Quote:

 

This is what I was getting at. The point isn't that I "know a guy" (or a couple dozen meteorologists that I spend about a third of the year in constant contact with, but whatever), it's that candidates aren't looking at climatological data, and it seems that none of them have bothered to consult with an actual atmospheric scientist. I, on the other hand, have had lots and lots of discussions with atmospheric scientists, some of them heated (no pun intended), about climate change, how severe it is and how much humanity had to do with it. Is it too much to ask that a candidate pick up the phone and call the superstar teams at Oklahoma, Colorado, Colorado State and Penn State before going on national TV and saying that climate change is insignificant and not our fault?

 

And I'm with you on energy consumption, Pat. My A/C stays off unless it's warmer than 85 outside, lights are turned off when not in use, and we have our fireplace turned off at the valve from April through October to completely eliminate gas usage.

 

First of all, the data says that its insignificant.  We're talking about less than two degrees of average surface temperature over the last two centuries.  I would make the argument that we can't even account for the accuracy of thermometers over that period of time.  

 

Second, no one on the stage said that we didn't have an impact.  Show me the pull quotes if you don't believe me.  

 

the response of the candidates was two fold.  

 

a.) We should not adopt any solution that is going to cripple the economy and not fix the proposed problem.    If everything the EPA recently proposed is fully implemented and everything goes according to their plan we are talking about less than a 100th of a degree over the next century and meanwhile sustained economic decline and skyrocketing energy costs.  True adherence to he scientific method isn't running around like a chicken with your head cut off just so you feel like you're doing something.  

 

b.) follow models that work.  Chris Christie simply said that he has reduced carbon emissions through market based solutions and that the only sustainable way to curb fossil fuel emissions is to make renewable energies an attractive business model.  

 

that's a long way from sticking your head in the sand and DENYING SCIENCE.  

 

The problem that i have is that the actual responses of the candidates is being cast aside for some slapstick caricature that doesn't fit the actually policy positions that are being espoused and that's not even counting my own personal skepticism about the underlying premise.  

 

The even bigger problem that I have is that whenever we get into these discussions its always those on the left that scream "deniers, heretic, anti-science" but then don't bring a compelling mathematical argument to the table.  the only response we ever get is that its all too complex for us to understand we should just trust the people who only have a job if climate change is as they say it is.  

---