Why use Rush Limbaugh and his liberal twin, Michael Moore, as examples?
Because these two are irresponsible in their presentation of information and they have a lot of gullible followers.
Rush Limbaugh is actually known for followers who are too ignorant to have thoughts of their own. They call themselves ditto heads.
Popular Science is eliminating comments from their stories, because there is so much nonsense in the comment section that it detracts from the science reporting.[1]
Limbaugh is whining that the scientifically illiterate will be deprived of their ability to throw anti-science tantrums on this science site.
People with more spare time than sense are being told that their ignorance is not as good as a scientist’s education. The horror. The horror.
Am I exaggerating?
Let me tell you: This is Popular Science cutting off comments because of a “politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise.”[2]
Don’t have your vehicle fixed by an expert (mechanic), since expertise is bad.
Don’t have your illness treated by an expert (physician), since expertise is bad.
Should Jenny McCarthy and her University of Google followers be treated as if they know what they are doing?
[youtube]uDYba0m6ztE[/youtube]
When it comes to science, is Jenny McCarthy any different from Rush Limbaugh?
Climate change denialists (people who pretend that reality is not real) have been insisting that the planet is not warming because the yearly temperature does not move in a straight line and they seem to think in the most simple terms.
The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).[3]
If we were treating a septic patient, should we rejoice that his peripheral temperature (skin, arms, legs) is coming down?
Should we assume that the patient is getting better by cherry picking data that appears to support what we want to happen?
An expert (physician) should ignore the predictable anomaly and realize that the core temperature is what matters.
Should the septic patient be treated according to science, or should we make treatment about politics?
cranks tend not to mind the crankery of others, since they see themselves as opposed to a scientific orthodoxy. Consistency be damned, they just want to see science with egg on its face so they can prove that they are being persecuted.[4]
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Jenny McCarthy, . . . are cranks. They do not understand science and cannot tell the difference between nonsense and science.
Climate change is not politics. Ways of dealing with climate change will involve politics.
Persuading people that climate change is politics is one way of avoiding science and claiming that any ignorant criticism is as valid as understanding science.
Climate change is science.
Science is not politics.
Science denialism is politics.
–
Footnotes:
–
[1] Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments – Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here’s why.
Popular Science
By Suzanne LaBarre
Posted 09.24.2013 at 8:15 am
Article
–
[2] Popular Science Ends Reader Comments Because Too Many People Disagree with Them
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Quick Hits Page
Link to Quick Hits Page – there does not appear to be any link to the actual article by Limbaugh.
–
[3] The Escalator
Skeptical Science
Article
–
[4] Crank Magnetism
Denialism Blog
Posted by Mark Hoofnagle
June 28, 2007
Article
.
Great Post – I’ve long considered myself a conservative independent just due to the nature of where mainstream politics are heading these days. It’s too bad we have talking heads like these at the top of the house.
I’m a ditto-head.
In addition to that, I was also a member of a state legislature and as early as 2002 was public with my doubts concerning global warming. Took a lot of guff back then from folks like you, Happy Medic.
I won’t repeat my thoughts on the matter. I’ll let the latest IPCC report do my talking for me….
According to the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely” in the 21st century; ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over
the past century…..No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
“there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
“there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.”
“Based on updated studies, AR4 [the IPCC 2007 report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
“Confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder responds to the report:
“There is really not much more to be said here — the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus. Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.”
Duke Powell,
That is sad on more than one level.
One – That you do not think for yourself.
Two – That you take pride in that.
–
Politics is not science.
As I have pointed out here, it is a mistake for politicians to pretend that they understand science, when clearly they do not.
–
I am not Happy Medic.
You deserve to be given guff for such foolishness.
–
How long did it take you to read the IPCC’s forthcoming report?
You appear to be just repeating things you do not understand from blogs that are written for ditto heads – people who seem to choose not to have a clue about what they are writing, but mindlessly repeating it by cutting and pasting it or by other means.
The IPCC report is 14 volumes. I will not be reading it.
Pielke found five quotes to take out of context in 14 volumes of writing. That is the basis for pretending that the evidence says something it does not.
Temperatures are still increasing. The sea is still rising, but you are still advocating to increase pollution.
That is pathetic.
Vaccine denialists do the same thing.
So do evolution denialists.
The same is true for moon landing denialists.
Conspiracy theories depend on faulty assumptions supported by a lack of understanding.
Oh, look. I found something I do not understand. Therefore, CONSPIRACY!
.
Rogue Medic says Epinephrine is no good. He says backboards are no good.
Rogue Medic disagrees about a lot of things that scientists have said are “best practices” for EMS.
In most instances this medic with over 40 years experience agrees with Mr Rogue Medic. Not because of the science, but because of my experience.
But disagree with him on global warming? He calls you a science denier and says you can’t think for yourself.
Fact of the matter is, I am thinking for myself in terms of climate change. I’m not the guy following the crowd. Just as you are not the guy following the crowd with EMS best practice.
BTW, make sure your furnace is working, things are about to get colder, starting tomorrow.
Ha!!
Duke Powell,
My response is at Comment on ‘No More Comments on Popular Science’.
.