This is from the Huffington Post. One can only hope that Kerry will follow through. For a quick primer on Kerry’s grasp of climate science, see this WUWT article: Kerry Blames Tornado Outbreak on Global Warming and a rebuttal Increasing tornadoes or better information gathering? I get a kick out of Kerry’s line “This has to stop”. Okay then, please debate Mr. Will, put a stop to it Mr. Kerry! – Anthony
John KerryFacts Are Stubborn Things: George Will and Climate Change-
To paraphrase the conservative columnist’s favorite president, “There you go again, George.”
George Will has been one of my favorite intellectual sparring partners for a long time, a favorite more recently because he had the guts to publicly recognize the disaster that was George W. Bush’s presidency.
But in his latest Washington Post column, George and I have a pretty big loud disagreement.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to see Will embracing the idea of recycling, but I’m very troubled that he is recycling errors of fact to challenge the science on global warming.
I’m even more troubled that Will used his February 15th column not only to cast doubt on sound science, but also to denigrate the work of two fine scientists.
Let’s be very clear: Stephen Chu does not make predictions to further an agenda. He does so to inform the public. He is no Cassandra. If his predictions about the effects of our climate crisis are scary, it’s because our climate is scary.
Likewise, John Holdren is a friend of mine and one of the best scientific minds we have in our country. Pulling out one minor prediction that he had some unknown role in formulating nearly three decades ago, as Will did in his February 15th column, and then using that to try to undo his credibility as a scientist may be a fancy debating trick, but it’s just plain wrong when it comes to a debate we can’t afford to see dissolve into reductio ad absurdum hijinx. (A side note: The incident in question occurred in 1980, which, as I recall, was just about the time Ronald Reagan made the claim that approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation and that, consequently, we should “not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources.”)
Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. Except perhaps a bankrupt flat earth crowd. I hate to review the record and see that someone as smart as George Will has been doing exactly that as far back as 1992. And it’s especially troubling when the very sources that Will cites in his February 15th column draw the exact opposite conclusions and paint very different pictures than Will provides, as the good folks at ThinkProgress and Media Matters for America have demonstrated so thoroughly.
This has to stop. A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time, but it doesn’t change the verdict: the problem is real, it’s accelerating, and we have to act. Now. Not years from now.
No matter how the evidence has mounted over two decades — the melting of the arctic ice cap, rising sea levels, extreme weather — the flat earth caucus can’t even see what is on the horizon. In the old Republican Congress they even trotted out the author of Jurassic Park as an expert witness to argue that climate change is fiction. This is Stone Age science, and now that we have the White House and the Congress real science must prevail. It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually find the way forward on climate change.
This is a fight we can win, a problem we can overcome, but time is not on our side. We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists when we need to be debating everything from how to deal with the dirtiest forms of coal as the major provider of power in China to how to vastly increase green energy right here at home.
“Facts are stupid things,” Ronald Reagan once said. He was, of course, paraphrasing John Adams, who could have been talking about the science on global change when he said, “Facts are stubborn things.”
Stubborn or stupid — lets have a real debate and lets have it now.
I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion — but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jack (12:56:33) :
We are witnessing an historic event: The Internet blogs are destroying the greatest scientific scam ever seen.
I agree. It will be written in the history books.
Well chosen thread, Anthony 🙂
Politicians are generally spineless, and they follow the money.
I thought during the process of debate, you could always argue the opposuite side. even if your beleif isnt in it.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if kerry had to argue the opposite view. But it will all be sound bites and ad-hom attacks. Which would make everyone look bad. But we can dream can’t we.
Jeff Alberts (11:59:39) :
That was a pretty cheap shot. What evidence do you have that he didn’t earn his awarded medals?
You are right about the cheap shot. I would prefer we left them out but to answer your question. Kerry’s Purple Hearts were well covered during the campaign and what made him look bad to so many was that in all three cases none of them even required a band aid and that he had to pressure the doctor who looked at one of them to put it in for a Purple Heart because the Doctor thought a minor scratch did not qualify
I would prefer to see professional politician and flip-flop artist John Kerry debate mere “fiction writer” (oh, and non-fiction writer, and medical doctor and technology expert) Michael Crichton, but…oh darn!… he died the day Kerry and friends took control of the government. What a convenient target for Kerry’s condescending response…
Fred from Canuckistan and PhilinCalifornia
I’m sure it’s scary to think of Kerry or Gore as president. But that’s nothing compared to what coming down the pipe: just keep your eyes on Mr Obama’s moves over the next few weeks, using the EPA to get what not even a Democrat dominated Congress will give him: the power to declare CO2 a pollutant dangerous to human life. Now that’s really scary..
Jeff Alberts (11:59:39) :
ew-3 (11:39:07) :
If he did debate him, he might finally earn a real purple heart.
That was a pretty cheap shot. What evidence do you have that he didn’t earn his awarded medals?
Most folks who’d been there would say that 3 purple hearts in that short a time would be pinned to the flag on your casket. It apparently took 3 to go home, so he got 3, somehow.
But it’s a moot point –
He said, and I take him at his word on this, that he threw his medals over the White House fence in protest of the war. Since he returned his medals, he no longer has them.
(ew-3 – I’ve been to An Thoi, nuoc mam capital of Vietnam. 8 ft tall vats of foaming brown fish sauce ripening in the sun. Mmmmm…)
Looks like Kerry is about to win another purple heart.
The reason Kerry, or his stand-in writer, react with such venom and vehemence is that the issue really isn’t about climate change, or the science behind it.
I just read this morning a breakdown the of proposed national budget. The Obama administration is counting on net revenues of $112 billion (yeah that’s with a b) from the cap-and-trade shell game. Kerry is fighting for those immense dollars and the strangle hold it will put on the energy industry. He couldn’t care less about the science, etc. It’s all about the money.
Please; no more debates where the biggest liar with the deepest voice and the best hair wins.
What I want to see is a trial in a court of law with scientists under oath and the threat of a perjury conviction for fudging the truth.
This was done in England where the movie An Inconvenient Truth was ruled to be a piece of political propaganda.
The upcoming carbon tax will make everyone an injured party. Now who will pay the hordes of lawyers?
Kerry:
…we need to be debating everything from how to deal with the dirtiest forms of coal as the major provider of power in China….
Debate point: if Kerry wants to debate Wills, then he better realize that he just admitted that China’s use of coal is valid!
In fact according to Kerry, the debate is over as to the use of coal anywhere as a source of energy, even considering AGW disasterizing – if China, and India, etc., can right on ahead with using massive amounts of less dirty/clean forms of coal to validly address their needs, then so can everyone else.
In fact, taking Kerry’s lead, the whole AGW debate is over, and we can get back to “dirty” pollution as the real concern involved with coal use. Hosanna!
My response at HuffPo:
John Kerry, you will NEVER debate George Will or anyone else on this issue. Neither will Al Gore, James Hansen or any other alarmist. So quit pretending you could muster any scientific evidence to support your position when $50 billion of wasted money has so far failed to do so. You would fail miserably in any such debate and you know it.
To debate any climate realist will be suicidal to your cause (taxation and centralized government) as the science proves any temperature increases due to CO2 (if any, after accounting for feedbacks) will be minuscule if even detectable. So far there is no detectable temperature increase due to the greenhouse effects of CO2 and real world evidence (as opposed to manufactured climate model projections) suggests that the negative feedbacks are extremely powerful and robust, whereas positive feedbacks are bit players, at best. The water vapor CO2 +feedback link, not surprisingly, has never been observed in nature, except that evidence shows it operates in the opposite direction of AGW theory. Without it, the entire AGW gravy train goes off the tracks (crashing head-long into the alarmists).
it’s time to read and understand the science before you do more political damage than has already been done to science by shoddy work and “pay for play” “research”.
Prove me wrong. Schedule a debate with George Will, or remain a scientifically challenged hand waver. Better yet, debate any real climate scientist without an agenda. Good luck with that.
I’m waiting.
Arctic Ice extent is very near the pre-2000 mean, in every basin.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
Kerry has no idea what he is talking about. Note that there is more ice around Sweden and Finland than there has been for quite a few years.
Maybe a television debate Will/Kerry would force Al Gore to stand up too. In case Kerry dare go up against Will it would put Al Gore in a very bad light afterwards if he´d still refuse participating in another open debate. We just need a big name on the skeptics side to challenge Mr. Gore openly and repeatedly.
Maybe Monckton. I´d love to watch that!
There are times when I like to pretend that climate-change skeptics are honestly searching for truth and then there are times like this when I realize a lot of them are just anti-liberal in everything they do and to hell with the truth. What on earth has Kerry’s war record got to do with anything? At least he went there in the first place – as did Gore. They didn’t get their daddy to keep them in Texas like Bush Jr. Where’s your search for objective truth here? Gone Awol just like Bush?
Reply: Because this is a post on Kerry, I have allowed the general political thrashings, but JamesG’s point is valid. Staying more on topic and a little less stereotype right vs. left is a good idea. ~ charles
Kerry’s Purple Hearts were well covered during the campaign…
during which campaign the Post Office suddenly started publishing stamps with purple hearts on them. So I immediately “got me” some.
[Kerry as ethnic redneck during the campaign: “Where can I get me a huntin’ license?” He also alleged that he hunted deer by crawling around on the ground like a snake with his trusty 10 ga. shotgun! Well, it’s possible.]
“A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time, ”
Hey, what do you mean well-funded? Where’s my funding?
“Likewise, John Holdren is a friend of mine and one of the best scientific minds we have in our country.”
While Holdren may be a friend, he does not follow the principles of the scientific method. He is to science what Ashlee Simpson is to a live singing performance.
John Kerry is a person of only average intelligence. He graduated from a 3d tier law school because his LSAT score was too low to gain admission to better schools. He is credited as being a nuanced thinker. In his case nuance is a euphemism for muddled thinker. He is incapable or articulating coherent thoughts and rationale unless he has a teleprompter or is speaking from a prepared text.
Will will eat Kerry’s lunch if they debate. I am confident that Kerry is incapable of comprehending the subject matter of climate science. He will speak the politician’s language, “slogan”.
George Will is a clear thinking person. Kerry will suffer from the contrast between the two. Kerry will come across as a buffoon.
If the debate occurs, it will be good for many laughs.
Then there was this ‘second’ warning from Eisenhower’s farewell address,
“…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. . . . Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
Bring anything to mind? He must be looking down saying “I warned you”.
oops, sorry: George Will, not Wills. This AGW must be cooling my brain. No bull, I’m sitting here actually shivering a little from not moving around enough in my wood heated, low fossil fuel footprint abode, at 58 F., trying valiantly to offset President Obama’s, “Joe 6-pack”, tropical lifestyle. Naw, actually, I’m just trying to be efficient.
“DaveE (09:07:26) :
“A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time”
WHERE? Someone tell me where I can get some of this dosh!
DaveE.”
No kidding, huh?
Where was that report I just saw that said there were 4 climate lobbyist for every congressperson? And let’s not even MENTION the $9BILLION, with a freakin’ B, that’s gone to funding this circus.
Why is it that all these people can do is parrot crap that someone else wrote, and repeat it over and over and over.
As a reluctant resident of Mass, I apologize to those here. I’ve been trying to get rid of this moron for years, along with Jabba and Barney. Unfortunately, this is a one party state. People here even argue THAT point with me.
JimB
“John Egan (09:28:59) :
PS –
The very, very scary aspect about Dubya is that he was President.”
If that was scary for you?… you’re about to be terrified. Wait till you see what happens to your 401k and your power bill.
JimB
JamesG (14:23:03)
There are times when I like to pretend that climate-change skeptics are honestly searching for truth and then there are times like this when I realize a lot of them are just anti-liberal in everything they do and to hell with the truth. What on earth has Kerry’s war record got to do with anything?
Some are anti-liberal, some aren’t. So what? There are plenty of liberal skeptics. That alone pretty much blows your theory out of the water. Somebody posted on Kerry’s war record, and you conveniently bash the whole blog because of it?
Where’s your search for objective truth?
“Bill McClure (09:58:33) :
Reflecting on this post I am truely scared. For a Senator like John Kerry to come out so strongly on this issue indicates that he feels the issue is settled and more importantly that goverment will act to control global warming.”
Bill?….WILL act?…Sorry…that train has already left the station. It’s now a question of “will they act”…it’s a question of can they ever be STOPPED, now that it’s started.
JimB
I find it extraodinarily ironic John Kerry uses words like “facts” and “banckrupcty” when he knows so little about the former, and has played such a central role in bringing about the latter for every American citizen. I find it even more ironic he references a myth, Greek or otherwise, while attempting to legitamize the concept of global warming. Of course, if ThinkProgress and Media Matters validates the reality of global warming, then it must be so. I don’t understand why he chose not to include MoveOn.org and George Soros.
The fact is, George Will could undergo a labotomy and still win a debate with John Kerry on ANY topic. Shame on the voters of Massachusetts for continually placing this mental midget in a position of vital importance and responsibility. John Kerry’s stubborn insistence that global warming is valid, is the best evidence that it is not.