Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[RickBradford]

... your statements like 'the climate science community disagrees with you' you come up with to prove your statements.

It is a statement which you could easily verify for yourself by reading some of the literature. But that's up to you. Plenty of people are averse to evidence, including Marsha Blackburn, the original subject of this thread.

[eliotness]

Powell 2015 is not an 'opinion poll'

The point in the post is she has the 'jury out' on AGW with research showing a 99.9+% scientific consensus yet she only received 70% of the vote when being Elected to Congress. Why did she accept the position when the 'consensus' was so far below 100%.

OK, sorry I misunderstood what Powell 2015 was about. However my reasoning still stands. Scientists write papers when they receive funding to do so. Scientists are human beings, they need an income to survive, so they are unlikely to go against the political motivation of their sponsors. Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess".

No problem on the 'Powell' misunderstanding eliot.

So all the peer reviewed science on AGW / CC is just fabricated throughout the world by scientists being paid by politically motivated sponsors to come up with those results. An interesting theory.

Just a thought, if Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn doesn't agree with the Science on GW / CC why doesn't she move to de-fund it if it is not achieving the outcomes she wants?

I think you have confused Climate Scientists with Meteorologists.[/quo




I'm not saying the data used is fabricated, but I do suggest it is being selectively used. The scandal regarding the British University of East Anglia (I think that was the one with a very influential climate study dept) proves my point.

There is no doubt climate change/global warming is the "flavour of the month" for science in the western world, but by being so it has unfortunately attracted many of "the rent a mob" supporters and become a very unpleasant religion for many. Logical scientific argument open to debate, from both sides, is now becoming sadly lacking. I actually used to work for the Environmental Research Council in the UK and have met many "experts", good people, but some were on a different planet. Just because someone has a PhD doesn't make them open to errors of judgement.

I do believe a reduction in pollution is good for the planet but I also believe people, such as the Pope who support having big families, are as much environmental vandals as the person who thinks burning rubbish is OK.

[stevenl]

... your statements like 'the climate science community disagrees with you' you come up with to prove your statements.

It is a statement which you could easily verify for yourself by reading some of the literature. But that's up to you. Plenty of people are averse to evidence, including Marsha Blackburn, the original subject of this thread.

I don't dispute his statement, I dispute that his statement proves your statement 'the climate science community disagrees with you'.

[RickBradford]

That's why I suggested you read some of the literature on the subject.

[Pinot]

Every month, every year we break another heat record. 98% of all scientiest agree this is man made climate change. We shouldn't bother responding to Climate change deniers any longer. Pity them, yes.

[notmyself]

That's why I suggested you read some of the literature on the subject.

I feel like that at times. I'll buy you any book you want but you have to be able to read first.

[up2u2]

That's why I suggested you read some of the literature on the subject.

Both Dr. Trenberth and Prof. Myles Allen are correct in their positions on 'overwhelming evidence' and the scientific requirement to begin from a position of 'Null Hypothesis' to disprove a Theory. It isn't actually the fundamental scientific disagreement / opposing views on AGW and CC you are attempting to make it out to be. I accept Prof. Allen position on accepting 'Null Hypothesis' as an important principle within science but I also agree with Dr. Trenberth's position that in respect to AGW 'Null Hypothesis' isn't a critical over arching requirement or element. It is an interesting minor debate on a scientific principle between two respected contributors to Climate Science but to present their discussion as some disagreement on the fundamentals of AGW / CC is misleading.

Dr. Trenberth is the leading authority on Atmospheric Climate Sensitivity (Trenberth et al 2010). It was his research that in part debunked Lindzen & Choi (2009 / 2011) and prevented it from achieving peer review and publication. Prof. Allen had some minor involvement in IPCC Assessment Report 3 & 4 picked up some chattels along the way. I'd probably back Dr. Trenberth's view.

An interesting, but, over all, a sideline minor discussion between scientists with Dr. Trenberth probably having more scientific cred than Prof. Allen.

[suzannegoh]

The Obama administration has been agressively spraying the atmosphere with chemtrails so that we don't have to worry about global warming.

[spidermike007]

^^^

Agreed.

With the caveat of whether that is in fact what she said. At this stage we only have the BBC's word for it, as the documentary has not aired.

But then again, Ms Blackburn appears not to believe in the theory of evolution, either, which doesn't say a lot for her scientific discrimination.

Right. So why is she, "Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee,"?

Former Congressman Paul Broun stated that evolution and the big bang theory were "lies straight from the pit of Hell." Broun, who is a qualified MD.

was also a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee.

Guess which party he represented?

And that is the result of reading a scripture without any spiritual understanding whatsoever, nor any sincere inner work, or real spiritual effort. Combined with attending a silly church, and becoming hypnotized by nonsense. I am not saying religion is nonsense. But any church that teaches that the big bang theory comes straight from the pit of hell, is very suspect. Just alot of gobbly gook and meaningless words, without any time spent in either meditation nor prayer, equals stunning ignorance. Edited September 25, 2015 by spidermike007

[notmyself]

The Obama administration has been agressively spraying the atmosphere with chemtrails so that we don't have to worry about global warming.

Super funny.

[up2u2]

That 'somegreybloke' is a funny guy. Gets the message across pretty succinctly too.

[up2u2]

Well that is interesting.

BBC story headline has changed from:

"Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn"

to:

"Pope unlikely to sway top US critics on climate"

Correction 25 September 2015: An earlier version of this report implied that Marsha Blackburn's comments were made in relation to the Pope's address. They were actually given in an earlier interview and the headline and text have been amended to make this clear.

With the Pope in Washington Marsha may have been getting a little heat.

[RPCVguy]

Free Speech has long been limited/ prohibited from causing direct bodily harm. Usually the example is prohibition against shouting "Fire" in a theater. Some in this forum scream to defend against RICO laws inhibiting propagation of "climate denial." Evidence / documents from Exxon, now shows the consequences of Climate Change were known, and the decision was made to ACTIVELY hide and muddle the warning that a global disaster was mounting.
It is the second group below (of industrialists and their paid propagandists) who need face charges of Racketeering - at a level that is leading to the death of millions, maybe eventually to extinction.

Among those still saying the Earth is not warming from human burning of fossil fuels, there are people

• who lack the mental capacity to grasp the science - yet speak to be heard.
• who are those like Exxon executives who have hired people to explore the truth, don't like the answer, and have hired others to propagate a message of deception.
• who might be able to understand the science but are befuddled by the PR propagated by the rich who are complicit with Exxon in lying to people so as to continue their accumulation of wealth

Where US Republican Marsha Blackburn fits among the above 3 categories isn't known. Maybe the RICO charges will get brought, and maybe then some of those in group 3 will awaken. Humans are like the proverbial frogs in a gradually warming kettle.

Newly uncovered documents show Exxon knew the consequences as early as 1981.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

See some of these documents as scanned images at
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VgnV-5fiLb3

Those few decades have mattered greatly. It is the accumulated CO2 and other greenhouse gases that - as added to the atmospheric insulation - are causing the warming of the planet.

Edited September 29, 2015 by RPCVguy

[eliotness]

Free Speech has long been limited/ prohibited from causing direct bodily harm. Usually the example is prohibition against shouting "Fire" in a theater. Some in this forum scream to defend against RICO laws inhibiting propagation of "climate denial." Evidence / documents from Exxon, now shows the consequences of Climate Change were known, and the decision was made to ACTIVELY hide and muddle the warning that a global disaster was mounting.

It is the second group below (of industrialists and their paid propagandists) who need face charges of Racketeering - at a level that is leading to the death of millions, maybe eventually to extinction.

Among those still saying the Earth is not warming from human burning of fossil fuels, there are people

• who lack the mental capacity to grasp the science - yet speak to be heard.
• who are those like Exxon executives who have hired people to explore the truth, don't like the answer, and have hired others to propagate a message of deception.
• who might be able to understand the science but are befuddled by the PR propagated by the rich who are complicit with Exxon in lying to people so as to continue their accumulation of wealth

Where US Republican Marsha Blackburn fits among the above 3 categories isn't known. Maybe the RICO charges will get brought, and maybe then some of those in group 3 will awaken. Humans are like the proverbial frogs in a gradually warming kettle.

Newly uncovered documents show Exxon knew the consequences as early as 1981.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

See some of these documents as scanned images at

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VgnV-5fiLb3

Those few decades have mattered greatly. It is the accumulated CO2 and other greenhouse gases that - as added to the atmospheric insulation - are causing the warming of the planet.

You raise some good points, but the overall tone is a bit rabid religious.

No one should or could deny that the earth's climate is changing, heck ! it always always has and will continue to do long after mankind is extinct, both getting warmer and also getting colder.

The debate should be over which chemicals are precursors to a warmer climate, which industries are major contributors to release of those chemicals and in which countries are those industries based. There are of course chemicals that have a cooling effect and the release of these needs to be included in the debate.

On both sides of the debate there has been, and no doubt will be in the future, the use of selective data. You cannot deny that fact. That is why a debate with transparent reasoning is required, which is certainly not happening presently. In fact the debate is similar to the yellow shirt / red shirt debate in Thailand, or black vs white. It cannot and must not be so, there are many shades in between, one side is not totally right. There are lunatics on both sides. Most of the worlds governments favour one side because they help to raise extra taxes and make the politicians feel smug by doing so.

However, to repeat a previous statement by me, all this climate change and global warming debate is "just pissing in the wind" unless the rate of population growth is reduced. The current growth of mankind is totally unsustainable no matter what the earth's climate does.??⏳

[RPCVguy]

Population growth AND consumption are EACH in need of constriction - IF life is to continue on the planet in its current forms instead of a 6th "RESET" / Mass Extinction. That is the consequence towards which the warming alone will lead to.

Rabid religious is an interpretation ignoring the seriousness of the topic and the casualties assured unless mitigation is initiated promptly. (Already too late to avoid many consequences, the mass of the planet and the amount of heat absorbed over what has been radiated has been accumulating in the oceans - 90+% in the oceans - at a rate of 4 H-bombs of energy per second.)
Knowledge of the heat absorption properties of water vapor, CO2, Methane, and various nitrous oxides was known since the 1800s, but studied and calibrated in detail when the US Military was designing heat seeking missiles and absolutely knew there were frequencies of infrared radiation that were absorbed in the atmosphere, hence useless for their tracking devices.
While water vapor is abundant, it also has a habit we call precipitation - keeping it from adding ever greater amounts to the insulation of the Earth. NOT so for CO2, which for many ice ages has vacillated from a minimum of 180 ppm to interglacial maximums of 280 ppm. As posted just above, the size and rate of Carbon emissions from human industrialization have been off the charts of anything the planet has experienced in hundreds of millions of years - perhaps ever. instead of the pre-industrail concentration of 280 ppm CO2, we are now at 400 ppm. that is a 40% increase in CO2's insulating capacity. The warming that is happening already (notably there is a 40 year lag in the Earth's warming to the first half of what it will take to again restore energy equilibrium) is melting Arctic ice and tundra- which then is initiating consequences of Methane release - amplifying what humans alone have done.

ARE Humans responsible for the 40% growth in CO2? YES, and there are accounting ways (measuring barrels of oil, tonnes of coal, etc.) as well as isotpic fingerprints as to what type of Carbon is in the air.
This video is under 3 minutes. Please watch: "It's Us"

Lastly, to consider which industries are contributing greenhouse gases and by how much

[eliotness]

Mr RVPC, your sounding very much like the teacher you once were, but I dispute the text book you're reading from. CO2 increase has been a consequence of the earth warming in the past NOT the cause. There are many more gases liberated from human activity with much more "globally warming" potential than CO2. The ever increasing demand for electricity by an ever increasing population, the intensive farming methods demanding huge amounts of chemical fertilizers, deforestation, huge cattle production ( in Thailand I've yet to figure what most of the cows are breed for, certainly not milk and beef is rarely consumed, and as for buffaloes ???) I agree totally that pollution is bad. Europe cynically reduced it's pollution generation by moving industries to such places as China and India.

I guess you could compare our views to Christianity, we both believe there's a God and he had a son Jesus, but you're a Jesuit priest and I'm a Quaker. I understand your belief, but I don't think you're right, and visa versa. OK so be it !

[eliotness]

... your statements like 'the climate science community disagrees with you' you come up with to prove your statements.

It is a statement which you could easily verify for yourself by reading some of the literature. But that's up to you. Plenty of people are averse to evidence, including Marsha Blackburn, the original subject of this thread.

But then again Rick it depends on which books, reports, theses you read. Selective reading leads to selective thoughts ☺

[eliotness]

OK, I'll try to make it simpler.

Allen believes the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

He still believes it is his job to prove it, not skeptics' job to disprove it. And the vast majority of climate scientists agree with him about that.

Which is where we came in, about where the burden of proof lies, and the Null Hypothesis.

Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, global warming has been proven time and time again.

And please stop the flaming.

Steven, global warming has been happening since the last ice-age, 10,000 years ago. Before that we had global cooling and millions of years ago Britain was a tropical jungle. The debate is how much mankind is contributing to any global warming that we MAY be experiencing.

[eliotness]

W

it is a known fact that since our industrial revolution we humans have polluted this planet as much as 1 volcanic eruption. so if the planet has anymore than 1 eruption in a couple of hundred years then ?????????????????there are way to many factors to consider here and the earth will survive whatever humanity throws at it, as its very existence is out of humanity`s hands

Not sure where you get this 'known fact' from

AA_Volcanoes.jpg

Also large Volcanic eruptions cause Global Cooling not Global Warming by injecting Sulphate aerosols into the upper Troposphere reflecting sunlight back into Space.

Robock 1994, Zielinski 2000, Bertrand 1999, Foster & Rahmstorf 2011.

Vinny, use of very selective data there, up2u2 did not say CO2, just pollutants. Scientific research has shown CO2 increases following a warming of the climate and not as a cause. Also, CO2 is an absolute essential for life on earth, and not some horrible toxic terror. If one "super" volcano was to erupt, and there are several likely candidates in the next few centuries, then the earth could be subject to decades of a nuclear type winter. We can irritate Mother Nature, but she could wipe us out in an instance, e.g. the dinosaurs.

[RPCVguy]

CO2 increase has been a consequence of the earth warming in the past NOT the cause.

True, but that was because the swings in CO2 during the multiple Ice Ages were initiated by the angle of the Earth's Axis and by the excentricities of the orbit - neither of which accounts for the variations in temperature now in evidence. Nor does volcanic activity or Solar radiance. Those factors, absent the changes in Greenhouse Gases (all of which were converted to CO2 equivalencies in the last graphic of my prior post.

see what all the other known variations amount to until considering CO2

There are many more gases liberated from human activity with much more "globally warming" potential than CO2.

Measured and accounted for - same graphic at the bottom of my last post.

The ever increasing demand for electricity by an ever increasing population, the intensive farming methods demanding huge amounts of chemical fertilizers, deforestation, huge cattle production ( in Thailand I've yet to figure what most of the cows are breed for, certainly not milk and beef is rarely consumed, and as for buffaloes ???) I agree totally that pollution is bad. Europe cynically reduced it's pollution generation by moving industries to such places as China and India.

I guess you could compare our views to Christianity, we both believe there's a God and he had a son Jesus, but you're a Jesuit priest and I'm a Quaker. I understand your belief, but I don't think you're right, and visa versa. OK so be it !

This is not merely a matter of opinions that one chooses - like picking among salads or flavors of ice cream. I've supplied data with sources, and have since retiring taken the courses online to have dug deeply into the subject. I resent your opinion that this is only a mystical belief. Cite your reasons and sources or be considered someone unwilling to look at evidence.

[stevenl]

OK, I'll try to make it simpler.

Allen believes the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

He still believes it is his job to prove it, not skeptics' job to disprove it. And the vast majority of climate scientists agree with him about that.

Which is where we came in, about where the burden of proof lies, and the Null Hypothesis.

Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, global warming has been proven time and time again.

And please stop the flaming.

Steven, global warming has been happening since the last ice-age, 10,000 years ago. Before that we had global cooling and millions of years ago Britain was a tropical jungle. The debate is how much mankind is contributing to any global warming that we MAY be experiencing.

Stop nitpicking, we were talking about manmade global warming. Check with your buddy RR, who is also sticking his head in the sand.

Edited September 29, 2015 by stevenl

[siam2007]

Ignoring reality and scientific facts - she would make a good energy Minister in case "THE DONALD" becomes POTUS.....

but as he would quickly cause the 3rd world war, it would not matter much anyway

[phycokiller]

its not discouraged at all,

Oh, really? Then how would you characterize 20 government climate scientists writing last week to President Obama demanding that he invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to silence criticism of their theories?

This is one group of scientists demanding that another group of scientists be punished for "misdeeds", i.e. "holding a different opinion".

I note that RICO has never been used before to silence an ongoing scientific debate; its more usual targets being Mafia crime families, street gangs, FIFA and the Hell's Angels.

If that isn't discouragement, I don't know what is.

you note wrong, RICO was successfully used by scientists to get the tobacco industry to stop spreading false info in the name of science as well

Edited September 29, 2015 by phycokiller

[phycokiller]

Climate change used to be global warming until it was realised that the world wasn't getting warmer. Good excuse for governments to cream more tax under the "green" banner though. I assume you cycle everywhere?.

the Bush admin changed the name, there is no doubt at all the globe is warming

[phycokiller]

Sure a lot of climate scientists back the AGW theory, because they know which side their bread is buttered. To voice any opposition is to commit financial suicide, no one will employ you and financial backing will be withdrawn. And as for being allowed to air your views on the media, forget it, unless of course you're able to be branded a wacko republican politician from America.

financial suicide? you really think the oil industry, koch brothers and the heartland institute are going to turn away someone who can prove AGW isnt happening? somehow I think your logic is missing something

[up2u2]

The most important aspect of people who reject GW / CC like Marsha Blackburn is that in their rejection of GW / CC they are forced to ignore the science on GW / CC. The science always shows not only that her statements are not supported by the actual science but the various comments made on this thread by people who do not agree with GW / CC are, also, not supported by the science or are simply non factual.

"they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change" Simply non factual. Science has ALWAYS discussed Climate Change being a result of Global Warming.

"there is no consensus on AGW" well there are three crucial peer reviewed studies that show there is an overwhelming consensus.

"climates on Earth have always changed" Yes but over tens of thousands of years not decades and hundreds of years as the evidence is showing now

"GW / CC is a religion" GW / CC is based on scientific facts. Religion is based on a belief. GW / CC is the antithesis of religion.

"Earth is in an interglacial warming period" Yes the next Glaciation (cooling) is due in 13,000 years.

"governments are paying scientists to invent GW / CC" Governments are busy ignoring acting on GW / CC. If anything they would be funding science to show GW / CC is NOT occurring.

"governments want to collect more Taxes" All advice to governments are revenue neutral and subsidy shifting.

" what about Climategate where scientists changed the data or lied" - Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct

So people like Marsha Blackburn simply ignore the facts. It would not matter what scientific evidence you showed her she simply has a personal or a political view that AGW does not exist.

[eliotness]

OK guys, I agree the earth's climate is changing, it always has done, it has never been constant. Now you prove that it is mankind that has made it change, not mother nature.

For the x number of times, if we continue breeding at the current rate life will be unsustainable on this planet, no matter what the level of CO2 is.

So whilst the Pope preaches the global warming religion but ignores population increase he is a FALSE PHROPHET.

[eliotness]

The most important aspect of people who reject GW / CC like Marsha Blackburn is that in their rejection of GW / CC they are forced to ignore the science on GW / CC. The science always shows not only that her statements are not supported by the actual science but the various comments made on this thread by people who do not agree with GW / CC are, also, not supported by the science or are simply non factual.

"they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change" Simply non factual. Science has ALWAYS discussed Climate Change being a result of Global Warming.

"there is no consensus on AGW" well there are three crucial peer reviewed studies that show there is an overwhelming consensus.

"climates on Earth have always changed" Yes but over tens of thousands of years not decades and hundreds of years as the evidence is showing now

"GW / CC is a religion" GW / CC is based on scientific facts. Religion is based on a belief. GW / CC is the antithesis of religion.

"Earth is in an interglacial warming period" Yes the next Glaciation (cooling) is due in 13,000 years.

"governments are paying scientists to invent GW / CC" Governments are busy ignoring acting on GW / CC. If anything they would be funding science to show GW / CC is NOT occurring.

"governments want to collect more Taxes" All advice to governments are revenue neutral and subsidy shifting.

" what about Climategate where scientists changed the data or lied" - Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct

So people like Marsha Blackburn simply ignore the facts. It would not matter what scientific evidence you showed her she simply has a personal or a political view that AGW does not exist.

You have been miss led.

In the 1960s to 70s global cooling was considered most likely by the scientific community. You obviously were not old enough to remember some of the very cold snowy winters of that period. I can't imagine where you got your "theory" that science has always discussed climate change being a result of global warming.

Consensus, means the majority think it's right, just like the consensus among Germans in 1934 thought the Jews were to blame for Germany losing WW1, or the consensus among people in the 16th century that thought if you cast a witch into the water she would float.

Have you not bought a Christmas card showing the Thames frozen over in the late 18th century. 1940s saw some of the coldest winters ever recorded, only 70 years ago. So what "evidence is showing now"?

CC is a fact, scientific or whatever, it has always been happening. GW is a most distasteful religion because of the way it attacks unbelievers.

So if the next ice age is due in 13,000 years, what happened to GW ? It has taken the earth 10,000 years or more to reach this point and recover from the last ice-age, somewhere there has to be a balance point, or do you suggest we wait until we're a mile deep under ice before we agree GW was a temporary thing ?

Governments love green taxes, money for old rope. Politicians worldwide are totally cynical, they really don't give a hoot about climate changes that will affect the common man. They have their villas in nice places, their bank accounts (off shore) full, and I am not talking about the Thai elite. The tax raised from green taxes goes into the general "pot" so tell me how you know that money raised vs money spent inhibiting "global warming" is neutral.

So you think data sifting does not occur, well I guess you grew up in a nice cosy bubble and not the real world. Both sides of this debate are guilty, or are you one of the "but but but Thaksin" brigade.

I never stated at all that the University of East Anglia changed, lied or falsified any data. You misquote me sir. I stated they selectively used their data. Slander is so common among your green Spanish inquisition.

One thing I will agree with you on, Marsha Blackburn is a dangerous wacko, but she is more of a danger to a sensible debate by spouting such big business backed fudge.

[up2u2]

OK guys, I agree the earth's climate is changing, it always has done, it has never been constant. Now you prove that it is mankind that has made it change, not mother nature.

For the x number of times, if we continue breeding at the current rate life will be unsustainable on this planet, no matter what the level of CO2 is.

So whilst the Pope preaches the global warming religion but ignores population increase he is a FALSE PHROPHET.

Yes Earth's Climate does change of tens of thousands of years. There is plenty of peer reviewed scientific evidence that shows increased CO2 is anthropogenic.

What level of population reduction is required to stop global warming? Is there any scientific modelling? Would be interested to see it.

[eliotness]

Sure a lot of climate scientists back the AGW theory, because they know which side their bread is buttered. To voice any opposition is to commit financial suicide, no one will employ you and financial backing will be withdrawn. And as for being allowed to air your views on the media, forget it, unless of course you're able to be branded a wacko republican politician from America.

financial suicide? you really think the oil industry, koch brothers and the heartland institute are going to turn away someone who can prove AGW isnt happening? somehow I think your logic is missing something

The point is, as you have just shown, anyone who has a different interpretation of the data is subject to the most vile attacks. That fact you sir cannot deny. There are out there, a group of people, "rent a mob" if you will, who are totally anti capitalist who will joyfully wreck any chance of a logical scientific debate. It is beyond doubt, as exampled by the posts on this site that this topic is far more politics than science.