Santorum: Climate Change Believers are just as bad as Flat-Earth Believers

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/05/29/santorum-climate-change-flat-earth-believers-are-alike/

Seriously, WTF is wrong with this guy?!?

[© tweed]

interesting, the question was actually asked within his challenge from within conservative Christianity.  many theologians have made that point on climate change in recent years.  Santorum has to hide behind "the science is not settled".

[Free Bird]

Says the guy that would be a flat earther at the time

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pope Francis should excommunicate him for denying climate change.

[WVdemocrat]

Oh God, Republicans are going to continue with this line of argument.

Kill me now, please.

No, seriously.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That isn't what he said. 

This is what he said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a good comparison  (the idea that the world is flat has never been claimed as a scientific consensus) but he is trying to express a point that has some validity - that making the statement "this is settled, there's nothing more to investigate" is not a scientific approach.  A healthy skepticism should not be an excuse not to be concerned about climate change, but false claims that we know with absolute certainty what is causing it and the extent of its effects and long-term direction - this is neither accurate nor helpful.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That isn't what he said. 

This is what he said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a good comparison  (the idea that the world is flat has never been claimed as a scientific consensus) but he is trying to express a point that has some validity - that making the statement "this is settled, there's nothing more to investigate" is not a scientific approach.  A healthy skepticism should not be an excuse not to be concerned about climate change, but false claims that we know with absolute certainty what is causing it and the extent of its effects and long-term direction - this is neither accurate nor helpful.

No it's ridiculous. What else could dumbasses say the science wasn't settled on? Cigarettes causing cancer? Asbestos being hard to breath? Those were hard fought battles to convince people of the right thing. It's time for action, not denying.

[BlueSwan]

That isn't what he said. 

This is what he said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a good comparison  (the idea that the world is flat has never been claimed as a scientific consensus) but he is trying to express a point that has some validity - that making the statement "this is settled, there's nothing more to investigate" is not a scientific approach.  A healthy skepticism should not be an excuse not to be concerned about climate change, but false claims that we know with absolute certainty what is causing it and the extent of its effects and long-term direction - this is neither accurate nor helpful.

Semantics. There is a scientific consensus. That doesn't mean that we know absolutely everything about climate change, but it DOES mean that we should take climate change very seriously indeed and that we should NOT take politicians, who refute the consensus based on nothing, seriously at all.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Not surprising. Republicans have to outcrazy one another to get the nomination. Rick is off to a good start.

[BaconBacon96]

Cruz said it first.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Cruz said it first.

Dang it! Well, climate change denial is now a part of the Republican platform, so maybe Ricky was just throwing that out there to let the base know that he wouldn't be swayed by facts and science, which is very important to them.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That isn't what he said. 

This is what he said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a good comparison  (the idea that the world is flat has never been claimed as a scientific consensus) but he is trying to express a point that has some validity - that making the statement "this is settled, there's nothing more to investigate" is not a scientific approach.  A healthy skepticism should not be an excuse not to be concerned about climate change, but false claims that we know with absolute certainty what is causing it and the extent of its effects and long-term direction - this is neither accurate nor helpful.

Semantics. There is a scientific consensus. That doesn't mean that we know absolutely everything about climate change, but it DOES mean that we should take climate change very seriously indeed and that we should NOT take politicians, who refute the consensus based on nothing, seriously at all.

There's a big difference between "settled" and "this is the best interpretation we have based on the evidence." It's not just semantics. Consensus just means that most of a group of people believe something is true, it doesn't tell you anything about level of certainty claimed by that group, much less what is certain  by the scientific method. You want people to take climate change seriously, don't make unsubstantiated claims about it.

[Torie]

There is no controversy about the existence of climate change. That has been going on since the planet cooled. And there is no doubt humans have had a impact of some sort, via CO2 emissions, etc. But what Santorum no doubt meant to say, is that "Climate Science Is Not Settled."  And that is the way a scientist who worked for the Obama administration put it. Even more not "settled," is whether current Obama initiatives are wise public policy in dealing with the matter. What difference will they make at the margins, how much does it cost, and what are the consequences, and to whom? Anyone who claims that is "settled" is well, to be blunt, a fool. JMO.

[emailking]

It's not "settled" from a scientific perspective, but there is a general consensus that there is a very high probability that it is happening and that the effects will be very significant and very bad. And we need to start preparing seriously for that scenario, even if it somehow happens to be wrong.

The common folk don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis. They hear that this that or the other thing might be in doubt or might have changed in a way that does no seem to align with global warming and get confused about the whole thing. 'Maybe all that climate change stuff is bunk after all.' It would be nice if climate change were a non-issue so confirmation bias plays heavily into this. 

For something like evolution, this sort of thinking is unfortunate but there's no direct harm done. For climate change, there's a lot of harm done if we can't convince the right people to get moving. That's what politicians are trying to convey when they say it's "settled." Pointing out that there isn't 100% certainty may be correct but just complicates things.

[Lief 🗽]

All the lower-tier candidates are trying to say the craziest and most ridiculous things in the next few weeks so that they can bump up their national numbers by a percentage point or two to get into the top 10 and the TV debates. We're in for a hell of a ride this summer, folks!

[bobloblaw]

Those who think that Climate Change isnt something natural, that the way the climate is today is the way it should always be and that we can stop any climate change with legislation, are indeed anti-science and flat earthers.

[Flake]

Those who think that Climate Change isnt something natural, that the way the climate is today is the way it should always be and that we can stop any climate change with legislation, are indeed anti-science and flat earthers.

Translation: destroy the environment because it's going to change anyway

[Indy Texas]

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/05/29/santorum-climate-change-flat-earth-believers-are-alike/

Seriously, WTF is wrong with this guy?!?

He's worried that Mike Huckabee is beating him in the Pig Headed Fundie SoCon Primary.

[Mr. Illini]

Even among the standard climate change deniers, you'd have to be an especially numb individual to believe that this comparison makes sense.

Which tells us everything about the type of people that vote for this clown (and Cruz).

[RI]

So, now there's this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I generally like the guy, but yikes that's some cognitive dissonance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So, now there's this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I generally like the guy, but yikes that's some cognitive dissonance.

The pope has a masters in chemistry. Epic fail for Santorum.