Santorum Misrepresents Climate Science. Again.

authordefault
on

Rick Santorum was asked about climate change recently, while campaigning in New Hampshire. The video of his response, as well as the transcript, can be foundย here.

Suffice it to say that while Santorumย soundsย thoughtful and rational in his response, in fact he gravely misrepresents scientific knowledgeย andย understanding.

Let’s turn to theย tape.

Santorum starts off wellย enough:

The question is on how do I get my policies with climate changeย science.

I get asked this question a lot, and you look at the data and you can see some change in theย climate.

But then again, pick a point in history where you havenโ€™t seen a change in theย climate.

The climate doesย change.

The question is, what is causing the climate toย change.

And I think most scientists, in fact, I assume all scientists would agree there are a variety of factors that cause the climateย change.

I donโ€™t think any scientist in the world would suggest there isnโ€™t a variety of factors, and I think the vast majority of scientists would say thereโ€™s probably a hundred factors that cause the climate toย change.

A hundred factors? Well, there are a lot of factors that can influence the climate, that’s for sure. So far, Santorum is pretty accurately representing climate science. Butย heย continues:

And so why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entireย dog.

Why from a scientific point of view do we make the assertion that this is in fact what is the case when there is a whole lot of other factors out there that could be affectingย it?

So, thatโ€™s theย question.

Notice the trick here. Up until this point, Santorum is accurately reflecting what scientists think. But now he isn’t any more. Now he’s contradictingย them.

It’s true there are lots of factors that can influence climate. But the chief factor that, scientists agree, is currentlyย drivingย global warming is human induced greenhouseย gasย emissions.

Why does Santorum trust scientists to determine which different factors influence the climate, but not to determine the relative importance of these factors? Why would scientists be more trustworthy on one score thanย theย other?

In my view, you either trust scientists or you don’t. You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the scientific consensus you accept, and which part youย don’t. The whole point of trusting scientists is that theyโ€™re better than non-scientists at figuring out what findings can be reliablyย believed.

And the reality is that scientistsย bothย agree that many factors influence the global climate,ย andย think global warming is mostly driven by human activities. There’s no contradiction hereโ€”except perhaps in Santorum’s willingness to head one scientific conclusion butย notย another.

(Image credit: Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore)

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

on

The AER significantly underreports the number and scale of spills, says researcher Kevin Timoney.

The AER significantly underreports the number and scale of spills, says researcher Kevin Timoney.
Analysis
on

Poilievre has clearly not earned enough respect from the Trump administration to credibly defend Canadaโ€™s interests.

Poilievre has clearly not earned enough respect from the Trump administration to credibly defend Canadaโ€™s interests.
Analysis
on

New research reveals how Dentsu, Havas, Interpublic Group, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, and WPP cast themselves as climate champions.

New research reveals how Dentsu, Havas, Interpublic Group, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, and WPP cast themselves as climate champions.
on

The groups have filed an OECD complaint against the worldโ€™s largest advertising and PR firm, saying its work enables major polluters to continue harming environmental and human health.

The groups have filed an OECD complaint against the worldโ€™s largest advertising and PR firm, saying its work enables major polluters to continue harming environmental and human health.