Day 4: GOP Alternate Realities on Climate Change

A small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens.

Here’s part two of my climate change feature, where I describe some of the problems with the Republican stance on climate change. It boils down to two distinct categories: the true disbelievers and the people that are smart enough to know better. I suppose the second group would be a bit easier to control, from a donor-puppetmaster viewpoint. But it doesn’t matter, really, why they believe what they believe, or if they believe the bullshit they’re spewing at all. The only thing that matters is their “NO” votes on climate change action and other environmental issues. Let’s look at some of the worst offenders from this catastrophic “ideology.”

The Daily Show recently highlighted (lowlighted?) some of the people on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that have an unbelievable lack of understanding of basic science. Here are some of the examples from that segment (pardon the extensive quoting, but it really goes to the heart of the matter). When Rep. Steve Stockman started in on “global wobbling,” Dr. John Holdren, the White House Science Advisor, had to explain to him about how that process is very slow and takes place over 10,000s of years. When Rep. Dana Rohrabacher asked, “When is CO2 harmful to human beings?,” Holdren was forced to reply, “We’re interested in its effect on the world’s climate,” not humans. When Rep. Larry Bucshon cited mixed reaction from the public, Holdren rightly said, “You should look at the scientific literature rather than the public comments.” These are two classic Republican arguments: you have your science wrong, and public sentiment differs.

Then it goes a bit more into crazy town. Bucshon’s reply you may have heard before, but the gall of it is stunning: “Of all the climatologists that depend on the climate changing to get keep themselves publishing articles, yes, I could read that, but I don’t believe it.” Jon Stewart translates this argument as: “I do not believe the scientists because it’s their profession, not their hobby,” and then of course points out the real reason for Bucshon’s obstinance: that his top three contributors from 2013 - 2014 are Murray Energy, Koch Enterprises, and Peabody Energy. “If scientists could be bought, these motherfuckers would’ve made it rain in nerdtown,” said Stewart.

Accusing scientists of only talking about climate change in order to save their jobs is such a  preposterous notion, you almost have to admire the trickery of it: the “deniers” take the very reason they’re so opposed to these measures -- profit -- and accuse the truth-tellers of being shells and sell-outs. So, scientists are in it for the money is Republican argument #3.

“Scare tactics like that are really appalling,” said Buschon, in my last transcribing from that Daily Show segment. That makes the fourth reply by these guys, You’re being hyperbolic or too frightening. And this is only the tip of the (melting) iceberg of astonishing methods the Republicans use to mock Democrats and scientists. One more: remember when Obama said we could try to “slow the rise of the oceans.” Republicans made it sound like he thought he was a Jesus-figure with that line. (There are entire websites devoted to making the science behind this sound like being part of a deranged religious cult.) Nevermind that the reality is we could definitely mitigate the effects of climate change if we put our minds to it.

One other thing: in Day 3’s post, I said: “Suddenly colonizing on space stations and other planets seems less whimsical and more urgent.” Turns out, one of the climate change “deniers” have that exact motive, too. Congressman Mo Brooks signed a letter that stated, “We can reorient NASA’s mission back toward human spaceflight by reducing funding for climate change research.” Unbelievable.

So whether it’s Louis Gohmert or Steve Stockman on the dipshit aisle, or Mitt Romney or Darrell Issa on the “evil and calculating side,” what matters is how they vote, how they act, what they do, not so much the false arguments. (And yes, I find deliberately doing nothing on climate change to be an evil act. Politics should be about morality.)

Florida is facing this share of nonsense. As the saying goes, we are the Sunshine State, yet we are not harnessing the power of that energy at all. (I have four interviews at FloridaProgressives.Com that either focused entirely on the environment or had sections devoted to it; I encourage you all to give them a listen or a read.) And the two highest-profile politicians that have pulled the “I’m not a scientist” card are Rick Scott and Marco Rubio. These deniers have no place in politics.

So, I’ve looked briefly at the media and Obama’s roles in the delayed climate change response, and the horrible actions of the GOP, right here. Tomorrow I’ll conclude this topic with what the environmentalists have been doing. Thanks for reading.

I encourage responses, debate, corrections, feedback, questions, criticism, and all that in the comments section below or on my Twitter. Relevant, substantive comments could make their way into future columns. Thanks for reading.