GAO: Obama Puts Politics Ahead Of Science

Same story, different day, different target. A recent Government Accountability Office report declares Obama put politics ahead of science in his hasty closure of Yucca Mountain. Ed Morrissey writes:

Quick — which presidential candidate pledged to restore science to its “rightful place” in government policy? If you’ve forgotten, well, so has Barack Obama and his administration, according to the GAO. The watchdog agency reports that the White House rushed to shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal facility for political rather than scientific considerations, and that Obama’s manipulation will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and set back the nuclear industry by decades

There are even bigger problems that the GAO report uncovered, not all having to do with the Obama administration. Thanks to the hasty closure, another disposal site must be found. However, the GAO estimates that even if a decision on a new site was made today, the permit process for its use would keep it off line until … 2045. It will take 34 years to get full approval on the next waste-disposal site, and that’s if the site avoids “cost delays” and “garners public acceptance.”

Due to federal over-regulation, we have not built a new nuclear plant or oil refinery in the US in over 30 years. And now, thanks to the Obama administration playing politics instead of going with the science, has basically guaranteed we won’t open a new nuclear waste disposal facility for more than 34 years. But, hey, when Obama has an agenda, nothing gets in his way.

Coal power has been on Obama’s hit-list since before he was President. And he knew his goal would necessarily make electricity costs skyrocket and bankrupt large portions of the coal industry.

The Obama administration sought and got expert opinion regarding deep-water drilling after the Gulf disaster. Then the Obama administration lied about what those experts signed off on. You see, the experts signed a 44-page document that did not say “shut ‘er down” and then added two “shut ‘er down” paragraphs into the document after it was already signed. That’s fraud. That’s intentionally misrepresenting what the experts said. That’s placing expert signatures on something the experts did not sign.

Then a federal judge ordered an immediate halt to the moratorium. And the Obama administration ignored the federal judge’s order. Of course, Obama thinks he’s above the law. He’s ruler of the USSA, after all. But the judge didn’t see it that way. He found the Obama administration in contempt of court. Ed Morrissey wrote about that in February of this year.

When Judge Martin Feldman ordered the federal government to end its moratorium on deep-sea drilling, he actually meant it. In a ruling earlier today, the federal judge in New Orleans has held the Obama administration in contempt for its “defiance” in reimposing the moratorium through other means:

The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.

Shortly after Obama became President, he canceled oil shale leases in Utah.

The truth is, ever since Barack Obama took office the President has been making it more difficult to exploit our own energy resources, one of his first actions was having the Secretary of the Interior cancel leases to exploit our shale oil reserves in Utah. It seems as if President Obama’s energy policy consists of making America more dependent on foreign oil.

Obama has been very busy grabbing up energy-rich land ever since he took office. And Michelle Malkin has been busy documenting it.

I’ve been reporting on the stealth Obama land and ocean grabs for the past year now. Quick review: Last August, I told you about the “Great Outdoors Initiative” to lock up more open spaces through executive order. This came on top on top of a separate, property-usurping initiative exposed by GOP Rep. Robert Bishop and Sen. Jim DeMint earlier this spring. According to an internal, 21-page Obama administration memo, 17 energy-rich areas in 11 states have been targeted as potential federal “monuments.” The Obama War on the West is a War on Jobs that extends from land to sea based on politicized junk science by executive fiat and czar evasion. In November, I noted the expansive Interior Secretary Ken Salazar/NLCS designation. And in February, I mentioned the federal wild lands grab slipped through by Salazar during the Christmas season lame duck session.
[nine links in that paragraph, follow the above link to find them]

Obama wants energy costs to skyrocket. It’s part of his plan.
Lock up land that can produce energy.
Shut down off-shore drilling by using a fraudulent document.
Blatantly refuse to obey a federal judge’s order.
Kill oil jobs and put oil-related businesses out of business.
Declare desire to bankrupt the coal industry (which produces 48 percent of our electricity).
Set the nuclear energy sector back 34 years at a minimum for political reasons, ignoring the science, at a cost of billions of tax-payer dollars and many high-paying jobs.

There can be no other explanation. Obama wants US energy costs to go through the roof. And that will destroy the economy. Working poor and middle class hardest hit.
________
Cross-Post

43 Comments

  1. Bear in mind that this screaming about “putting politics ahead of science” comes from someone who uncritically swallows any rubbish about climate change being a hoax and a conspiracy…

  2. Bear in mind, Pho, that the GAO is a government agency. And they’re the ones that said Obama did it for politics instead of the science. Also bear in mind, Pho, you were incapable of refuting any information in the article but had to resort to your standard-issue childish name-calling, as is your main function on this blog.

  3. Also bear in mind, Pho, you were incapable of refuting any information in the article

    I can’t be bothered researching. The source posting it has been shown to be wrong so many times that the effort isn’t worth it.

  4. Your statement is clearly false, Pho.

    Your lack of credibility in factual matters has been well established in the past before, JH. That isn’t an ad hominem; it’s a statement of fact explaining why your assertions are not taken seriously.

  5. Bear in mind that this screaming about “putting politics ahead of science” comes from someone who uncritically swallows any rubbish about climate change being a hoax and a conspiracy…

    And a dropout from divinity school and railroad engineer are people extremely qualified to lecture to us on Glowball Warming. Wonderful winter in Great Britain this year.

  6. One can hardly depend on political partisans like Ed Morrisey, or Michele Malkin, or Dana Pico, or John Hitchcock, or other sources devoted to right wing anti-Obama orthodoxy, to accurately portray the Obama energy policy, which was stated in great detail here last June.

    I think we can all agree that energy policy going forward is filled with complexity, certainly not satisfied by a sound bite or two, and most certainly not satisfied by the statements of a handful of political partisans who barely understand the issue.

    And please, what is the Republican counter-proposal for an energy policy, “drill baby drill”? I think that it is fair to say that Republicans don’t have an energy policy, and have not had one since Reagan neglected Carter’s energy policy thirty years ago. So please, if Repubs do have a comprehensive energy policy, what is it, other than to oppose Obama’s?

  7. devoted to right wing anti-Obama orthodoxy

    That’s cute. Obama as god. The oceans began to recede, the planet began to heal.

    But it is interesting that when Perry gets all manner of documentation of actual events, Perry completely ignores all the documentation in order to hand-wave the messengers. Complete and utter logic-fail from the abjectly and adamantly and ignorantly blind hyper-partisan Perry.

    One can hardly depend on the hyper-partisan Perry to accurately portray anything at all, given his record of false accusations and libelous portrayals of his political enemies.

  8. As far as Reagan “neglecting” Carter’s self-destruction policies, it was Reagan’s undoing of Carter’s agenda and further reversing Liberal agenda that greatly healed the US of the damage Carter and the rest of the Liberals had been doing for decades. Yes, I lived through the Carter malaise. I lived through the Carter stagflation. I lived through the Carter “odds-and-evens” long lines at the gasoline stations where the stations capped purchases to a certain amount of gallons. That’s a policy everyone should “neglect” to use.

  9. Like I asked, John, exactly what is the Repub energy policy, drill baby drill? You offered no answer, probably because there is no policy. Instead you divert to a diatribe against Jimmy Carter. If Reagan had picked up on the Carter energy independence policy, we probably would be in much better shape than we are today. The problem is, you Repubs are bottom line oriented, and have no planning nor vision of the future. If I am wrong, please correct me.

  10. I note that you have yet to discuss the actions Obama has taken since he became President. Is it because his actions are indefensible even to you? Is it because you adamantly refuse to say anything bad about your demigod? Is it because of your adherence to blind hyper-partisanship?

  11. Obama’s policies through Cass Susstein is to inhibit progress and jack up the price. You want documentation, visit a gasp pump.

  12. Yorkshire, Obama has said he is concerned about the role that speculators play in jacking up oil prices.

    I am concerned about how quickly the price of gasoline goes up, and how slowly it goes down.

    Also, note that the oil companies made about $35 billion in profits in the first quarter. Note also that these same oil companies get a $4 billion per year tax credit from the tax payers. Please tell me why we still have this corporate welfare program yet alive and well.

  13. Perry, show us where you have ever shown support for anything George Bush has done. Show us where you have ever shown support for anything the Republicans have done. Give the links to your statements showing this. Yorkshire, Dana and I have shown support for Obama’s decisions or statements when those decisions or statements were right. I don’t ever recall you showing support for any Republicans or Conservatives for anything.

    Or just admit you think Obama can do no wrong and Republicans and Conservatives are evil incarnate.

  14. Note also that these same oil companies get a $4 billion per year tax credit from the tax payers. Please tell me why we still have this corporate welfare program yet alive and well.

    That right there is wrong-headed illogic, plain and simple. A tax credit in and of itself is not welfare, plain and simple. From FactCheck.org:

    Companies with overseas subsidiaries can keep their income untaxed by the IRS if they don’t transfer that revenue back to the U.S. Oil and gas companies received tax breaks and subsidies from a 2005 energy bill, but the bill led to a net tax increase for them.

    Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

    Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.

    Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.

    Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase [pdf] for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

    Since Perry is known to refuse to follow links to get educated, here is a bit from one of the links.

    Congressional Research Service: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years.

    And tax breaks are not welfare. If your net tax load means you’re still paying federal taxes after the federal tax breaks, you are not a welfare recipient. If your net tax load increases after the tax breaks, you are not a welfare recipient. If you call it welfare, you are engaging in radical leftist propaganda.

  15. During this period, the 29 largest domestic energy firms earned a collective $630 billion after adjusting for inflation. These profits varied dramatically—from a low of $7.9 billion in 1995 to a high of $42.6 billion in 2004—based upon world market demand, supply, and international events.

    In contrast, the taxes paid or remitted by domestic oil companies have been consistently far greater than their profits and now total more than $2.2 trillion (adjusted for inflation) over the past quarter century. The largest share of those taxes is federal and state gasoline excise taxes. In 2004, governments collected $58 billion in gasoline excise taxes. Overall, governments have collected $1.34 trillion in gasoline excise taxes since 1977.

    Cite.

    Oil companies pay huge amounts of tax already. That is a fact those on the left do not want to admit because it destroys their hate-filled class-envy disinformation in their attempt to make people look the wrong way and blame the wrong people.

  16. I note that you have yet to discuss the actions Obama has taken since he became President. Is it because his actions are indefensible even to you? Is it because you adamantly refuse to say anything bad about your demigod? Is it because of your adherence to blind hyper-partisanship?

    Perry, you’re still refusing to discuss the actions Obama has taken since he became President. I note that you provided a link to his propagandistic words but you have so far failed to even attempt a discussion of Obama’s actual actions.

  17. And a dropout from divinity school and railroad engineer are people extremely qualified to lecture to us on Glowball Warming.

    An interesting criteria fior criticism, Yorkie, given that the vast majority of climate scientists warn that climate change is very real.

    So you ding spokespeople as being underqualified – and at the same time you ignore the vast bulk of those who are qualified…

  18. As far as Reagan “neglecting” Carter’s self-destruction policies, it was Reagan’s undoing of Carter’s agenda and further reversing Liberal agenda that greatly healed the US of the damage Carter and the rest of the Liberals had been doing for decades

    Remember what I said about you being factually incorrect so often?

    The effects of Reaganism include:

    - the US sinking into debt overseas
    - ordinary working Americans earning less and less of the national pie.
    - the rich grabbing more and more of that pie
    - Americans saving less and less
    - Americans going further and further into debt personally
    - US GDP growth slowing, and heading for stagnation.

  19. Your claim of “vast majority” is iffy at best. You cannot prove your claim. And scientists have been leaving the “AGW” alarmist crowd and entering the “AGW” skeptic community. And since “AGW” has a very notable problem given the past 15 years of not warming and the increasing numbers of people being educated on or remembering the 1970s “next ice age” alarmist claptrap, they had to change it to “climate change”. But it’s still the same sort of people pushing the same sort of thing. They just can’t decide if we’re causing an ice age or and endless summer. But they have faked data to back up their opposing claims, whatever they are today.

  20. And tax breaks are not welfare.

    It’s a form of welfare to the rich adopted to hide this fact from the ignorant. Works, doesn’t it?

    If a person who earns $10 million pays less tax than the gardener they hire, then the State is seeing to their welfare big time.

    But if its not “welfare”, then why object to ending tax breaks – get the tax system to a simple, easily understood basis with no discounts for anything.

  21. Your claims of the effects of Reaganism are dreadfully wrong on all manner of levels, your lack of integrity only one of them.

    See? This is why people have contempt for your honesty.

    You were given the graphs. And yet you merely assert the opposite despite the evidence.

  22. Your claim of “vast majority” is iffy at best. You cannot prove your claim.

    You just keep asserting lies regardless of the facts.

    They just can’t decide if we’re causing an ice age or and endless summer.

    You just keep asserting lies regardless of the facts.

    This is why people have contempt for your honesty.

  23. Who has contempt for my honesty? Deceitful socialists and other deceitful liberals. Since practically everyone on the right have refuted your dishonest claims against me any number of times, I can honestly say everyone on the right has contempt for your lack of integrity.

    get the tax system to a simple, easily understood basis with no discounts for anything.

    I support this. A flat 15 percent across the board tax. Nobody pays more, nobody pays less, and government lives within its means. I fully support that.

  24. Who has contempt for my honesty? Deceitful socialists and other deceitful liberals. Since practically everyone on the right have refuted your dishonest claims against me any number of times,

    I point to the posts just above, where you just keep asserting lies regardless of the facts.

    This is why people have contempt for your honesty.

  25. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
    12 May 2011 at 16:27 (Edit)
    And a dropout from divinity school and railroad engineer are people extremely qualified to lecture to us on Glowball Warming.

    An interesting criteria fior criticism, Yorkie, given that the vast majority of climate scientists warn that climate change is very real.

    So you ding spokespeople as being underqualified – and at the same time you ignore the vast bulk of those who are qualified…

    The Diviniy School Dropout is Algore. Algore is hardly a “spokesperson” since he wrote a book, produced a movie (which some English Judge made the unsubstantiated parts removed) and received a Nobel Prize, and no background in Science, but did graduate from Harvard as did Obummer, so their standards are suspect. The Railroad Engineer with no science background is India’s Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri, and I believe he was made to step down.

    [edit to add] For your better understanding why skeptics abound.
    http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/26939/Former_IPCC_Leader_Says_Alternative_Group_Needed.html

  26. Perry says:
    12 May 2011 at 15:33 (Edit)
    Yorkshire, Obama has said he is concerned about the role that speculators play in jacking up oil prices.

    I am concerned about how quickly the price of gasoline goes up, and how slowly it goes down.

    Also, note that the oil companies made about $35 billion in profits in the first quarter. Note also that these same oil companies get a $4 billion per year tax credit from the tax payers. Please tell me why we still have this corporate welfare program yet alive and well.

    Perry, it’s not speculators as your tin god would want you to believe. It is your tin god’s reluctance to lead, but rather follow at a distance and not take a firm grip on world issues, and the ability to drive our domestic production down that requires the law of supply and demand which has never been repealed in hundreds of years to drive the prices up. Of course tin god could open up area for oil exploration and production, but then how could he punish us for the use of oil.

  27. “So you ding spokespeople as being underqualified – and at the same time you ignore the vast bulk of those who are qualified…”

    The Diviniy School Dropout is Algore. Algore is hardly a “spokesperson” since he wrote a book, produced a movie (which some English Judge made the unsubstantiated parts removed) and received a Nobel Prize, and no background in Science, but did graduate from Harvard as did Obummer, so their standards are suspect. The Railroad Engineer with no science background is India’s Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri, and I believe he was made to step down.

    Uh-huh.

    In fact, a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet.

    Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by “many” and “leading”. For instance, in April 2006, 60 “leading scientists” signed a letter urging Canada’s new prime minister to review his country’s commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

    This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

    Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration’s stance on climate science.

    The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.

    In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).

    The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists.

    And what exactly is your comment when faced with the fact, Yorkie, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of those qualified to judge believe that human-made climate change is real?

  28. And what exactly is your comment when faced with the fact, Yorkie, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of those qualified to judge believe that human-made climate change is real?

    Just pure unadultrated Bovine Feces.

  29. Comment in moderation.

    Do you remember how we had to rub your nose in the birth certificate issue because you denied reality?

  30. Now why can’t I take Algore seriously

    Bob Somerby Comedian and roommate of Algore

    After graduating from Harvard in 1969, Somerby came to Baltimore as a fifth grade teacher in the Baltimore City Public Schools. His first articles in The Sun, in 1978, dealt with issues of educational testing.

    He has consulted for a variety of network news shows on issues of educational testing. He has written articles for the Sun on issues ranging from the outrageous treatment of poor Nancy Kerrigan right on through Medicare funding.

    As a comedian, Somerby has been praised by a variety of major publications. Of his one-man show, MATERIAL WORLD, the Washington City Paper said: “Somerby turns a stand-up act into stand-up art. Material World is high comic art.” The Washington Post recently said of the show: “Think Will Rogers without the corny rope tricks…Somerby offers a rare treat: jokes built on ideas.”

    Tommy Lee Jones did light drama and comedy in the movies and roommate of Algore

    Mini Biography
    Born in San Saba, Texas, the son of Clyde C. and Lucille Marie (Scott) Jones, Tommy Lee Jones worked in underwater construction and on an oil rig. He attended St. Mark’s School of Texas, a prestigious prep school for boys in Dallas, on a scholarship, and went to Harvard on another scholarship.He roomed with future Vice President Al Gore and played offensive guard in the famous 29-29 Harvard-Yale football game of ’68 known as “The Tie.” He received a B.A. in English literature and graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1969.

    Algore roommate of two comedians above.

    Gore enrolled in Harvard University in 1965, initially planning to major in English and write novels, but later deciding to major in government.[21][22] On his second day on campus, he began campaigning for the freshman student government council, and was elected its president.[22]

    Though he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[22] he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math.[21] His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana.[21][22] In his junior and senior years, he became more involved with his studies, earning As and Bs.[21] In his senior year, he took a class with oceanographer and global warming theorist Roger Revelle, who sparked Gore’s interest in global warming and other environmental issues.[22][29] Gore earned an A on his bachelor of arts thesis, “The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947-1969″, and graduated with honors in June 1969.[21][30]

  31. Do you often make a habit of denying reality, Yorkie? What exactly is your basis for terming actual facts to be “pure unadultrated Bovine Feces”, Yorkie?

    I’m well grounded in reality. After 10 of which 7 seven were major, and of which three were potential life ending illnesses and operations, I look at the world through a different prism. My senses have been heightened to see cock and Bull stories. You tend to be one on my radar screen. You asked, I answered. As in Facebook you can check “Like” or “Dislike” I Just Don’t give a hoo-haa about your opinions. It’s as simple as that. In just over two weeks I retire and I’m a full fledged member of the KMA club. (Give you a hint. The KM stands for “Kiss My ___” and you’re bright enough to figure out the “A”

  32. I’m well grounded in reality.

    You have been supplied with the facts about the overwhelming consensus of scientists qualified to judge. And yet you claim that talking about this overwhelming consensus is “Just pure unadultrated Bovine Feces.”

    Do you often make a habit of denying reality, Yorkie?

  33. Do you often make a habit of denying reality, Yorkie?

    WHo’s reality are you refering to? Mine? Yours’ Phoney scientists exposed in Climategate? Coldest Winter in Great Britian in Decades? Surrealism? Abstract? Concrete? Melting Ice? There are lots of realities you can live in. One is as real as the next. Kadaffy’s realism he’ll win. BO’s reality is he is invincible and everything is fine while the country crumbles around him? The reality that unemployment is near 18% and not BO’s reality it’s 9% Is gravity a reality, or does it suck? What’s the reality of helicopters flying, or do they beat the air into submission? Is it a reality there is water on the moon? So, if you want to discuss reality, be specific in term of the total number of real Climate Scientist that believe in Global Warming vs. the real number of Climate Scientists who do not believe in it. Just saying a majority has no basis in reality.

  34. “Perry, it’s not speculators as your tin god would want you to believe.”

    Then, Yorkshire, you are unaware or don’t believe the statement made in a Senate Hearing today by the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, Rex Tillerson, who admitted that if it were not for the speculators the price of a barrel of oil would be $60-70 rather than the $100 it is as we speak. This means that gasoline shuld be about $2.50 per gallon. Now what do you say?

  35. WHo’s reality are you refering to?

    The one in which the overwhelming consensus of scientists qualified to judge have come to a consensus on an issue. This has nothing to do with Obama, or with unemployment, or gravity.

    So, if you want to discuss reality, be specific in term of the total number of real Climate Scientist that believe in Global Warming vs. the real number of Climate Scientists who do not believe in it. Just saying a majority has no basis in reality.

    If you’d bothered to read the links:

    With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the
    total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

    Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered [mean global temperatures have] “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2 [that humans are primarily responsible]. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
    2.

    You have been supplied with the facts about the overwhelming consensus of scientists qualified to judge. And yet you claim that talking about this overwhelming consensus is “Just pure unadultrated Bovine Feces.”

    Do you often make a habit of denying reality, Yorkie?

  36. Again which reality?

    The one which scientists measure, Yorkshire. You know, actual reality.

Comments are closed.