MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Donald Trump on Science

Comparing his scores on seven science policy topics to Cruz, Rubio, and Bush

TrumpFingerDailyNewsIn order to be a good president, a candidate has to be able to evaluate data as part of the process of making good decisions. I scored six likely Republican presidential candidates on seven different science policy areas last March. Since the notion that reality-TV star and real estate mogul Donald Trump would actually run for president would have seemed, well, farfetched only a year ago, I didn’t evaluate his views in that article. Also, Trump didn’t actually announce his run until June of last year.

In my March analysis, I selected seven topics including a proposed ban on commercial travel from West African countries during the recent Ebola outbreak, climate change, genetically modified crops, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility, vaccination, fetal pain legislation, and biological evolution. The candidates I covered in my earlier article were Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida.

I chose those topics because there is widely accepted data for each of them. Specifically, a major Ebola outbreak in the U.S. was unlikely and banning travel is counterproductive; the trend toward higher global average temperature over the past 50 years is at least partially the result of human activity; genetically modified crops are safe; Yucca Mountain in Nevada can safely store nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years; vaccinations do not cause autism; fetuses do not feel pain before 24 weeks of gestation; and biological evolution explains the diversity of life.

The candidates were scored as follows: Pass(able) equals 1 point; Incomplete earns ½ point; anything else is 0. The maximum score obtainable is 7 points.

So what how does Donald Trump fare with regard to these seven scientific policy topics?

Ebola: On October 24, 2014 Trump tweeted: "Ebola has been confirmed in N.Y.C., with officials frantically trying to find all of the people and things he had contact with. Obama's fault." - "I have been saying for weeks for President Obama to stop the flights from West Africa. So simple, but he refused. A TOTAL incompetent!" FAIL

Climate Change: On November 6, 2012 Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive." Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders called Trump out on this tweet. A day later during a “Fox & Friends” interview Trump responded: "I think that climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money. I know much about climate change," Trump said. "I've received many environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China — obviously I joke — but this done for the benefit of China."

More broadly, The Hill reported that Trump said last September: “And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems.” Bigger problems notwithstanding, it’s a FAIL.

Biotech Crops: In October, when Ben Carson was beating him in the Iowa polls, Trump seemingly scorned voters by retweeting a GMO truther: "@mygreenhippo #BenCarson is now leading in the #polls in #Iowa. Too much #Monsanto in the #corn creates issues in the brain? #Trump #GOP"

However, Trump quite quickly retracted the retweet as an error, and tweeted: “The young intern who accidentally did a Retweet apologizes.” INCOMPLETE

Yucca Mountain: On March 11, 2011 after the tsunami-caused Fukushima nuclear disaster Trump told Fox News: “I am in favor of nuclear energy –very strongly in favor of nuclear energy. … You have to look very carefully – have the best people in terms of safeguards for nuclear energy, but we do need nuclear energy.”  On the other hand, during the December 15 Republican candidate debate, Trump apparently did not know what the nuclear triad is. It will be interesting to see if Yucca Mountain comes up as an issue during the lead up to the Nevada Republican caucuses on February 23.  PASS (able)

Vaccination: Trump has evidently long been a proponent of the theory that vaccination can cause autism.  Consider this tweet on September 3, 2014: “I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future.” During the September CNN presidential candidate debate Trump declared: “I’ve seen it … You take this little beautiful baby, and you pump — it looks just like it’s meant for a horse. … We’ve had so many instances ... a child went to have the vaccine, got very, very sick, and now is autistic." FAIL

Fetal Pain: In July, Trump evidently sent this statement to the Christian Broadcasting Network: “I support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and urge Congress to pass this bill. A ban on elective abortions after 20 weeks will protect unborn children. We should not be one of seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks. It goes against our core values.”  FAIL

Evolution: No Information. But during his speech at Liberty University he did modestly rank his book The Art of the Deal as “a deep, deep second to the Bible. The Bible is the best. The Bible blows it away.” Let’s generously give him PASS.

Total Trump score: A generous 2½ out of 7 possible points.  The scores of the three remaining candidates evaluated back in March are: Ted Cruz at 3; Marco Rubio at 3; and Jeb Bush at 2 points.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    Sorry, Ronnie, but on climate change, you are a FAIL.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure the Chinese disn't invent climate change, nor is it intended for them to benefit most from it. A bunch of technocrats invented a moral panic from improved data collection to gain power and prestige. The climate is probably changing. The average temperature in many spots may be higher than previously recorded, and probably about as worthless as BMI for providing useful information about what people should do. There is probably an anthropic effect that I believe to not be the first or second order driver.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    No, the Chinese didn't invent climate change just like they don't invent anything. But they're damn good at taking something that already exists and exploiting the hell out of it.

    Actually my dis of Ron has nothing to do with Trump or his rating of Trump, it's just all Ronald since the first time I ever read him on the subject.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    And you of course want it all Copernicus. Funny how that works. Also interesting that Ronald doesn't hide behind monikers.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    S≀:
    I don't know what that means, "want it all".
    Also, same regarding monikers. Are you merely pointing out that Copernicus is not likely my legal name?

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Let's see if I can explain this. You said "all Ronald", I said "all Copernicus". Is your attention span so short that you can't compare and contrast something so simple?

  • Copernicus would chip||

    Clearly I stated that "all Ronald" means my problem with Ronald lies entirely with him and has nothing to do with Trump or Ronald's thoughts about Trump. And no, I don't want it "all Copernicus'. But I'm not the one posing as a Science reporter/journalist on a regular basis.

    Since it's so important to you, what is your actual moniker?

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    MYOB. If that's good enough for you, it's good enough for me. And even if it's not good enough for you, tough. I'm not the one bragging on how smart I am.

  • Ron Bailey||

  • Copernicus would chip||

    I glanced at your first article and read:
    "What about higher temperatures? Obviously, in order for there to be any man-made global warming, temperatures must be going up. Are they? Yes."

    Wrong, man-made global warming could exist if temperatures are going up, down, or sideways.

    I stopped there.

    With regard to the question: "What evidence would....."
    I would start with evidence that is honestly acquired and reported. Sans that, we have the present day cluster fuck of debates.

  • Ron Bailey||

    Cwc: Interesting view point. So what evidence would persuade you that man-made global warming is occurring?

  • WTF||

    Well, it would need to involve a hypothesis that would be able to show that any warming was not the result of natural phenomena. Then that hypothesis would need to be subject to objective testing and observation, and to be falsifiable. So-called global warming "science" has thus far met none of those criteria.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    'So what evidence would persuade you that man-made global warming is occurring?"

    The question seems silly. Answer: evidence which persuades me that man-made global warming is occurring. Pardon the tautology.

  • tarran||

    It depends on what you define as man-made global warming?

    We know how CO2 scatters IR light, and can quantify the impact on radiative heat transfer in and out of the atmosphere.

    Thus, we know that the Earth is warmer than it would be absent the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

    We assume that most of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. We know from the changing isotope ratios of C in atmospheric CO2 that the increased concentrations are from carbon that was underground - it could come from increased vulcanism, or it could from extra human activity. For me the clincher 'proving' most extra CO2 is anthropogenic would be observations from the new CO2 observatory that map the concentration increases to actual sources. Right now there is no evidence falsifying that the extra CO2 is manmande.

    We also know that the urban heat island effect is entirely man made - the product of waste heat from human activity (such as heating homes, driving cars, stamping steel, etc). It isn't global in scope, and it's really a simple problem to overcome - if it's too hot you run air conditioners.

    But, the notion that a "finger print" of global warming due to CO2 emerging from background noise, something that people widely claim exists, has never been shown to me to my satisfaction. It's either in the form of crappy paleoclimate studies claiming "unprecedented" warming, or through models that consistently fail to make predictions outside their tuning period.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    For me, better temperature records for a start, to establish that warming is happening.

    Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, temperatures seemed to be declining. We had an ice age panic.

    Then the Soviet Union fell. Global average temperature increased soon after. Coinciding with many temperature-recording weather stations in the Soviet Union being shut down because the Soviets could not afford to maintain them. Most of the closed down stations were located in Siberia. Basic knowledge of statistics would tell you to expect the "average temperature" to "increase" as temperature-recording stations in colder areas stopped reporting.

    Recently, we've been in a "Global Warming Hiatus" according to climate scientists, and temperatures have not seemed to rise notably since ~1998~.

    With the suspicious timing of temperature increases happening around the same time as Siberian weather stations closing down, it is not at all clear to me that the "temperature increase" is anything more than a statistical "increase" resulting from less overall data coming from colder areas of the world.

    From me it looks like temperatures were decreasing, the USSR collapsed and temperatures spiked upward, then the temperatures plateaued. It's most certainly POSSIBLE that it could be man made global warming with coincidental timing, but the timing makes me want more data before we can conclude what the global temperature is even doing right now.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Man-made global warming is occurring. It is also not preventable, not a threat, and probably a good thing all things considered.

  • retiredfire||

    Well, it might be preventable.
    If we could get to where most of the enviro-nuts want to go - massive reductions in population.
    Unfortunately, they don't seem too eager to lead the way.

  • WTF||

    the trend toward higher global average temperature over the past 50 years is at least partially the result of human activity

    That has yet to be proven or demonstrated scientifically. If you think it has scientifically been demonstrated that it is not just the result of periodic cycling between warm and cold periods as in the past, then you are the one who does not understand science.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    Further, the (lack of) integrity in the so-called scientific community is troubling almost beyond description.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Actually, that's not quite true. We simply don't know whether the warming trend is natural or not.

    The real point is that it doesn't matter. Under the natural cycles, we'd be due for starting another deep freeze, and that wouldn't be good. If we managed to stop that cycle, all the better.

  • Bob Armstrong||

    Ron , apparently you don't have a background in basic physics .

    The central fraud is the assertion with no equations or experimental demonstration of the phenomenon that some optical "greenhouse effect" is the reason the bottoms of atmospheres are warmer than their tops . No sequence of filters can "trap" energy . ( Only asymmetric centripetal gravity can , and computably does explain the increase in surface temperature over orbital gray body temperature . )

    The whole thing is massively destructive nonscience .

  • plusafdotcom||

    Ron, when people shout about MMGW, I love to pose one question:
    "Please explain to me Exactly What caused ALL of the Historic Ice Ages on Earth."
    I've asked that of laypeople and climatologists and NEVER gotten an answer... not even a credible answer.
    I look at the Vostok Core data with an engineer's eye and mind and with little hesitation, can "conclude" that, if anything, we're approaching another Major Ice Age. The cyclicality is obvious from the data.
    I believe the Real Problem will be when and if seven or eight or nine billion humans attempt to find enough arable land on earth to occupy, let alone grow enough food on.
    Ya think, maybe, some 'invaders' might change some national boundaries (or names of Countries) in that kind of scenario? When all of humanity will have to fit between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn?!
    So.... what, EXACTLY, caused the Ice AgeS?
    Thanks.

  • MetalBard||

    Oh Ron being cautious about a relatively new disease showing up for the first time on American soil isn't a fail, and neither is climate change skepticism, or wanting to end abortion after 20 weeks.

    Perhaps it's you that needs schooled in science.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Being cautious about a disease whose transmission factors and incubation periods are well-documented over decades and hundreds of thousands of cases is actually a fail. Shutting down travel from an entire region based on a half-dozen patients who stood a 0.0% chance of infecting other people is in fact retarded fear-mongering.

  • MetalBard||

    A region that just suffered a large outbreak of a disease with a 50% mortality rate? Viruses mutate all the time, and when there is a large outbreak or a deadly disease that is not the time to arrogantly throw caution to the wind.

    And the Ebola virus isn't as well documented as you seem to think.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Welp that's all well-reasoned and documented arguments with no retarded fear-mongering. I'm convinced. Let's track down that nurse in Jersey and burn her at the stake just to be safe.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ITT, yokels who have no idea what they are talking about.

  • Skye Walker||

    Viruses do mutate, but we have no documented instances of a virus mutating in such a way that it spreads differently. Ebola is spread through direct contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person. It is quite unreasonable to assume that it would mutate to spread in some scarier way.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, the analysis of the travel ban behind the link strikes me as being very weak. First, it straw-mans ("The ban won't be 1000% effective"). Then it goes to bad analogies, like this:

    When a wildfire breaks out we don’t fence it off. We go in to extinguish it before one of the random sparks sets off another outbreak somewhere else.

    That's pretty much 100% wrong. The way you fight a wildfire is precisely to "fence it off" with backfires. Nobody parachutes or drives into the flames to put it out.

    People forget, obviously, that what really set off the Ebola scare was people in full hazmat suits getting infected. There was a period of time when our best counter-measures had failed, and we didn't know why. In that situation, a quarantine/travel ban until you figure things out strikes me as a rational response.

    Once we figured it out (poor hazmat compliance plus a huge spike in viral loads/infection risk at the very end), you can say that we don't need a quarantine/travel ban. But to take this position before we knew why our counter-measures failed is probably not the best position.

  • some guy||

    People forget, obviously, that what really set off the Ebola scare was people in full hazmat suits getting infected. There was a period of time when our best counter-measures had failed, and we didn't know why. In that situation, a quarantine/travel ban until you figure things out strikes me as a rational response.

    I don't remember there ever being a debate about why people "in full haxmat suits" were getting sick, unless maybe it was happening between two empty suits on CNN. At the peak there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in haxmat suits working long, stressful hours in a hot environment. It was inevitable that some of them would get sick after making mistakes or taking risks under those conditions.

  • Jerryskids||

    being cautious about a relatively new disease showing up for the first time on American soil isn't a fail, and neither is climate change skepticism, or wanting to end abortion after 20 weeks

    I agree, we should have nuked Africa to keep the E. boli viruses from immigrating, climate change is a Chinese plot just like fortune cookies, and wanting to end abortion is the fundamental basis of science.

    Now you want to agree with me or you want to henceforth and forever more be branded a Science Denier?

  • d3x / dt3||

    Erring on the side of caution with an emerging pathogen would seem prudent. That is especially true with one that showed a case-fatality rate of 90% in one epidemic.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    It would be prudent to err on the side of science instead of feelingz. But that's too much to ask of self-appointed experts.

    What distinguishes your attitude from proggies gun control? Caution, err on the side of caution, instead of facts.

    You should investigate the precautionary principle, it's right up your alley.

  • R C Dean||

    It would be prudent to err on the side of science instead of feelingz.

    Indeed, and so long as the science is "our counter-measures have failed and we don't know why", your feelings that its mean to have a travel ban should take a back seat.

    What distinguishes your attitude from proggies gun control?

    Gun crimes are not a transmissible disease?

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Science says your feelings about transmissibility are wrong. I don't have feelings about a travel ban one way or another; but science says it was not dangerous and was counterproductive.

  • kbolino||

    Science says

    1. Propose hypothesis
    2. Perform experiment
    3. Collect data
    4. Refine or reject hypothesis and repeat

    ... that's it

  • WTF||

    No, that can't be, I have it on good authority that science means "believe what I believe or you're TEH STUPID!!!1!!!!"

  • R C Dean||

    Science says your feelings about transmissibility are wrong.

    The science at the time said "Our countermeasures have failed and we don't know why."

    We are talking about rational policy in light of the state of the science at that time. Once the science changed (we learned why the countermeasures failed), then you can have a different policy discussion.

    Feelings about transmissibility had little to do with it. Risk aversion/acceptance always has some non-rational component to it, of course (both yours and mine), but that's policy, not science.

  • R C Dean||

    science says it was not dangerous and was counterproductive.

    As I pointed out, the article making this claim is weak.

    There is no "science" about whether the ban was counterproductive. There is a poorly argued policy preference, is all.

    Science concluded later that transmissibility followed a process that a travel ban wouldn't materially affect. That was later, and I dropped my support for a travel ban in light of these facts.

  • BearOdinson||

    Science says nothing of the sort. Science "says" what transmission rates are (given certain assumptions), what mortality rates are, etc.
    People have to make decisions based on their understanding of risk. Risk=probabilityXconsequences. Probability is fairly easy to calculate, mathematically consequences are somewhat harder, but can still be worked out. The bigger point, though is deciding what is an acceptable risk. That isn't science, it is judgement.

  • JWatts||

    "What distinguishes your attitude from proggies gun control? Caution, err on the side of caution, instead of facts."

    The critical difference is that the talk was about a limited air travel ban for a few months to a specific region due to an imminent potential threat. Proggies want to remove everyone's guns permanently.

    So your comparison is a Fail.

  • Jickerson||

    It's just a little government interference, so it's okay.

  • kbolino||

    Nobody said it had to be done by the government. There are plenty of reasons why an airline, for example, might not want to ferry people with contagious, highly lethal diseases.

  • buybuydandavis||

    What distinguishes your attitude from proggies gun control?

    The second amendment does not enshrine a citizen's right to keep and bear Ebola.

  • Skye Walker||

    This virus spread like it did in West Africa because the traditions of the people demanded that one touch the dead body of a corpse, and no one would listen when the doctors and aid workers came in telling them to stop. In fact, there was a local effort convincing the people that it was the doctors that were killing them.

    We've known how the virus spreads since, oh, the 70's.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Oh Ron being cautious about a relatively new disease showing up for the first time on American soil isn't a fail, and neither is climate change skepticism, or wanting to end abortion after 20 weeks.

    Those leaped out at me as well.

    As Reason goes to the Proggy side ideologically, they increasingly go to the Proggy side tactically.

    Trump is Da Debil, therefore the truth of any charges against him are irrelevant. Just throw shit at the wall until it sticks. Also, because Science!

    Perhaps instead of playing Trump, and simply grading others, Ron would like to back up his claims with, you know, facts, arguments, and science? Nah!

  • tarran||

    Trump is exactly right on Climate Change (at least in the bits Ron Bailey quoted)

    1) The developed word having banned "polluting" activities, has effectively exported those activities to third world countries, with the Chinese being the primary beneficiary of this opportunity to do the things Americans no longer are allowed to do.

    2) What little effect humans have had on the Earth's climate is well within the "benign warming" territory, and will be for much of the next century if not forever.

    3) There are far more urgent environmental problems confronting the world.

    Even if he has accidentally stumbled into his position, his position is the rational, evidence based one.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Yes, even if climate change is wholly anthropogenic, the only problem with this part of Trump's statement is the word "just".

    I think that climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money.
  • BearOdinson||

    As far as fetal pain goes, you link to a 1 page white paper produced by the ACOG. They reference a review of literature published in JAMA in 2005. That was 11 years ago. To think that a person may feel differently regarding when a fetus is capable of feeling pain, within a few weeks, hardly qualifies as failing the test of science. (Now if he said a fertilized egg feels pain, then perhaps.)

    And climate change, really? So what a candidate score if they said:
    "Warming is probably happening, and a large part of it could very well be attributed to human behavior. So what? There are just as many positive effects that could occur as negative ones." Would they pass or fail?

    I tend to agree with you regarding Ebola, however, there is a reasonable discussion to be had regarding at what point the govt can put restrictions on those who are coming from abroad. This is partly a philosophical debate, as well as looking at the data.

    I will give you Yucca Mountain, bio-tech and vaccinations causing autism (which is a different argument than should people be forced to give their children vaccinations).

    And frankly, I still have yet to see what point evolution vs. creationism vs. ID has to do with electing a President. Granted I am most definitely not a Bible believer (it is just as likely that the world was created from the first giant Ymir as the world is only 6000 years old), but I really don't care what a person believes in this arena.

  • BearOdinson||

    I went back to how you scored Rand Paul regarding climate change and you gave him "passable" for voting for the Hoeven amendment but voting against the Schatz amendment. Essentially saying that climate change is happening, and there is some likelihood that man is causing it, but that there is also some doubt as to how significant man's effect is. And that only qualifies as "passing"

    And Ted Cruz announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Has NO position on evolution vs. creationism but you gave him "worrisome".

    And Rand basically gave no position on the age of the world and you said "Pander". Fuck me, maybe he just doesn't give a shit, in terms of public policy!! And you gave him "unsatisfactory" on vaccination, even though his position is that he is not considering any change to policy, and recommends people vaccinate their children.

    Robbie, you aren't grading people on "Science", you are grading them on your interpretations.

  • BearOdinson||

    Rubio:
    Evolution: “I just think in America we should have the freedom to teach our children whatever it is we believe,” Rubio said in 2012. “And that means teaching them science, they have to know the science, but also parents have the right to teach them the theology and to reconcile the two things.” Biology in biology class and theology in bible studies. UNSATISFACTORY

    Fuck you, Robbie. So a man says in America, parents should have the freedom to teach science AND religion to thier kids, and you call that "unsatisfactory"? WTF. Even Steven Jay Gould believed in different arenas (and he was an atheist).

  • ||

    Who is Robbie?

  • BearOdinson||

    Fuck, fuck, fuck I did it again. I accidentally typed Robbie instead of Ron. (twice in fact)

    Where the fuck is that Gods damned edit button!!!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Does it really matter?

  • Atanarjuat||

    The lack of an edit button keeps everyone honest. Imagine if joe from Lowell could go back and edit some of the idiotic shit he wrote. He'd be perceived as slightly less of a dissembling buffoon.

  • JWatts||

    You can still have an Edit button with a 10 minute time out. That's time to correct a typo or bad grammar or even to realize what you wrote was stupid. Just show an Edit indicator with a time stamp.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Shhhhhh, shuddup shuddup! It's funnier when they think you're calling him Suave as an insult.

    He meant it that way, guys. PLAY IT AS IT LIES.

  • BearOdinson||

    Well if the hair fits....

  • ||

    You're in love with the hair.

  • ||

    Trump's statements on climate are about the politics, not the science. Or I should say, the "science." But unlike Ron, I'm not a magazine writer, I'm just a dumb scientist so wtf do I know?

  • Atanarjuat||

    ^this.

  • ||

    What does the nuclear triad have to do with science or nuclear power? Ummm, nothing.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "On the other hand, during the December 15 Republican candidate debate, Trump apparently did not know what the nuclear triad is."

    How does this have anything to do with Trump's understanding of nuclear energy or support for the Yucca Mountain depository? It seems Trump's views re: nuclear power are completely reasonable so you decided to criticize him for not knowing something related to national security but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the science of nuclear power.

    Goddammit, don't make me defend Trump!

    "Fetal Pain: In July, Trump evidently sent this statement to the Christian Broadcasting Network: “I support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and urge Congress to pass this bill. A ban on elective abortions after 20 weeks will protect unborn children. We should not be one of seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks. It goes against our core values.” FAIL"

    Ron, can you please explain why you think viable fetuses can't feel pain?

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    From your linked fetal pain article:

    "A rigorous 2005 scientific review of evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."

    At worst Trump was off by a little less than a month in this assertion, although one decade old study which uses the phrase 'unlikely' is hardly a smoking gun that proves Trump wrong on this matter.

    I literally googled "scientific studies on fetal pain" and there are a number of studies asserting fetal pain could exist as early as 17 weeks. This is not 'settled science' and it strikes me as unscientific to claim it's settled science based on one study.

    Moreover, Trump didn't even say fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. He said we shouldn't be one of '7 countries that allows abortion' after 20 weeks. How can you attack Trump allegedly based on his misunderstanding of fetal pain when Trump never even mentions fetal pain as part of his argument? What in Trump's actual statement is factually inaccurate?

  • Ron Bailey||

    I: See my "Do Fetuses Feel Pain?"

  • BearOdinson||

    Basically the current state of fetal neuroscience is that fetus' early on develop the nerve structures to sense pain, but don't have the cortical structure in place to truly "experience" pain. Frankly, that is as much philosophy as science.
    So what if the Rs said " science says that fetus can definitely feel pain at 24 weeks. And since there is bound to be a margin of error, 4 weeks (10 percent of the total gestation period) is reasonable to ensure that no fetus' who can truly experience pain will be aborted?" Would they still fail?

    Ron, basically anyone who is not doctrinaire in their pro-choice, AGW climate change and atheism would get fails on your test

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm pro choice until children are eighteen, and totally doctrinaire in my atheism, and I still give Ron a FAIL on the fetal pain question.

    Bullshit is bullshit, even when you're criticizing Trump.

    This is the magic of Trump. He so discombobulates the Powers that Be that they're incapable of making an argument that actually sticks against him. I think Trump is a psycho, but I find myself defending Trump out of basic honesty. It really pisses me off.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Also, if Trump's argument is that it's murder, why does it even matter if fetuses feel pain or not? Surely if I shoot someone in the head and they die immediately, it is still murder even though they never felt a thing.

    The bill is called the 'fetal pain capable whatever' but Trump doesn't even talk about fetal pain, merely about his view that abortion after the 20th week is wrong. Given that, where in his statement is there anything you can say is scientifically inaccurate? (BTW - I don't think Trump actually gives a shit about abortion after the 20th week, he's pandering to Republican voters. If you want to criticize him, hit him for his blatant pandering, not for a statement that seems completely lacking in problems from a scientific perspective).

  • Ron Bailey||

    I: The Trump statement says: I support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act...

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Are you blaming him for misnaming the bill or just for supporting a misnamed bill?

  • R C Dean||

    A rigorous 2005 scientific review of evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.

    Anyone who has been in a NICU can tell you this is utter horseshit, because there are preemies delivered before the third trimester who are in a lot of pain. The survival rate for second-trimester preemies is over 50%, last I checked.

  • SugarFree||

    Late 2nd semester. 50% survival isn't until week 24.

  • R C Dean||

    I haven't looked at it recently. You could be right. Having seen with my own eyes second-trimester preemies who are in a world of pain, I reject outright any study that says they can't feel pain.

  • R C Dean||

    One more note: I believe that the third trimester begins at week 27 or 28.

  • Animal||

    Our youngest was born at 30 weeks. I don't know about pain, but I had the impression she was pretty pissed off.

    Incidentally, today she's a pre-med student and a 2nd degree black belt, so I guess she overcame the early birth.

  • See Double You||

    Trump apparently did not know what the nuclear triad is.

    Without looking it up or reading the article, is the nuclear triad our nation's nuclear defense system composed of (1) land-based ICBMs, (2) strategic bombers, and (3) submarines carrying nukes?

  • See Double You||

    *Looks it up*

    YES, I WAS RIGHT!!! + 1 memory. However, the specific term for the nuke subs is Submarine-Launched Nuclear Missiles (SLBMs). Ah well; close enough.

  • See Double You||

    Fuck, "Nuclear" should be "Ballistic."

    *goes ballistic over lack of edit button*

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'd give you extra credit, seeing as subs could carry cruise missiles, some of which can carry nuclear payloads. I think various nuclear arms limitation treaties got rid of those, but don't hold me to that.

    The point is that subs can and have carried nuclear armed missiles that weren't ballistic. So you were extra right.

  • Animal||

    Yup. The Tomahawk is nuke-capable, IIRC.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Ron gets -5 points on global warming for stating that consensus doesn't matter but then going on to note that there's a consensus which is an important consideration. Best to just stop digging at that point.

  • Ron Bailey||

    All: Perhaps you'd like to click on the climate change links I provided? Just saying.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Science is not decided by polls, but it bears noting that a Pew Survey earlier this year reported that 89 percent of the earth science researchers in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) agreed that climate change was occurring primarily as a result of human activity.

    Just sayin.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Science is even less decided by anecdotes and personal feelingz than by consensus, unless it's some anonymous handle on a blog, who obvious has more skin in the game.

  • kbolino||

    Science is decided by mother nature.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, both have exactly the same impact: zero.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, both have exactly the same impact: zero.

  • John||

    Seriously Ron, why is Trump saying this a problem?

    And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems.” Bigger problems notwithstanding, it’s a FAIL.

    He is right. I honestly can't see a single thing wrong with that statement and am baffled by the fact that you consider it a FAIL, whatever the hell that means.

  • Mongo||

    I believe that climate change is partially due to man made events. I don'the believe in catastrophic climate change though.

  • John||

    Maybe Trump hates Science, but the fact that he thinks anthropomorphic global warning is a load of bullshit dreamed up by various people for the purpose of getting rich is not one of those things.

    Shame on Bailey for including that in this article and double shame on him for using the bullshit Newspeak term "climate change" instead of calling it what it is.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    What amazes me the most about you and all the other Ron-haters on climate warming if how you act as if the science is settled: the warmists are lying cheating hypocritical losers. In reality, the only thing settled is that all their models are crap, they do lie and cheat, but that has nothing to do with man-made climate warming. It isn't a binary proposition, either humanity-killing warming or nothing. To the contrary, anyone who denies that all the CO2 and other greenhouse gases which man has been spewing into the world have had no effect is as much a lying hypocrite as any warmist and his model. The truth of it won't be known for decades, and until then, the science is not settled.

  • John||

    You don't have to think the science is settled to realize that just because someone does think it is bullshit doesn't mean they are anti science. The science isn't settled. Therefore, not believing it is not a sign that you are anti-science.

    Again, Trump may hate science, but this is not evidence he does.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Yes I agree, the science isn't settled. You and the other deniers act as if it is, just because the proponents also act that way but in the other direction. Ron has made it clear he's in between, and you and every body else acts as if that makes him the worst kind of warmist. This has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with being hypocrites of the first water.

  • John||

    . Ron has made it clear he's in between,

    That is just not true. If Ron is "in between", why does he consider Trump's skepticism to be evidence of him being anti science? If Ron were actually in between, he would not consider Trump's statement a fail.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    There you go -- Ron has declared himself a lukewarmist, who thinks man is causing some problems, but not enough to warrant the crazy expenditures of the hot fanbois (Ron, correct me if I'm wrong). Yet you can't accept anything in between, so Ron is vile.

    Grow up.

  • kbolino||

    For all of the models based upon human activity, at least one of the following is true:

    1. It has been outright falsified
    2. The actual temperature falls at the lower end of predicted temperature range
    3. The model is too young and/or has been "retrained" too recently

    John's point is correct and calling him a "denier" is just an empty smear.

  • kbolino||

    The model is too young and/or has been "retrained" too recently

    For clarification, there is nothing wrong with a model being recently developed or recently retrained. But you can't make 20-year predictions with a model that has only been reliably predicting temperatures for less than half that time.

  • John||

    The bigger issue is that you can never definitively know that the model is correct. It is not like you can run experiments on the world's climate to test various hypothesis and counter factuals. The best you can say is "the model has correctly predicted the temperature". Even if you could say that, that is not definitive proof the model is correct since it is always possible the model just got lucky.

    Of course, these models have yet to do that. The whole thing is just crap.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You can never know that a model is correct and unless it uses first principles you already know it's wrong at the beginning, just not how wrong.

    The best you can say about a model is that it has skill, i.e. can make reasonably accurate predictions which in itsf is no guarantee it will continue to do so.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Eh? John denies global warming either exists or is a problem, with the model errors just part of his argument. Is that not denying?

  • R C Dean||

    What amazes me the most about you and all the other Ron-haters on climate warming if how you act as if the science is settled:

    Well, I think its pretty safe to say that the science is settled, at least to the extent that the global warming models, and the hypotheses they are supposed to be checking, have been falsified. That's how science works, you know.

    the warmists are lying cheating hypocritical losers.

    Many of them are, but that has nothing to do with whether the science is settled. Rather, it helps explain why they claim it is, when it either (a) isn't settled at all or (b) to the extent it is, the science has falsified their hypotheses.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    "What amazes me the most about you and all the other Ron-haters on climate warming if how you act as if the science is settled"

    You're citing the wrong people as the purveyors of "the science is settled"

  • Ron Bailey||

    J: What I was focusing on was "I am not a believer" - A better quotation would have been:

    “I’m not a believer in global warming,” he said after Hewitt asked about his views on climate change. “And I’m not a believer in man-made global warming. It could be warming, and it’s going to start to cool at some point. And you know, in the early, in the 1920s, people talked about global cooling. I don’t know if you know that or not.”

  • John||

    Okay. What difference does that make? What is wrong with him not being a believer?

  • Ron Bailey||

    J: See the links I supplied in a response above on what would persuade you of man-made global warming.

  • John||

    Easy Ron, actual predictions that are correct and a theory that doesn't involve confirmation bias. Everyone knows Co2 is not the most prevalent warming gas in the atmosphere. To believe that it can warm the atmosphere significantly, you have to believe that there are various things that multiply its effect. And that is textbook confirmation bias. The data doesn't match the theory, so we go looking for other things to explain that on the assumption that they must be there because the theory can't be wrong.

    I am sorry Ron but it is a crap theory and some day if you live long enough that fact will be so apparent even you will have to admit it.

  • John||

    Beyond that Ron, it is one thing to say someone is wrong. it is quite another thing to say that someone is so wrong that their position makes them "anti science". I understand you believe in AGW. I disagree with you but my problem is not with the fact that you believe.

    My problem is that you refuse to admit that anyone who disagrees could have a valid reason for doing so. And that is appalling.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Humans produce many, many heat engines including fission plants which release heat energy much faster than natural decay. That waste heat warms the planet. There is no doubt about that. So the statement that humans have 'contributed to global warming' is strictly true and says almost nothing. The fact that that waste heat causes a trivial temp increase does not invalidate that statement, but for all other purposes that amouny of warming is what is relevant and not simply the fact that there is warming.

    Now at this point you're saying "But, NAS, are you denying CO2 has any impact?!" To which I say no, but the relative impact is what matters and the evidence right now indicates a low sensitivity of no more than Arrhenius' original estimate and quite possibly less. And the reality is that all of the models with high sensitivity and high positive feedback are the ones failing. We do not understand all of the feedback processes. We do not understand cloud formation which could obliterate any net sensitivity to CO2. To blindly accept the consensus which has failed at its few falsifiable predictions is something other than science and would be treated with smug condescension if it were identified as what it truly is.

  • kbolino||

    The sun and the Earth's core are far bigger sources of heat than anything humans have (yet) done. But it is also fairly obvious that heat is escaping the planet about as quickly as it is reaching the planet. Any model that doesn't account for the reason why we aren't burning up in a perpetual accumulation of heat and/or freezing to death in a perpetual loss of heat can't possibly account for the effect of human activity over any long time frame.

    Even saying that "human activity contributes to global warming is strictly true" is a bit of stretch. It's granting the premise that there is something like "aggregate surface heat" which exists independent of the solar-driven thermal equilibrium. The greenhouse effect is not well understood, outside of literal greenhouses, and we are ill served by simplistic models that extrapolate from a few to a hundred cubic meters of air contained by glass to billions of cubic kilometers of atmosphere contained by gravity and magnetism.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    There is aggregate surface heat. The concept of an average surface temp is valid with a host of caveats. It doesn't matter ehat the earth and sun do. Human-caused waste heat will make the earth warmer than it otherwise would have been by a miniscule amount. It's still strictly true than driving your car directly creates global warming, but that's a purely pedantic point.

  • kbolino||

    It only "creates global warming" if there is warming. If the average surface temperature is going down, then more heat is being lost than is being produced. What is strictly true is "driving your car directly creates atmospheric heat", but temperature is a product of heat and is not just a monotonic ratchet.

    And the hell "it doesn't matter what the earth and sun do". A large volcanic eruption or a large solar flare could move the average surface temperature multiple degrees Celsius and the deviation could last for decades or longer.

    If aggregate surface heat is independent of solar or geothermal sources, then where does it come from? What drives global temperature, besides human activity?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You're not reading carefully. I didn't say that the temperature was independent of other sources. I said that all other things being equal driving your car adds heat and raises the temperature of the earth. That is the definition of anthropogenic global warming. Even if the planet were cooling, and it's not, driving your car would be creating AGW irrespective of the impact of co2.

    Temperature isn't a product of heat; it's temperature. I know this is pedantic but temperature and heat are easily misunderstood.

  • kbolino||

    I said that all other things being equal driving your car adds heat and raises the temperature of the earth.

    The earth is not a closed thermodynamic system, so how do you know that?

  • kbolino||

    I'm gonna have to review some thermo and come back to this later, but disregard my previous comment.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Did you do Bernie and Hillary too? I'd love to read about their position on these issues.

  • John||

    Sadly, at least from Ron's perspective, they are better on Global Warming than Trump is, though that says more about Bailey than it does about Trump.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Your personal insults say more about you than anyone else.

  • John||

    It is not an insult if it is the truth. If Bailey wants to buy into this crap, then he can expect to be called on it. If Bailey started putting out anti-vaccine stuff and calling anyone who disagreed, anti science, would you give him a pass? This is no different.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    You seem to be taking this a little personally.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    He's just super super serial.

  • loricooper1236||

    just before I saw the bank draft that said $7985 , I have faith ...that...my friend woz trully making money in there spare time at there computar. . there uncle haz done this 4 only twenty months and just now repaid the mortgage on there mini mansion and bought a brand new Dodge . learn the facts here now......

    http://www.Wage90.com

  • Ken Hagler||

    I'd consider voting for a candidate who got a score of zero by stating, "The US Constitution does not grant the President any powers relevant to any of these things."

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Well, that's no way to run a railroad. What do you think we are, libertarians?

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    Your vote will not count.
    But FWIW, I agree.

    Hey, what was Hitler's score?

  • Jackand Ace||

    I still hope you do the Dems.

  • John||

    “I support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and urge Congress to pass this bill. A ban on elective abortions after 20 weeks will protect unborn children. We should not be one of seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks. It goes against our core values.” FAIL

    How is that anti-science? The issue of fetal pain and fetal development is very much debatable. You don't have to agree with Trump on that but I don't see how his position is "anti science". I have yet to see any definitive proof that there is no such thing as fetal pain at 20 weeks.

    Even a left wing site like Factcheck.org considers the issue to be unresolved.

    Research on the topic has centered around the stages of brain and nervous system development, and what is known regarding the processing of pain in the brain. We reviewed the literature and spoke with several experts, and we conclude that a firm starting point for pain in the developing fetus is essentially impossible to pin down, and that definitive claims regarding pain perception at 20 weeks are unfounded.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/.....-20-weeks/

    There is no definitive answer. So how is taking either side anti-science?

  • R C Dean||

    Well, anyone who is researching nervous system development blah blah to find out if fetuses older than 22 weeks can feel pain is an idiot, because you can get a definitive answer to that question by going into a NICU and poking an actual live preemie with a pin* to get a pretty unmistakable answer.

    Note: the NICU nurses will most likely conduct their own experiment at this point re: your ability to feel pain.

  • John||

    There is that too RC. Apparently being pro abortion is what passes for science these days.

  • WTF||

    There is no definitive answer. So how is taking either side anti-science?

    Because there is science, and there is "science", which has as much to do with politics as it does with science.

  • ||

    It is worth pointing out that many 'scientists' fail on the question of global warming.

  • JWatts||

    Ron, I'd like to see you broaden the scope and include the Democratic nominees.

    Some additional Science questions:
    1) Does minimum wage increase unemployment?
    2) Do higher marginal tax rates reduce income mobility?
    3) Does the Laffer curve exist?
    4) Do you support the commercial use of space?

  • JWatts||

    5) Do you support an independent Cost Benefit analysis ranking of all EPA proposed changes?

  • John||

    Anyone who is skeptical of AGW is "anti science" but the issue of whether minimum wages decrease employment is apparently up for debate. Lovely.

  • JWatts||

    Yes, that's my subtle point. Also, the same with the Laffer curve. There are numerous studies that support the Laffer Curve and yet, I'm willing to bet that Bernie Sanders would say it was a crazy concept.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    He would surely Laff at your curve.

  • kbolino||

    There are some who are honest enough to admit that the Laffer curve "exists" (i.e., loosely models the interrelation of tax rates and government revenue) but will insist that we are "on the left side" (i.e., government revenue would be increased by greater tax rates, to a point). This could be true, but raising government revenue is not always desirable, and the curve changes over time. If we land ourselves "on the right side" in the future, then we'll have to cut taxes, right?

  • JWatts||

    "There are some who are honest enough to admit that the Laffer curve "exists" "

    Oh, I think that's a reasonable statement, but generally the Leftie's I've seen declare it Reagan Vodoo Economics without a moments introspection.

  • cesohiclut||

    Your family and earn. Start bringing $ 55 per hr just on a computer. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously. Start ,,, http://www.alpha-careers.com

  • Bubba Jones||

    where abortion is legal, providers should be legally required both to provide full disclosure of the possibility of fetal pain starting at 20 weeks and to offer pain-relief measures to suppress fetal pain to all women seeking an abortion.

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23285794

    Most studies disclose the possibility of fetal pain in the third trimester of gestation. This evidence becomes weaker before this date, though we cannot exclude its increasing presence since the beginning of the second half of the gestation.
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22023261

    If a behavioural and neural reaction to a noxious stimulus is considered sufficient for pain, then pain is possible from 24 weeks and probably much earlier. If a conceptual subjectivity is considered necessary for pain, however, then pain is not possible at any gestational age.
    PMID 20356798

  • Cytotoxic||

    ANY of those fail statements by Trump would cook him in a general. Anyone who thinks he has a mite's chance of being president is insane.

  • JWatts||

    “I support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and urge Congress to pass this bill. A ban on elective abortions after 20 weeks will protect unborn children. We should not be one of seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks. It goes against our core values.”

    If you think that comment would "cook" him in the general election, you're ignorant of the average American voter.

    I'm guessing you didn't realize how many countries restrict how long into the pregnancy an abortion can be performed.

    12 weeks - Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway
    18 weeks - Sweden
    13 weeks - Italy
    14 weeks - Spain
    12 weeks - Belgium, France, Luxembourg
    14 weeks - Austria, Germany, Switzerland

    Yep, Donald Trump, way to the Left of those hard core Right Wingers in Scandavia!

  • John||

    Cytoxic is profoundly ignorant. He has no idea how the rest of the world treats abortion. That would require him knowing something other than what the voices in his head tell him.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Anyone who thinks he has a mite's chance of being president is insane.


    Anyone who thinks a serial government criminal who gave our enemies all our State Department secrets ....
    Anyone who thinks a self declared Socialist ....

  • Cytotoxic||

    Lots of dyspeptic confused yokels here, pretending they understand anything about the natural world.

  • Tucci78||

    The Donald dumping on the anthropogenic global warming - er, "man-made climate change" - fraud is a definite PASS, and a strong one. Only a scientifically illiterate spastic pucker retains RELIGIOUS BELIEF in this preposterous fraudulence.
    .
    All Trump has to say is "not proven" (for the premise that a trace increase in a trace atmospheric gas component could POSSIBLY cause statistically significant - indeed, MENSURABLE - atmospheric planetary warming under the conditions prevailing on Earth is friggi' PREPOSTEROUS and therefore requires extraordinary levels of objectively demonstrable EVIDENCE in support thereof, all such evidence being utterly lacking) and he's steamrollered every other idiot, quack, charlatan and sucker who's yet pushed this "Aiee! We're All Gonna Die!" hysteria.

  • PolitiJim||

    Holy crap. "Reason" is unaware of satellite data showing 18+ years of NO Global warming? MIT Climatology Professor Richard Lindzen explains 90% of computer models fail (because they can't accurately account for a myraid of other influencing factors) - and can't accurately predict PAST history from data, let alone future. Here is a great video primer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jOD4CK8MSM#t=184

    And GMO's? Perhaps you are also aware of the myriad of studies from Purdue, MIT and elsewhere that conclusively show glysophate, not only reprograms the epigenetic aspects of DNA, but also mitochondrial dysfunction hijacking the immune and digestive system? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFX6vgVugew)

    Major GMO researchers - http://naturalsociety.com/form.....-not-safe/

    Or you are unaware perhaps of the papers published in The Journal of Organic Systems. It is full of very detailed evidence of the link between genetically modified ingredients and diseases such as liver failure, urinary and bladder cancers, hypertension, thyroid disease, stroke, obesity, and more.

    If anyone doesn't have their science straight - it's REASON.com.

  • Arthur45||

    The nuclear triad has nothing to do with science, so give Bailey a failing grade on that stupid remark.
    It also has nothing to do with nuclear power. Is Bailey really this dumb?
    Climate change (formerly global warming) has not been demonstrated as either 1) a threat of great proportions
    2) to the extent that carbon emissions have an effect, the future of energy is not towards continued carbon emissions. 3) renewables are a ridiculously stupid and inappropriate response to the threat , even if real. Only nuclear power will allow large reduction is carbon emissions, something Trump supports. Trump beats Bailey for making the best choice. Bailey has failed by believing "climate experts" who don't exist, and a science which has
    shown no ability to correctly model and predict Earth climate changes. There has been no significant warming since 1998 and claims that the past years have been "the warmest on record" rely on the most biased and inaccurate and inappropriate temp data series we have (landsat), instead of unbiased satellite sensing. Fetal pain is real - Bailey must not read the science journals.
    Bailey seems assure that vaccination have no causal link to autism. Bailey can't know this, nor can anyone else,
    based on what we know (not much). Bailey has failed again.
    .

  • buybuydandavis||

    Ebola: On October 24, 2014 Trump tweeted: "Ebola has been confirmed in N.Y.C., with officials frantically trying to find all of the people and things he had contact with. Obama's fault." - "I have been saying for weeks for President Obama to stop the flights from West Africa. So simple, but he refused. A TOTAL incompetent!" FAIL

    OPEN BORDERZ for Ebola!

    Because death by hemorrhagic fever is better than having your Progressive friends call you a racist!

  • piperTom||

    Bailey's choice of framing for the climate change issue is typical: "the trend toward higher global average temperature over the past 50 years is at least partially the result of human activity". This is the only question that the far left wants to address -- because if humans caused ANYTHING, it must be bad; it has to be stopped, no matter the cost!!!

    The fact that human activity has contributed to warming over a period of several decades is, of itself, nothing to get political about. Is this even harmful? If so, are there benefits to be weighed against? If the harm outweighs the benefit, what kinds of remediation are available. Then, please: what are the costs of these remedies? Last, and most important: can Congress be trusted to implement a fix without screwing us all in a big way?

    On this one issue, Trump passes (if you believe him).

  • Satoku||

    The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80.....kbank.net/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online