Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
Congress has finally acted on global warming—by denying it exists. It’s in the grand lawmaking tradition of the Indiana state legislature’s 1897 attempt to redefine the value of pi.
The Republican-led House of Representatives is currently working on the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions to mitigate climate change.
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, California Democrat Henry Waxman had proposed an amendment calling on Congress to at least acknowledge that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” just as abundant scientific evidence confirms.
But on Tuesday, March 15, all the committee’s Republicans voted down that amendment, as well as two others acknowledging the threat of climate change to public well-being. Rep. Ed Markey, Democrat from Massachusetts, had this to say:
“I rise in opposition to a bill that repeals the scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet. However, I won’t rise physically, because I’m worried that Republicans will overturn the law of gravity, sending us floating.”
—John Rennie
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
50 Comments
Add CommentThe Law of Gravity? Doesn't he mean the "theory" of gravity? I prefer to believe in the "intelligent falling" hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Evolver, get your science right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.
Law: A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
and on the story ... well, it shows once more the IQ level of Republicans!!!
I guess being a moron does not disqualify you from Congress. You know, this is really sad. The Republicans are idiots and the Democrats aren't to far behind although on a different plan. This does not bode well for the intelligentsia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a number of good reasons to decide not to state that temperatures worldwide are increasing. One is that even the doctored official data shows a change toward cooler temps after 1998. Another is that there is little or no statistical difference in temperature measurements over the last fifty years; the changes are too small to be certain or to allow a serious scientist to say absolutely they are occurring up, down or worldwide. Any number of papers, many peer reviewed, discuss the problems with temperature recording and improperly calculated averages. In any event, the truth is recorded averages have gone both up and down over the last hundred and ten years, and the uptrend of the 1990s was not unusual. Scientific American and many of its readers too often regurgitate the the info they are given by people planning to use control of carbon dioxide as a way to control the entire world economy. Take a look at Don Easterbrook, an eminent scientist who is on record for a cooler future the coming decade or so: http://preview.tinyurl.com/4rpuwg6
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us hope the "Stick you head in the sand" approach works, or that End of Days is actually approaching, otherwise those of us that actually believe in Reason will have only ourselves to blame when humans make this planet uninhabitable (or at least miserable to live on) because we couldn't find a working method for combatting idiocy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is sad that the most obstanately ignorant among us so often rise to power.
Forgive, but I didn't know congress was responsible for gravity. I have always thought that gravity was here long before congress. So congress gave us the law of gravity! Now the Dems wants a Global Warming law!!?? That may be a little about congresses pay grade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, it seems that being a moron is one of the prerequisites for being a Republican. What's worse is that we live in a country halfway controlled by these idiots. Thankfully, I only have a few more years to put up with these dolts; I pity those who will be present for the destruction that they are only too eager to cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that an increasingly large segment of the Republican Party is composed of ignoramuses. If that is, in fact, the case then this vote is no surprise, but it is certainly an embarrassment to the nation. Of course, they may not be quite as stupid as they appear... but simply protecting their benefactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scary part is that they ALL voted the party line. How about actually thinking and learning about the issues. The worst thing in a democracy is that the leaders reflect the thinking of their constituency, no matter what. Damn the icebergs, full speed ahead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-- Mark Twain
another quote:"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMartin Luther King
Have you not noticed that scientific opinion on this subject tends to conform nicely to both party affiliation and stock portfolio content?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate politics, and politicians for what they do. Unfortunately, this article is also engaging in politics more than science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't deny global warming, but, obviously, by voting down a proposed amendment (to some other bill?) stating that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” congress did not deny global warming by approving an amendment stating that warming of the climate does not exist.
Global warming (along with gravity) will continue (or not) despite anything congress or this political publication proclaim (or not). Jeesh!
Have you not noticed that scientific opinion on this subject tends to conform nicely to both party affiliation and stock portfolio content?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIce caps melt, ice caps shrink... You can't legislate that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I see all the Democratic teenagers are having a ball showing-off their liberal bona fides. They should try thinking for a change, but I guess that comes with age. Firstly no one really denies that the earth's climate is changing what they deny is what the cause is. Is it primarily human activity, i.e. pollution by citizens of the US? Or is it actually caused by changing solar activity that has caused swings in the earth’s temperature—up and down—for millennia? (See Henrik Svensmark, for example. But be warned, he’s a climatologist, not a politician like Al gore.) Oh, and why do the global warming Cassandras not have a climate model that can predict global cooling?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, the reason the Republicans have denied global warming is even simpler than the many commentators: They don’t want any more ludicrous attempts to cripple U.S. industry in the name of global sanctity, while ignoring the had-working proletariat in china and India. By making it a law, there can be no more attempts to ban U.S industry from being industrious. (How strange that everyone is screaming for PRIVATE INDUSTRY to save the country, while doing the two things that most effectively prevent it—making the safe use of nuclear energy possible to cut out atmospheric pollution, and preventing U.S industry for searching for energy products like oil and clean coal.
Ah, yes, the excesses of youth—so certain they know it all, so quick to tell you.
Absolutely. I have long contended that glaciers are melting through a process known as Unknown Unknown Cooling, rather than the conventional, oft regurgitated, process known as Warming. And I also contend that a billion cars, a million of factories large and small, a billion of home cooking fires and furnaces, and tens of thousands of power plants cannot possibly have any affect on anything at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have the formula that expresses all this: GOP=(DUMB)^256.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the republican politicians have adopted a very unwise and perhaps morally reprehensible position here, I don't think it's stupid. They are catering to what is popular, and just got elected by a landslide. The ideal governance would be to have different wise, logical and ethical political options presented to the general public, and the public could vote on which of those to use. The problem is that the best candidates for creating those balanced platforms are the least likely to be the ones to want to do it. We might vote to raise taxes to send a man to the moon, but we shouldn't design the rocket by popular consensus. That being said, it's clear that people who have no job aren't concerned with global warming, at least until they are without a job and also under water. If we as scientists care about our future, we need to start by addressing the global over-population problem first. With population unchecked, nothing we do will stop the cycle of famine and war over seas or the erosion of American opportunities as they move more and more to those more desperate than us. The peaceful solution is to provide free contraception and education for women in developing nations. Then discover more sustainable and economical ways to achieve something resembling our current quality of life that can be globally applicable. Finally, once we have a satisfactory, global quality of life, then we might be able to direct our energy toward fixing our environment. Instead, money attracts itself like a gravitational law. The distance between wealthy and poor has historically increased to the point of war or revolution. The republicans know this, but would rather have the money...and spend it on defense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am confused by those of you who are worried about the over all economy and those poor oil companies, protecting large corporations of any kind is not the way to go if you are concerned for the well being of yourself or the people you care about. We have a legal system that affords extra legal benefits and lower taxes to large corporate entities and then we don't even have a system for gaining justifiable recourse when they cause extensive damage to our economies or ecosystems. If any individual caused even one millionth of the damage some of these large corporations have caused the American people in the last 5 years they would be spending the majority of their lives in jail. Those of you who side with anyone who think our economy is strengthened by giving any large industry free reign to increase their profits are sorely misguided. Please reconsider your views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd those of you who do not believe in global warming should read this breif review of the data and check the sources if you would like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
It does take a nice dose of "intelligentsia" style elitism and brilliance to sit around opining over the incompetence of others while ignoring the inbred incompatibility of this entire story with itself:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenny: "House Energy and Commerce Committee voted against an amendment that states that global warming exists, regardless of cause"
Markey: "I rise in opposition to a bill that repeals the scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet."
But thanks for all the whining just the same.
@Fearless Bear Isn't Don J. Easterbrook a geology professor? I think it's important to differentiate between those that do and do not specialize in climate. (You wouldn't trust a dermatologist over a neurologist on brain info!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDisqualify? It's a prerequisite. Basically the vetting process starts with an IQ test. If you can spell IQ, you're disqualified. Then comes the physical, which consists of hitting the candidates over the head repeatedly with a heavy object. Whoever can take the most hits without getting knocked out wins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a trash article and at no point did any Republican deny that the planet was warming. Moreover they voted to not let the EPA fine companies for C02 emissions. This happened because they first thing to be targeted was coal fired power plants. The EPA wanted all Americans that used this service (whether they could choose or not) would literally triple the average electric bill for 60% of Americans. Does that sound like a good economical policy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso since this is so near and dear to all you lib's heart why did the Democrats not pass Cap and Trade when they had a super majority of the House and Congress? So surely the evil Republicans could have been beaten but why did they not? Because Cap and Trade is a fictional business set up by people with "so called green energy". First it was solar panels, which are not cost effective nor are windmills. Next it was biofuels and they create more CO2 than Coal. So where do you all plan to get your electricity when your bill begins to hover around 500$ a month? Because that is exactly what the EPA was going to do. Take from the masses and give it corporations who seemingly are all about the welfare of mankind. It seems Reps and Dems are not much different after all. We are just the sheep that pick sides and all lose in the process. It is all about money and you dolts would give it away with out any evidence of C02 "causing" warming. The climate models being used are baseless and that is why NASA tried to get a new satellite to record better information (although they failed twice). Why do you think they did this? Because the information we currently have is not enough to waste billions and trillions of tax payer dollars on.
Dbtinc: You are wrong: Being a moron is the most important qualification to be a politician.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second requirement: A super inflated ego.
So once again this Journal allows an article that is not only miss titled but so obviously has a hidden agenda to air, shame on it.I really hope that the average American is not so easily led as you guys. First the republicans did not vote “That the Earth is not Warming” they simply refused to vote in favour of a bill that contained a clause that stated it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow maybe some of you need to understand the difference. Well if the Republicans think as is probably correct that this clause in the bill was designed in such a way as to suit a specific agenda that they see through I cannot blame them for voting against such a bill.
Next, what could such a stupid clause actually achieve except as a backdoor attempt to push through legislation that might be premature.
If my government (UK) tried to do the same I would hope that the more grounded politicians would do the same. As this debate is going to be so important for our future well being (economically as well as socially) it should be debated thoroughly and honestly and no attempt at back door legislation should be allowed or we will be paying for it far into the future of our great great grandchildren.
Mikeorgan, you must be a politician, because only a politician would claim that "just because I didn't vote for an amendment doesn't mean that I am against the amendment".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on Albee no need to be insulting, politician me never. I do not have the underhanded twisted mentality to qualify me for that profession. But unfortunately due to human nature we need such people. Until someone can invent a system that does away with these qualities then we are stuck with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn your point our representatives must look very closely at the bills that are being passed to make sure that they are what on the surface they appear to be, as so often those pesky politicos will try and slip one through. Too often they have to vote against what in other circumstances they would have no problem with voting for. That’s life in politics I'm afraid. And by the way that’s why we have two houses of government to test and test again these bills before they become law.
Just one more thing. I hate having to defend these low lives that call themselves our representatives but if you are going to criticise someone you have to at least make that criticism fair and informed or they can just dismiss you as a numpty (British expression meaning idiot) and I wouldn’t want to give them that pleasure.
Folks, do you really think that the amendment said, simply, "“warming of the climate system is unequivocal"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReality check: the amendment 'States that Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that ‘‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.’’'
This is much different. First, the northern hemisphere is at record highs on snow coverage, so where's the melting there? It's not clear that sea level is rising faster than it would be without man--even the IPCC reports hedge that this may be true.
There is no Theory of Gravity. No one has an accepted explination for how it works. The "Law of Gravity" is actually the Law of Universal Attraction, which states that all matter exerts an attractive force on all other matter that decreases as the distance between them increases. Law - observable, repeating patterns in Nature. Theory - accepted explanation for why observations are occuring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like to see an article about Indiana attempting to redefine the value of pi; all Google found for me is [url=http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp]this[/url] snopes article denouncing a similar story about Alabama.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as global warming goes, refusing to pass a bill that supports it != passing a bill against it. The headline should read "House repubs do nothing about global warming."
This is really terrible journalism...
Scientific American has really dropped its standards. This podcast is dubbed "60-second science", but should be "60-second politics". Worse, it interjects a huge bias by "rephrasing" (to put it charitably--"misrepresenting" would be more accurate) the amendment so that it looks like only a fool would not vote for it. The funny part is that it takes time out of the 60 seconds to quote Markey as being afraid to stand lest the law of gravity be repealed. Sure, he's joking, but his climate-bill partner Waxman said a while back, with sincerity, that the arctic ice cap was "evaporating", and if it went away, there a lot of "tundra" underneath. Was "60-second science" there to straighten Waxman out on that? Junk journalism like this has got to be an embarrassment to some people at SciAm, we can only hope.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<DaBar> It seems that an increasingly large segment of the Republican Party is composed of ignoramuses. If that is, in fact, the case then this vote is no surprise, but it is certainly an embarrassment to the nation. Of course, they may not be quite as stupid as they appear... but simply protecting their benefactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very astute observation! It makes perfect sense now that you've used the phrase "their benefactors." The Republicans are obviously taking orders from an alien empire which requires the planet to be at far higher temperatures for their uses, and they likely do not need us around - but if we're lucky, they'll show up one day and offer to make some of the more loyal and genre-blind citizens into the Transhuman Arm of their Overwatch, who will be able to survive in the future world.
;)
In the matter of slavish imitation, man is the monkey's superior all the time. The average man is destitute of independence of opinion. He is not interested in contriving a opinion of his own, by study and reflection, but is only anxious to find out what his neighbor's opinion is and slavishly adopt it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Mark Twain's Autobiography
8 tenths of 1 degree centigrade in 200 years does not equate to AGW caused by man made CO2! Which model are you cherry picking now? Wrong in 1990 wrong 2000 wrong 2010. If science adnits it can not predict earthquakes and or Tsunami how come all the so called experts jump on the AGW band wagon? Slavish Imitation? I think that is much more likely than an accurate model or assesment of the Earths temperature future as it relates to AGW.
My poor American friends, I used to seriously contemplate emigrating to the U.S. but the more I read about the silliness of American politicians the more I believe that you are headed for the future as described by the movie "Idiocracy"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's only the Republicans, Democrats and the occasional fringe groups who are leading us astray...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout time that the Congress starts to hear the truth that AGW is a hoax and scam to regulate, control and extract money from the taxpayers of the US and redistribute it to the coffers of liberal elite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American has lost mucho credit as a truely serious scientific magazine becuase of their myopic attitude with the AGW agenda.
Bear,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are rather severely misinformed. As far as I can tell, every statement in your post is incorrect.
Maybe you can start by explaining how 2005 was hotter than 1998,and 2010 was hotter than 2005, if the warming trend ended in 1998. In fact, every year in the 2000's was hotter than all but one year in the 90's. Ask any stock trader, that is a very strong bull market for global temperatures.
From the general tone of your post,(ie. "doctored official data"), I am guessing that any data that doesn't fit your views is automatically considered to be "doctored".
You are absolutely right about SA losing all credibility, our local libraries quit subscribing to them two years ago. The manager asked patrons to vote for the mags we wanted to keep, and SA wasn't even close. I think a lot of people who come to the sight are wanna be scientists, probably mostly young idealists, lacking in life experience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother poster stated that a theory can be proven wrong. This being the case, why do the 'true believers' of global warming THEORY not allow anyone to even question or attempt to prove them wrong? There are no Laws, all theories can and should be regularly questioned, and REAL scientists should, and will, welcome the discourse.
Most people agree that the earth may indeed be warming, but not because of man. It's a natural cycle, seen many times in Earth's history. Denying that it's man made is not the same as total denial, but left wingers usually connect the two to suit their agenda and make Republicans look like morons. Take everything out of context.....that's the usual fare because it sounds more sensational.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if the earth is experiencing a climate catastrophe, rest assured that the Republicans will assign it to God's will, and then it will be ordained. Not to worry either way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, those wacky Indiana senators in 1897 and their Biblical Pi What morons! Ha, ha! They should have listened to their betters at Scientific America back then and put away all that childish foolishness to focus on scientific public policy that really mattered like racial hygiene laws.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, the editorial board of Scientific America back in the day just loved them some eugenics. Just nip over to your local library and read the archives from the 1890s-1940s. Hardly an issue passed without some racial superiority nonsense bolstered by crackpot non-Darwinian (but then mainstream) evolutionary theories.
Of course, you don't have to go back that far to find SA editorial support for fallacious ideas. When I was a kid back in the 70s, SA was all about the "energy crisis" and the permanent, world wide depletion of oil. They just as savaged mocked anyone who said the oil shortage was purely political in origin. Oh, and don't forget SA slobbering support for "nuclear winter" back in the mid-80s.
Come to think of it, has there been a single one of these "scientific" political bandwagons SA hasn't jumped on in the last century? Has there been a single one that proved anything close to true?
Scientific America, and let's face it, most similar periodicals, love and crave the political power that comes with scientific power. They instantly gravitate to any "scientific" finding that justifies a scientific elite being given power over ordinary people. They all dream of being the despotic but wise and benevolent scientific technocrat so beloved of early-20th century authoritarians.
Numbnut creationist and biblical literalist are harmless in the modern world. Defining Pi as 3 was just a cultural statement. By contrast the editorial board of Scientific America et al have used the imprimatur of science to support laws that did real harm to real people.
History suggests that a big dose of humility and go slow approach is wise when it comes to giving the violent force of law to scientific assertions. After all, had we followed SA sage advice back in the 20s a big chunk of us wouldn't be here because the government would have sterilized our grandparents as racial unfit.
No doubt the same people will state that nuclear power is perfectly safe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter reading the climategate e-mails and looking at the science behind the theory, I am thankful that at least the Republicans got this right. What a scam and what a waste of public funds. Not the science as much as the trying to prove that [CO2] is something that we want to try and reduce by draconian and restrictive methods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm is part of the agenda and, as such, has lost my respect as a source of reliable and unbiased information.
I suppose it is lost on many here that voting against putting unequivocal global warming into law isn't the same as stating it isn't happening. OTOH, we can also state there has been no warming in the last decade. In fact a slight cooling is occurring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend
It is certainly less about whether global cooling or warming is occurring as it is about the role of [CO2] and our ability to control global temperature by our restriction thereof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe null hypothesis is such that the proof is on the CAGW cadre and based upon their fabrications and obfuscations, as well as the real results behind the agenda, I consider that the science is most assuredly not settled.
Agreed. However, reading unscientific American, you wouldn't know that the earth hasn't warmed in the last decade. I find it incredulous that some lawmakers would like to put in law a statement contradicting reality, but more incredulous, that some science writers would be critical of lawmakers rejecting such statements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most crooked politician is, by comparison, far more honest than the "best" scientist, who is constantly after the crooked politician for additional taxpayer monies for "research" The "East Anglia Revelations" are by far the "norm" in scientific circles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour lungs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank God we have a political party that can assess the warmist hysterical crowd and grant coveting "climatologists" for what it is: so much hokum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose the only positive thing that can be said for this misbegotten crusade is that the oil and coal will be left in the ground for our grandchildren to enjoy as they laugh about the climate predictions of the twenty first century.