Mars Warming; Right Wing Still Hostile to Science

The Times of London reports that Mars is getting warmer. As is noted in the report, the mechanism is different from the causes of climate change on the earth. The story is of interest to those interested in science, but it is irrelevant to the question of climate change on earth. Of course that won’t change how the right wing responds, with Memeorandum showing that several right wing blogs are latching on to this story. Using these climate changes on Mars to dispute theories of climate change on earth is comparable to those who spent the winter arguing against global warming because it was cold outside.

Science works by objectively analyzing the data to devise theories based upon the evidence. Those who follow the scientific method have determined that the mechanisms for warming on Mars and the earth are entirely different, and global warming represents the consensus of scientific thought. Conservatives, who reject the scientific consensus on global warming practice science backwards. They devise their conclusion first, and then search out evidence which can be twisted to verify their views.

These tend to be the same people who claim that intelligent design is a valid alternative to evolution, that abstinence-based education is of effective, that the Swift Boat Liars are anything more than partisans inventing smears, and that Saddam threatened us with WMD before the war. The right wing will not be able to make meaningful intellectual contributions, and will not be able to govern effectively, as long as they practice their flat earth philosophy.

Related Posts:

Gingrich Admits Liberals Right and Republicans Wrong on Global Warming
Thomas Friedman on Bush Administrations Suppression of Climate Change Reports

Why it is Important to Refute Those Who Wage War on Science
The Truth Behind the Anti-Climate Change Documentaries
Report Predicts Dire Consequences of Climate Change

AAAS Issues Consensus Statement on Global Warming

How Conservatives Determine The Truth
Oil Companies Attempt to Bribe Scientists to Dispute Global Warming Report

Bush Administration Covers Up Reports on Climate Change
Global Warming and the Anti-Science Right

Conservatives Dominated by Flat Earth Mentality

Hysteria and Anti-Science In Conservative Attacks on Climate Change

Watchdog Group Accuses Bush Administration of Suppressing Climate Change Research


  1. 1
    Peter Kay says:

    Once again, you take the common tactic of attacking the messenger(s), not the message. Your argument seems to be “the consensus agrees, therefore those that go against consensus are wrong”.

    And how do you back up your claims? By attacking the messenger, of course!

    There’s an inconvenient scientific method you forgot to mention:

    When evidence contradicts theory, the theory may be wrong.

    Seems to me you’re being presented with possible data that contradicts current earth-based GW theory, and instead what you’re doing is disregarding the evidence.

    That’s not scientific.

    Perhaps if you could pose some scientific basis that explains why earth’s GW is carbon-based and Mars (and other planets btw) GW is solar-based, you might earn some points with clear thinkers.

    Right now, to use your own words and approach, you’re like those that continue to claim Building 7 was brought down by explosives and Kennedy was shot by > 1 gunmen, all the while disregarding evidence to the contrary.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    This is not “attacking the messenger.” This is attacking the people who distort the message.

    This presents no evidence which contradicts the theory as the warming on Mars is from a different mechanism.

    “Perhaps if you could pose some scientific basis…”
    Global warming is the consensus of scientifc thought.

    It is the conservatives who reject the scientific evidence who are like those who make the claims you mention in your last paragraph, not those who accept the scientific consensus.

  3. 3
    daveinboca says:

    This fellow Chusid should read Richard Feynman and his famous speech about “Cargo Cult Science.”

    Don’t confuse liberals with evidence that the sun is causing global warming on both Earth and Mars. That would go against “scientific thought!”

    What a crock! It’s the sun causing much or most of the warming.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    It’s hard to come up with a better example of the ignorance of science on the right than Dave’s comment. Does he really think a statement as profound as the fact that, “It’s the sun causing much or most of the warmin” means a thing in refuting the consensus of scientifc thought? The issue is not whether the sun causes warming, but why the earth is becoming warmer now.

    This article presents absolutely no evidence that warming is caused by the same mechanisms on both the earth and Mars, and the article actually says the opposite. Conservative readers are highly skilled at ignoring the facts which contradict their views.

    A scientific consensus has been reached on this issue, but conservatives somehow think they can claim that their ideologically-motivated thoughts represnt fact, while the beliefs of virtually scientist in the field represents “cult science.”

    And they wonder why we don’t take them seriously.

  5. 5
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    A worthwhile read by an Australian climate scientist, Dave Evans, about why he is betting against man-made CO2 as the primary source for Global Warming – here.

    New scientific evidence revealed after 2000 (after Kyoto and the “scientific consensus” was established), started raising doubts for him:

    1) A re-evaluation of climate data showed that the Earth actually cooled from 1940 – 1975, despite a steady rise in CO2 emissions during that time.
    2) New technology and more reliable ice-core data revealed that historical warming events actually preceded rises in atmospheric carbon, rather than followed, as previously thought.
    3) New discoveries regarding cloud formation suggest solar radiation and the Sun’s magnetic field fluctuation may result in climate change.

    He also discusses the political feedback loop that perpetuates the global-warming industry and how it stifles real scientific debate on the subject.

    Ron, If in 10 years, there is a dip in global temperature, or if the rate of warming slows or stabilizes, despite an increase in Carbon emissions, will you admit you may be wrong? Or is that simply scientifically impossible?

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:


    “New scientific evidence revealed after 2000 (after Kyoto and the “scientific consensus” was established)…”

    The consensus statements were published in 2007. There is no data since 2000 which has placed this in doubt. The political feed back loop here is quite clear as conservatives ignore the scientific consensus, and grasp on to any potential evidence, however weak, to make unsubstantiated scientific claims based upon their preferences and political views.
    “will you admit you may be wrong?”

    When dealing with branches of science outside of my field, I defer to experts in the field, especially when there is such an overwhelming consensus as with climate change. If the prevalent scientific viewpoint changes, regardless of reason, then I’d defer to that opinion. I’d prefer that it be found that global warming isn’t the problem that virtually every scientist predicts it is, but it is not worth taking that risk when remedies are relatively benign at present, but will be far more difficult if we wait too long to act.

  7. 7
    Steve says:

    This is funny. We have a couple of people here saying, “But the MECHANISM is different for the warming on Mars.” Did you even bother READING the article? That list ONE scientist who has a THEORY about the mechanism for the warming on Mars. That is hardly PROOF.

    Fine, I have a theory about GW on Earth. It’s caused by corn. Get rid of all the corn and BAM, no more GW.

    I expect you to now accept my theory as fact…

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:


    In ohter words, you pick and choose which theory to believe depending upon whether they say what you want to hear.

    Personally, I’ll stick with the consensus view of virtually all scientists who work in the field.

  9. 9
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    “…but it is not worth taking that risk when remedies are relatively benign at present, but will be far more difficult if we wait too long to act…”

    I’m not one to simply write off that global warming may be caused primarily by man-made carbon emissions, it very well may be the case; however, this is where I adamantly disagree with you.

    I assume that when you say “remedies,” you mean some sort of severe restriction on idustrial processes. It is true that one of the consequences of industrialization is carbon dioxide, but there is another consequence that is seldom talked about. – poverty reduction.

    To prevent third world countries from developing industrially will sustain their current levels of poverty, which already leaves hundreds of millions of people vulnerable to extreme weather, even without the effects of global warming.

    Arizona is one of the harshest climates on the planet, but its residents are healthy and happy because of industrialization and technology.

    Irrigation, air-conditioning, roads, hospitals, bridges, sewerage and waste treatment, electricity, solid foundations for suburban dwellings, industrial farming techniques…ect. All these things are absent in so many societies resulting in so much sufferring. Yet to deliver and maintain these in the developing world will result in huge amounts of CO2 produced.

    Global warming has happened in the past; for example, during the peak of the Roman empire, there was no snow on the Alps. The Vikings called it “Greenland” because it was green back then. The world was not unlivable – or even less livable – back then, and it wont be unlivable 100 years from now. Wealthy people can adapt. Poor people will have a much more difficult time

    I argue we should care less about keeping the Gaia earth godess in a perpetual state of 20th century climate, and care more about the livelyhood of the human beings that dwell within her.

    Besides, what is the scientific consensus on how “benign” these remedies are now? If CO2 is directly proportional to Warming, then anything less than shutting off all the factories and automobiles and airplanes and power plants, will result in more warming. that doesnt sound too benign to me.

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    “I assume that when you say “remedies,” you mean some sort of severe restriction on idustrial processes.”

    Assumption incorrect–this is a common scare tactic of the right to claim this is what is being advocated.

  11. 11
    battlebob says:

    I livrd in Arizona for 30 years…
    A few points…
    Arizona bit the bullet and built the Palo Vrrde Nuc plant many miles west of the city of Phoenix. It is isolated and the nuke rods are buried int eh nearby desert. This may not be the best solution but it is currently working for them.

    Phoenix is one of the dirtiest cities in the country. We left because of air pollution issues.

    The poplulation centers are in the sesert. They are currently in a low rainfal time lasting 10 years. They are facing the prospects of running out of water due to over-allocation of the Colorado River.
    The governor is trying to get the public to be aware of water issues.

    The huge amount of concrete in roads and buildings has created a hughe heat sink which is partly respnsible for the steady increase in over all temperatures.

  12. 12
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    Wow Bob, it sounds like Arizona is as poor as rural Bangladesh. I better avoid spending my spring break there.

    Ron, What do you mean by “remedies” if they don’t include severe restricting industrial processes that produce CO2?

    Assumption incorrect–this is a common scare tactic of the right to claim this is what is being advocated.

    Since you are on the left, then it must be scientific fact (or at least scientific consensus) that “President Bush hates the troops…and hates people with Parkinson’s disease.” Man, I wish I was like you, then I would automatically know everything that other people are thinking, without assuming anything, because only people on “the right” do that.

  13. 13
    battlebob says:

    sorry for the poor spelling….am multi-tasking and did not proof read first.

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:


    Are you really that dense? I hope this is just a weak attempt at sarcasm, but in case you really don’t understand:

    1) The views expressed here, and at most liberal sites are not based on anyone’s personal opinion, but are discussing the actual scientific coneensus. This is clear both in the fact that, despite the claims of the right, there is no longer a controversy in the scientific community over the issue. Just to make things even clearer, the recent papers on the topic are even labeled as consensus papers.

    2) “Since you are on the left, then it must be scientific fact”
    That’s a strange way to put it. Since we are liberals, we come to conclusions based upon an open minded review of all the facts. In matters of science, we accept the conclusions of the experts in the field. In contrase, the right wing decides issues based upon ideology, and then devises an entire counter-view to con people like you.

    3) The comments on who Bush hates is a play on the usual conservative talking point that liberals hate the troops. Any Democratic position which opposes the current policy in Iraq, especially a no vote on a funding issue, is twisted to mean that Democrats hate the troops. If a Democrat who votes against a funding issue is routinely said to hate the troops, then by the Republican logic, a Preisident who vetos a funding measure passed by Congress must really hate the toops. By the same logic, blocking funds for embyronic stem cell research really indicates a hatred for those who would benefit. (There is a grain of truth here. While not necessarily hatred, it certainly does show a great insensitivity to their situations.)

    Your reply to Battlebob mentions spring break. From that are we to assume you are a college kid? If so, wait until you’re out in the real world, where the discrepancy between the conservative world view and reality becomes much clearer.

  15. 15
    Ron Chusid says:


    Regarding potential remedies for global warming, it is the anti-science right which turns this into a choice of staying the course or severely restricting industry. This is partially done as a scare tactic to get people to buy their anti-scientific claims on climate change. This is also partially a product of the conservative mind set which can only see things in black or white, and is blind to other possibilities.

    While conseratives see this as an attack on industry, liberals see this as an opportunity (as it is becomming in Europe) for new industries. Even if it turns out that global warming is not a problem, the solutions to global warming are actions we should be taking. Energy independence and development of renewable energy sources is necessary for the United States even independent of global warming.

    With the emergence of countries such as China and India, our present energy policies are not sustainable. If we listen to the conservatives and fail to develop alternatives, we run the risk of the collapse of our industrial society which conservatives use as a scare tactic. There is not enough oil to feed our demands, as well as the demands of countries like China, indefinately.

  16. 16
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    While conseratives see this as an attack on industry, liberals see this as an opportunity (as it is becomming in Europe) for new industries…Energy independence and development of renewable energy sources is necessary for the United States even independent of global warming.”

    Hey, I’m 100% behind you on this. I guess that makes me a liberal. Its so refreshing to hear a fellow liberal reject the Kyoto protocol and other carbon capping schemes.

    Regarding energy independence in the decades before the solar powered car is invented, I’m sure we can count on liberals and environmentalists to invest in nuclear power plants, tar-sand dredging, and drilling in Anwar.

    Your reply to Battlebob mentions spring break. From that are we to assume you are a college kid?

    Actually, I’m several years removed from college, but I thought mentioning spring break would be sort of ironic and quippy, considering the rather “dire” portrayal of Phoenix presented by Bob. Who spends their spring break in Bangladesh?

  17. 17
    Ron Chusid says:


    I don’t know first hand about conditions in Arizona, but by coincidence I spoke with someone in the last couple of weeks who moved from Arizona citing contidions just as described by Battlebob.

  18. 18
    Ron Chusid says:


    Carbon capping schemes do not necessarily mean the end to industrial civilization. That’s just another conservative scare tactic.

    Solutions to global warming, just like establishment of the problem, is a scientific and technical issue, not should not be an ideological issue. As soon as conservatives stop muddying up the discussion in this country by allowing ideology to get in the way of coming up with solutions, this will be a solvable problem which can stimulate new industries without placing severe restructions on our industrial economy.

  19. 19
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    So carbon capping schemes are the way to go? How about off-shore drilling in the “no zone?”, Anwar?

    I think the ideology is that liberals hate corporations and private enterprise. The solution to global warming would be more socialism, and that naturally appeals to the liberal. But what do I know, I’m just a dumb conservative, good for nothing.

  20. 20
    Ron Chusid says:


    ‘I think the ideology is that liberals hate corporations and private enterprise.”

    You really have been listening too much to the right wing propaganda if you believe that or that liberals support socialism.

    Only the American right wing would be so out of touch with reality to see discussion of climate change as a conspiracy to move the world towards socialism. It’s amazing how virtually every scientist in the field has joined in this conspiracy.

  21. 21
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    “You really have been listening too much to the right wing propaganda if you believe that or that liberals support socialism.”

    Ok, I get it. This whole website is a farce, sort of like the Onion, except that it uses flagrant irony to make fun of liberal bloggers right?

    liberals don’t support socialism, Ha! Thats a good one. Conservatives don’t support free-market capitalism either. Karl Marx was irritated by labor unions and Hitler loved the Jews. Good times.

  22. 22
    Ron Chusid says:


    You think it makes sense to come here and tell us what we think, when you claim we believe things directly opposite to our beliefs?

    Support for the free market has been a fundamental belief of liberalism. Conservatives rhetoric is far different from reality. It is liberals who oppose the anti-capitalistic policies of Republicans such as deficit spending and corporate welfare. Using the power of the state to transfer wealth to your politcal contributors is a bizarre form of freeo-market capitalism. You think Adam Smith would have approved of the K Street Project? Such Republican schemes are far more Stalinist than capitalist.

    The excesses of the Republicans in recent years has pretty much realigned conservatives versus liberal beliefs based upon support or opposition to recent Republican policies. The fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives are not as much over ecnomic issues. Liberals support individual liberty while conservaties support increased government intrusion in individual’s lives. Liberals support checks and balances on government, while conservatives allow for excessive Executive power. Liberals support freedom of relgion and separation of church and state while conservatives have adopted the agenda of the religious right.

2 Trackbacks

Leave a comment