Although GOP leaders act as though climate change doesn't exist -- in red states like Florida even banning officials from even uttering the words (cf. Gov. Rick Scott), Republican leaders are far from clueless on the issue, its reality and threat.
Their spin doctors provoke red meat voters; what a cold winter it's been in the Northeast, "Little Ice Ages", but these points of misdirection are to keep the Republican base boiling. GOP leaders can't avoid either the science or evidence of climate change.
Doing "something" about climate change is directly opposed to the interests of the GOP's key funders: polluting industries that depend on externalizing costs; whether damage to the atmosphere or using public waters as their sewage outfalls.
The problem for Republican leaders on climate change is the mismatch between the premise of limited government against the real, unlimited liability from climate change.
Their spin doctors provoke red meat voters; what a cold winter it's been in the Northeast, "Little Ice Ages", but these points of misdirection are to keep the Republican base boiling. GOP leaders can't avoid either the science or evidence of climate change.
Doing "something" about climate change is directly opposed to the interests of the GOP's key funders: polluting industries that depend on externalizing costs; whether damage to the atmosphere or using public waters as their sewage outfalls.
The problem for Republican leaders on climate change is the mismatch between the premise of limited government against the real, unlimited liability from climate change.
11 comments:
Until 10,000 years, the earth was in a major ice age. So how did our ancestors get the earth to warm up without using fossil fuels?
1st Anon, the answer is well known by REAL scientists. A slight tilt or "wobble" in the Earth's axis moved us closer to the sun, but this change occurred over a period of thousands to tens of thousands of years. What is happening now is happening over a period of 200 years, with the changes observably increasing in magnitude over the past 50.
And we're not "tilting" or "wobbling" now?
2nd Anon:
Thanks for those REAL scientific terms! Wow, now I can see you are a REAL scientist!
even if we were tilting closer to the sun now (which it is not), the size of the Earth, how it tilts on its axis, and the fact that it takes tens of thousands of years for this to happen AND the results of it are seen over THAT time period, rather than over a much shorter period (say, 200 years) would make it irrelevant to what is happening to our climate today. Additionally, the sun has been in a period of reduced solar output over the past 50 years (when the greatest increase in climate change has been occurring).
Tilt and Wobble!
Global warming denying assholes, they are called Milankovitch Cycles
They occur on a period of 100,000 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Scientists faked the numbers so the end met the means and the LSM jumped right in, see you at the beach.
Pants up don't poop, or is it hands up don't shoot? No wait, that's our foreign policy under Obama.
[Update: Authors of paper claim “misrepresentation” by media.: The authors Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao sent out a note to members of the media which read in part: “Unfortunately, our points in the paper have been mis-interpreted and exaggerated by a few media. In the link below, please see our reply to the blog of Jayson Lusk. http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2014/3/6/information-manipulation-revisited – Hopefully, this link helps clarify our point. We never advocate lying on climate change.”]
[Update #2: # Investors Business Daily: In a note to the press, the authors vow that “we never advocate lying on climate change.” But as Lusk noted in an earlier comment on the paper, the authors constructed “a mathematical model to suggest that exaggerating consequences can have positive impacts by getting people to ‘do the right thing.'” There’s also this statement: “Our key result — that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem — implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society.” So maybe they would “never advocate lying on climate change,” yet they approve of using propaganda and silencing or marginalizing skeptics?]
#
A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly providing a “rationale” for global warming proponents to engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.
last ANON
Bla bla bla. Do the Koch brothers pay you to troll blogs with this nonsense? No one cares what you have to say. Intelligent people generally read this blog. Save your effort.
Last anon; "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious."
Im curious, was the tilt being discussed to the left or to the right? Do we have any polling data on these tilts? Were they soft tilts or hard tilts?
Post a Comment