Above, some clips that didn’t make the cut in my most recent video, a review of “Merchants of Doubt”, which opens today in cities across the country.
One of the folks profiled in the movie is former Congressman Bob Inglis, a very conservative guy, who lost his seat in a very red district of South Carolina, in large part because he believes in science. I couldn’t fit it into the video, but worth watching, to see what a monster the Republican Party has created with the Fox News/Talk Radio disinformation machine. They’ve created a rabid base of low information anti-science zealots.
We will need to see some Republican Profiles in Courage to break thru this barrier. So far, not much good news on that front.
It’s been an article of faith for some time now — inside the whispery Washington Beltway, in state legislatures and even among hunting and outdoor recreation groups — that conservative Americans are, in fact, very much at odds with the vacuous climate denialism peddled by many members of the Republican Party’s national leadership.
Polls have, from time to time, hinted at this cleavage, and while a number of high-profile Republicans have begun inching away from a wholesale rejection of the issue, conservative voters remain hard-pressed to find frank and honest talk about climate policy among their political allies.
During remarks delivered at the Yale Environmental Law Association’s New Directions in Environmental Law conference last weekend, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who has wrestled for years with his Republican counterparts on the issue of global warming, described the GOP as being somewhat at sea on the climate issue. In guarded moments, many Republicans in Congress admit that they are cognizant of the problem, Whitehouse suggested. But those same leaders remain paralyzed with fear at the idea of admitting so publicly — a move, they reckon, that could anger disbelieving right-wing voters and alienate a fossil-fuel industrial complex that keeps the GOP well-financed and on a short leash.
“You have a party that has been captured,” Whitehouse declared, adding that a significant percentage of the GOP faithful “are seeking a jailbreak.”
In stark contrast to their party’s public stance on Capitol Hill, many Republicans privately acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is at least partially responsible for climate change and recognize the need to address the problem.
However, they see little political benefit to speaking out on the issue, since congressional action is probably years away, according to former congressmen, former congressional aides and other sources.
In Bloomberg BNA interviews with several dozen former senior congressional aides, nongovernmental organizations, lobbyists and others conducted over a period of several months, the sources cited fears of attracting an electoral primary challenger as one of the main reasons many Republicans choose not to speak out.
Most say the reluctance to publicly support efforts to address climate change has grown discernibly since the 2010 congressional elections, when Tea Party-backed candidates helped the Republican Party win control of the House, in part by targeting vulnerable Democrats for their support of legislation establishing a national emissions cap-and-trade system.
“Climate change needs to be in the mix of all of our other discussions,” former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), who represented his Ohio district from 1995 through 2013 in the House and is now president of McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies, told Bloomberg BNA. “I do think privately—and some not so privately—Republicans are coming to the point where this has been an issue that’s been pretty much settled with regard to the science. A lot of it has to do with people calming down and saying let’s have a conversation.”
Sources cited a variety of reasons for the gap between public statements and private opinions among Republicans: the devastating impacts of the economic crisis, the low priority Americans place on addressing climate change and what Republicans say is overheated rhetoric from Democrats. Also playing a role in the reluctance to speak out is skepticism among Republican voters about federal government intervention and the increasing role of special interest money in elections.
Most said they did not think Republicans will feel free to speak about climate change until the Tea Party loses some of its power to influence elections, a severe weather event forces serious discussion of the issue or the rhetoric on climate is dialed back among both Democrats and Republicans.
Most of the top potential GOP candidates who spoke at CPAC have made comments over the years questioning or outright denying the scientific consensus that human activities are the driving force behind climate change. But some of them appear to be reconsidering their position, and at this year’s conference of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives they largely avoided the issue altogether.
This dynamic was particularly noticeable when Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ducked a question from a seven year-old boy who wanted to know whether Walker “care[s] about climate change.” Other leading contenders, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, were not asked about climate change and didn’t bring it up on their own. One potential candidate that did discuss global warming was former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who said that Texas has reduced its carbon emissions “whether you believe in this whole climate change concept or not.”
Peter,The video is marked private and won’t play…Pat Timmons
fixed. thanks
Another fossil-fuel/foreign government funded greenblob non-science.
The evidence is that those who believe in the climate nonsense are more gullible and less well educated.
They must have really scraped the bottom of the barrel.
“The evidence is that those who believe in the climate nonsense are more gullible and less well educated.”
Evidence, what evidence?
OTOH what about those who keep voting for ‘Snowball’ Inhofe?
That’s why climate deniers refuse to answer questions about evolution, right?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/scott-walker-avoids-evolution-question-115117.html
A nice recap post from Peter—-refreshes the memory about how sad and sorry the Repugnants really are.
(It’s a shame the sheep shagger from the Haggistan province of Scotland had to share his delusions and ignorance with us yet again. Has he ever said anything that makes the least bit of sense?)
Even worse, everyone knows that Scotland instituted public education ~ 200 years before England (this is also why Scotland, in the early days, had ~10 universities while England only had two), and it was the Scottish Enlightenment that kicked off the Industrial Age placing Scottish know-how in every scientific and technical discipline. IMHO “Scottish Skeptic” doesn’t appear to be very enlightened.
That’s because he attended the University of Haggistan, rather than one of the more renowned Scottish institutions, and while there spent too much of his time with the sheep.
” the sheep shagger from the Haggistan province ”
Made my day! 😀
What a fine example of humanity was shown there. Bunch of arrogant thugs is what I call them.
The cowardice of politicians who put their personal political survival ahead of public interest and social stability needs to be revealed to the whole community and the culprits ridiculed.
Yep, and unfortunately your comment refers to politicians of all stripes. IMHO most politicians represent the left or the right while the majority (perhaps 60%) of the population lives in the middle. The big problem here is this: only the citizens on the left or right “always vote” and the politicians know it. We could change this NOW if we could convince every citizen to vote, or pass laws requiring people to pay a small fine on their tax returns if they don’t vote (this is already done in places like Australia and Switzerland) but politicians would never pass such a law. It seems to me that the 1960s were much less politically polarized because everyone thought it was their duty to vote and this had a diluting effect.
Hi Neilrieck. I’m from Australia and while I see a huge benefit in compulsory voting, there are drawbacks as well.
Primarily the problem you have already mentioned, the rusted on left or right wing voter.
I think people who don’t vote are fools and extremely selfish given the number of people around the world who are prepared to fight and die for the right. Nevertheless, voters who don’t vote and those voters who are welded to a particular party regardless of how incompetent that party may be, are the biggest hindrances to democracy because both actions fail to keep politicians honest.
Evolution is an assumption not a proven scientific observation.
Where are all the living organisms mankind has “experimentally” created using scientific experiments and processes the tap into the vast amount of technology we possess ? There are no experiements that prove this theory that life can spontaneously be created.
Scientists are the first to say they are wrong all the time about big issues like the how the universe in made up and they keep redefining the information and theories they have in many areas.
Evolution is a theory it has no proof other then fossils and an assumption that the earth has allways been the same has had no outside interferences and no rapid changes in time or space. Even chemical dating keeps making new discoveries and admitting things are not as constant as once thought, all of mans science changes and THEORIES are not pure science obsersvation.
CO2 Global warming is a true scientific repeatable fact and it can be repeated with a simple laboratory experiement/s and proven scientific methods and is therefore a fact. Evolution is a theory it has not been observed throughout time and scientific study because mankind has no time machines – it cannot be proven at all because nobody has seen it. Both concepts are so far apart in what we deem is scientific topic that its not funny, most people simply chose to beleive whatever they like and have not given any deep thought or academic study to either possibility.
I am a religious person and I beleive in ADAM and EVE and I know there HAS to be opposition in everything including concepts of creation and religion.
People do beleive God made this world, in fact “MOST” people on this planet are religious and know mankind is not a evolutionary ruthless creature we are spiritual beings and this world is an amazing Beautiful place apart from the wicked greedy selfish people who are destroying it. No civilisation will ever become selfless enough to do the good necessary without pure religion, communism simply prooves this fact with its extreme butchery explotation and environemtnal distruction it is the living proof of a system that originally denied religious beleif. Everyone that cries anti-religion topics as if it is something new does not understand human history or human morality.
There also HAS to be an opposing beleif and that is evolution. There has to be 2 opposing views to allow mankind to have pure freedom in this life. Life is fundamentally opposition at all levels and in all things. MOST People have no read the Bible which makes it very clear the world will be severely damaged and the oceans will die and mankind will not deal with what is coming at all.
A purely religion person has no real issues with climate change because God has built this into the system and these events are coming and it is to late already to change it.
God will humble everyone through these events that are coming. Most of the people who are happily comfortably denying god will get extremely religious when these trials come, I have seen this before in anti-religious people.
Religion has nothing to do with the topic of solving climate change other then that truely religions people should be making themselves FULLY self sufficient with alternate energy and supporting what is really the GLOBAL warming solutions.
What is really happening is that everyone has a hidden political and social agenda.
There are many underliing motivations and agendas in bringing religion into the Climate Argument.
EG-Climate denialists support the economy and the fossil fuel industry and this seems to be the republican motivation and any real religious truth has nothing to do with that.
EG -The activist Climate Change beleivers seem to be pro-democrat just like this website and therefore like to bash the republicans and bring religion in on this topic
The reality is the U.S. Democrats and Republicans are not really at odds over climate change, they are all interested in there own agendas and making themselves powerful and wealthy.
Polititians and Prophets are opposing concepts and no polititian will do anything significant to solve climate change, where as a Prophet will save and organise people and teach them that men are caretakes of this world and each other.
The democrats do next to nothing to solve climate change, this whole polarisation of political parties and religion is really divisive and stops people who should be preparing what is coming and trying to deal with it.
You say that “Evolution is an assumption not a proven scientific observation” and that you are “a religious person and you believe in ADAM and EVE”.
Are you aware that there is far more evidence for evolution than for the existence of ADAM and EVE? Just as there are no experiments that prove the theory that an entity called god exists or that he created life.
You say, “No civilization will ever become selfless enough to do the good necessary without pure religion” and go off into La-La land using communism as an talking point? LOL
Christianity is the “pure religion” that has demonstrated “extreme butchery exploitation, and environmental destruction” more than any other—-it is the “living proof” of a belief system that has developed capitalism and the concept of free-markets to their highest level and put the entire biosphere at risk. YOU are the one who does not understand human history or human morality (perhaps because you are too busy looking for answers and “proof” in the bible, that 2000 year old book of fairy tales that is available in over 600 versions).
SCIENTIFIC REALITY will humble everyone through these events that are coming. I can agree somewhat with “MANY of the people who are happily comfortably denying god will get extremely religious when these trials come”. Proof of the generaolly sorry nature of humans. Just as the people who are “happily comfortably” denying science will get “extremely” interested in scientific truth “when the trials come”. (ALL will be looking to science to save them more than to god, and NO ONE will spend any time talking about the mythical ADAM and EVE)