71°Scattered Clouds

Peter’s Take: Should Va. Elect a Science Denier As Governor?

by Peter Rousselot — February 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm 1,170 124 Comments

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column published on Tuesdays. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Peter RousselotVirginia’s Republican Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, wants to be elected Governor of Virginia this year. So does his Democratic opponent, Northern Virginia businessman Terry McAuliffe.

This year’s campaign for Governor presents starkly different visions of the direction Virginia should take. There will be many opportunities to debate which vision makes more sense. And, there is still a chance that a third major candidate — Virginia’s current Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling — might jump in the race.

But only one of these candidates for Governor — Cuccinelli — has a track record of denying the conclusions of the scientific community.

To advance his cause as a climate science denier, Cuccinelli went so far as to sue the University of Virginia — our flagship university. Although Cuccinelli’s lawsuit was thrown out as frivolous by Virginia’s highest court, it had chilling reverberations within the scientific research community.

Regardless of what you think of Cuccinelli’s positions on any other issue, he should be disqualified from further consideration as Virginia’s Governor because of his record as a science denier. Why?

This is only a sampling of public policy issues facing Virginia’s next Governor:

  • Uranium mining
  • Rising tides
  • Offshore drilling
  • Transit technology choices
  • Tax incentives for green technologies

What to do about each of these issues depends on an understanding and respect for scientific findings.

How can we entrust the future direction of a state with a population of over 8,000,000 people to someone who has demonstrated that he is willing to brush aside settled scientific findings as easily as if they were mosquitoes swarming around his head?

In his first Inaugural Address, President Eisenhower — leader of a Republican Party which championed very different values. He said this about the role of the scientific community: “Love of liberty means the guarding of every resource that makes freedom possible — from the sanctity of our families and the wealth of our soil to the genius of our scientists.”

President Eisenhower would have had little respect for a science denier like Ken Cuccinelli. Ike learned the hard way that you place a nation at risk when you disregard science just because it seems politically convenient.

That’s why Virginia should not put its future on the line by choosing Ken Cuccinelli as its next leader.

Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.

Print
  • Not Me

    Should Va. Elect a Science Denier As Governor? IS THIS TEXAS??? HELL NO.

    Successfully navigating reality should be a requirement.

    God, sweet lord baby jesus, save me from your followers!!

  • novasteve

    For all this talk about republicans being science deniers, why is it that I only hear from liberals that we shouldn’t have manned space programs or send satellites out to explore the galaxy because we have poor people here on earth? If humanity is to survive, we need to leave the earth.

    Also, how on earth is the VA governor, let alone Obama going to change “rising tides”? Is he going to change the Moon’s graviational pull?

    Also, if this is about the “man made global warming stuff” the problem witht hat argument is because yout hink humans are the cause of climate change, that humans can stop climate change. If you believe that, youare a science denier yourself, you’ve also never taken a geology course, as you’d know that the cilmate always has and always will change so long as we have an atmosphere and a magnetic field due to plate tectonics.. It’s gotten warmer and colder many many times before humans ever existed. To think that human behavior can “stop” climate change shows you are a science denier.

    • Hee-Haw

      Can you go back and only repost your last 3 sentences ? The rest was garbage.

    • speonjosh

      Man, steve just keeps knocking em outta the park.
      Seriously, I bet there isn’t a local blog in the country with a better random insane aggravator than our good ol steve.

      • ARL’er

        LOL

    • Um, no

      Your post demonstrates only that you know next to nothing about climate science. 99.5% of scientists from the National Academies to the IPCC completely disagree with you. Humans have impacted the climate. Some of that rise in temperature may well be locked in, but our actions can very much impact how much warmer it will get. This is no mere cycle.

      • novasteve

        You didn’t bother to read what I wrote. I never said humans don’t impact the climate, however that’s not what the left is pushing with AGW. They are saying that humans are the CAUSE of climate change, and as a concsquences, climate change can be stopped if we all go green, which is a c omplete and total fraud. Have you ever heard of snowball earth? It got a lot warmer without humans even existing. That’s a LOT more extreme than the hysteria the left is trying to trigger with their fraud.

        • internet tourettes
        • drax

          Sigh.

          They are caused by BOTH. And human activity is what’s pushing the temperature above the level that will have consequences for us. OUr contribution may be small, but it’s significant. It’s like if you’re up to your neck in water in a pool, and someone adds just a little more water. They don’t add much, but it makes all the difference.

          And this is science, unlike your internet rantings.

          • Hee-Haw

            “our contribution may be small, but its significant. It’s like if you’re up to your neck in water in a pool, and someone adds just a little more water. They don’t add much, but it makes all the difference.”

            hahaha, I think you’re up a little too early. If you’re up to your neck in water in a pool and someone adds a little more water, it wont make much difference at all. Maybe the water will touch the bottom of your chin, but you’ll be ok. THAT was your worst post ever.

          • drax
          • Hee-Haw

            Analogies make sense. Your post made zero sense and is just wrong.

          • speonjosh

            How is it “wrong?”

      • Tumblebum

        82.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.

    • DCBuff

      Steve, the Lt. Gov. is an R, but this article does not say Bolling is a “science denier” and in fact says quite the opposite, that only one candidate, the Atty. Gen., is in denial. Just like only one (thus far) ArlNow poster.

    • drax

      “why is it that I only hear from liberals that we shouldn’t have manned space programs”

      Plenty of rightwingers trying to kill the space program as a waste too.

      “rising tides”

      Globe warms, ice melts, water levels increase, tides are higher.

      “cilmate always has and always will change”

      Yes, but not this much. Our behavior is causing it to change much more and much faster than it would be.

      You are proof that half of science denial is just misunderstanding it, and not bothering to learn what you don’t know.

      • dum dum

        Boy, drax you sure seem to know everything about everything. Must be hard being you and always correct.

        • drax

          Got an opinion, or are you just here to bash others for having them?

          • Hee-Haw

            oh come on, thats a snowvasteve response…you’re better than that, right ?

        • Hee-Haw

          And the pathetic thing is he wants everyone to think he knows so much about every topic on here, but I’m pretty sure he just googles it and finds his answer there.

          • drax

            I don’t care one bit what you or anyone else thinks of me. I thought that was obvious by now.

          • xarl

            you should be checking on the accuracy of his statements, not worrying about where they came from. does it really matter whether he’s a genius or has good research skills? and as far as impressing people with his knowledge, what’s the benefit if he posts anonymously?

          • Not Me

            Yeah… using one of the most valuable resources ever created with respect to dissemination of knowledge and free exchange of ideas is soooo lame….

            Where do you get your info? An encyclopedia?

          • Hee-Haw

            because he passes these “ideas” off as his own, so yea, that is lame.

    • CrazyTalk

      Well the here is your problem: geology studies rocks, not the climate. That might be why you have no clue what you are talking about. Climate change does happen naturally but humans have added to it. If you ever took an environmental science course you would know the facts and the science behind the problem you are trying to discuss. Science deniers look at evidence and say this is a lie! Acting on scientific fact could possibly alleviate the problems that we face at a slower rate. However, you are totally fine with things going to hell which concerns me because that says you are selfish and do not care about the future. People like you are why society has problems and you should feel bad.

      • Martin

        CrazyTalk, sorry to nitpick, but the U.S. Geological Survey has geologists who do in fact study Climate and Land Use, and our impact on the evolving climate on our planet.

  • Mary-Austin

    It shouldn’t…but Terry McAuliffe isn’t a very attractive option either.

    • Jimmy-Dallas

      You’ve got that right!

    • Confused

      im still not sure whats so bad about McAuliffe.

    • mike

      Referring to him as “Northern Virginia businessman Terry McAuliffe,” as Mr. Rousselet does, is a stretch.

      Terry McAuliffe is a political operative who worked on or headed various campaigns of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and was a past chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Then he decided he wanted to go into politics himself and took a run at governor in 2009. I’m not saying he is a bad guy per se, but its a bit like if Karl Rove or David Axelrod started calling themselves “northern Virginia businessmen” and running for high office in Virginia.

      • http://www.dethronethebanksters.com LuciferBernanke

        Umm, everyone you just mentioned is straight up evil, so…..yea….

  • MC 703

    I’d rather have McDonnell for 10 more years than Cuccinelli for 4

    • Not Me

      Hell, I think I’d take Tareq Salahi over either one of ‘em.

      • Dan

        There does seem to be more and more elections where my actual choice would be “None of The Above”…..I voted for Hank for senate not so much as a joke, but because I thought he was the most qualified candidate.

  • drax

    Virginia was the first state to use DNA to convict someone of a crime. Wonder if Cooch would have declared it “junk science.”

  • YTK

    We should elect Bill Nye the Science Guy

  • Arlington Cat

    The Cooch is a known liar, and opportunist. We don’t need that dangerous combination in the State mansion.

  • John Fontain

    30 years ago, the scientific consensus was that the earth faced a long-term, dire threat of global cooling. Today, it’s the opposite. How long will today’s consensus last? Who knows.

    But when you take a step back and realize humans have been measuring temperatures for the equivalent of 1/10th of a second out of a year compared to how long the earth has existed, it’s almost laughable to say that that short duration of time is meaningful enough to predict the long-term future of global temperatures.

    It’s like walking outside one day, measuring the temperature at 12:01 pm, measuring the temperature again at 12:02 pm, and then extrapolating that change for hundreds of years into the future.

    But besides all that, I don’t like the tone and direction of this particular column this week. If there is one thing that rubs me the wrong way, it’s someone telling me how I should vote. It almost makes me want to do the opposite just for spite.

    • novasteve

      It’s INEVITABLE that some point either very soon to about 2000 years from now, there will be a super vulcano eruption that will make everyone wish we had global warming. It is absolutely certain to happen, the question is just when, and it will be a complete game changer, to the point where we have to wonder if life will even survive the effects of the drastic cooling that will occur. Seems to me we’d be better off being warmer before the eruption takes place. Yellowstone is due to erupt at any time.

      • Brenda

        Is there any topic about which this person is not an expert?

        • ARL’ian

          I do believe that climate change and global warming is actually caused by excessive carbon dioxide emissions (and tobacco smoke) from a particular poster…

      • drax

        In 2000 years, you’ll have a point.

        We live now.

    • Not Me

      46% of the country thinks ‘that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.’

      Would you rather them thar science skeptics at the wheel?

    • speonjosh

      I don’t know where to start.

      In 1450, the consensus was that the world was flat. 50 years later, it was the opposite. I wonder how long that consensus will last? Who knows.

      (Pointing out that past conclusions were false is no evidence – absolutely NO evidence – that current conclusions are false.)

      Humans may have been recording temperatures for only a short time, but this does not mean we are not capable of understanding what the climate was for many, many years prior. And certainly we are capable of understanding the composition of the atmosphere over many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And it is this understanding that leads to the predictions, all of which are coming true each year. This is science – make predictions, and see if they come true. The climate change scientist’s predictions are coming true at a very high rate. It becomes increasingly difficult to reject their hypothesis – increased levels of CO2 cause increased temperatures worldwide with all the consequences thereof.

      It is nothing like walking outside one day, taking two temps and extrapolating change into the future.

      If you don’t like people telling you how to vote and you then vote the opposite out of spite, please do watch Fox News from now on.

      • John Fontain

        “Pointing out that past conclusions were false is no evidence – absolutely NO evidence – that current conclusions are false.”

        You are correct. Good point. But the columnist’s point is that climate change (formerly referred to as global warming) exists because scientists say it exists. This is not logically true, as demonstrated by looking at past claims by scientists.

        “certainly we are capable of understanding the composition of the atmosphere over many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And it is this understanding that leads to the predictions”

        And that same capability led scientists to a different conclusion 30 years ago.

        “The climate change scientist’s predictions are coming true at a very high rate.”

        You mean like right after Katrina, when almost all of these weather scientists predicted we would suffer from many more consecutive years of high frequency and highly damaging hurricanes, which didn’t actually end up happening? If these climate scientists can’t even forecast what will happen a year or two from now, how can they accurately predict what will happen 10 or 20 years from now?

        “please do watch Fox News from now on.”

        Good one!

        • speonjosh

          As others below point out, the whole “scientists predicted an Ice Age” business is incredibly overblown here. There was never the same consensus we have now that global warming (climate change is preferred because it’s not a uniform thing that is implied by the term “global warming” and because temp changes are actually less important than the rest of the climate changes) exists. Instead, you remember it because Time magazine hyped it based on what two or three scientists said might be happening. And there was nowhere near the same quantity of evidence on hand to support that hypothesis than we have now to support the global warming hypothesis.
          Even our understanding of things like evolution and gravity remains incomplete. But all of the evidence supports our standard models of these two phenomena. The weight of the evidence continues to support the global warming model. Again, it becomes increasingly difficult to refute it as an explanation of what we see happening.

    • LGRooney

      You’d be right if you weren’t wrong. As early as the 60s, a majority of scientists were already predicting warming with a small body predicting cooling. For some reason, the cooling bit got all the newspaper hype and the one scientist most credited with the notion later recanted as more data became available. Now the body of evidence is so large, the consensus is so great, and the effects so immediately visible, all but a handful of the doubters are simply running on faith. The rest are cranks, charlatans, or paid propagandists.

      • John Fontain

        I’m happily agnostic on the issue. I’m not convinced the earth is changing due to elements within our control. But I am convinced that the earth can change due to elements outside our control (and this is something that most “science believers” won’t acknowledge for some extremely strange reason).

        • barticus

          @Fontain: Let’s put what you said together.

          “I’m not convinced the earth is changing due to elements within our control.” Translation: You reject theoretical science.

          “But when you take a step back and realize humans have been measuring temperatures for the equivalent of 1/10th of a second out of a year compared to how long the earth has existed, it’s almost laughable to say that that short duration of time is meaningful enough to predict the long-term future of global temperatures.” That means you acknowledge the data trend while rejecting its significance. Translation: You reject observational science.

          So you reject theory and observations. Let me guess: Other than those two sticking points, you’ve got an open mind.

          “I’m happily agnostic on the issue.” I guess ignorance really is bliss.

          • John Fontain

            bart said: ” That means you acknowledge the data trend while rejecting its significance.”

            Yes, that is correct. I acknowledge what many scientists say has happening to temperatures in recent years, but I think it’s foolish to extrapolate that short-term observation into the future ad infinitum (1) in and of itself and (2) without knowing whether the putative changes are natural changes arising from causes other than man’s existence.

            ” I guess ignorance really is bliss.”

            Thanks for the insult. It’s nice to know the world is filled with adults who can rationally discuss an issue with others whose views run counter to their own without resorting to name calling.

          • John Fontain

            sorry, “happened”

          • speonjosh

            Well, the “happily agnostic” sounds a whole lot like “ignorance is bliss” to me.

            “this is something that most “science believers” won’t acknowledge for some extremely strange reason”

            What is a “science believer?” Science does not involve “belief.”
            That aside, where do get this statement from? What makes you think that scientists reject the notion that the earth can change due to elements outside our control? That’s absurd. Understanding the base system is the starting point for understanding human-caused global warming. The scientific model explaining Earth’s climate, atmosphere, etc is based entirely on what happened and happens on the planet naturally, i.e. without human input.

            You, of course, are free to believe and hypothesize whatever you want. You say you are not convinced that the Earth is changing due to “elements within our control.” If not, what is the cause for the climate change witnessed in the last decades? And can you site any published, peer-reviewed scientists with a non-anthropogenically based explanation? If not, why would you believe yourself?

          • John Fontain

            speonjosh, i appreciate the dialogue with you. Your last post, however, demonstrates exactly the point I was trying to make. You first say that scientists do in fact accept that climate changes can be naturally occuring, then you proceed to ask me this rhetorical question:

            “You say you are not convinced that the Earth is changing due to “elements within our control.” If not, what is the cause for the climate change witnessed in the last decades?”

            Your question suggests that the only possible reason for recent climate change is due to elements within our control and that any other notion is out of the question.

          • speonjosh

            No, it’s just that none of the other proposed explanations – sun spots, cyclical change, etc are a better explanation, based on observations. I’m just wondering if you have access to information the rest of us do not.

          • John Fontain

            No, I don’t have any good information. Wish I did.

            And with regard to my earlier statement about being “happily agnostic”, I wasn’t trying to imply that I was blissfully unaware. Rather, I was trying to say that I was agnostic AND not bothered by the fact that my view is very much in the minority (especially here in Arlington).

        • drax

          Ten or so years, ago, deniers were saying the earth isn’t warming. Now they finally admit it is, and their fall back position is “but it’s not caused by humans.”

          • John Fontain

            drax, is my understanding correct from news reports a few weeks ago that 2012 broke a new record for the warmest year on record (beating the last record set in 1998)?

          • drax

            I think I heard that. Why are you asking me? I don’t know everything.

          • John Fontain

            Because if that’s the case, doesn’t it mean that temperatures for the 13 years subsequent to 1998 decreased from the high? Which indicates that temps aren’t on a constant path upward as scientists suggest?

          • speonjosh

            You can’t possibly be that simple.

            No one says increases will be linear.

            Most (if not all) of those other years were also above average years in terms of average world temperature.

          • John Fontain

            josh said: “No one says increases will be linear.”

            So we might see an extended cooling period before temperatures rise further?

    • JohnB
      • John Fontain

        Thanks. I’ve read similar reports before. The results of the survey appear to be a case of focusing on quantity rather than quality. The most prominent minds in weather science at the time were convinced of global cooling.

        • SteamboatWillie

          “The most prominent minds in weather (sic) science at the time were convinced of global cooling.”

          As pointed out by prior posters, with attribution, your statement is demonstrably incorrect.

          • John Fontain

            Here is a quote from a 2008 report in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society on this very topic (please note the last sentence):

            “Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been cooling for more than 2 decades when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature reconstruction showing that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. Mitchell used data from nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling
            (Mitchell 1963). By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend
            was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood.”

            Contemporaneous evidence should carry the most weight in terms of reliability. Contemporaneous news articles on the subject during the 70′s make clear that consensus of the scientific community was a concern of global cooling. Now, several decades later, we have academics attempting to recast the past to say that those then-contemporaneous views didn’t really exist.

          • SteamboatWillie

            Well, I’ll provide a link to the entire 2008 Journal of AMS that you appear to reference, albeit haphazardly and incompletely. Others can read the full text of what you selectively excerpted and reach their own conclusions about the point of the article and your motivations for mischaracterizing it.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

            For those who want the short version, here’s the introductory statement below the headline:

            There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
            imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
            the peer-reviewed literature even then.

          • John Fontain

            Yes, isn’t it funny that a report that concludes that a certain history didn’t exist contradicts itself by saying in the report that the history did in fact exist? This reminds me of the many times I’ve read a newspaper headline that doesn’t match the substance of the article.

            And this is the stuff that I’m supposed to take seriously in determining whether to believe the notion du jour that we’re on the path to impending doom?

          • John Fontain

            “Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
            the peer-reviewed literature even then.”

            And yet the author’s method of evaluating literature used to make the above conclusion was (and I quote):

            “reports that may not have been peer reviewed have
            been included in this literature survey because they
            clearly represent the science of their day.”

            So the conclusion relates to peer-reviewed literature, but the author’s methodology included using non-peer-reviewed literature because he decided 30 years later that the non-peer-reviewed stuff clearly represented the science at the time?

            This would be hilariously comical if it weren’t so sad.

          • speonjosh

            Nonetheless, it remains a distraction and a red herring. Yes, historical temp data show that temps were falling in that time frame. And it appears that a review of the data show a general pattern of up and down patterns dating back to the 19th century when temp data became reliable and consistent. However, the warming trend now noticeable has been longer and has brought us to higher average temps than were ever seen in the entire record. PLUS, and this is the most important part, there is now an explanation (increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere – demonstrably and undeniably true) for this increase. As opposed to before when it was sort of head-scratching as to why the trend downward.

            In general, this line of discussion is somewhat pointless. You continue to use words like “believe” in connection with scientific results / hypothesis, etc. There is no belief involved. And, among climate scientists, there is no (or very little) doubt that the hypothesis has been shown to be true. Really, all that’s left is to decide, as a society, what to do about it.

          • John Fontain

            josh said: “Nonetheless, it remains a distraction and a red herring.”

            I love this. When the facts don’t support your claims, you just brush them aside and say we should disregard them and believe your assertions anyway. Is that the scientific method you espouse?

    • drax

      “30 years ago, the scientific consensus was that the earth faced a long-term, dire threat of global cooling.”

      Utter rubbish.

      No such consensus ever happened.

      A few people suggested the possibility, the media talked about it for a few years, and then the evidence didn’t pan out and it was abandoned.

      • John Fontain

        See the above quote from the Journal of the American Meteorological Society (an excerpt is below):

        “By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood.”

  • Um, no

    John, set the talking points aside, and look at the literature. There was never a scientific consensus on global “cooling” and basic facts on the impacts of greenhouse gases date back to the 1950s. What we are seeing in terms of temperature rise tracks or exceeds every serious climate model for the last 50 years. Educate yourself with something besides FOX news.

    • Um yes

      Look out, your conformational bias is showing again….And yes
      there is extensive consensus as to both the role of Humans contributing to climate change and that the current effects of climate change are far beyond expected variations in temprature…

      http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

    • John Fontain

      I only watch Fox News when I want a laugh or to know what the crazies are thinking.

  • speonjosh

    Definitely the best of these columns yet. Provocative, to the point, relevant, etc. Well done.

    • Quoth the Raven

      This is the best yet? No, not really. He does a great job of telling us why NOT to vote for one guy, but what about the D candidate? What does he know about science, and what does he believe? Too many political ads these days (just like this one) tell us why not to vote for the other guy, rather than explain why we should vote for someone else. Don’t tell me why the other guy stinks – tell me why your guy is good, please. Otherwise, it’s just more attack-ad garbage.

      • dudeguy01

        Stop telling us why Peter’s Take stinks — tell me why your comment is good. Please.

        • Quoth the Raven

          No, you’re right – attack ads are a great way to campaign! Let’s have more of them!!!

      • drax

        Vote for the other guy because he’s NOT a science denier.

        Happy now?

        • Quoth the Raven

          I would have been happy if the article said that, but your boy Peter was too busy name-calling to actually make that quite simple point.

  • internet tourettes

    Cuccinelli is not a science denier, he is an opportunist and provocateur. I’m tired of having a small government, libertarian outlook forced on me by an oppressive state government!

    • steve

      No, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

  • Suburban Not Urban

    This is dis-appointingly off point, how does Cuccinelli’s dispute over disclosure of emails make him a science denier – if that’s the charge than quote a point in fact. The dispute with UVA was over disclosure of emails and public funding.

    • CourthouseChris

      The motive behind the dispute, however, was Cucc’s anti-science crusade: an attack on an academic who dared to study a subject that he disagreed with. This ostensible reason for the dispute was a thin veil for his attacks.

    • drax

      You fell for it, huh?

  • JohnB

    More relevant than his denial of science is his competence as Attorney General. The fact that the top lawyer in the Commonwealth has a case dismissed by the VA Supreme Court “with prejudice” it calls that competence into question.

    • John Fontain

      Using that line of reasoning, half of the people who’ve had matters before the supreme court (the losers) are incompetent, right?

      • CourthouseChris

        Having a case thrown out for frivolity is not the same has being decided against, so your understanding of the line of reasoning is quite incorrect. A state’s attorney general should at least be able to put forth cases that rise above the level of “frivolous”.

        • John Fontain

          With prejudice =/= frivolous. It just means the matter was adjudicated based on the merits.

          • mike

            Exactly right, John Fountain – “with prejudice” is the way most lawsuits are dismissed, and does not in any way suggest frivolousness.

            Or to paraphrase something I read up above, Peter Rousselot’s inability to distinguish between “dismissed on the merits” and “dismissed as frivolous” should disqualify him from further consideration as a commenter on legal or political matters.

  • Joe Nowlin

    They called Copernicus a denier as well when he challenged the settled science claiming the Earth was the Center of the Universe. Bad Science and their recommended dietary guidance has also produced the fattest and least healthful Americans in history. Real science is all about challenging consensus beliefs and exploring alternative theories.

    • drax

      No, they did NOT.

      They called Copernicus a denier of the Holy Scripture.

      Your point has backfired, badly.

      • Steve

        Holy Scripture today = Government funded “science”.

        It’s the same. Point made.

        • drax

          That would only make sense to someone who is anti-science and doesn’t understand how science works.

          And Nowlin got it backwards anyway – Copernicus was the scientist, and the Church was the deniers of science. Duh.

          • Steve

            I am well aware of how most politically funded science works. It’s called goal-seeking. Goal-seeking: where you start with the outcome you want and then work backward. Real science, by comparison, Truth-seeks. Big difference. Yet, most people are not sophisticated enough to detect it.

        • speonjosh

          Frightening.

  • oyvey

    copernicus used DATA, and took it where it led him. the deniers lie, distort, and in the case of cooch, bully and censor. The use of real scientific revolution, to justify bitter denial of science, is disgusting.

    • Steve

      All “data” used to support AGW is contrived.

      • drax

        No. It’s not.

        • Steve

          Please furnish your data then. Thanks.

      • speonjosh

        How?

  • barticus

    I’m not sure I agree that Cuccinelli is a science denier. Clearly, he denies science that runs counter to GOP constituencies That’s why the attack on the UVa profs about climate change was a no-brainer: he targeted both scientific findings uncomfortable to the GOP and a bastion of higher learning. Plus he’s sure to get donations from the oil & gas lobby and have them fund attack ads against McAuliffe. Three birds with one stone!

    But if scientific findings appeared that support the GOP’s view of the world, I’m sure he’d whole-heartedly embrace them. Raise your hand if you expect Cuccinelli to say this: “BP engineers assure me that their proposed off-shore rigs near Virginia Beach pose no danger to the nearby coastline. But I reject their report because it’s science-based.” What do you think that BP engineers are going to say? And how badly will Cuccinelli wrench his shoulder when patting them on the back?

    That kind of selective logic only happens when ambition trumps integrity.

    • Chris

      That is the definition of a denier… choosing to only believe science when it supports your a priori expectations. The church would have immediately accepted the knowledge of science had it confirmed their fairy tales.

      • barticus

        @Chris: “a priori”? I haven’t heard that in a while.

        Honest question: Did you read Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’?

        • nom de guerre

          My favorite is “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science.”

  • LawnDoctor

    LOL at global warming. In the 70′s it was global cooling – the alarmist hyperbole screamed the world was going to be covered in sheets of ice and the north atlantic frozen solid.

    When the MONEY dried up it became…ta da…Global Warming which has been repackaged as…ta da…Climate Change – which by its very title could actually mean anything.

    • John Fontain

      Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in research money would evaporate if scientific consensus was that (1)temperatures go up and down slightly over long periods of time (2) we really don’t have enough history of recorded weather to make accurate long-term predictions and (3) much of temperature change is due to naturally occurring factors outside of the control of man (such as solar flares). When was the last time you saw participants in an industry voluntarily blow up their own livelihoods?

      • speonjosh

        It was scientific consensus that allowed you to state that temperatures go up and down slightly over long periods of time. (What, did a little bunny tell you?)
        Research money doesn’t dry up when there are uncertainties. Just the opposite. And no one would dispute your assertion that we don’t have enough history of recorded weather to make accurate long-term predictions. This is why the long-term predictions tend to be rather vague for specific areas and times.
        It is also scientific consensus that much of temperature change is due to naturally occurring factors outside the control of man. What is your point in repeating standard climate science?

    • speonjosh

      What a bizarre understanding you have.

  • BlackHole

    The ozone hole that was supposed to swallow the world is gone! And vanish it did; 150 years ahead of schedule – a schedule generated by climate change hyperbole.

    • SteamboatWillie

      What the heck are you talking about?

      • DCBuff

        No one knows. It vanished.

    • speonjosh

      Actually, the ozone hole has not vanished.

      Of course, there was never any connection at all between the ozone hole and climate change, so your post is a bit of a non sequitor.

  • David A.

    Yet another piece of garbage from Mr. Rousselot. I’m sorry, but not one of your weekly columns have been enjoyable to read.

    …Yawn.

    • SteamboatWillie

      And yet you continue to read them. Sorry indeed.

      • David A.

        “Read” may have been an overstatement. The title alone lets the reader know it’s partisan garbage.

  • GC

    At a minimum you should require a title that properly reflects your propagandist bent. You are accusing Cuccinelli of being a denier of science, and yet you only address his views on climate control/change. At least title the piece “Will NoVA elect someone who is a climate change skeptic?” — of course if you did that, you would be encouragnig more votes for Mr. C because many people are likewise uncomfortable with the so-far pseudo-sicentific approach of the press to presenting these issues. To label someone a denier of science you should a) cite to more than one issue, and b) cite an issue that is actually considered to be accepted in the science community with at least a general consensus. Scientists themselves are often at odds with each others views and the scientific method encourages one not to prove your theories but to seek to disprove them, and only in the absence of such findings, to tentatively conclude the phenomenon may be occurring (and this is a very simplistic explanation). At any rate, thank you for reminding me to send Mr. C a nice big campaign contribution.

  • Jon

    I will stop reading the comments on ARLNow.com, all they do is irritate me.
    I will stop reading the comments on ARLNow.com, all they do is irritate me.
    I will stop reading the comments on ARLNow.com, all they do is irritate me.
    I will stop reading the comments on ARLNow.com, all they do is irritate me.
    I will stop reading the comments on ARLNow.com, all they RAAAAGGGGE!!!!!

  • marie antoinette

    Science Denier. That’s the funniest term ever. You sir, are a clown.

  • marie antoinette

    “HIDE THE DECLINE!”

    ROFLMAO!!!

    A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.

    “[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/#ixzz2K8eJoUMW

    • speonjosh

      “Leaked?”
      Your post seems to bring you to fits of laughter, but it’s really as bland as can be. What did you say that in any way challenges the global warming hypothesis?

  • marie antoinette

    Well SpeonJosh, yes, a draft was leaked of a major upcoming report from the IPCC. Within that report there is a discussion about the impact of solar activity on our beloved little earth. An impact far greater than previously thought by the so called “experts.” Not sure what part of the paragraph you didnt understand…

    Man-made Global Warming is a theory, not gospel. Er, sorry, now it’s climate change. It’s a cult religion. I wish I were as smart as Al-Gorel–that buffoon has made hundreds of millions on this folly. The cherry on top, of course, is the sale of his network to Al Jazeera, who are financed by the worlds leading carbon emitting country on a per capita basis. That’s part of what makes me chuckle, for sure.

  • John Fontain

    It is a weird state of affairs when those who dare to question the notion of global warming are quite literally viewed and cast as evil by the majority who do believe it. As you can see from the posts above, peoples blood boils when someone says they don’t beleive. It literally makes them mad as hell.

    In the long run, I don’t think it’s a productive way for the believers (I use that term only because the article and many posters use the term deniers) to advance their cause.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list