Democrats’ Intellectual Dishonesty is Montana’s biggest problem

by Dr. Ed Berry, NewsWithViews

Republicans and Democrats will always have different opinions on partisan issues. We get that. We can live with that.

Jim Webb, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate correctly said,

The other party is not the enemy. They are the opposition. In our democracy we are lucky to have an opposition, to have honest debate.

Both sides must come together and decide nonpartisan issues on the basis of truth.

Today, I come down on Democrats. First, to show I am fair and balanced, note I have written extensively in support of the nonpartisan CSKT Water Compact. I found Montana was much better served with the Compact than without the Compact, and Republicans who voted against the Compact were intellectually dishonest.

Now that I have made 80 percent of the Republicans in Montana’s 2015 House my opponents, but hopefully not my enemies, I will make opponents of most Democrats.

Today, the Missoulian published an article that reeks of Democratic dishonesty:

“UM professor who shared Nobel for climate work believes UM Foundation should divest its investments in fossil fuels, starting with coal.”

I begin my reply to this dishonest Missoulian article with my “Columbo” moment:

So let me get this straight. UM professor Steve Running, who is a forest ecologist, who has no physics degree but masquerades as an atmospheric physicist, who lies that he shares Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, who lies that a Peace Prize indicates expertise in science, who lies that our CO2 causes dangerous climate change, who does not use the scientific method, and who has no freakin’ idea of how the atmosphere works, now suggests the UM Foundation pull its money from fossil-fuel energy investments because he lies that doing so will help save the planet.

Have I made my point?

Professor Steve Running lies about having a Nobel Prize. The UM promotes his lie. The Missoulian, that should employ credible journalists, promotes his lie. Where do the lies stop?

Elected Democrats have claimed, in my presence, we have a global warming problem because Running said so and Running has a Nobel Prize so his statement means more than schmucks like me who say Running is wrong.

The Democrat’s evangelical promotion of their failed pseudo scientific climate theory is the worst intellectual failure of the Democratic Party. They have made their false belief a premise of their political religion. To them, it is a sin to question it.

These Democrats are as dumb as the kooks who believe our Earth and universe are 6000 years old.

If they were Aztecs they would assure you that cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple stairs causes rain.

They are so evangelical about their belief in Al Gore’s pathetic version of climate physics that they cannot even have a rational discussion with real climate scientists.

Are Democrats so intellectually deprived that they cannot understand the difference between Steve Running, a Democrat who lies about having a Nobel Prize, and Ivar Giaever, a Democrat who has a real Nobel Prize in Physics, who tells you Running’s idea about climate is pseudoscience and a cult religion because its believers reject data that proves their climate belief is wrong?

No, they are not. But as a group, Democrats won’t acknowledge that climate is a nonpartisan issue, and we cannot determine scientific truth by voting on it.

The Democrats’ false belief of climate is like Lysenko’s false view of biology. Russia used Lysenko’s intellectual dishonesty to support Russia’s political agenda.

Today, Democrats use their false belief of climate to promote their political agenda.

Lysenkoism set back Russia’s biological research for 30 years until Russia stopped it in 1964. The Democrat “Climate Lysenkoism,” if not stopped, can set back America’s climate physics 30 years.

The Scientific Method 101

For you who need a crash course in the scientific method, here it is. This should be taught in all high schools.

We get an idea or theory. To test our theory, we use our theory to make a prediction. Then we compare our prediction to new data. If our prediction disagrees with new data, our theory is wrong.

Richard Feynman explained the key to the scientific method:

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

A fundamental principle is we can never prove a theory true. Yet Democrat climate addicts claim they have proved our CO2 causes dangerous global warming. Nonsense.

We can only prove a theory is false. When we prove our ideas are false, we discard fiction. When we discard fiction, we approach truth. But we can never know if we have found the truth.

Therefore, real scientists must try to prove their ideas are false. Those who promote their idea as true and try to make it part of a political agenda are pseudo scientists.

Einstein famously said,

“Many experiments may show me right but it takes only ONE experiment to prove me wrong.”

Many experiments have proved the Democrat’s “Climate Lysenkoism” is false but they ignore such proof. Like Energizer Bunnies, they beat their drums to drown out truth. Their political agenda is more important to them than truth.

Here are two examples that prove the Democrats’ version of climate change is false. Climate models use the Democrat’s climate theory to predict future climate.

Today, 37 years after their predictions, we find climate models way over-predict future temperature. They are over by 2.5 times on average. This is unacceptable in physics. Therefore, following Feynman, the Democrat’s version of climate science is wrong.

A 2015 peer-reviewed scientific paper shows CO2 is not even correlated with global temperature. Where there is no correlation, there is no cause-effect. The paper shows the sun, not CO2, drives global temperature. If you still think otherwise, get over it. Welcome to the real world of climate physics.

The real “deniers” are those who refuse to follow the scientific method.

The Democrats and Steve Running do not follow the scientific method. If they did, they would conclude their climate theory is wrong. Then we could save America and Montana a lot of money. We could put people back to work producing abundant cheap energy from fossil fuels. We could improve our economy, our educational system, and our political decisions.

Democrats use what Feynman in 1974 called “cargo cult science.” Cargo cult science seems to be scientific, but it does not follow the scientific method.

Their claims that “multiple, independent lines of evidence show conclusively” that their belief is true, is cargo cult science.

Their claim that a list of organizations that agree with them proves their climate theory is true, is cargo cult science. Their belief that their ad hominem attack on those who show their theory is wrong proves their theory is true, is cargo cult science.

Their claims that “the projected rate of global warming is greater now than any time in the past 65 million years” proves their theory is true, is cargo cult science. Since climate models are wrong, their projections are wrong. Their claimed data are wrong.

Even IF today’s global temperature were greater than past global temperatures, this is meaningless. That’s because such data says nothing about the cause of global temperature change. The whole public distraction over temperature change, glacier change, species change, etc., is irrelevant to the key question of what causes the change.

Here’s a big problem the Democrats have caused.

The UM has “educated” a generation of Montanans to believe cargo cult climate science. These students don’t know the difference between cargo cult science and real science.

The biggest omission in Montana’s education system is our schools do not teach the scientific method. This omission causes irrational thinking. We can’t trust the Democrats to solve this problem because the scientific method opposes their political agenda.

Therefore, Montana voters have only one rational choice if they wish to improve Montana’s schools: elect Republican Elsie Arntzen for Superintendent of Schools.

Montana climate politics

Montana Governor Steve Bullock (D) declared after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obama’s Clean Power Plan:

“I have been clear that I think these rules were unfair to Montana. Given the court’s ruling today, I am putting the work of the Clean Power Plan Council on hold. What we cannot put on hold, however, is the need to address climate change and embrace Montana’s energy future, and I am committed to ensuring we do so on our own terms.

Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R) supported the court’s decision:

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to halt implementation of the EPA’s carbon regulations is a clear victory for Montana and the 27 other states that are challenging those regulations in court. Today’s ruling will prevent Montana families, energy workers, businesses, and public agencies from bearing the burden of regulations that we believe will be overturned ultimately.”

Montana U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R) also supported the court’s decision:

“The Supreme Court decision to issue a nationwide stay on the Obama administration’s misguided, job-killing rule is great news for Montana. The so-called Clean Power Plan will kill Montana jobs and leads our country in the wrong direction — away from being an energy leader.”

Although climate is a nonpartisan issue, Democrats refuse to treat climate as a nonpartisan issue. Governor Bullock still wants to “address” climate change.

Montana Governor Race

Greg Gianforte (R) now challenges Governor Steve Bullock (D) for governor. Gianforte’s skeleton in his closet is his belief our Earth and universe are 6000 years old. So how can Gianforte hope to win?

The only way Gianforte can beat Bullock for governor is to prove to the voters that Bullock’s belief in “climate change” is more kooky and more economically destructive than Gianforte’s belief that our Earth and universe are 6000 years old.

If Gianforte has the smarts, balls, and public persuasion, he can turn the political battle for governor into the issue of who has the most kooky and destructive belief.

If Gianforte can make Montanan’s understand our CO2 is not dangerous, then he will have improved intellectual honesty, and he may just beat Bullock for governor.

He will need to bone up on the scientific method and real climate science to pull it off. The way I see it, this is Gianforte’s only chance to win.

4 thoughts on “Democrats’ Intellectual Dishonesty is Montana’s biggest problem”

  1. Well, you started off well and I was smiling until you brought up your theory regarding the earth's age and then claimed "Gianforte’s skeleton in his closet is his belief our Earth and universe are 6000 years old. So how can Gianforte hope to win?"

    I say certainly not with your attempts to discredit him as everyone knows that the Deamonrats as well as the Republicrats are all lairs. So you're not telling any of us something we don't already know.

    I say that the biggest problem today in Montana is not the "Democrats’ Intellectual Dishonesty" but rather the governor, our legislators and the majority of the people in Missoula and Helena who are striving to bring Syrian Muslims to our State.

    Are you aware of what happened in Hamilton on 02/18/16 are you not?

    But that's another matter for another day.

    So let me ask you Dr., have you every considered How old the earth is according to the Bible? Thousands of years, or millions of years?

    You do use the Bible for confirmation on your views do you not?

    I say that THE BIBLE IS CLEAR THAT ADAM, THE FIRST MAN, LIVED ONLY 6000 YEARS AGO.

    God created Adam directly from the earth on the sixth day of Creation Week. There was no evolution involved. So according to the Bible, the earth must be 6000 years old.

    The following timeline by Theodore Pederson appeared in The Christian News, March 26, 2001, page 18 [with one error corrected — Creation Tips editor].

    How old is the earth?

    If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”

    If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)

    If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.

    If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.

    If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.

    If we go back 5000 years, we approach the birth year of Noah, who followed God's command to build an Ark to preserve life through the worldwide flood.

    If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).

    The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

    If not, then when?

    Although many people don't accept the Bible's timeline of history, they have difficulty deciding exactly when to start disagreeing with it.

    Was Jesus Christ real? The Bible says he was, and no serious historian doubts it.

    Was King David real? The Bible says he was. Again, there is no reason to doubt it.

    Was Abraham real? The Bible says he was. There seems no reason to doubt this either.

    Was Noah real? The Bible says he was, and Jesus Christ confirmed it (Matthew 24:38).

    There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction.

    Was Adam real? Well, the Bible says he was, and the essential theological doctrine of sin comes from Adam's disobedience. If Adam wasn't real there would have been no need for Christ to come to earth in human form and die to pay for the sins of mankind.

    And Adam was the first man, created in the first week of the earth's existence.

    According to the Bible, he lived about 6000 years ago.

    So according to the Bible, the world also is about 6000 years old.

    However as you have your degree in Physics, allow me to share just a few Scientific Facts.

    1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

    2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

    3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He…hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

    4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).

    5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

    6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

    7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together…"

    8. "Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).

    9. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

    10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.

    11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

    I believe that God's Word which is perfect, makes it clear.

    And finally, with respect to global warming, the Bible provides much more guidance than “creation care” concepts.

    The Bible does not speak directly about what we call global warming. It does, however, provide a framework for evaluating the merits of global warming claims.

    In Genesis 1:1 we are told that “God created the heavens and the earth.” Creation obviously includes the atmosphere. In fact, if the atmosphere was not created on Day One, it certainly was in place by Day Two when God “separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse” (Genesis 1:6–8).

    Aside from all the other reasons for which God may have created plants, the Bible specifically states that He made them for human and animal food, and this is largely being ignored by global warming advocates (Genesis 1:29–30). Since all animals and mankind were vegetarians originally, plants were created as a reliable and sustainable source of food.

    It should also be noted that as plants began growing and covering the earth following Creation week, they were removing CO2 from the environment. Land plants removed CO2 from the atmosphere while marine plants removed CO2 from the ocean. In addition, marine animals that developed carbonate shells also removed CO2 from the ocean.

    Carbon dioxide is being described as a pollutant by global warming advocates. In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate vehicular green house gases (Massachusetts versus EPA, Case #05-1120, decided 4-2-07 by a 5/4 margin). This was the conclusion of a suit filed by several states, including California, that were concerned that the federal government was not doing enough to avert a global warming disaster. After reviewing this issue, the EPA proposed regulating CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

    However, there are many benefits to CO2. Carbon dioxide is naturally occurring and, rather than endangering life, it is necessary for life. Plants cannot live without CO2 and man cannot live without plants. In addition to this indispensable benefit, there are other major benefits. Without an atmosphere containing GHGs the earth could not support life.

    There is no reliable scientific data to prove a worldwide global warming problem today. The predictions of disaster are all based on a questionable temperature history and an even more suspect array of highly biased computer projections. As we all know, computer output is only as good as the input data and the calculation components. Both are highly suspect.

    Finally, reputable scientists recognize that much of earth’s past was notably warmer than at present (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002, p. 34). The earth is obviously not warmer than it has ever been, and the current surface global temperature measurement system is too imprecise to identify a reliable trend. Obviously, the reported surface temperature history does not prove global warming.

    Remember; God is in absolute control of His creation. He is the Creator (Genesis 1 and 2). God destroyed His creation in the days of Noah with a worldwide flood (Genesis 7–9). God sets the boundary for the seas (Job 38:8–11, Psalm 104:9, Jeremiah 5:22) and controls the weather: lightning (Job 28:26, 37:3), hail (Job 38:22, Psalm 147:17, Haggai 2:17), rain (Job 28:26, 37:6, Psalm 147:8), and snow (Job 37:6, 38:22, Psalm 147:16). Someday God will destroy this earth and establish a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1).

    Man is not in control of the weather and this present earth is only temporary.

    And thank you for your article on Newswithviews. It does give one a chance to pause and think.

    Bill

  2. Dr. Ed; I agree with you most of the time, especially on climate change. On the water compact, you said it was pass by a nonpartisian vote, Dr. Ed it was not nonpartisian . The republicans that voted were not Republicians, they were RINO's. This is the reason I want the primary close, only registered republican will be able to vote in our primary. Independents will have to wait till the general election.

    1. Dear Fred, The Water Compact was nonpartisan because we could find the truth about it ONLY by studying the facts. I studied the facts.

      The Republicans who voted against the Compact did not look at facts. They are the ones who made the Compact partisan and this was a big mistake. They believed the Compact an Agenda 21 government conspiracy. Then they invented invalid "reasons" to oppose the Compact. Compact attorneys destroyed ALL the opponents' legal claims. Their nonlegal claims were totally absurd. No sane person who properly reviewed the Compact would have opposed the Compact.

      The Republicans who voted for the Compact were the smart Republicans. Those who voted against it are the real RINOs. They are not conservatives. I will write more on this later.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.