Seriously, Cohen believes Perry is a McCarthyite unqualified for president because he is an anthropomorphic
global warming climate change skeptic:
Maybe more important, Perry waxed wrongly on global warming. He rejected the notion that it is at least partially a product of industrialization, asserting that “a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data” to make it appear that mankind — our cars, trains, automobiles, not to mention China’s belching steel mills — is the culprit. He said that an increasing number of scientists have challenged this notion and that, in conclusion, he stood with them — whoever they might be. In Appleton, Wis., Sen. Joe McCarthy’s skeleton rattled a bit.
In Cohen’s world, it is skepticism that is unscientific rather than models that are not falsifiable, and are inconsistent with observational data, rife with errors and manipulations, based on secret data, and ultimately faith-based.
Remember, the conventional wisdom in scientific circles is often discredited. Researchers have been trying to prove that coffee is an evil menace for generations, without avail. Salt causes high blood pressure. Oops, maybe not. And so on. Skepticism is a core value of scientific inquiry, and one that climate change dogmatics such as Cohen and the primary climate change proponents do not share.
Then note the quick switch here:
Perry’s quaint belief in the utter innocence of mankind when it comes to polluting our precious atmosphere might seem like an innocuous tick, a conviction without consequence.
I thought we were talking about whether man-made emissions were causing a demonstrable shift in climate, not about whether “mankind . . . [has been] polluting our precious atmosphere.” Silly me. Of course, sitting here in Los Angeles today, I cannot deny the former. And I seriously doubt Perry does.
What we both apparently doubt is that man-made emissions — and the carbon boogeyman in particular — are pushing us toward climate Armageddon. And skeptics further doubt whether we should spend Trillions of dollars fighting a phantom menace we cannot even say — based on science — is a big problem, a little problem, or no problem. Moreover, we cannot fight such a menace — assuming it is one — by crippling our economy while China and the rest of the developing world go about their carbon-emitting ways.
The thing so annoying about columns such as Cohen’s is that he refuses to engage on the merits of an argument, and just declares his opinion to be correct and those who disagree with him to be unthinking idiots. Mr. Cohen, that is ideology, not science.