DEMOCRATS' INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY IS MONTANA'S BIGGEST PROBLEM
By Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics
February 20, 2016
Republicans and Democrats will always have different opinions on partisan issues. We get that. We can live with that.
Jim Webb, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate correctly said,
The other party is not the enemy. They are the opposition. In our democracy we are lucky to have an opposition, to have honest debate.
Both sides must come together and decide nonpartisan issues on the basis of truth.
Today, I come down on Democrats. First, to show I am fair and balanced, note I have written extensively in support of the nonpartisan CSKT Water Compact. I found Montana was much better served with the Compact than without the Compact, and Republicans who voted against the Compact were intellectually dishonest.
Now that I have made 80 percent of the Republicans in Montana's 2015 House my opponents, but hopefully not my enemies, I will make opponents of most Democrats.
Today, the Missoulian published an article that reeks of Democratic dishonesty:
"UM professor who shared Nobel for climate work believes UM Foundation should divest its investments in fossil fuels, starting with coal."
I begin my reply to this dishonest Missoulian article with my "Columbo" moment:
So let me get this straight. UM professor Steve Running, who is a forest ecologist, who has no physics degree but masquerades as an atmospheric physicist, who lies that he shares Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, who lies that a Peace Prize indicates expertise in science, who lies that our CO2 causes dangerous climate change, who does not use the scientific method, and who has no freakin' idea of how the atmosphere works, now suggests the UM Foundation pull its money from fossil-fuel energy investments because he lies that doing so will help save the planet.
Have I made my point?
Elected Democrats have claimed, in my presence, we have a global warming problem because Running said so and Running has a Nobel Prize so his statement means more than schmucks like me who say Running is wrong.
The Democrat's evangelical promotion of their failed pseudo scientific climate theory is the worst intellectual failure of the Democratic Party. They have made their false belief a premise of their political religion. To them, it is a sin to question it.
These Democrats are as dumb as the kooks who believe our Earth and universe are 6000 years old.
If they were Aztecs they would assure you that cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple stairs causes rain.
They are so evangelical about their belief in Al Gore's pathetic version of climate physics that they cannot even have a rational discussion with real climate scientists.
Are Democrats so intellectually deprived that they cannot understand the difference between Steve Running, a Democrat who lies about having a Nobel Prize, and Ivar Giaever, a Democrat who has a real Nobel Prize in Physics, who tells you Running's idea about climate is pseudoscience and a cult religion because its believers reject data that proves their climate belief is wrong?
No, they are not. But as a group, Democrats won't acknowledge that climate is a nonpartisan issue, and we cannot determine scientific truth by voting on it.
The Democrats' false belief of climate is like Lysenko's false view of biology. Russia used Lysenko's intellectual dishonesty to support Russia's political agenda.
Today, Democrats use their false belief of climate to promote their political agenda.
Lysenkoism set back Russia's biological research for 30 years until Russia stopped it in 1964. The Democrat "Climate Lysenkoism," if not stopped, can set back America's climate physics 30 years.
The Scientific Method 101
For those who need a crash course in the scientific method, here it is. This should be taught in all high schools.
We get an idea or theory. To test our theory, we use our theory to make a prediction. Then we compare our prediction to new data. If our prediction disagrees with new data, our theory is wrong.
Richard Feynman explained the key to the scientific method:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
A fundamental principle is we can never prove a theory true. Yet Democrat climate addicts claim they have proved our CO2 causes dangerous global warming. Nonsense.
We can only prove a theory is false. When we prove our ideas are false, we discard fiction. When we discard fiction, we approach truth. But we can never know if we have found the truth.
Therefore, real scientists must try to prove their ideas are false. Those who promote their idea as true and try to make it part of a political agenda are pseudo scientists.
Einstein famously said,
"Many experiments may show me right but it takes only ONE experiment to prove me wrong."
Many experiments have proved the Democrat's "Climate Lysenkoism" is false but they ignore such proof. Like Energizer Bunnies, they beat their drums to drown out truth. Their political agenda is more important to them than truth.
Here are two examples that prove the Democrats' version of climate change is false. Climate models use the Democrat's climate theory to predict future climate.
Today, 37 years after their predictions, we find climate models way over-predict future temperature. They are over by 2.5 times on average. This is unacceptable in physics. Therefore, following Feynman, the Democrat's version of climate science is wrong.
A 2015 peer-reviewed scientific paper shows CO2 is not even correlated with global temperature. Where there is no correlation, there is no cause-effect. The paper shows the sun, not CO2, drives global temperature. If you still think otherwise, get over it. Welcome to the real world of climate physics.
The real "deniers" are those who refuse to follow the scientific method.
The Democrats and Steve Running do not follow the scientific method. If they did, they would conclude their climate theory is wrong. Then we could save America and Montana a lot of money. We could put people back to work producing abundant cheap energy from fossil fuels. We could improve our economy, our educational system, and our political decisions.
Democrats use what Feynman in 1974 called “cargo cult science.” Cargo cult science seems to be scientific, but it does not follow the scientific method.
Their claims that "multiple, independent lines of evidence show conclusively” that their belief is true, is cargo cult science.
Their claim that a list of organizations that agree with them proves their climate theory is true, is cargo cult science. Their belief that their ad hominem attack on those who show their theory is wrong proves their theory is true, is cargo cult science.
Their claims that “the projected rate of global warming is greater now than any time in the past 65 million years” proves their theory is true, is cargo cult science. Since climate models are wrong, their projections are wrong. Their claimed data are wrong.
Even IF today's global temperature were greater than past global temperatures, this is meaningless. That's because such data says nothing about the cause of global temperature change. The whole public distraction over temperature change, glacier change, species change, etc., is irrelevant to the key question of what causes the change.
Here's a big problem the Democrats have caused
The UM has "educated" a generation of Montanans to believe cargo cult climate science. These students don't know the difference between cargo cult science and real science.
The biggest omission in Montana's education system is our schools do not teach the scientific method. This omission causes irrational thinking. We can't trust the Democrats to solve this problem because the scientific method opposes their political agenda.
Therefore, Montana voters have only one rational choice if they wish to improve Montana's schools: elect Republican Elsie Arntzen for Superintendent of Schools.
Montana climate politics
Montana Governor Steve Bullock (D) declared after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obama's Clean Power Plan:
“I have been clear that I think these rules were unfair to Montana. Given the court’s ruling today, I am putting the work of the Clean Power Plan Council on hold. What we cannot put on hold, however, is the need to address climate change and embrace Montana’s energy future, and I am committed to ensuring we do so on our own terms.”
Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R) supported the court's decision:
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to halt implementation of the EPA’s carbon regulations is a clear victory for Montana and the 27 other states that are challenging those regulations in court. Today’s ruling will prevent Montana families, energy workers, businesses, and public agencies from bearing the burden of regulations that we believe will be overturned ultimately.”
Montana U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R) also supported the court's decision:
“The Supreme Court decision to issue a nationwide stay on the Obama administration’s misguided, job-killing rule is great news for Montana. The so-called Clean Power Plan will kill Montana jobs and leads our country in the wrong direction — away from being an energy leader.”
Although climate is a nonpartisan issue, Democrats refuse to treat climate as a nonpartisan issue. Governor Bullock still wants to "address" climate change.
Montana Governor Race
Greg Gianforte (R) now challenges Governor Steve Bullock (D) for governor. Gianforte's skeleton in his closet is his belief our Earth and universe are 6000 years old. So how can Gianforte hope to win?
The only way Gianforte can beat Bullock for governor is to prove to the voters that Bullock's belief in "climate change" is more kooky and more economically destructive than Gianforte's belief that our Earth and universe are 6000 years old.
If Gianforte has the smarts, balls, and public persuasion, he can turn the political battle for governor into the issue of who has the most kooky and destructive belief.
If Gianforte can make Montanan's understand our CO2 is not dangerous, then he will have improved intellectual honesty, and he may just beat Bullock for governor.
He will need to bone up on the scientific method and real climate science to pull it off. The way I see it, this is Gianforte's only chance to win.
© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved
Ed Berry is editor and publisher of edberry.com based in Bigfork,
Montana. He has a PhD in Physics, is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist,
and an expert in climate change who takes the position that our
carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant to climate change.
To comment on this article, please click here.