“Are we the party of carbon pollution forever in unlimited amounts?”
by Jim Campbell
From the ultra tree hugging site Climate Progress I urge you to click on the comments. They range from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh spreading disinformation, siting scientific data which is non-existent. Is a classic clueless love fest.
Just the facts ma’am, just the facts.
Perhaps those so enthralled with the faux science used to sell this hoax and con job might have done some home work. Virtually all, if not all computer models, ground temperature measurements, ice core samples, the now infamous “hocky stick” of James Mann, all cast into the dust bin of history. Perhaps those wanting to mix science with political might want to check out NOAA Satellite Information Service, a U.S. Government site, the fraudulent data uncovered by discussions of a small but influential group of scientists who have apparently taken their scientific work beyond the realm of scientific inquiry and into the domain of political activism. Finally these fake scientists in their own Emails.
You can get daily email updates on climate science, solutions, and politics by clicking here. If you want to know more about this website, start with “An Introduction to Climate Progress.” This is a Think Progress repost.
It’s always special to stay ahead of what those that walk among us and sadly vote are proposing. Ah but we are a Republic, and their opinions and beliefs are protected.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C.
Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to discuss clean energy legislation. During the interview, Graham warned his party that it will fall into irrelevancy if it continues to embrace climate change disinformers:
I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. … From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people.
It’s a hopeful sign that at least one leading Senate Republican is acknowledging the fact that Americans want clean energy reform. According to the Benenson Strategy Group, 58 percent of voters in 16 battleground states support a cap-and-trade bill like the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act that invests in clean, renewable energy sources. The same poll shows that Americans desire regulation of carbon polluters so much that 59 percent of voters believe the Environmental Protection Agency should act on the issue if Congress does not.
They are “in denial” about some of the most basic and well-accepted aspects of scientific understanding, one of them being climate change.
The Republicans have — as influential energizing spokespeople — the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, and etc. (Sorry if I have spelled a name incorrectly.) How unscientific and un-savvy can you get, really? Except for the present reality that millions of people are ideologically energized by them, they would be complete laughing-stocks, if that’s the right term. From a scientific standpoint, they are laughing-stocks. Ask any serious scientist who uses a real name — not an anonymous one — and who isn’t paid by them.
Then we have a basic inconsistency problem. Last night, I saw Hannity (on Fox) treat global warming as if it was a fake, silly, ridiculous fabrication that only an idiot would believe. But Rupert Murdoch is on record committing to carbon neutrality for NewsCorp, and NewsCorp has a substantial piece on the web committing itself to carbon neutrality. Meanwhile, although ExxonMobil is irresponsible in its actual actions and in its efforts to deceive the public and hamper legislation, nevertheless, when push comes to shove and he is pressed for a comment on the science itself, I think (from what I’ve seen) even Rex Tillerson does not disagree with the overwhelming scientific view, and even he sees global warming as a real risk.
So, people like Hannity (and Beck and Limbaugh and Palin) are out there in “la la land”, far out on a limb that is being chopped off as we speak, by science and by a growing number of folks who are (finally) seeing light.
Most young people will have none of it. In my view, most of them think that adults have made a large mess of things, and most of the adults insisting on a continuance of that mess (in the case of global warming) are among the Republican leadership and main Republican spokespersons. Credibility is going down the tubes, fast. If the stakes weren’t so high — global warming, energy independence, health care, and the basic functioning of government — it would be amusing to watch as they (Republican and Tea Party leadership) slowly (although sometimes quickly) shoot themselves in the feet and dismantle their own credibility.
Someone should really “call out” Hannity (as one example) on this. Point out the dramatic incoherence by comparing what Hannity says with what Murdoch says (at least) about carbon neutrality. (Who knows, for goodness sake, what Murdoch actually thinks, but it’s sufficient to compare what he says to what Hannity says, and then also grab a few already-existing quotes from Rex Tillerson and etc.) You wind up with an incoherent and inexplicable mess. Republican party leaders and etc. are not only contradicting science, they are also contradicting each other all the time, and you can’t trace any of it back to sense. It all becomes nonsense.
But, not enough light is shined on these things. That’s a problem, once again, of the media.
Well, that’s it for now.
Be Well, if you can, even amid the incoherence,