Vermont’s own Bernie Sanders (I – Upper Stratosphere), distinguished market economist, also considers himself to be something of an accomplished climatologist, as demonstrated by his partnering with Bill “Freakshow” McKibben and some established, peer-reviewed “science” to let Vermonters know that the world is ending due to global warming. Again. After it was going to be ended by global cooling in the 1970s. What a difference a couple of decades can make in a planet that’s 6 billion years old.
But let’s let the Sainted Sanders wax scientific with his long-standing academic accreditations to lean on, which include a BA in Political Science circa 1964 (granted, just prior to global cooling being invented), and that includes everything you probably needed to know about one Senator’s opinion on science:
“97% of peer reviewed science – absolutely positive. There really are not differences of opinion. But tens and tens of millions of dollars from coal companies, setting up phony organizations to confuse the issue, like the tobacco companies did 50 year ago. Now you have Citizens United, and the Koch brothers are not shy about putting their own people in office. They’ve made science political. You have a lot of smart people rejecting the scientific community due to $$ and because it has become part of the Republican party ideology.”
Well, that’s a rare mouthful spilling from Bernie’s science-hole. But let’s see if I can help the Senator out here. Let’s start with his 97% math:
1. “97% of peer reviewed science – absolutely positive.”
Wrong. And here’s why. From the article:
The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesn’t actually specify the numbers, http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea/). It ditches about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position.
They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.
Voila, you got about 97% (actually here 98%, but because the authors haven’t released the numbers themselves, we have to rely on other quantitative assessments).
That’s some great math – if you’re looking to concoct a lie.
2. “There really are not differences of opinion.”
Wrong. See above, and here. And here. And here. Oh, and see any scientific endeavor since the dawn of mankind. I guess this is what happens when you spend your time organizing communities and joining Socialists for America instead of taking math courses at the U of Chicago.
3. But tens and tens of millions of dollars from coal companies, setting up phony organizations to confuse the issue, like the tobacco companies did 50 year ago.
As opposed to the billions spent in public funds to foist more expensive, intermittent, unreliable, and in no way practical “green” energy projects? Like this one? As opposed to phony organizations like the Department of Energy setting up propaganda days up to confuse the issue, like tobacco companies did years ago. Oh, by the way, if tobacco is so evil, why haven’t you introduced legislation to ban it outright?
4. “Now you have Citizens United, and the Koch brothers are not shy about putting their own people in office.”
Somehow Citizens United and the Koch Brothers are part of an anti-global-warming-meme cabal? You’d think the smart money would be lining up to sponge off the federal billions being spent, not the other way around. Bernie has a limited range of outrage at capitalists – you can’t hate them for what they are on the one hand and then complain that they’re not evil enough on the other.
Oh, and note that Bernie seems to be fine with public-sector and other unions helping put him in office. They’re not shy about putting one of their own in office, either. After all, he’s one of their “people”, despite never really working for a living, and everything he personally owns has been paid for by tax dollars. A real man of the people, is Senator Sanders – when his home, food, cars, clothes, haircuts (which he actually should spend more money on) comes from those people who work for a living – and then he complains about how the private sector spends its money?
5. “They’ve made science political.”
As opposed to Senator Sanders – a Senator, speaking about science. I’m not sure I have a big enough ladle here to get the appropriate amount of irony onto this Heaping Plate of Sanders. If I laughed out loud at this, the top of my head my fall off backwards, because Bernie will have exceeded the Theoretical Comedy Limit (TCL).
6. “You have a lot of smart people rejecting the scientific community due to $$ and because it has become part of the Republican party ideology.”
You have a lot of other smart people rejecting the scientific “community” because the scientific “community”, as defined by Senator Sanders, is lying. It’s that simple.
The Senator seems quite happy to agree with “science” that agrees with his worldview, and agrees with what he perceives to be the worldviews of the constituencies he needs to vote for him in the next election cycle.
Bernie’s been in public office, wreaking havoc in the form of economic insanity and hideous hairstyling for decades now. Decades.
I ask Vermonters: This is the best we can do?