Fact Checking Science – a New Effort
January 29, 2015
FactCheck.org has a brand new “SciCheck” project, fact-checking science-themed claims by politicians and/or partisans.
Here is a sample of their inaugural post, surveying recent statements by high profile Science Challenged politicians.
These look comprehensive and well researched – I hope to see more.
Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania who ran for president in 2012 and is preparing to run again in 2016, appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Jan. 25. Michael Smerconish, the show’s host, asked Santorum how he would have voted on a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline Act that declared “climate change is real and not a hoax.” The measure overwhelmingly passed, with only Sen. Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, voting against it.
Smerconish, Jan. 25: The Senate voted this week 98 to 1 that climate change is not a hoax. If Rick Santorum were still in the Senate, would you have supported that?
Santorum: Is the climate warming? Clearly over the past, you know, 15 or 20 years the question is yes. The question is, is man having a significant impact on that, number one.
And number two, and this is even more important than the first, is there anything we can do about it? And the answer is, is there anything the United States can do about it? Clearly, no. Even folks who accept all of the science by the alarmists on the other side, recognize that everything that’s being considered by the United States will have almost — well, not almost, will have zero impact on it given what’s going on in the rest of the world.
Smerconish: So, is your answer do nothing?
Santorum: Again — well, the answer is do something. If it has no impact, of course do nothing. Why would you do something and with the — with people admitting that even if you do something, it won’t make a difference?
Santorum’s larger point is correct. The U.S. can’t solve the problem of global warming all by itself. President Obama himself agrees with that.
In a Jan. 27 speech in India, Obama urged collaborative action: “Even if countries like the United States curb our emissions, if countries that are growing rapidly like India — with soaring energy needs — don’t also embrace cleaner fuels, then we don’t stand a chance against climate change.”
But that doesn’t mean U.S. policies will have “zero impact” on global warming.
Emissions reductions by the U.S. could indeed play a role in slowing the rise of global temperatures. The U.S. could also have an indirect impact, because its leadership on the issue could spur a global movement to cut down on the carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the planet.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
January 29, 2015 at 11:53 am
” The U.S. can’t solve the problem of global warming all by itself. ”
Well, it pretty much put most of that [CO2] there itself, didn’t it.
January 31, 2015 at 9:32 am
“The U.S. could also have an indirect impact, because its leadership on the issue
couldwould spur a global movement to cut down on the carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the planet.”Fixed it for you.
January 31, 2015 at 10:02 am
“The U.S. could also have an indirect impact, because its leadership on the issue MIGHT spur a global movement to cut down on the carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the planet. That will likely NEVER happen until we adopt some global economic model other than the free-market, growth-oriented, “consume and exploit” model we now have”
Fixed it yet again.