Read Meat for the Pack...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Senator Rubio tossing out some red meat for the hungry at CPAC.
Rubio is right about one thing for certain. The left will criticize his speech for no new ideas. Perhaps they have a valid point.
View video of speech.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Senator Rubio tossing out some red meat for the hungry at CPAC.
HuffPo - Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) threw some social conservative red meat to CPAC-goers on Thursday in a rant against Democrats who criticize him and members of his party for opposing same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
"Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot," he said, his words drowned out by cheers from the crowd as he talked about his belief in the protection of human life "at every stage of its development."
"The people who are actually closed-minded in American politics are the people who love to preach about the certainty of science with regards to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception," he continued.
Rubio does not often speak so forcefully on social issues, but if there's any venue to do it, it's CPAC. His speech was wildly popular: he entered the stage to the first standing ovation of the day, and drew applause every time he took a sip of water. (He also made plenty of jokes about water, a nod to his awkward sip during a post-State of the Union speech.)
His CPAC remarks focused largely on economic issues, from lowering taxes to defunding Obamacare...
Skip
"As soon as I'm done speaking, I'll tell you what the criticism on the left is going to be," Rubio said. "Number one, he drank too much water. Number two: that he didn't offer any new ideas. {Read More}
Rubio is right about one thing for certain. The left will criticize his speech for no new ideas. Perhaps they have a valid point.
View video of speech.
Via: Memeorandum
Rubio: "Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot,"
ReplyDeleteMaybe not a bigot, but certainly unAmerican. States do not have the right to deny Americans equal protection under the law. He can keep his belief personal, but he can't force his personal--and religious--beliefs on our secular government and deny equal rights to a minority.
"The people who are actually closed-minded in American politics are the people who love to preach about the certainty of science with regards to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception," he continued.
Nonsense. 98% of climate scientists acknowledge global warming, while there are millions of people, medical and non-medical, who disagree on his second claim. Potential life happens when a sperm fertilizes an ovum, but that zygote is NOT a human being. It has no heart, brain, or nervous system. It is a potential human being. Some religions believe it is "ensouled," at the moment of fertilization, but that's a religious concept, not a scientific one. If Rubio and his fans believe in the sanctity of zygotes, then they should never have abortions. But they should also not impose their religious beliefs on those who do not share them.
You are correct that at the moment of conception there is no heart beat, brain, or nervous system. Soon after there is. So you might want to do your homework and find out exactly when that is Shaw. Especially since you seem to be indicating that when these organs are formed human life is present.
DeleteWhich is precisely why I have been consistent in stating abortion at the age of viability, ie: when a fetus can survive outside the women's womb with life support, should be illegal.
Roe/Wade states a term limit for legal abortions.
Delete"The people who are actually closed-minded in American politics are the people who love to preach about the certainty of science....."
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to those who preach about an invisible slumlord deity in the sky?
The man-made global warming believing lemmings certainly do have an aspect of the worst of blind religious faithful, Les.
ReplyDeletedmarks: For your edification:
ReplyDelete"...a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, s/he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).
Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
SOURCE
Well stated Shaw. I would only add that the earth's climate has went through periods of change before, without humans in the equation. Having said that it is rather foolish not to acknowledge humans, through advances in technology and resultant emissions have had an impact.
ReplyDeleteThe disagreement, and fun is in the political sphere.
The debate over whether or not there is any man-made global warming is real, Shaw, and it is among real scientists. And it is lively.
ReplyDeleteI really can't state it any better than Will, a moderate much more lacking in political bias than most around here, did in this post:
"An Open Letter to Barack Obama"
As for the claims on consensus, Michael Crichton adds a lot of wisdom here in his quotation: "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus."
Crichton wisely reminds us, and scientists, that it is good to think outside the box. Outside of hidebound dogma.
Breaking from established dogma due to evidence that calls into question shaky theories is all the more wise after "Climategate", in which so-called scientists who provided so much of the "Evidence" underpinning the man-made global warming consensus were found to have faked the data, sought to suppress any real-world evidence that counteracted their shaky theory. And there is indeed plenty.
Even more dubious is the approach to solve this "problem" put forth by Democrats, liberals, and the left. The most significant effort on this was the Kyoto Accords. And this was all politics, and actually had mainland China, already at the time a major contributor according to the global warming conjectures, contribute a LOT more carbon.
Ron Paul, who from evidence has a more scientific mind than so many of the "scientists" selling manmade global warming, in 2009 said:
"You know, the greatest hoax I think that has been around in many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming. You notice they don’t call it global warming anymore."
I'm finding him more and more admirable. He's not a lemming when it comes to political fads, and from his quotation, he's no lemming when it comes to pseudoscientific fads.
Thanks for the shoutout, dmarks. Here are some of the other skeptics of note: 1) Ivar Giaever - Nobel Prize winner for physics.............2) Dr. Joanne Simpson - atmospheric scientist, first woman in the world to ever earn a PhD in meteorology.............3) Dr. Kiminon Itoh - environmental physical chemist.............4) Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck - chemical engineer Abo Akademi University of Finland.............5) Dr. Pal Brekke - solar physicist and senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Center in Oslo.............6) Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera - researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.............7) Geoffrey Duffy - professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering University of Aukland.............8) Dr. William Briggs - climate statistician at the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee.............9) Andrei Kapista - Russian geographer and Antarctic ice-core researcher.............10) Dr. Will Happer - physicist Princeton.............11) Dr. Miklos Zagoni - Hungarian physicist.............12) Dr. David Gee - geologist Uppsala University Sweden.............13) Dr. Philip Lloyd - nuclear physicist and chemical engineer.............14) James Peden - atmospheric physicist and formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.............15) Dr. Phil Chapman - astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut/M.I.T. physics professor.............16) Delgado Domingos - environmental scientist and founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast Group.............17) Dr. Takeda Kunihiko - vice chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research Chuba University Japan.............18) Dr. Eduardo Tonni - paleontologist at the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires.............19) Dr. Art Douglas - atmospheric scientist Creighton University.............20) D. Patrick Frank - more than 50 peer reviewed articles.............21) Jack Schmitt - astronaut (Apollo 17)/geologist and formerly of the Norwegian and U.S. geological surveys.............22) Dr. Richard Keen - climatologist University of Colorado.............23) Dr. G. LeBlanc Smith - Principal research scientist with Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.............24) Dr. Arun Ahluwalia - geologist Purijab University India.............25) Dr. Roy Spencer - climatologist University of Alabama (formerly of NASA).............26) Dr. Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist M.I.T........Add also, John Christy, Ian Clark, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Tim Ball, Piers Corbyn, Nir Shaviv, etc.. a) There isn't a consensus and b) that isn't even how science tends to work, for Christ (Copernicus and Newton quite obviously breaking with consensus).
DeleteRN: You said, "Having said that it is rather foolish not to acknowledge humans, through advances in technology and resultant emissions have had an impact. "
ReplyDeleteSo much is unknown and there are competing theories, that it is just as likely that the technology/emissions are cooling the Earth, or even ameliorating (lessening) a natural warming trend.
This is certainly no place for heavy-handed poorly thought out statist policies, such as Obama giving millions to ship auto jobs to Finland, or tax policies related to encouraging bio-fuels which has resulted in significantly increased food prices and of course hunger. People who have no idea what they are doing shouldn't use their immense power to meddle with things. With great power comes great responsibility, and our President and like-minded power-hungry statists in Congress should not see great power as a blank check to force dubious and destructive policies on matters which should be left to the people instead.
First, as always it is clear Will you have done your homework. Being able to reel off the references as you have is impressive. Good work.
ReplyDeletedmarks, I hear you with respect to "their is much yet to learn in the science of climate change." (My quote) As a sensible person, one who understands cause and effect as well as for every action there is an an opposite and equal reaction, I believe our activities do, over time have an affect to some unknown degree. When I say unknown I speak to the possible ultimate conclusinary affect. I realize there is more to learn and know. It is as it always has been and hopefully always will be
This does not render Shaw's remarks invalid. Her perspective, and those of the organizations she cites are worth considering and using in the broad scope of educatoon.
99% of climatologists agree global warming is man made
ReplyDeleteThis is what scientific consensus looks like -- the vast majority of scientists who spend their lives studying the climate agree that climate change is happening and that it's because of us.
Will, go back and look at those scientists you've listed. How many are experts in climatology? Chemical engineers? Geologists?
My husband graduated with a degree in physics from MIT. He readily admits he knows nothing about climatology. He can be called a scientist because of his graduate and undergraduate degree in physics. That doesn't make him an expert in climatology.
I wonder, not being a climatologist or any of the other experts you correctly reference Shaw accounts for our planent both cooling and warming absent human impact. Maybe I'm just the curious sort or as the completely sold would likely say just a dumb libertarian.
DeleteFact is it is not as of now completely settled science Shaw.
Show me the list, Shaw - the one which says that 99% of climatologists agree with anthropogenic global-warming (and I love the way that you sheeple just throw around these statistics; 97% of scientists, 99% of climatologists, etc). And the list that I provided has climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists/physicists, solar physicists, climate statisticians, etc. - all of which are highly relative to the subject. As far as the geologists go, this is one of the most important disciplines of all. I mean, how do you think that they arrive at the longer term warming and cooling patterns over hundreds of millions of years? By watching "An Inconvenient Truth"?............And of of course climate change is happening! It's been happening for 4.7 billion years, for Christ.
DeleteWill: The fiction movie by the boob who falsely claimed to have created the Internet are now a complete embarassment to the faith-based manmade global warming True Believers. This shows how much things have changed... and will change, as real evidence keeps coming in, and real scientists (not the ones who treat science as a matter to be decided like an Electoral College) look at the evidence. Yes, the evidence_based, not concensus-based community.
DeleteRemind us, Will, what Al Gore said about Florida being underwater by which year.
I believe that Mr. Gore said that the sea levels were going to rise by 20 feet by the end of the century (even the IPCC only had it at about 17 inches) and that this was going to put Florida 50% under water (something that DIDN'T happen the Medieval warming period when it was so warm that the Vikings settled in Greenland for 400 years and even went as far as to grow crops). It was just one of his nine significant errors (this, according to the British High Court).............And just for the record, I had always kind of liked Al Gore up until around 2000. It was only when he started with this fear mongering and lining his pockets via crony capitalism that I started turning on him.
DeleteAnd in debate, RN. As this matter is certainly not settled.
ReplyDeleteThis I know. But as I said, it is foolish to deny our modern existence has had no impact on our eco system and the overall environment in which we live. As you say, the jury is still out. But there certainly is enough evidence to support human existance since the beginning of the IR AMD moving forward has had some impact. It is our rational interest to determine beyond doubt what the ultimate impact COULD be and find ways to prevent them. Whatever they may be.
DeleteThen, I totally agree.
ReplyDeleteLes/dmarks/Shaw, from 1940 to 1975, we essentially had 35 consecutive years of global cooling to the point that "Newsweek" actually did a cover piece on the coming ice age - this despite the fact that the world was pumping record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yes, CO2 CAN have a warming effect. But it's also a logarithmic effect. So, for example/yes, when you go from 20 ppm to 40 ppm of CO2, that's a 1 degree increase. But in order to replicate that, you would then have to procede from 40 ppm to 80 ppm and 80 ppm to 160 ppm, etc.. It simply isn't going to happen that quickly (unless of course every single volcano on the planet - including those from under water - erupts simultaneously)! To me, the much more logical scenario is that the naturally occurring warming is causing the rise in CO2 and not vice versa (through the law of inverse solubility; warming causing the evaporation of CO2 from the ocean water); the fact that the rise in CO2 has ALWAYS lagged considerably BEHIND the rising temperatures.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCorrection to the above comment which didn't save correctly and had a typo:
ReplyDeleteI too remember when the consensus was for a coming ice age. The consensus Shaw refers to, the 99% consensus figure has been debunked anyway... it is from several years ago before Climategate, before other evidence. Saying there is some sort of consensus like this and the debate is over fits well with faith-based lemmings and East Anglia hoaxers, but not with the real science of it. The list Will has provided of concerned scientists does not have Rush Limbaugh on it, nor is it full of people on the oil industry payroll.
When it comes to that, Will is the one here who is getting to the heart of the matter, science-wise.
Shaw's views, as you say, RN, are worth considering. But not the be-all and end-all. Not by a long shot.
For sure dmarks, but to the progressive ideologue(s) it is the "be all and end all." It fits their template perfectly and fitting the template is ALL that matters to the progressive.
DeleteThe only even tangential angle that they have is that Patrick Michaels is a fellow at Cato and Cato of course has Koch brothers connections. But Michaels is also a professor at the University of Virginia and an actual climatologist, too.......As for physicists not being experts on global warming, I really think that you have to differentiate regular physicists from solar and atmospheric physicists, the latter quite obviously having expertise.
DeleteCato was around before the Koch brothers and will be around after. So yes, Will, it is very tangential. I know the Koch brothers are a major bogeyman for the hard left, due to reasons including their defending workers' organization rights in Michigan.
ReplyDeleteThe Koch brothers have way too much influence via their ability to buy politicians.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see examples of that, Les.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly what you are asking dmarks. If it is in reference to the Koch brothers I can only respond with this... Money buys influence, it always has. The KOCH BROTHERS HAVE A BOATLOAD OF MONEY AND THEN SOME. Point is therefore they can buy politicians and fund interests that coincide with their SPECIFIC and SPECIAL interest.
DeleteI really have no more to add. Other than this... Consider the implications and think in terms of what an Oligarch might cherish.