What happens to those eager young Republicans in the real world
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters’ access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word “theory” at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.
Mr. Deutsch’s resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.
I see a bunch more like this when those home-schooled intelligent design believing kids have to deal with a reality beyond Fox News and Sean Hannity.
Don’t forget the book and the interview circuit.
Oh yeah, I’m sure Heritage already gave him a golden parachute and he’s got a writing gig set up at National Review by Thursday at the latest.
Bah!
He’ll land a job at a conservative think tank–at twice his previous salary–in time to make the next payment on his Beemer.
I see a bunch more like this when those home-schooled intelligent design believing kids have to deal with a reality beyond Fox News and Sean Hannity.
Will you please tell me what you see as a connection here, Oliver?
It’s early, I’m tired, and I need a good laugh.
That ol’ debbil ID again!
Deutschie and Brownie are perfect examples of the myth of Republican competence.
Don’t tell me he expects that his one man crusade to keep “Intelligent Design” out of our schools might not succeed?
hey, Buma, who the hell are “Deutschie” and “Brownie”?
I think what h’es getting at is the fact that he limits access climate change data. (It didn’t work, January was the warmest ever) He also callls the big bang a theory. OW seems to be saying (and I could be wrong) that once these ID kids get through the system they’ll be beliving the same thing. All Fox News does is act like an echo chamber.
Frank, the connection: The bush administration has given a hugely disproportionate number of its internships to kids from fundamentalist bible colleges such as Patrick Henry College. PHC does not allow instruction which conflicts with their belief that the bible is the literal word of god. It seems that this know-nothing Deutch is par for the course, although we don’t know if he’s a fundie. But his advocacy of anti-science seems to confirm that he either is a fundie or too dumb to know the difference. Typical. No expertise in anything but public relations and contrarianism.
This is the worldview that you support if you vote republican: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0421-09.htm
Richard Perle and James Woolsey have their checkbooks ready.
Btw,
How many unqualified Bush cronies does this make? Anyone counting?
We’ve got Brownie, Miers, Deutsch…
curmdugeon;
……..Lieberman
Careful, Leroy. Let’s think about this. We just broke a record from 1880. Why was it so warm back then? The jet stream! Currently (as back then) the jet steam has the cold air trapped in the Artic and Europe where they are experiencing record low temperatures.
Well, it is a theory.
“Careful, Leroy. Let s think about this. We just broke a record from 1880. Why was it so warm back then? The jet stream! Currently (as back then) the jet steam has the cold air trapped in the Artic and Europe where they are experiencing record low temperatures.”
JG – are you honestly positing that there is no such thing as global warming, and that the current warm trend is merely an anomaly?
Good one! He’s like two Bush cronies in one.
Don’t forget the entire class of young republican political operatives (versed in PR like Deutch) who were hired to basically run Iraq until it looked bad and/or they became overwhelmed and quit. And count in Bernard Kerik, who quit only a few months into his appointment to head security in Iraq because he was never there and was widely not respected by anyone there who knew anything. He was a hack at the NYPD and he’ll never have another job not tied to Giuliani.
I think that whenever anyone mentions Intelligent Design on a government webpage or in a class room it should always be followed by the word “bullsh*t.” Offensive? Well, it is bullsh*t.
From a comment elsewhere on the interwebs:
Save the Planet, by saving your breath!
A few years back, when the east coast was having one of its coldest years ever, Rush Limbaugh was on the air shouting about how this proved that global warming wasn’t real. I’d put JWG in that camp of competency.
Fuming,
Your talking science to people that just don’t believe in it. They’ve got a “pre-enlightenment” mentality and any appeal to logic just causes them to spew even more hot air, thus warming the globe even further.
It’s not the temperature of the season that indicates global warming–it’s the severity of the weather. Faster, stronger storms in general indicate more heat (that is, energy) in the atmosphere.
JWG, you demonstrate what is the problem with the conservative scientific contrarianism. Do you think that climate scientists have not taken into account normal climate changes and variations? Do you think that they haven’t taken into account the limited years of available modern temperature measures, or that the measurements made 50 or 100 years ago were likely less accurate than the ones taken today? Do you think the numerous studies citing human caused warming would ever have gotten published if they overlooked something so important? But that usually doesn’t stop know-nothings from thinking that they’ve figured something out that the scientists just weren’t aware of.
Well, I would refer to it more properly as global climate change. But, no, I am not saying there is no such thing as global warming.
I am saying that pointing to a 125 year record that was just broken for the US does not demonstrate “global warming.” Can you point to any climatologist that is pointing to January as evidence of global warming?
Warm for whom?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/01/24/europe.cold.ap/
Please be serious. Limbaugh is a scientific boob. How many of you have read and understood the various IPCC climate analyses? The only claim I made in this thread is that you can’t point to this January in the US as evidence of “global warming” when:
1) The record was from 125 years ago demonstrating that the Earth naturally cycles through trends, and
2) Europe is experiencing record low temperatures at the same time.
By the way, I don’t recall anyone challenging my scientific competancy in the numerous posts I have made on this site supporting the teaching of evolution in science classes while opposing ID in the same venue.
I suppose ad hominem attacks only surface when you disagree with the message rather than the messenger.
Why don’t you point out where I demonstrate a “know-nothing” comment? I am very aware of the current scientific knowledge about global climate change; I teach about it all year long.
What I have I posted that is in error?
Which climatologists are blaming a warm January in the US on “global warming”?
MJB, you demonstrate a typical liberal reactionary: You read more into my post than what I said based on my unwillingness to uncritically accept a general statement about global warming. There is evidence in many climatological areas that demonstrate we are experiencing global climate change. There is more debate among climatologists, however, about the degree of human influence compared to natural fluctuations.
Do you want a cookie for being right about a different issue? Now what about the global warmings? You should publish a paper if you’ve seen a huge hole in the human-caused global warming science, or bring it to NASA’s attention. Although they’d probably be a little embarassed to have missed something that someone on a blog picked up on, they are scientists and will put their egos aside for science. I mean, if you could turn up a CNN article that says Europe is colder, imagine how a climate scientist would feel if he/she had missed that. Let us know how that goes.
I am saying that pointing to a 125 year record that was just broken for the US does not demonstrate global warming.
How many cars were there 125 years ago? How many factories? How many train tracks? How many nuclear explosions had taken place?
…125 years ago, how many people were there? That’s one number that has been breaking records year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
In defense of JWG, the “warmness” of January (in the United States) has been attributed to the fact that our jet stream was sitting up in Canada for most of the month. Ask the people of easten europe how much they global warming they experienced last month.
Just because we have one extremely warm month doesn’t prove or disprove global warming. I think that’s all he was trying to say. It’s sad to see such reactionary comments coming from people who obviously take pride in the idea that they are looking at all the “facts”.
“There is evidence in many climatological areas that demonstrate we are experiencing global climate change. There is more debate among climatologists, however, about the degree of human influence compared to natural fluctuations.”
Since exactly zero scientists doubt there is warming going on, then the tiny minority who doubt humans are causing it is more than zero. That still doesn’t make it a serious debate in scientific circles.
I’m reading exactly what you wrote. You’re citing the fact that the record was 125 years old and europe is colder will cast doubt on whether humans cause warming. I’ll reiterate, if you think the scientists have not taken this into account, you should tell them.
*sigh*
I didn’t say there was doubt about humans causing increased warming. I said there was conflict concerning the degree of influence.
From the IPCC Climate Change 2001 report (which I’ve read thoroughly many times):
Scientists agree that the current climate change is not “entirely” natural, but there is debate over how much influence human activity contributes.
After looking back again at JWG’s original comments, I was wrong to conflate JWG’s comments about one month, January, and the usual right wing anti-global warming propaganda. I agree that one month doesn’t prove anything, and his talk of climate cycles got me fired-up and I glossed over his specific mention of January thinking he was going down the normal winger path. JWG, you and I are in complete agreement on this, that the small sample size of one month is meaningless, sorry for the unnecessary antagonism.
And thanks Justa for steering this discussion down the right path.
I think I probably agree with most commentors on this site that global climate change is a real phenomenon that is due in part to human activity. I’m not sure how many people will agree that we still have a lot to learn in order to determine how much we are “forcing” the changes. In any case, I think humans should work quickly to reduce our impact. I don’t think increased governmental regulations (such as mantated fuel economy) are usually the best way to accomplish that goal.
Have I written enough for everyone to find at least one thing with which to agree/disagree?
JWG, see my most recent comments.
One additional point on the human causation: the burden of scientific proof seemingly required for action among many conservative climate contrarians is much higher than in other less politicized areas of science, areas where the alleged economic consequences of reform are not as much of a factor. There is no doubt that the conflict is political, not scientific.