This weekend was no exception.
For this weekend, Allegheny County Council Person-At-Large Heather Heidelbaugh reasserted something she'd said on QED way back in 2009: that she's a climate science denier.
Here's what she said in 2009. In a discussion of The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, she said with a laugh:
I'm sorry I don't buy it at all. I think it's a complete hoax. I think all the emails that came out - this is, this is socialism, Ok? It's redistribution of wealthAt this point John McIntire and I both said:
It's science.Heather continued:
It's not science.When host Chris Moore asked whether she thinks it's an extortion plot to get money out of rich nations she said:
Yes, absolutely.And then after that, she countered the whole of climate science with the question: Can you explain why it's getting colder in the last decade?
This is an argument scientists (real ones) like to call "going down the up escalator." Here's a graphical explanation:
See? Going down the up escalator. Simple.
This week, she didn't go nearly as far into anti-science but she did say:
A lot of the climatology science has been discounted as a hoax.When it was pointed out to her that NASA disagrees, she said:
No. When you talk to a lot of very credentialed scientists, they don't believe this. Nor do I.C'mon Heather. You're way smarter than that!
If you need any help, you can start here. NOAA bases it's conclusion that climate change is undeniable on 10 key indicators:
- Air Temperature Near Surface (Troposphere).
- Humidity.
- Temperature Over Oceans.
- Sea Surface Temperatures.
- Sea Level.
- Ocean Heat Content.
- Temperature Over Land.
- Sea Ice.
- Glaciers.
- Snow Cover.
It's not socialism. It's not a hoax.
It's science. And even if you don't believe it, it's still true.
Heather Heidelbaugh, Allegheny County Council Person-at-Large and Climate Science Denier.
1 comment:
Once upon a time, Democrats were the party of the poor and working man, and wanted more aid and more regulation of business practices. Republicans were the party of business, but they made the argument that if business thrives, more poor people get jobs. So, for example, you would think that national healthcare would have been a win for both parties, but the health insurance companies got tied up with Wall Street and the great blocking began.
I remember the seventies and eighties, when everyone agreed (generically) that pollution is bad. But Republicans would argue first that specific instances were not, in fact pollution and second when discussing national policy, Republicans would argue for market based solutions (like cap and trade) to make policy more efficient and less wasteful.
Now, post-Clinton, Democrats embrace he more efficient solutions to address climate change. And the Republicans have retreated into fantasy and reject the science they disagree with (like with macro economics and evolution).
Post a Comment