The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Climate change occurs every year and throughout the year. Everyone knows that.

Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period.The standard averaging period is 30 years, but other periods may be used depending on the purpose. Climate also includes statistics other than the average, such as the magnitudes of day-to-day or year-to-year variations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) glossary definition is:
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.[5]

The difference between climate and weather is usefully summarized by the popular phrase "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."

Katrina vanden Heuvel, in her opinion piece for the Washington Post, makes the sweeping accusation that the Republican Party wants to repeal the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. I'm sorry, but I have difficulty taking seriously anyone who resorts to this kind of rhetoric. She explains that Republicans view reason with contempt, being "proudly and unquestionably anti-science," again using exaggerated rhetoric in the extreme.

As proof of her accusation she tells us that all the Republican presidential candidates except for Jon Huntsman "have either denied the existence of climate change, denied that it has been caused – and can be reversed – by man, or apologized for once holding a different view." The reality is that none of the candidates deny the existence of climate change. Climate change occurs every year and throughout the year. Everyone knows that. What she really means is that the candidates question the validity of claims made by some in the scientific community (and a lot of non-scientists like Al Gore) that we are experiencing man-made global warming that will doom the planet if we don't stop using fossil fuels, or something along those lines. She even makes the bold claim that the debate about climate change (meaning global warming) has already been settled. Maybe it's been settled as far as she's concerned, but a lot of thinking people, including scientists, disagree. That means the debate continues.

As additional proof that Republicans are anti-science and anti-reason, vanden Heuvel assails Ron Paul and Rick Perry for saying that evolution is a "theory." She is of course talking about macroevolution—which is a theory that through some process that no one really understands, can explain, or can duplicate, all life forms somehow evolved over billions of years from a single living cell, or worse, from inorganic matter. She apparently thinks this theory is scientific fact, which means she has no idea what constitutes scientific fact. The debate about "evolution" is another one that she says has already been settled. Well, it has been settled for me, but my conclusion is apparently the opposite of hers.

Then she lambasts Michelle Bachmann "who has embraced the idea that the HPV vaccine can cause mental retardation." As I recall, Bachmann has said that's a possibility. And the facts are that while sufficient testing has not been done to assure it's not a possibility, there's anecdotal evidence that there may be a causal relationship there. But vanden Heuvel's real disagreement with Bachmann – the one she doesn't come out and say – is that Bachmann thinks it's wrong for the government to mandate such vaccinations for young girls over their parents' wishes. That's Bachmann's position on the issue of mandatory HPV vaccinations for teenage girls and vanden Heuvel is just twisting one of her arguments for that position, apparently disagreeing with those who think that it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to things like mandatory vaccines.

I could go on, but the author's opinion is so obviously biased and her arguments so obviously unreasonable (how's that for irony?) that I think I'll leave it at that.

This confuses climate and weather.

What did you think of Pearlstein's piece (linked in Katrina's piece) on fiscal policy?

Man, I hate it when that happens!