Rep. King: Global warming ‘more of a religion than a science’

QUOTE OF THE DAY | –Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) on rejecting the ‘religion’ of climate change. Read more on religion … Continued

QUOTE OF THE DAY |

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) on rejecting the ‘religion’ of climate change.

Read more on religion and politics at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs.

  • billyrockville

    Science and Religion have several things in common, primarily that they both attempt to explain what is not readily apparent and not easily proven. They both start with a premise, in science the premise is someones best guess and in religion, it is someones best guess. When dealing with what is not readily provable, they both have fanatic adherents. Is there climate change, yes. Is the earth warming, possibly. If the earth is warming is it bad or good, unknown. What is known is that earth cooling, historically, has been bad. Climate alarmists certainly do have more in common with religious fanatics then with fact based science. They proselytize others to believing as they do, berate those who don’t as being ignorant, and try to enslave their fellow man into, if not believing in their faith, following it’s laws.

  • David Thompson

    Steve King is an idiot. He shouldn’t be able to publish any of his puerile beliefs.

  • 4blazek

    Once an idiot, always an idiot to be sure. Ice cores showing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere dating back about 800,000 years shows the relive higher amounts of carbon today. Or would you prefer to believe in the writings of early cave dwellers pieced together by Constantine in the 5th century?

  • Dadmeister

    A physics professor at Berkeley set out to reevaluate the surface temperature records correctly to show the poor meteorologists how to do it. He got the same amount of warming as they did and concluded they were correct. He further examined the warming and concluding greenhouse gases were the primary cause.

    There are many questions about global warming– how much is due to greenhouse gases and how much to natural variability, how much will occur in the future, how fast will the ice sheets melt, why has surface temperatures leveled off the last few years. That global warming has occurred over the past 40 years is not in question. That greenhouse gases have increased and cause warming is not in question. That warming due to greenhouse gases will increase water vapor in the atmosphere and that increased water vapor will further warm the atmosphere is not in question. There is plenty of evidence for all that from fact based science.

  • Hildy J

    After all, what’s a 5″ rise in the sea level versus the 350,000″ rise that King’s god managed.

  • Malcolm Young

    No. Science uses deductive reasoning. The exact opposite of religion.

  • dalyplanet

    ~~That warming due to greenhouse gases will increase water vapor in the atmosphere and that increased water vapor will further warm the atmosphere is not in question. ~~

    This conjecture is proving to be unequivocally false.

  • Dadmeister

    Warmer air holds more water vapor; whether water vapor condenses or not depends on how saturated the air is.

    It’s not a conjecture, it’s fact.

  • dalyplanet

    Wetter air is less dense so it rises to a cooler location, condenses, and leaves the heat where it can more directly radiate to space. Wind has a much greater influence on the airborne fraction of water vapor than small changes in surface temperature.

  • tombukowski

    daly……learn the difference between weather and climate.

  • dalyplanet

    Climate as defined by climate scientists is the daily weather averaged over a 30 year or longer period.. So to be clear long term changes in weather change the climate. The climate does not change the weather.

  • Dadmeister

    So the weather in the ice ages was the same as now ……..

  • dalyplanet

    The weather was colder..

  • Dadmeister

    If the climate does not change the weather, why was it colder?

  • dalyplanet

    That is an interesting question without a clear answer. The relationship between the Sun and oceans and atmosphere changes to create cooler weather or at least long lasting ice. The wobble of the earth or cosmic rays creating clouds are the theories most plausible.

  • Tender Hooligan

    @billyRockville. I’m a bit concerned by your understanding of what science is, and does. I can only presume that you were not taught how the scientific method works. In science people start with a hypothesis to explain an observed phenomenon. The accepted premise is the null hypothesis, ie that we don’t accept our explanation until it is proven. If the hypothesis can be shown statistically to give a valid explanation, then it can be accepted, and form the basis of a theory. Hence the general eye rolling from scientists when people use the contradictory term ‘it’s only a theory’ which actually makes no sense to a scientist.
    So, basically the opposite of what you said then. I’m not meaning to sound patronising, it’s just that you are obviously not a scientist, so not your fault that your statement about science will be seen as untenable.
    In many ways I agree with you, as I don’t think that our understanding of climate change has progressed beyond the hypothesis stage yet. There are too many variable to account for, and certainly some scientists are fixated on certain aspects, such as sea level rising, as the bigger picture is so complex. Why is it that when ice cubes melt in a measuring cylinder, the level drops, not rises? Because ice takes up more space, and therefore displaces more volume, than liquid water. As the air heats, it evaporates more water from the sea, so the level again would drop. But then you have thermal expansion, so the sea takes up more volume as it warms. You see, too many variables. A least scientist are prepared to explore them, and change their views accordingly.

  • TippyCanoe

    Hey Rep. King: Politicians talking, ‘more hot air than actual science’

  • An-Toan

    What denial in service to financial capitalism that left unchecked will destroy the planet! Where’s the evidence? Just look at the big hole in the ozone layer.

    Similar psychological dynamics are at work in the nation’s widespread denial that the collapse of Building 7 was cased by fire than by controlled demolition. Hitler said the bigger the lie the more easy it will be accepted. Your republic has fallen.

  • Peter225

    OMG….this guy is one of our elected leaders. Iowa, you should be ashamed.

  • Peter225

    Right, it would be best to trust in the writings of iron age peasants who believed the sun revolved around the Earth.

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    People hate this, but let’s do a little breakdown, statement by statement.

    ““[Global warming] is not proven,”
    Well, it seems Michael Mann, of (disproven) Hockey Stick infamy, agrees.
    He was recently quoted as saying of the subject:
    “Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.”
    The theory of global warming says earth will run an energy surplus, causing warming.
    But we can’t prove this because we can’t measure how much sunshine is reflected (albedo) or how much is emitted to space well enough to catch the signal.
    Check.

    ” it’s not science. It’s more of a religion than a science. ”
    There is science of the known CO2 radiance, temperature measurements, and the like.
    But there are a lot of unknowns that people fill in the blanks with – like religion.
    Check.

    “Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in (environmentalists’) analysis.”
    When was the last time you saw a rundown of the benefits of global warming?
    Check.

    “There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer.”
    More accurate to say there will be more photosynthesis with more CO2 in the air,
    but since CO2 and temperature are roughly concurrent…
    Check.

    “… And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.”
    Annual sea level rise is around 3 millimeters (part of which is from well water use and not temperature).
    In a century, that’s about ten inches.
    Until our brains are soaked up by Google, most of us won’t be around in a century,
    So a 2050 estimate of around 5 inches is another Check.

    Pretty good for a politician!

  • Dadmeister

    Classic.

    Make a wild accusation, repeat and repeat and ignore the abundant evidence to the contrary,
    then claim the person has been discredited.

    Michael Mann’s hockey stick has not been disproven. More than one study has supported Michael Mann’s work.

    It is sad that some feel they have to demonize everyone who dares to disagree with them.

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    It is classic – you’ve got nothing to disprove the subject of the piece, so you change the subject to Mann. If you have an emotional interest in ‘global warming’ being a problem, you’re more likely to gloss over ‘hiding the decline’ and other affronts to science and reason.

  • taxpayer2

    Interesting that Congressman King is an both an expert on science and religion, in addition to cantaloupes and Hispanics. He is certainly changing my opinion of the voters and educational system in Iowa.

  • Dadmeister

    The affront was the smear, slander and lie campaign directed against Michael Mann,

    I wish global warming would go away, like I wish terrorism, AIDS and other problems would go away, but I believe the science for global warming is so strong it cannot be wished away.

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    So the King quote is cited as proof of something unusual, even though it is basically correct.

    Meanwhile, we let all manner of unsubstantiated exaggeration float by – crops will fail, extinctions, threat to humanity, etc. etc.

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    Which part of the quote, specifically do you find incorrect?

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    Which part of the quote, specifically do you find incorrect?

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    It was Mann who said he had a way to “hide the decline”, not anyone else.

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    Which part of the quote, specifically do you find incorrect?

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    You seem to offer name calling, but no factual information that might refute the statement.

    Do you have any specific exception with the statement?

  • trouztrouz

    It’s pretty clear that Rep. King himself does not believe what he is saying. That much is obvious from his statements:

    “[Global warming] is not proven, it’s not science. It’s more of a religion than a science.”
    OK, this is not something I would agree with per se, but it’s his point of view. I can accept that.

    “Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in (environmentalists’) analysis.”
    Hang on a minute, I thought that this was unproven? Why are we concerning ourselves with “might result from a warmer planet”? Didn’t we already decide this wasn’t happening? But now the story is that it might not be bad?

    “There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer.”
    We are now discussing the benefits of global warming, which is not going to happen. At least my heating bills will be lower! Except they won’t, because it won’t happen. Until it does….n’t? We’ll save the explanation for how photosynthesis rates are affected by ambient temperature for another day.

    “And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.”
    Wow. So, now the negative things about the global warming that won’t happen will be negligible.

    This is a classic strategy of a liar. You have to keep changing the argument in an attempt to find one that convinces the audience. If he believed this nonsense, he would only have to present one argument – the one that has HIM convinced. Perhaps it isn’t that he’s lying exactly, but merely ignorant of the facts and concepts (which is also fairly evident from the statements).

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    You didn’t really contradict anything he said.

    To be sure there are things we do know that lead us to believe that recent warming may be due to CO2, but there’s also a lot of glossing over what we don’t know, like how much radiative forcing there actually is, like how much convection reduces the radiative forcing, etc. etc. These things matter, but they’re glossed over by true ‘belief’ ( faith ).

    Photosynthesis does increase with additional CO2 ( that’s why they put it in greenhouses, isn’t it? )
    Sea level rise is about ten inches per century ( on the order of the citation ) , isn’t it?
    You can’t cite much study in the way of benefits of CO2 and warming by the ‘mainstream’ science, can you?

    Along those lines, we can certainly point out
    Increased plant growth, increased crop yield, decreased crop water use, decreased crop loss to freeze, increased growing season, as you point out decreased heating net of increased cooling,
    increase in surface available water ( increased rainfall would be mother nature’s de-salinization plant ), decreased human mortality? ( mortality peaks in winter, troughs in summer ).

    The problem with a lot of global warming harms is that they’re tenuous. So too may be some of the above, but the fact that they’re not even part of the ‘science’ is a red flag about how blindingly emotional the issue is.

  • Dadmeister

    The quote is from illegally hacked emails and taken totally out of context and extremely exagerrated. The comment was made as a joke.
    One dataset of tree rings had a problem in the last years of its record. It was discarded. The period in question was a time when actual measurements of temperatures indicated rising temperatures, not declining temperatures.
    To try to demonize Mann on the basis of this comment is totally false.

    Mann advanced the stage of reconstructing the temperature record. Since his work, many others have published similar curves. Details vary, but his basis result remains.

    Perhaps his work received too much attention and no doubt some people presented it without appropriate details as to uncertainities and how it was done. There was a report some years ago by a panel of prominent scientists that supported his work although they said there were better methods. that could be used. Two of the scientists involved, Dr. North and Dr. Wallace, have been mentors to me and I have the highest confidence in them.

    Dr. Mann’s work has been scrutinized; that is a sign of its importance and is quite appropriate.

    That his integrity has been vicisously attacked is highly inappropriate.

  • Secular1

    BOHC, do you really think the scientist working in the climate change arena haven’t thought of all the benefits, implied by warmer earth? Do you think a all teh climate scientists through out teh world go together and asked each other what is the one thing we can put out there, that would scare begeeses out of the entire world. They came up with the conclusion “Warmer Planet”. Now the entire group said “YES, YES, YES Sweet jesus” Now here come you and your bosom buddy “The Bird Dog” King are calling their bluff with the Photo Synthesis hole in the climate scientist charade SUch an obvious thing and they did not think of it eh! You with your PhD in photo-synthesis and Bird dog King with his God told Noah I wont destroy the earth would be a formidable team. Go on Don Quixote and Snacho Panza.

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    Righhhhhtt….

  • northernharrier

    If Rep. King believes what he said about global warming, he is willfully ignorant of the scientific evidence and unfit to represent anyone.

  • BurnedOutHippieClown

    Which part of the quote, specifically do you find incorrect?