The New Republic

Sounds like he's OK with engineering and medicine, but can't deal with the science that goes behind it. This is a common problem with movement conservatives, and with ignoramuses more generally. They're fine with the fruits of scientific inquiry, but utterly clueless as to how those fruits were grown and harvested. The ironies can be rich. Think of how many people have been saved from infectious disease by epidemiology that rests in its entirety on evolutionary theory. Some of those people were true believing Biblical literalists. But you can not comprehend drug-resistant microbes, for example, without buying into Darwinian theory in its entirety. Likewise with pesticides and herbicides in agriculture. Where do you think those resistant strains of bugs and weeds come from?

- gwcross

August 30, 2011 at 1:39pm

My problem is that anyone who subscribes to the belief that a massive collection of humanity should follow the narrow path set forth by a Supreme Diety doesn't give a hoot about us.

- Nusholtz

August 30, 2011 at 1:44pm

Chait, try acting like a journalist once in a while. Even if it offends your moonbat masters. Wait, I forgot you are not a journalist but a moonbat cheerleader posing as a blogger. For example, the notion that Climategate is now 'settled' is an outright lie (see below) ******* London, 25 January: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) remains deeply concerned about the failure by academic and parliamentary inquires to fully and independently investigate the ‘Climategate’ affair. The latest follow-up report by the Science and Technology Committee on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) confirms that the Climategate inquiries had serious flaws, lacked balance and transparency and failed to achieve their objective to restore trust and confidence in British climate science. The report by the Science and Technology Committee shows that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were deficient and biased. In particular, the report finds that: UEA Vice-Chancellor Professor Acton misled the House of Commons Committee over the nature of the Science Appraisal Panel (paragraph 23). As Graham Stringer MP, a member of the Committee, has pointed out: “The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers… This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable.” Lord Oxburgh’s Science Appraisal Panel may have not been wholly independent (paragraph 32). The review by Lord Oxburgh lacked rigour and diligence (paragraphs 33; 61). The Inquiries failed to investigate the serious allegation relating to the deletion of e-mails in response to an FOI request (89). None of the inquiries have determined if CRU staff actually contacted the journals they discussed threatening. The alleged threatening of the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, arguably the most important incident in this area, has yet to be examined at all. The committee’s finding in this area is shameful. Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF’s report into “The Climategate Inquires” said: “The committee suggest that we should all just move on. That may be what suits most politicians, but the public deserve to know the truth. The committee have turned a blind eye to the abundant evidence of wrongdoing at UEA and in the Climategate inquiries.” We share the view by Graham Stringer that the UEA failed to set up independent panels that would have ensured an independent and objective scrutiny of the Climategate affair. Mr Stringer’s conclusion encapsulates the utter failure of the Climategate inquires: “We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”

- mr_rationale

August 30, 2011 at 1:59pm

Update: We finally have the raw data. Released 4 weeks ago. Question: how can you uphold scientific method without actual data. Answer: You can't. 7/28/2011 @ 9:44PM |1,445 views Climategate Researchers Release Long-Sought Raw Data on Global Temperatures + Comment now Most Popular NEWSPeoplePlacesCompanies The 20 Youngest Power Women +17,848 views Why Amazon Can't Make A Kindle In the USA +4,710 views Spy Cams In Bathrooms: Naughty If You're A Landlord, Okay If You're Law Enforcement? +2,730 views The Forbes Five: Hip-Hop's Wealthiest Artists +2,644 views Friends Don't Let Friends Become Chinese Billionaires +1,783 views Used Cars To Avoid +1,508 views 10 Emails That Could Cost You Your Job +1,297 views The Best Business Schools +1,242 views The World's Highest-Paid Celebrity Couples +1,053 views Apps That Help You Manage Your Life +996 views + show more William Pentland Contributor + Follow + show more I'm a clean-energy wonk at the Pace Energy and Climate Center, which is a veteran environmental and rate-payer advocate in deregulated power markets and operates the U.S. Department of Energy's Northeast Clean Energy Application Center. As a serial career-changer, I've spilled blood, sweat and tears grappling with the full spectrum of barriers and misconceptions about distributed generation and energy-efficiency technologies. Prior to joining Pace, I practiced law in New York City at Paul Weiss Rifkind Garrison & Wharton, LLP and Jenner & Block, LLP. I also wasted a massive amount of money on journalism school at Columbia University and law school at Stanford University. I've written about energy and environmental issues for Forbes, The Nation, Mother Jones and several other publications. Drop me a line -- or two -- at wpentland@law.pace.edu The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. WILLIAM PENTLAND’S POPULAR POSTS America's Top 20 Geekiest Cities 727,405 views Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe Escalates in Japan - 'Worse than Chernobyl' 53,175 views Dumbest Guy in the Room: Donald Trump's Energy Policy 23,520 views U.S. Military Scrambles to Avoid Nuclear Meltdown in Japan 19,565 views Geekville, USA: America's 20 Geekiest Cities 19,515 views MORE FROM WILLIAM PENTLAND William’s News Stream Comment 1 day ago I wish I could say I thought you were wrong about your assessment [...] on Suntech Says Solar Is For Real. Do You Agree? Comment 1 day ago @shrip, Thanks for this comment. You make an excellent point. The reason [...] on Hurricane Irene Exposes Charlatans on All Sides of Climate Science Comment 3 days ago I believe you hit the nail on the head. Humility seems to be [...] on Hurricane Irene Exposes Charlatans on All Sides of Climate Science Comment 3 days ago Thanks for the kind words, Michael. Ironically, I believe the perennial hobgoblins of [...] on Jumping Cockroaches, Super Spiders and Strange Antelopes; Top 10 Newly-Discovered Species for 2010 Comment 4 days ago On the economics, my perspective is closer to yours than Beebe's. I [...] on Suntech Says Solar Is For Real. Do You Agree? Photo Gallery 4 days ago Trends in Global News Coverage Trends of Climate Change or Global Warming New Post 4 days ago Power Prices Spike after East Coast Earthquake New Post 4 days ago New York Attorney General Subpoenas Natural Gas Drillers Photo Gallery 4 days ago Top 10 Species in 2011 Comment 5 days ago Excellent points. Interestingly, the LCOE analysis by Lazard says solar PV is cheaper [...] on Suntech Says Solar Is For Real. Do You Agree? Comment 5 days ago "North Anna acted to run its backup generators even though it could [...] on Quake-Rattled Nuke Plant Loses Power in Virginia Comment 5 days ago great story, amigo [...] on Is IBM Building a Computer That Thinks Like a Human? Comment 5 days ago Osha, I am so sorry that to learn that you're moving on [...] on Osha Gray Davidson: On Leaving Forbes Comment 6 days ago Thanks for your comment. Is the NRC also mischaracterizing circumstances at the plant [...] on Quake-Rattled Nuke Plant Loses Power in Virginia New Post 6 days ago U.S. Looks to Export Nuclear Waste; Uranium 'Leasing' New Post 6 days ago Quake-Rattled Nuke Plant Loses Power in Virginia New Post 1 week ago Memo to Investor-Owned Utilities: You're Not In Kansas Anymore Comment 1 week ago Thanks for this comment, Michael. I am adding a graphic illustration re this [...] on Big Corn Gets Bigger: America's Ethanol Decade New Post 1 week ago Innograd: Russia Reinvents Silicon Valley New Post 1 week ago Big Corn Gets Bigger: America's Ethanol Decade ••••• Subscribe to Forbes Get a Free Trial Issue Subscribe FORBES SUBSCRIPTIONS Subscribe To Newsletter Subscribe To Magazine Subscriber Customer Service Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England released almost all of the meteorological raw data it had from gathered from national meteorological services and grouped into a widely contested global land-temperature dataset, commonly known as CRUTEM. The release, which had been ordered last month by the UK Information Commissioner, took place yesterday and included raw data from 5,113 weather stations around the globe. “We want to place beyond all doubt our determination to be open with our data and to comply with the ICO’s instruction,” Trevor Davies, UEA’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, said in a statement. In 2009, hackers stole a cache of more than 1,000 email messages from CRU computer servers, which they subsequently pushed into the public spotlight. The emails contained circumstantial evidence of potential research misconduct at the CRU, including possible data manipulation and ethical violations. The CRU scientists were cleared of all allegations of misconduct. Even so, ‘Climategate’, as critics were quick to dub the affair, prompted a severe confidence crisis from which the climate sciences have not yet fully recovered. In the aftermath of the hacking incident, the CRU has consistently rejected several freedom-of-information-act requests for access to CRUTEM’s raw-data. The CRU claimed to lack authority to release the commercial datasets. Although ‘gridded’ data derived from daily meteorological station records have been publicly available for many years, several outspoken climate skeptics have pressed relentlessly for access to the raw data, including Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre who want to evaluate the underlying global temperature trends independently. The only data missing not included in yesterday’s release are those from 10 stations in Poland, which apparently refused to allow the CRU to release their data publicly. While folding to Poland’s request, the CRU reluctantly released station data from Trinidad and Tobago despite the Caribbean state’s request that it not do so.

- mr_rationale

August 30, 2011 at 2:04pm

Oh, mr_rationale. It's always fun to travel through the looking glass with you, to visit a world where up is down, black is white, and tax cuts increase revenues. Here's what any clear-thinking reader should know about the Global Warming Policy Foundation, taken from their website: "While open-minded on the contested science of global warming [we are] deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated...The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming - although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled." 98% of scientists believe global warming is real, but the science is "not yet settled"? Please. There's no reason anyone should believe what this phony "foundation" is peddling. Try again.

- benjamin81

August 30, 2011 at 2:22pm

There is nothing in rat's post about data contradicting climate change. It seems to be just claims that either an investigation into some emails was not conducted or some data was not released. And there's also a bunch of debris due to a hyper active copy and paste gland.

- Nusholtz

August 30, 2011 at 2:26pm

Let me be the first to say that I am completely persuaded by Mr. Rat's "Spy Cams in Bathrooms" post. I now reject the science community's claims about the effect of bathroom spy cams on the environment.

- Fishpeddler

August 30, 2011 at 3:16pm

"And there's also a bunch of debris due to a hyper active copy and paste gland." There are a few glitches in the "mr_rationale" program still. They are working on a patch to resolve that cut'n'paste issue.

- ironyroad

August 30, 2011 at 3:17pm

Carbon emissions in the Lone Star State are routinely measured and rated as among the highest in the nation. As a politician, a Governor of Texas boasts of the good health and prosperity available to those who choose to live in Texas. It's no wonder why Governors from Texas run for other elected offices whenever they can. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

- Doug12

August 30, 2011 at 3:23pm

Rationale, As I remember it, the whole thrust of the inquiries was not to investigate the science itself but rather the conduct of the researchers. The allegation was that they had circumvented the scientific process of peer review and used misleading or false representations of their measurements. One can easily investigate this without the data they were using and, in fact, it's irrelevant to the matter at hand - unless you're actually more interested in putting the science on trial and not the researchers' behavior. The release you cited explicitly states that this is what the GWPF wanted. It's telling that climate skeptics routinely attempt to legislate or litigate away the scientific findings, arguing that the science needs scrutiny and that, once it receives the appropriate level of attention, the science will surely fall apart. This argument demonstrates their massive ignorance since anyone who knows anything about research and peer review will surely realize that every. single. time. a scientific paper is published in a scientific journal it receives scrutiny from thousands of men and women who have studied the branch of science the paper falls into for almost their entire lives. The informal smell test is done by most, experiment replication is performed and holes are poked in the test design by some and so on and so forth, all of this being done by qualified researchers whose job it is to advance our understanding of the topic, using their highly-specialized knowledge to do so. How much more scrutiny do you want? I'd be willing to bet that you would not be satisfied with the level of scrutiny unless it somehow disproved three decades of test results and refinements. Good luck with that.

- tealeaves

August 30, 2011 at 5:41pm

Being Republican means never having to accept empirical evidence that contradicts your theology.

- GSpinks

August 30, 2011 at 7:00pm

Truth is difficult to discover. In a time when what we call the scientific method did not exist (though in a sense, engineering did, mostly dedicated to a) growing food and b) killing other people) religion provided persuasive guesses about the nature of the universe. Although we still struggle with discovering what is true, especially on complex issues such as climate change, we have moved past legends and myths. Perry, Bachman and Romney, etc. may be fine people, and probably quite intelligent in a tunnel vision sort of way, but I hope that the United States vote for people who do not base their thinking on assumptions set in stone thousands of years ago.

- skahn

August 31, 2011 at 12:59am

rat claims to be an engineer. At TNR, he has demonstrated a failure in logical reasoning and a disdain for the scientific method. If he worked for me, I would not trust any results that he produced.

- zardoz67

August 31, 2011 at 2:32pm

Good point, zardoz. I'd like to think if he worked for me it would be in the past tense; the cost-benefit analysis between employing him and having him do work versus paying unemployment benefits and firing him is no contest.

- GSpinks

August 31, 2011 at 5:47pm