Rand Paul Vs. Climate Science
A reader sent me this piece in which U.S. Senator and 2016 presidential GOP hopeful Rand Paul rips into a scientist who warns of possible mass extinctions if we continue along our current course re: gloabl warming. Rand said: “The sky is falling, Mass extinction? Really?”
I have to confess that I’m amused by stuff like this.
Who has more credibility re: the most probable long-term effects of climate change? On one hand we have an eminent climate scientist with four decades of research and collaboration with thousands of his peers under his belt. On the other hand, we have a loud-mouth politician who consistently misrepresents his education and hasn’t a particle of training in the subject.
That people struggle to differentiate between the two show exactly how far our collective ability to think has fallen. If you’re looking for the reason that our country is so profoundly screwed up and has become the laughingstock of the world, look no further.
Craig,
I’m not a fan of Paul Rand, however I don’t automatically elevate the predictions of scientists and similar pundits to the level of infallibility either.
I could quote at least 100 ‘alarmist’ doomsday predictions by highly respected and sincere scientists made during my lifetime, all of which proved either wildly exaggerated, or inaccurate.
Each prediction required ‘immediate’ , expensive social reorganization and government action if the worst consequences were to be avoided. In each case although no such action was forthcoming, nothing adverse occurred.
So, maybe Paul Rand has a point.
As I predicted (there’s a prophet in all of us:)), a counter reaction to the hysterical and fanatical GW/CC advocacy, has occured.
Joe Public who was impressed and supportive of scientific research, has become suspicious and resentful of the distortion of scientific theories into a new religion or political ideology.
The claims and counter-claims have served to create mistrust among the general populace, leaving only the young and those who are less economically affected still militant.
It’s always sad to when heroes turm out to have feet of clay, especially wrapped in the mantle of ‘science’.
When you say , “our collective ability to think has fallen” , you are really saying, ” those who disagree with me have lost the ability to think” !
Maybe, just maybe, they have thought, just came to a different conclusion ?
As I say, I’m not a supporter of Rand Paul’s brand of politics, but to write him off as an ignorant “loud mouthed politician”, is unfair. Senator Rand Paul is a graduate of Duke University where he obtained science and medical degrees.
Rand Paul, is a fiercely independent thinking politician,an odd combination of both progressive and reactionary positions.
But he is neither poorly educated, nor stupid !
I grant that Rand Paul is neither poorly educated, nor stupid, but I can’t say the same about people who think he knows more about the impact of global warming than climate scientists.
Craig,
Hmmm.., but which scientists ?
Think back 30 years when a scientist and former politician, Norway’s Gro Brundtland, published as Chairperson of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the enormously influential report, “Our Common Future”.
This report established the scientific and political concept of sustainable development.
Her successor 1992 Earth Summit/UNCED, which was headed by Maurice Strong a controversial UN manipulator, and prominent member of the “Club of Rome”. Based on this Agenda 21 was adopted by the UN.
The record of dishonesty, disinformation and just plain inaccuracy since has been astonishing !
What’s even more amazing is some very intelligent people, like yourself, have been willing to suspend reality and persist treating academics, scientists, and self-serving advocates as lofty, noble, infallible oracles, immune from the criticism of mere mortals!
In fact nearly everything predicted in the alarmist 1987 report, failed to occur !
This isn’t the result of the remedies demanded by implemented, but simply because the science (or at least it’s conclusions) was just plain wrong.
The 1987 report stated firmly that by 2020, “The ‘Greenhouse effect’, will have increased temperatures enough to shift agricultural production areas, raise sea levels to flood coastal cities, and devastate national economies.”
The report stated that a consensus (first mention) of scientists had concluded the sufficient incontrovertible evidence existed to conclude these effected were irreversible, and without immediate, radical action, deserts would advance on an unprecedented scale, forests disappear, acid rain devastate global ecosystems, the ozone layer would thin to an extent that the number of human and animal cancers would rise dramatically and the oceans’ food chain would be devastated.
A pretty grim future indeed !
However, back in the real world of 2017, we discover that no only is de-forestation not increasing, it’s actually sharply decreased. Curiously, the main cause of de-forstation has been the result of US mandated ethanol !
Likewise it’s taken 3 decades for scientists to admit all the work on desertification, was largely inaccurate.
In fact, 30 years after all those grim prophesies, the net rate of forest and desert loss has fallen to approximately zero according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Sea-level rise hasn’t occurred. The number of people living in extreme poverty more than halved. Famine largely disappeared. Population growth rates have fallen steeply.
None of these events have been due to any UN ‘actions’.
This isn’t to say, climate change doesn’t exist, or the effects of industrial pollution should be ignored. The lesson that should be learned is the danger of elevating anyone, including scientists, beyond scrutiny and analysis.
Rand Paul may not be the best critic, yet as a Senator and legislator, it’s his job to decide on the validity of scientific conclusions. It’s his job to probe and measure the weight of information, along the creditably of the authors of scientific reports.
How well he discharges that responsibility depends on his ability to test incoming opinion and research by objectively seeking the widest possible range of opinions.
Some of the founding individuals who created and championed UN policy that has driven the momentum for vast expenditure on GW/CC, don’t have untarnished reputations.
I realize from your past responses you don’t take kindly to my mention of the more unsavoury aspects of these individuals conduct, but a legislator should take into consideration the character of any advocate, even scientists, before accepting and acting upon that persons advice.