Pic Of The Moment: GOP On Climate Change: Ignorant And Proud

[EarlG]

Here Are All the Senators Who Do and Don't Believe in Human-Caused Climate Change

Scientific opinion on climate change

Follow @demunderground

[BlancheSplanchnik]

1. if we let the stupids win this......

We have no spines to support our big smart brains.

[trof]

9. The stupids won the senate.

We're screwed.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

10. yes they did.

Remember, though, PBO said right from the very start, it's up to US, the people to speak, take action, make our direction unshakable.

We already know, from the 2014 ballot initiatives to the response to the SOTU, that the majority support progressive ideals.

[raouldukelives]

22. The only thing standing between progressive ideals and us is Wall St.

Sadly, the more money they have, the less democracy we experience. It is up to us, all of us, to take action.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

23. yes. n/t

[RiverNoord]

15. If they were stupid, they wouldn't have won the Senate.

I doubt that more than 10 of those senators actually doubt the reality and nature of the global warming threat.

They're not stupid - they are amoral bastards willing to do really, really awful things in order to get lifelong support from a club of rich white people who are even bigger amoral bastards than the senators.

[timdog44]

20. I actually believe they are all mostly stupid.

They are backed by a a bunch of rich white old men, who promise to make their lives comfortable. Just a variation on what you said and sounds very cynical, but that private club is a bunch of amoral bastards. And their opinions carry over to more than just environment. Say and do anything to get the $$ rolling in. These "things" get wealthy running for office and not necessarily getting elected.That way the sugar pot just rolls around.

[RiverNoord]

24. You may be mostly right.

In deep so-called 'red states,' the Republican party could probably run farm animals and win. However, I still believe that a great many of them are quite savvy in their sociopathic ways. They know that truth is irrelevant to the election process - they're very, very good at speaking to their constituencies' ugliest fears, animosities and prejudices. The so-called 'Tea Party' factions wouldn't exist today if we didn't have a President with dark skin.

One way another, you're largely right. The worst thing is that the more that this sort of grotesque invoking of fears and prejudices becomes commonplace, the further it can go. That road leads to hell.

[Richard D]

2. I believe . . .

that the consensus is more like 97.2%

The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year by Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University; John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia; and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming (ClimateWire, May 16, 2013).

That statement quickly got boiled down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans. President Obama tweeted the 97 percent consensus. Comedian John Oliver did a segment on it that went viral on the Internet.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

[LouisvilleDem]

25. That study is seriously flawed

I'm not saying that the vast majority of scientists DON'T believe in climate change, I'm just saying that that particular study is seriously flawed, may be retracted, and we should avoid quoting from it. There are other, better constructed studies that also show that the vast majority of scientists believe in climate change that we should use instead. Quoting the study done by John Cook (who is not a climate scientists, but self described as a cartoonist with an undergraduate degree in physics) only serves to give an opening to right wing deniers.

A good analysis of the flaws in the paper, done while stressing that the premise is never the less true, is here:

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

[Fred Sanders]

29. The study has been peer reviewed and still stands, true?

[LouisvilleDem]

33. For now

I'd be interested to hear your response to the criticisms in the link though. Given that other, better designed studies also show high levels of agreement among scientists on the issue of global warming, I fail to see the need to cling to a flawed study.

[Fred Sanders]

34. Scientists do not "cling". The study is not flawed because one peer critiques it.

[LouisvilleDem]

35. Correct

The study is not flawed because one peer critiques it. It is flawed because:

1) Raters of journal summaries were not blind to the identities of the authors of the papers they were rating.
2) Journal articles that have nothing to do with climate change were incorrectly included.
3) Peer reviewed articles by well known skeptics were excluded without explanation.

The above claims are well documented in the link I gave you. If you have evidence that these assertions were made in error, I would welcome the correction.

[Fred Sanders]

36. I also do not argue with the Flat Earthers, nothing personal, sir. Argument is debate with facts.

I like debate.

[LouisvilleDem]

37. Nice try

I have listed three "facts" for you to dispute if you so choose:

1) Raters of journal summaries were not blind to the identities of the authors of the papers they were rating.
2) Journal articles that have nothing to do with climate change were incorrectly included.
3) Peer reviewed articles by well known skeptics were excluded without explanation.

I am claiming these are facts. You can disprove them with evidence if you have it.

[Fred Sanders]

38. I am claiming the Earth is not flat, disprove if you can.

[LouisvilleDem]

39. I can't disprove that the earth is not flat...

...because it isn't. What is your point?

[tclambert]

3. But they just voted climate change is real. So what's causing it, if not us?

Bearing in mind, the Sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960. The Sun may have contributed a very small amount to global warming prior to that, less than 10% what humans have caused (http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-humans-not-sun-high-sensitivity.html).

What does that leave? We're still kind of responsible for cows, so cow farts still count as us. Trees? Ants? Magic?

Republicans love to say they're not scientists, yet they feel perfectly okay disagreeing with scientists, without having any reasonable alternative explanation.

[Tobin S.]

4. I don't think those assholes understand the true nature of the problem.

We're talking about the future of the planet, not some dumb political football.

[airplaneman]

5. I think I have it figured out

By saying climate change is real proves that they are not totally and obviously stupid.
By voting it is not caused by man is their affirmation that they will not sped a penny to do anything about it. Both responses appeal to their base constituents.
-Airplane

[tclambert]

6. I think you're right, but . . .

how does one admit that a potential global catastrophe approaches and yet refuses to take any action to prevent it? Cognitive dissonance is one thing, but knowingly plunging ahead into disaster is another.

[BruceStern]

11. Here's how they rationalize it

"Of course I believe in climate change. The climate's always changed, it's called the weather".

Checkmate Climatologists!

Of course the definition of climate change refers to long term trends in the weather so their usage is wrong but hey, they're not scientists. They just set policy related to science. SMH.

[AlbertCat]

7. So.... since 49 out of 100 is a minority...

..... that means we are contributing.... or at least the Senate sees that we are contributing.

So we're gonna proceed with that in mind I assume.

[yuiyoshida]

8. Republican new motto

"Make the big bucks before everyone dies!"

[Duppers]

12. remember Repubs' bill about changing pi to 3

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/837828

This is a continuation of the same stupidity.

[ffr]

17. Fortunately, that story wasn't real. It was satire.

A satiric article by Ian Squires at the Huffington Post claims that Republican congresswoman Martha Roby is sponsoring a bill, allegedly named HR 205: The Geometric Simplification Act, that would legally define pi as 3 (instead of 3.14159…), to "make math easier for our children." Of course "The Onion"-esque article is fake, but it almost hits too close to home. Livescience.com

Besides, HR 205 was from 2012, not 2011, when that Huffpost article was written.

[tclambert]

27. According to the Bible, it is. 1 Kings 7:23

"Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference."


It's repeated in 2 Chronicles 4:2
"Also he made the cast metal sea, ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits and its circumference thirty cubits."

These are usually explained as round-off error. Occasionally some ultra-literalist will insist the inerrant Bible must be taken as a mathematical reference and try to argue that math and science have it wrong.

[Duppers]

30. yes, I read that too

It also says bats are birds and whales are fish.

[pauliedangerously]

13. The Real Absurdity

The real absurdity is the fact that the Senate even held a vote for this. Let's take a vote on Evolution too, and a vote on the age of the planet, and...um...a vote on whether or not dragons ever existed. It wouldn't have occurred to any US government official to do something this stupid in the 1960s. The US is the laughingstock of the planet...so powerful, yet so full of completely clueless people. EM-EFFING-BARRASING.

[silverweb]

16. As I understand it...

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Bernie Sanders is the one who engineered this vote. His purpose was to get TeaGOPers on the public record for their stance on climate change.

Now we have solid documentation of each senator's position, which is a good thing.

[shireen]

14. Five Republicans voted yes

Lamar Alexander (TN)
Kelly Ayotte (NH)
Susan Collins (ME)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Mark Kirk (IL)

I hope they talk some sense into their colleagues. This should not be a partisan issue.

[ffr]

19. Probably nothing more than symbolic

As these votes often go. Once the threshold for passing is met, others can flip-flop and any position any way they want. I bet if they voted again tomorrow and they need five more votes, they'd all switch to nay.

[davidpdx]

31. Ayotte and Kirk are up for reelection in 2016

Collins needs to maintain her bipartisanish branding. As for Alexander and Graham, I have no idea why they voted yes.

[libodem]

18. You still look like a turtle

Mitch. I think it's called willful ignorance. Or having your head in the sand. Or cognitive impairment. Or intellectual deficits. Or mentally challenged. Some pc way to say, you know.

Plain stupid.

[Enthusiast]

21. It's a sad day for the nation and the world.

[BlueJac]

26. Dumb and Dumber is their motto!

[Buenaventura]

28. I just watched “First Men on the Moon”

(Saturday afternoon TV) - now I know where Louie Gohmert learned science!

“Empire of the Ants” is on next, Louie!

[ProudProg2u]

32. The Tobacco lobby in the sixty's

I think it was the sixty's I'm 58 it may have been the fifty's when the tobacco lobby people faced the court or some congress inquiry and the famous "Tobacco is not addictive" and other lines from the tobacco industry was put on TV and captured for posterity. MSNBC or some other progressive media outlet do a spoof on this comparing it to the climate change deniers. Head in sand crowd. Maybe Jon steward will pick this up and run with it.