punditry, they fund their own "science," so they can latch onto anything that might throw a credible-sounding counter argument, so that they can continue raking it in. And if there's one thing the conservative media will grab onto it's giant corporations and their funding. "Job creators" shall not be questioned! So, it's not hard to see where the genesis of Right Wing World's climate change denialism comes from. It's just amazing how entrenched it is, when it's built on such an insubstantial foundation. But it's a fabulous case study on how to get a base of voters to vote against logic, reason and their own self-interest. And it also shows how easily you can get a group of people who have wedded their politics to their religion, to champion your cause as though it is their own.

But can we please not go totally Gomer Pyle, and claim that a snowstorm disproves "global warming?" Can we at least squelch the stupid? No, I guess not. [By the way, if you're wondering how the excerpted article below resulted in the Right Wing World column above, just follow the link and head to the comments there. WOW.]

[Excerpt]

The big melt: Antarctica's retreating ice may re-shape Earth
 
From the ground in this extreme northern part of Antarctica, spectacularly white and blinding ice seems to extend forever. What can't be seen is the battle raging underfoot to re-shape Earth. Water is eating away at the Antarctic ice, melting it where it hits the oceans. As the ice sheets slowly thaw, water pours into the sea - 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons) per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. That's the weight of more than 356,000 Empire State Buildings, enough ice melt to fill more than 1.3 million Olympic swimming pools. And the melting is accelerating. . .

Read more at: AOL News

Many Republicans Think Climate Change is Real

It's always amazing to me when we see polls and punditry that debate the percentage of people who believe or disbelieve relatively empirical things, based on their political leanings. I mean, who cares how many of group X believe that the earth is round? It's round regardless. And when climate scientists nearly unanimously agree that there is a consensus that man-made climate change is a real thing, being a conservative* shouldn't matter in the equation to whether or not it is "real."

Anyway, to find that any significant percentage of conservatives are seeing the light is a pleasant surprise.

*Now, all of that said, I'd really like to know how being a climate change denier is "conservative" in nature in the first place. Conservative implies conservation, carefulness, caution, tapping the brakes, and being a tight-ass. Today's conservatives are seemingly about wastefulness, heedless of warnings if it hurts profits, full-speed-ahead/damn-the-consequences, and inventing a conspiracy theory amongst scientists while having no rational story for a motive. I don't see any relationship between the "conservative" brand, and the traditional definition of the word.

[Excerpt]

Despite Current Congress, Many Republicans Think Climate Change Is Real
 
In Washington, D.C., Rep. Chris Gibson could be considered an anomaly. Unlike 68 percent of his Republican colleagues in the 114th Congress, the congressman from New York does not publicly deny the science of human-caused climate change. In fact, Gibson is one of the small handful of congressmembers who publicly states that climate change is real. He’s even gone so far as to introduce a resolution that would “recognize the reality” of global warming’s dangers. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Ron Paul Lifts Eugenics Speech from Wikipedia Write-up of Gattaca

Yep, really.
 

Messin' With Texas: Idiot Texan Argues for Creationism in Science Books

You're a genius. Image from Raw Story.

It's hard out here for a non-believer. Especially if you're the argumentative type like me, who just can't seem to avoid commenting in Facebook, Twitter or message boards. Because I'm a gay atheist (gaytheist!) and a liberal, I very often find myself arguing with religious types about all sorts of things. And the biggest problems stem from the religious person's insistence that their faith is on par with facts. No, worse than that: if facts seem to dispute their faith, it is faith that wins the argument, from their perspective!

Here's a fact: creationism isn't science. It isn't anything like science. So, ipso facto, it doesn't belong in science books. Period. What the hell is the matter with Texas and religious nutjobs? Is that redundant?

[Excerpt]

Former Texas Board of Education chair argues for ‘final blow’ to evolution studies

The former chair of the Texas State Board of Education appeared at a board meeting this week to argue in favor of a new science textbooks he hoped would strike “the final blow” to studying evolution. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Game Over for the Climate?

Jor-El was right. Have we learned nothing from
Superman?

On one side, there are scientists, saying that we're getting perilously close to the point of no return: coastal cities under water, melting ice sheets, intolerable heat. And on the other, we have the talking heads on FOX "News," saying it's all a hoax. Who do you believe? Listen, I'm gay. . .no plans for children. I'll be old or dead by the time things get that bad. But what about you "family values" types? You've got kids. . .grandkids. . .What if they're right?

[Excerpt]


Game Over for the Climate

GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do. . .”

Read more at: The New York Times 

What's Wrong With Tennessee? Creationism In Schools Allowed

Pssst. . .creationists: Darwin didn't claim to know the origin of
the universe! Image from source.

Insanity. I don't care how fervently you believe that God created the universe, the idea doesn't belong in science class. As hard as they've tried to separate "creationism" from "intelligent design," there is no difference, other than taking the "Christianity" brand off of it. It's still taking the idea of an all-powerful magical being, and inserting it into science class. There isn't a scintilla of science in that. Not to mention that evolution makes no claim to the origins of the universe.

I know that I'll never convince a true believer that there is no God. But there is no denying that positing a "creator" into evolution or the big bang just makes the whole thing more complicated, not less. If you disbelieve the idea of the universe having always existed in one form or another, how is it so easy to believe that an omnipotent, invisible, intangible, omnipresent, omniscient, all-loving, vengeful, jealous God has always existed? You've just inserted a doozy of a claim into the story! And we won't even get into how this mega-creature, creator of the vastness of all that is, cares what we individual humans on this little speck called Earth, do with our private parts.

[Excerpt]

TN science bill protects teachers who allow debate over evolution

Senators voted 24-8 to pass a bill that says schoolteachers cannot be punished for "helping students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories" taught in public schools. . .


Read more at: WBIR.com

Rick Santorum: Liberals are the Anti-Science Ones

Hahahaha! Oh, Frothy, tell me another one!

[Excerpt]

Santorum: Liberals ‘are the anti-science ones’

 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

The British Have it Right: Creationism is NOT Science

Image from source, Telegraph UK

Creationism--sometimes euphemistically (and ironically)  called "intelligent design"--has long been one of those heated topics that interests me. From the waning days of the Prodigy online service, I've gotten into arguments with supporters of teaching creationism in science classrooms (and of course all the other religion vs. science arguments). Whatever you think about the topic, there is a central, inarguable truth: creationism isn't  science. It's theology.

As such, I'd have no problem with the subject being taught in a comparative religion class, or a "Bible Lit." class, or a philosophy class. But it can't be presented as the literal truth, and it can't be presented as science. At least in England, they understand this. Our country, on the other hand, is more likely to let public opinion have a say over facts.

[Excerpt]

Creationism 'banned from free schools'

Creationism, intelligent design and other theories that contradict evolution are to be banned from being taught as science in free schools. . .

Read more at: The Telegraph UK

Republicans Unanimously Vote That "Global Warming" Doesn't Exist

I think it's official. The Republicans are the Elders of Krypton.

[Excerpt]

‘War On Science’: Committee From Koch Votes To Deny Climate Change



Today, Republicans in the House energy committee voted not once, not twice, but three times, against amendments recognizing that climate change is real, despite the broad scientific consensus that “climate change is happening and human beings are a major reason for it. . .”
 

Read more at: Think Progress

Bill O'Reilly: That Man is an Idiot

Bill O'Reilly recently made a fool of himself. This is not particularly unusual. But this time he's making himself more a fool than he was originally by digging deeper. Previously, he claimed he could prove the existence of God by the regularity of the tides. Nothing else could prove tides. When people pointed out the gravity pull of the moon, Bill-O came up with this video response:



To which I say: Bill! Venus and Mars do have the sun! The same sun as us! Venus doesn't have a moon, but Mars has two! More than the strangeness of his questions is the strangeness of his speech while doing so, where he sounds like Rain Man.

The argument between atheism/agnosticism and religion will be waged for a long, long time. But O'Reilly will not win it with his smug--but oddly childlike--reasoning.  But he's right in one respect: it takes more effort to be a non-believer. You have to think, reason, study and deliberate. That is harder than just accepting a religion on faith alone. "They said it, it must be true. End of discussion." is very easy.

What is Open-Mindedness?

This is quite interesting, even if the narrator's tone might lull you to sleep. Grab a cup of coffee first, then watch!

Oh, Great: Sunscreens Might Accelerate Skin Cancer?

Irony alert!  What say we just party like it's 1999. . .eat bacon, smear the grease on our skin, sit in the sun, smoke filterless Camels, drink wine straight from the box, and just enjoy life while it lasts.

[Excerpt]

Study: Many Sunscreens May Be Accelerating Cancer

Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives, according to an evaluation of those products released today.


AOL News also has learned through documents and interviews that the Food and Drug Administration has known of the potential danger for as long as a decade without alerting the public, which the FDA denies. . .

Read more at: AOL News

Arizona Targeting "Human-Animal Hybrids"

Image from source, Politico

Are you kidding me? What the hell is going on in Arizona? I do not support man/bear/pigs or any other exotic combinations of people and the animal kingdom. But who does? Too weird for words, man.

[Excerpt]

Arizona legislature targets 'human-animal hybrids'

The Arizona state Senate on Thursday passed a bill making it illegal for a person to “intentionally or knowingly creating a human-animal hybrid.”



The bill, which passed 16 to 12, would prohibit anyone in the state from “creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm. . .”

Read more at: Politico

Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.

Bill Nye Debunks the Climate Change Debunkers

Did you see Bill Nye the science guy on The Rachel Maddow Show last week? She had him on to talk about the "snowpocalypse" in Washington D.C. and the east coast, and how conservatives are using the winter storm to somehow disprove "global warming." Several prominent pundits from right-wing world have pointed to the piles of snow, and cackled about how wrong Al Gore is on climate change.

I was surprised to find that conservatives apparently consider this humor. We're not supposed to think that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others are serious when they use the above example. Uh, ha ha? Sorry, conservative humor can be somewhat elusive. But they sure seem like they mean it to me. I wonder what Limbaugh will have to say about climate change if he finds his Florida mansion waist deep in water? Oh, wait, he doesn't have a waist! Anyway, here's the clip. It's entertaining, and debunks this "issue" whether it is a joke or not.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris Matthews Skewers Rep. Mike Pence on Science

Ironically, this segment of Hardball with Chris Matthews is titled "How to Fix the GOP." This was certainly not the way to do that. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) tap dances around Matthews' questions regarding evolution and global warming science in a most. . .well. . .tap-dancey way. Not his--nor the GOP's--finest hour.

Science is Cool: Does Earth Have a Twin?

Image from source, Space.com

This story was brought to my attention by Stupid Monkey Planet, who knows my affinity for space stories, and the tantalizing prospect that there may be intelligent life somewhere in the universe. Notice I don't include humans as "intelligent life." That's on purpose. As is the Mokey's moniker.

Anyway, I hope on this other Earth, my doppelgänger is a little thinner and doesn't have a double-chin. Oh, and lots and lots of money. And a President Gore! So many wishes. . .

[Excerpt]

Astronomers on Verge of Finding Earth's Twin

Planet hunters say it's just a matter of time before they lasso Earth's twin, which almost surely is hiding somewhere in our star-studded galaxy.

Momentum is building: Just last week, astronomers announced they had discovered three super-Earths. . .

Read more at: Science.com

String Theory: A Knotty Problem

Image from source, Science Daily

I just found this article via AmericaBlog, and I'm appropriating it here for a very personal reason. You see, I'm convinced that the laws of physics are out to get me. OK, convinced is a strong word, but I strongly suspect it.

If I'm reaching for a hanger, it mysteriously will attract all of its cohorts, and I will find myself grasping a hanger mobile. Loose hangers will fall here and there, but the one I wanted will be effectively welded to the mass. Another example would be groceries. No matter how well I pack them into the back of the Jeep, the slightest turn, incline or gentle stop tends to send them sprawling. Usually, something perishable will end up deeply under one of my seats, only to be discovered (much) later.

Everything is like that with me, but strings, hoses, cords and cables are the most nefarious example. No matter how carefully wound and separated, they manage to become a mass of interlocking knots, seemingly all by themselves. Add a few irritating inventions like nozzles, modular plugs or other attachments, and you've got a Gordian Knot.

[Excerpt]

Physicists Tackle Knotty Puzzle

Electrical cables, garden hoses and strands of holiday lights seem to get themselves hopelessly tangled with no help at all. Now research initiated by an undergraduate student at the University of California, San Diego has resulted in the first model of how knots form. . .

Read the article at: Science Daily

Man Shortening the Life Expectancy of the Universe?

Image from source, Telegraph.co.uk

If you thought my last post was hard to fit into your head, try figuring this one out: Man may be shortening the lifespan of the universe, merely by observing it. Hurts your brain, don't it?

[Excerpt]

Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'

Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.

The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory, the most successful theory we have. Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang. . .

Read on at: Telegraph.co.uk

Your Lyin' Eyes: The Full Moon Illusion

Image froms source, Science.NASA.org

I'm a real fan of science, and also of logic. But the "full moon illusion" still eludes me. I just can't wrap my brain around it. This evening, we watched the moon rise over the Las Vegas Valley, and as it often seems when the moon is full, it looked huge. Not E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial huge, just ordinary, non-theatrical magic huge.

I've read about this optical illusion before. They tell you that the moon is always pretty much the same size, no matter where we see it in the sky. They'll tell you it's just your eyes (and your brain) playing tricks on you, and that it's just a perspective thing. You can even try a trick: extend your arm, and you can blot the moon out with your finger tip, no matter where it is in the sky. I've done the trick, and it is true.

But I've also tried to un-trick my brain, and remove the perspective issue by blotting out the landscape with my hands. And the moon still looks huge to me. When the moon is high in the sky--and looks smaller--I've tried to line it up with our roof top, or with trees or lamp posts--and it still looks smaller. I'll defer to the science, but I still don't get it. . .

[Excerpt]

Summer Moon Illusion [Editor's note: It ain't just a summer illusion!]

Sometimes you can't believe your eyes. This week is one of those times.
Step outside any evening at sunset and look around. You'll see a giant moon rising in the east. It looks like Earth's moon, round and cratered; the Man in the Moon is in his usual place. But something's wrong. This full moon is strangely inflated. It's huge!

You've just experienced the Moon Illusion.

Sky watchers have known this for thousands of years: moons hanging low in the sky look unnaturally big. Cameras don't see it, but our eyes do. It's a real illusion. . .

Read on at: Science.NASA.org

Global Warming Scientists' Predictions Ever More Dire

Photo from source, AOL News

Every new scientific story about the threat of global climate change seems to get more and more dire. The speed of the approach of calamity gets closer and closer. We may well be in the middle of irreversible disaster before the partisan bickering on the issue gets settled.

And how did this even become a partisan issue? Is it because conservatives have a tendency to deny science? Is it because conservatives also tend to support big business, a group that would be hit hardest by any changes that need to be made? I vote yes and yes.

[Excerpt]

UN Panel Offers Dire Warming Forecast

The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report released Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of extinction for some species. [snip]

As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's megacities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says. . .

Read the whole story, with pictures at: AOL News