In a most-welcome announcement, hundreds of climate scientists have decided to set aside their past policy of disengagement from the world of politics and confront head-on congressional conservatives who deny both the existence and principle cause of global warming. Republican Congressmen Darrell Issa, Joe Barton, and F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., all expected to be assuming the chairmanships of key committees on January 2, 2011, have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions and the so-called Climategate scandal involving the hacking and release of thousands of emails between leading British climate scientists. (Multiple independent investigations subsequently cleared the scientists of any wrong-doing and validated their research.) I would hope that they would be attempting to find who was behind the illegal invasion of privacy but I doubt that is going to happen.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow and specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago, was quoted by Neela Banerjee, Tribune Co. Washington Bureau, as saying, "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists". (For conservatives true concern for budget deficits, see my preceding blog post.) First, research grants are in no way "handouts". Ask any PhD. Second, according to Wikipedia, an "activist" is "one who is politically active in the role of a citizen". Therefore, a scientist who renders an opinion based upon his or her research cannot be an "activist". Nor could Mr. Taylor, for that matter. The difference is that Mr. Taylor's statement, which cannot be based upon peer-reviewed scientific research, is, therefore, opinion. (I realize that anyone who places science on a higher level than ideology-tested opinion is likely to be accused of being an elitist. I'm willing to take that chance.) Mr. Taylor's job as a think-tank mouthpiece doesn't make him a mere citizen; nor does it make him an expert. He is paid to find arguments which justify the pre-determined biases of his employers. He seems to fulfill that role very well.
-
4 comments:
The Republican party and their conservative boosters are in full reactionary mode these days. Vested interests oppose badly needed reforms in health care, environmental protection, financial regulation, ad nauseam.
I have heard conservatism defined as "defense of the status quo". I think it might be more accurate to define it as "defense of status". Thanks for the comment, Detroit Dan.
There's been a bit of debate recently about Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity". I enjoyed the rally, and I'm a big fan of Stewart and Colbert. However, I'm afraid Stewart underestimates the degree to which the Republican party, including approximately 50% of the U.S. populace, has gone off the rails.
In my view, the Republican party is morally bankrupt, and anyone voting for a Republican is complicit in the destruction of effective society. True, the Republicans are not Nazis and racists, but they are willing to blatantly lie to maintain their corrupt hold on power. This is the rule rather than the exception, and the results are plain to see -- disintegrating confidence in government, unnecessary war, economic weakness, etc.
Yes, many Republicans are "nice" people, but that doesn't excuse the abject hypocrisy which characterizes their behavior with regard to governance. My feeling is that the Republican Party will self-destruct within my lifetime...
Dan, I agree with almost 100% of what you say. I hesitate to use ad hominem attacks, however, as they tend to end all civilized debate at once. When you read today's post from me here, you will see how I would prefer to characterize my approach to conservatives.
Post a Comment