Doherty won’t water down his views

New Jerseyans will accept some conservative opinions...but being right-wing on the environment isn't one of them.

Denying that we face serious environmental problems is a foolish way to start a statewide campaign.

Those words yesterday will come back to haunt him.

He would rather grapple with science and fight windmills then actually affect change. Instead of tackling a issue that regardless of whether it is manmade or not is still an issue. And if global warming turns out to be a farce, are we not better for taking a few precautions. Doherty's ridiculous positions will get him press..but that won't translate into votes, in the primary OR general. Doherty is a carpetbagger who is full of hot air.

"I have come to the realization that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."

Doherty and Pennacchio have some 'splainin to do over their destructive, anti-science comments on the environment. While the rest of the world is moving forward, and scientific consensus has been reached on the veracity of global warming, fundamentalists like Doherty refuse even to acknowledge the phenomenon as real and thus hinder efforts to address this very real threat. I can't help but think that special interests groups, those that would fund a Doherty senate campaign, are pulling some of the strings here.

Not only is Doherty out of touch with the state's voters on environmental protection, he takes an equally fundamentalist view on abortion (he's been attending rallies to overthrow Roe v. Wade) and stem cell research (which he opposes, particularly embryonic). Anti-science and anti-environment are two positions which will not go over well with N.J. voters, and Doherty, along with Rep. Garrett, are two politicians who are better suited for, say, Alabama politics than N.J.

Some poster from politicsnj.com composed an overview of Doherty and his positions here: http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4612

A few decades ago, scientists were claiming that the Earth was cooling. Now, they say, it is warming. The question is, whether or not the cooling and warming process is cyclical. If the process is cyclical (this shouldn't be hard to prove, by looking at earlier numbers), the question is, "how much are human activities" a factor. There is no reason to call Doherty a "whackjob". Centuries ago, scientists believed that the Earth was flat, and that was considered to be science. Numbers could be manipulated to "prove" any view. For example, if the global warming were cyclical, one may choose not to show the period when the temperature was on the decrease, to prove that it was not cyclical.  Is there a connection between the solar activity and temperature here on Earth?  What would happen if we were to compare the graph of solar activity with the graph of Earth temperature?  Would there be a correlation?   I'm not a scientist, but given how different studies (of topics unrelated to global warming), that are all based on science, seem to contradict each other, I feel that it would not be inappropriate to question scientific findings.   That is the way, after all, the science evolves.   Surely, the scientists no longer believe that the Earth is flat.

Respectfully, I don't see Doherty's brand of conservatism as benign in the least bit, and his views on abortion border on the misogynistic in my book. If one is arguing against abortion rights based on the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, but still wants to ensure women, not the government, has a right to make decisions on whether to bring a fetus from conception to birth. The Doherty plan would pre-empt a woman's ability to make such a decision; he is not arguing a state v. federal rights opinion on the matter.

In a related matter, Jonathan Rauch wrote an article a few years ago in 'The Atlantic' that brings up the same federalism v states' rights argument on gay marriage. He seems to be in line with Zyrol's judicial philosophy: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200404/gay-marriage

Concerning global warming, there's nothing wrong with questioning scientific axioms; in fact, I think that most scientists welcome such scrutiny. But the evidence for man-made causes for global warming is overwhelming;, natural warming of the environment that comes in cycles is not the case here: instead an accelerated (degrees warmer over time has never been like this) growth in warmth that we now have is unprecedented. This has been confirmed by multiple organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/13/global.warming/ The notion of us having a "debate" on global warming needs to be replaced with concrete steps to stop this very real phenomenon, including the recently-passed N.J. legislation.

... how you say it. I like Mike and have my own reservations about the root causes of global warming (for instance, he surface of Mars is heating up in proportion to the Earth, which is an indicator that the sun has been more active in recent years), but it pains me to say that he comes across as a bonehead in this case.  Will someone tell the GOP braintrust that going green is not tantamount to renouncing economic sanity, motherhood and the American way.  If the GOP would formulate its own visionary environmental initiative, they could dominate all things environmental for the next decade.   The GOP plan must make the case that going green means: (1) working toward ending dependency on foreign oil, which will effectively bankrupt funding for radical islamic terrorism as we know it; (2) laying the groundwork for the next great great wave of technological advancement, which inevitably leads to the creation of millions of new jobs (imagine dozens of new Microsofts springing up) and the accompanying explosion in economic growth; and (3) a cleaner environment in which to raise your children, complete with significant health benefits including reduction in cancer rates (who hasn't lost someone they love to this vile disease?).  Peace, prosperity and a healthier environment are goals all Amercans share.  If Doherty would articulate a coherent policy that  synthesized these concepts, he could not only compete for but win the Senate seat.  Whoever is advising him to assume an "in your face" posture best suited for a professional wrestler is destroying his candidacy.  I hope Mike reads this and takes it to heart.    

LordXenu -- Good lord, could we stop with the right wing myths here?

The Mars is warming thing is also a fib. There is one scientist -- and he is an aged space scientist from Russia and not a climatologist -- that claims Mars is warming and that this has ANYTHING to do with earth. ONE FRICKING SCIENTIST. Everyone else says he is a crackpot.

Mars has a thin atmosphere, and doesn't trap heat. That is why the sunny side is fricking hot as hell and the shady side is cold as Stalin's heart.

Earth has a thick atmosphere, and does trap heat. That is why we have days and nights that are relatively similar to the tune of twenty degrees or so.

If the sun were responsible for significant warming on Mars -- which doesn't retain heat -- then we would be burned off the face of our planet because it holds heat.

I was actually referring to the NASA findings, which may be explained as follows:

"Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds."  Timesonline article. 

I stated that this type of data gives me pause to question root causes of global warming theory -- not whether the earth is warming.  The reality is that the nature of science is such that a definitive explanation for a particular phenomenon is not always at hand.  For instance, your explanation as to why Mars' surface is heating is quite different than Ms. Fenton's (and even she uses the qualifying word "believes").  I would assume that she is far more learned in this particular field than either you or I.  Yet I process both opinions and weigh them appropriately.  I tend to read everything on both sides of any issue and try not to rush to judgment.  The inconvenient truth is that even within the community that adheres to human activity causing global warming, there are varying degrees as to the consequences thereof.  Even Al Gore's own consultant for "An Inconvenient Truth" recently took Gore to task for exaggerating the potential effects of global warming.

Moreover, it is particularly interesting that you attack the validity of the Russian scientist for not being a climatologist.  That is exactly one of the bases several of the world's foremost climatologists cite to criticize the global warming modeling that has been done.  Many of the multitude of scientific experts who have led the charge in the area of global warming modelling are not actually climatologists but rather physicists and mathematicians.  The argument advanced by climatologists is simply that climate changes are inherently unpredictable and unable to be reduced to a hard and fast mathematical equation.

What is truly frightening about this debate is the fact that scientists disagreeing with the extent to which man's activities are contributing to warming have had their lives threatened (see Timothy Ball) or funding for research cut off.  This new secular inquisition increasingly mirrors those led by radical religious fundamentalists in days gone by.  My mind remains open on this issue.  Sadly, for many others this is irrefutable dogma.  That is anathema to true scientific inquiry.

And just Mike Doherty either. I am referring to Patriot NJ who makes a great point. The reason Mike Doherty doesn't sound like a "typical New Jersey Republican" is because the NJ Republican Party is made up of a bunch of RINO moderates who govern a little less left than their true liberal counterparts. We need more Mike Doherty's, who should be PRAISED for sticking to his guns and not changning his positions on issues, like, say Hillary Clinton has on many issues during the Presidential campaign.

Doherty wants voters to overlook the issues and vote for him because he's an Irish Catholic and has a 'y' at the end of his name. Sounds like a winning strategy to me. By the way, didn't New Jersey already elect an Irish Catholic with a 'y' at the end of his name. I believe his name was McGreevey.

Doherty is a scumbag. He filed an ethics complaint against Linda Greenstein for sponsoring Clean Elections, but didn't file one against Baroni. Guess he doesn't have the guts to take on members of his own party.

In science class you take facts that are connected and make an  assuption, test the assuption.  If it does what you think it will do, there is a good chance that your assuption is correct.

What do we know about Doherty; 

1.  He does not beleive that the present humans on this world has anything to do with global warming.

2.  He thinks you should not vote for cleaner elections if it means your district's election might cleaner, if your a Democrat, sorry only Republicans should do that.

3.  He thinks a bb gun can't hurt anyone thats why it should not be considered a "gun".

4.  He is more concerned about running in the 2008 Republican Primary for US Senator then in caring and working for his district that he now represents (maybe for only a few short months).

Well we did enough tests and I think the results of the tests indicate that he may be, on his way to being a "wackjob".  He will not get that full title until he starts saying  we should send in more troops to Irag or invade Iran.          

Your humble reasoned take on the causes of global warming is somewhat refreshing (coming from a Republican).

Keep in mind that there are many well credentialed scientists today (mostly in the pay of the tobacco industry) who will still make the case that there is no proven causal relationship between smoking and cancer.  Or that DDT and/or lead/asbestos isn't such bad stuff.  The same applies to pesticides in foods.

Given a majority of scientists taking a position that is against the economic satus quo vs a minority siding with that status quo......and given all the pressures that the monied status quo has and does apply to academia through all manner of levers; I would much rather err on the side of caution on the global warming issues.

I wish you Republicans could put aside your ideological fixations long enough to give a **** about the future of our species.

After all, you must love your own children and grand/great grandchildren? 

Would it be such a terrible thing if a hundred years from now we had a clean healthy environment and a thriving green economy and it turned out that Gore was actually wrong?

On the other hand, if we listen to the Rush Limabaugh/Doherty line and the world of a hundred years from now is sheer hell; will it matter that the industrial status quo of the present cashed in for a few more decades???

Some issues transcend left v right politics and this should be one of them.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

"Doherty is a scumbag."

Wow, that's really deep analysis on your part.

I'm glad that Mike Doherty has the guts to call Global Warming what it is, junk science.

I'm still pulling for my boy Al Leiter though.

"Any Nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one" -Alexander Hamilton

It is quite obvious some people in this forum are being taken in by the global warming hysteria. For some, there is real concern for the planet, for others, like Martin, it is a chance to impose a socialist/communist agenda, in which government will dictate your way of life. The left wing wackos want to tell you what you can drive, how you live your life, what you can and cannot do....just look at some of the assinine legislation that is passed dictating to people how they should live their lives. As for global warming: The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades. The earth is over 3 billion years old. We have 150 years of teamperature records, and no real grasp the natural trends of the overall temperature of the earth for all 3 billion years. Can and should we do common sense things to help reduce CO2? Sure, but not to dictate to people their way of life and smothering job creating industry. As much as Martin doesn't like business, business creates jobs. Even the most ardent conservatives agree there are things we can do to help the environment. The Kyoto treaty was a farce that allowed China to produce twice as much CO2 as the USA and barely reduce their output while mandating the USA reduce their CO2 by 60 percent.

I find it just amazing that this topic is just passed by.

Global warming chatter about what MIGHT happen is great as a passtime, but illegal immigration WILL be the end of this country as we know it. I made the challenge earlier for the Frank fans to justify his votes on immigration and as of yet, no takers.

I can see it now, this race will be about discussing everything BUT the issue that can and most likely will bring us down. For those who feel obligated to dismiss Doherty as a viable candidate, show me one other interested in this race who has made a clear statement about illegal immigration.

It is mentioned in this article along with global warming, but the "D's" just love coming back to global warming because no one can provide a definitive answer on the topic. Chatter chatter.

Fact, illegal immigrants broke our laws the day they entered the country and that is a bad start. Give them a free pass? Then message is clear, only suckers follow the law in the US. Doherty will not support that policy, but Lautenberg clearly has, and he could lose on that issue alone.

Perhaps because of potential nominee Doherty's radical conservative views, The Cook Political Report is now rating Lautenberg's seat as "Safe Dem." http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2008%20sen_ratings_jun20.pdf

My only concern is that, with Doherty as the nominee, the RNC won't waste any more money in the state, as they did with Junior; the more resources wasted by the RNC in N.J., the better

my bad

This story is from last year.

Unless I missed something that Zimmer dropped out, this has to be a mistake being up now.

Mountaintop,

Good one! And with a year having passed since his comments, Mike does look a bit more prescient in retrospect, than he did back then, now doesn't he!

He made the comments before he could have read all about the NIPCC Study of the Heartland Institute from March of this year, the one seriously challenging some of the scientific underpinnings of the IPCC.

And, he made his comments before he could have read about the brand new resolution the American Physical Society, an association representing 50,000 scientists.

In spite of considerable efforts to suppress the work of scientific critics or even those who question the overall predominance of man-made factors in global climate change, many more scientists are now coming around to the view that solar activity and other natural factors predominate in the triggering of any climate changes.

He might have read about Steve McIntyre's discovery of the basic mathematical blunder in the "hottest year" (1998) claim by the Hansen set at NASA because that happened a year ago -- it's now back to 1934.  But, Mike made his statements before he could have read much of the latest rigorous work of Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit, challenging many of the mathematical and statistical assumptions underlying the proofs of the extent of warming, e.g., the hockey stick graphs. 

The truth is that we do not know for certain how much of the warming of the late 20th century was man made.  And we do not know how much may well be due to unusual sunspot activity, for example.  One thing we do know for sure is that the "debate is over" crowd have taken some real serious hits in the past year -- and they tend to be the same folks who insist that we remain wholly dependent on foreign sources of oil and high gas prices until we can get their "alternatives" in place.

by Trochilus

Martin,

As someone who has been so badly bamboozled as you have, don't you think it would be wise for you to be a little more cautious about attempting to belittle the views of others?

Why just two months ago, you announced to the world that you were pinching yourself over the dreamy prospect that former Senator John Edwards would become the Vice-Presidential candidate!

Tell us . . . do you now feel like a complete and utter fool for believing in him, or are you still in denial? You may recall that many of us tried to tell you many, many times what a putz the guy was. Tell us, how could you have been so wrong for so long?

On the topic at hand -- global warming and climate change. Your silly implication that those who question the IPCC are nothing but fundamentalists, is without any basis at all.

Why don't you read the NIPCC Study of the Heartland Institute published in March of this year, the scientific study seriously challenging some of the scientific underpinnings of the IPCC?  At least read the synopsis, if you don't have the time to read the full study.

And, why not read about the brand new resolution from the American Physical Society.  There is indeed a considerable scientific debate going on about the anthropomorphic basis of warming.

In addition, there is a good science policy blog called Prometheus with a few good recent posts by Roger Pielke, Jr. on the subject of the "hockey stick" controversy raised by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit.  

You may recall that Steve McIntyre was the guy who caught Hansen in the basic mathematical blunder involved in the "hottest year" (1998) claim, which was at the core of Hansen's original claims.  We now know that 1934 is back to the hottest year. 

Tell us, Martin, do you believe that solid mathematics in this subject is important?  I do!

Why don't you actually learn something before you falsely accuse others of being fundamentalist flat-earthers?  That way, you can avoid the future embarrassment of choosing to help promote a popinjay jerk like John Edwards! 

But as for your current embarrassment, you'll just have to learn to live with that!

by Trochilus