Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

 
2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!
 

February 7, 2010

Now He’s Not Smart Enough…

by at 10:47 pm.

Oh the hits keep on coming with Charlie Baker! He admits to being “absolutely am not smart enough.” The reason? He doesn’t want to give us an answer on where he stands in regards to tackling global climate change. This was his clarification, mind you, on a comment given at the Suffolk Law School.

Said Baker, “I can get eight professors from MIT on both sides of this issue and no one in this room will walk away understanding what they said about climate change.”

Um, sadly, no, Mr. Baker. The professors at MIT are too smart not to look at the scientific evidence and conclude we are, by burning up carbon once locked away for millions of years, changing our planet’s climate. There’s a consensus in the science community, and if you can’t get even a layperson’s understanding of this issue, how the hell can we trust you’ll do so for any other complex issue facing the Commonwealth? We don’t need that kind of nonleadership.

18 Responses to “Now He’s Not Smart Enough…”

  1. Ryan Adams Says:

    I hereby challenge Charlie Baker to find 8 legitimate, tenured professors of climate science at MIT to come out and say they don’t believe in man-made climate warming. Hell, I’ll even open it to any non-religious, fully-accredited college in Massachusetts…

  2. Shawn Says:

    I love how the left clings on to these things as the rest of the world walks away.

    Congress laughed at Obama when he mentioned climate change legislation during his SOTU. India has walked away. The “Nobel Prize” winning 2007 report has fallen apart due to poor (to no) science and advocacy rather than reporting.

    Baker looks like he’s actually talked to people about the issue, the left keeps pushing its talking points from a year ago.

  3. Lynne Says:

    Shawn, please, don’t tell me you are serious.

  4. Christopher Says:

    Didn’t two terms of “W” prove that “not smart enough” never stopped anyone?:)

    Ryan, you’re probably safe opening your challenge even to most religious schools, not the Bob Jones/Liberty variety, but plenty of Catholic schools like Georgetown U for example value real academics.

    Shawn, I know you’ve been antitax and generally libertarian, but when did you go off the fact-free, conspiracy theory deep end?

  5. Shawn Says:

    I recommend you read Levitt’s “Super Freakonomics”. Interesting discussion on the global warming religion.

    Recent “global warming” could just be the result of anti-pollution measures from the 70s combined with the end of most of the industrial revolution pollution (which caused cooling for over 150 years).

    Easy, cheap solutions exists, but nobody wants to talk to those scientists.

    But I know, I know.. you don’t want to hear anyone else’s facts.

    Questions regarding choice of weather stations, suppression of competing information, manipulation of the peer review process.. nope.. nope.. don’t look there.

    All this doubt regarding the science, cause and effects.. and the first solution is to take hundreds of billions of dollars from the US and give it to third world dictatorships.. yeah.. I’m all for that.

  6. Scott Says:

    This is all so silly. Don’t you know that if you ignore global warming, it will go away?

  7. Lynne Says:

    I want to hear peer-reviewed facts, Shawn, not conspiracy theories. I don’t listen to the liberals who espouse that the Bush administration was behind 9/11, either (of course it was bad enough that he totally ignored the warning signs).

    I don’t listen to debunked crap either, or cherry-picked screeds that aren’t backed up by science.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/15/superfreakonomics/

    It’s already been shown that the “global cooling” in the 70s was nothing but a difference in the way temps got measured…when you adjust for that, the 70s continued the warming trend on average. Also, this:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_shoddy_statistics_of_super.html Shoddy stats and misquoting abound.

    Shawn, I know you are smarter than to believe this conspiracy crap. “Religion” - laughable.

  8. Lynne Says:

    BTW, climate change, a general warming trend, is basic MATH. When you start throwing the C02 that was in the atmosphere millions of years ago and was locked away since then, back up into the air, what you are doing is taking the planet backwards…back to its warmer history. Over millions of years, the earth generally cooled to more temperate climes, BECAUSE plants took in CO2, animals ate the plants (locked carbon) and both got buried and locked deep into the earth (where the pressure of the earth turned them to coal, natural gas and oil).

    Now we are unearthing millions of tons of CO2 and discharging back to where it once was, millions of years ago. Except this time, instead of changing the climate over millions of years (cooling the earth as CO2 got locked into those forms slowly) we’re doing the reverse all at once. The result is a climate which will increasingly become unstable faster and faster, instead of allowing plants, animals, and now, people, to adapt over those millions of years like what has been the history of this planet (on average).

    Mind you, we’ve seen terrible natural upheavals in climate before - volcano eruptions and other phenomenon. Guess what? HUGE migrations of starving humans resulted…and there is significant evidence of the fall of great empires due to abrupt climate change.

    Ask the low lying island nations if the sea isn’t already rising - they will tell you. They are begging for help for their drowning nations. Ask the villages in the arctic circle which are sinking into the mud due to permafrost melt. See if you think they aren’t believers in climate change.

    You can put your fingers in YOUR ears all you like, but if you care about the future of your own family, you wouldn’t.

    I’m sure it’s much more comfortable to believe in silly conspiracy theories and all, but it isn’t going to help us adapt, and reverse the damage.

  9. Shawn Says:

    Lynne, people much smarter and knowledgable were laughing.. yes laughing.. at the president when he brought up the target during the SOTU.

    You can play the “its all silly conspiracy theories” game.. but fact is, you’re being left behind.

    The Brown campaign showed that.

  10. Lynne Says:

    No, the Brown campaign showed that if you are totally vague about what you’re really about, have an opponent who barely shows up to campaign, and get a ton of money from outside the state, you can win as a Republican.

    If you think Brown won on “I don’t believe in Global Warming” then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn…

  11. Lynne Says:

    Oh, and only nonscientists are people who look at a single year (”gee, last winter was kinda cold!”) and think that really means anything.

    Good gawd. Don’t we still teach science in schools??

  12. Gerry Nutter Says:

    “and get a ton of money from outside the state you can win as a Republican ”

    Your kidding with that one right? Who had a DC Fundraiser with Lobbyist?

    Both sides took money from Outside the State. Even your pal Deval takes in outside state money. So don’t try to pass off her election failure due to the flow of outside cash to Brown, she took in her fair share.

    She lost the election because people are fed up with both Deval & Barrack and she took the hit for them.

  13. Lynne Says:

    Hey you wanna pay attention to what I actually posted? Did I say there wasn’t money from outside on both sides? However, the money poured for Brown when the polls changed, and most of that was outside money. Especially from the Wall St types, BTW, which is damn scary given how Brown is and was dancing to that tune pretty well - of course, he’s a partner at Goldman Sachs…I doubt he’ll be voting for any decent reregulation of that mess anytime soon.

    Gerry, you are totally ignoring a fundamental fact - then again, maybe that’s just par for the course. Coakley did not campaign. Let me repeat: Coakley. Did. Not. Campaign. I should know, I was watching out for events and whatever that I could go to or cover. This would have been an entirely different race if, for instance, Capuano had won the primary. Pretending this was not a huge, if not THE, factor in her loss is to forgo reality. And it might be nice if you’d bother to spell the name of the President of the United States correctly, while you’re at it.

    God, if I had a nickel for every conservative who complained that we should all just RESPECT the office of the president when Bush was in office…even if we were questioning his actions and his policy…we were called traitors and worse…but now the shoe is on the other foot and it’s perfectly OK to use derogatory words to refer to Obama or other Dems? Hypocrite, thy name is Republican…

  14. Gordon Pickguard Says:

    Lynne please remember that you’re arguing with a proud member of the No Nothing Party. They’re back !

  15. C R Krieger Says:

    Lets keep our analogies straight.  The No Nothing Party existed to deal with all those Roman Catholics flooding into the nation.  We need a new term of derision for Republicans.

    Re peer reviewed, one of the problems with the work out of East Anglia was the effort to suppress dissent, so that there wasn’t any disagreement and that means that to some extent the AGW peer review process is discredited.  That is not a good thing for any of us.  That doesn’t mean that AGW doesn’t exist. It just means that the scientific base needs to be reviewed and revalidated.

    And isn’t there a particularly nettlesome MIT professor who is not on board with AGW?

    Science is not a yes/no kind of thing, but more like a process, and this AGW process is far from over. See, for example, Lord Krebsin today’s TimesNullius in verba—“Take nobody’s word for it”.

    If there is AGW, Cap and Trade is not going to deal with it.  We are going to have to take drastic action.  Like when Hap Arnold torched the hanger with the Barling Bomber.

    Regards  —  Cliff

  16. Mill Girl Says:

    Getting back to the original subject of this post. I don’t understand how someone could be running for Govenor of a highly industrialized state with a strong focus on renewable energy and not have an opinion on climate change. No candidates should be allowed to dodge those questions.

  17. Jack Mitchell Says:

    Watching Gerry try to suck up to a meme is comical. “people are fed up with both Deval & Barrack,” really?

    Gerry, you’re candidacy-du-jour would be well served by diversifying your media sources and nodding politely while giving teabaggers the time of day.

  18. C R Krieger Says:

    Re the Mill Girl’s question, energy independence is a critical issue for this nation regardless of Climate Change.  Even if oil were to be readily available for the next 200 years, having such a large percentage coming from overseas makes us vulnerable to other nations trying to manipulate us.  Granted, it is a two way street, in that they have to sell the oil somewhere, but what if Hugo Chavez really believed, as he states, that the US caused the earthquake in Haiti, so we could invade and occupy that part of the island.  Would we want him as a source of our energy?  And look what Japan did when we started to strangle their oil supply, back when FDR was President.

    Regards  —  Cliff

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]


If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
BadgermillCity logo

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

February 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Other:

Email us!

(replace spaces, ['s, symbols)
Lynne | Mimi

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Politics Online

The Arts in Lowell

Trad Local Media

40 queries. 0.967 seconds