The Political Denial of Science

[BethesdaWX]

This is the whole point... they rejected it because they want to continue with their strategy of intentionally introducing doubt into basic facts, such as the fact the earth has warmed.

Second of all, if you read the public statements of certain Congressmen, you will see that many of them are unsure as to whether the earth has warmed and/or that humans are contributing. (As opposed to your claim that they "don't disagree with the concept of the earth warming")

Thats not their strategy Mr Conspiracy Theorist.........Basic facts? Are you freakin kidding me?

AGW is not a "fact", its a hypothesis. We shall not drian our economy, while we're already in a recession, over a hypothesis.

[WeatherRusty]

I read your link from the hill

and huh? I never said that, I said the BS claims attempting to be passed are not how we play things.

You say the "bill" should not pass. Guess what, I agree with you 100 percent. Can you explain why I take that stand?

[tacoman25]

Acknowledging the EPA's finding that the earth has warmed isn't a bargaining chip to be toyed with. It is the truth, and the U.S. Congress shouldn't play games with the truth. Given the GOP's attempt to defund the EPA and prevent it from regulating carbon, it would seem pertinent to make a statement that Congress recognizes the earth has warmed, but does not deem carbon regulation as necessary.

Don't be naive. How often is politics really about "the truth"? You think the Dems just want the truth to be out there, for truth's sake?

[BethesdaWX]

You say the "bill" should not pass. Guess what, I agree with you 100 percent. Can you explain why I take that stand?

Because its not a bill?

You know what I meant

[tacoman25]

Because the U.S. Congress has intentionally introduced great doubt into basic scientific facts, like the fact that the earth has warmed. The amendments are an attempt to show that the U.S. Congress does recognize basic scientific facts. The U.S. Congress makes symbolic statements all the time and symbolic statements are important.

The amendments were being added to a bill which prevents the EPA from regulating carbon. It would seem pertinent to, at such a time, make a statement that Congress recognizes the earth has warmed, but does not believe regulating CO2 is necessary.

Exactly, and this amendment was clearly an attempt to provide a symbolic statement in support of certain EPA actions. Purely political.

[tacoman25]

Seriously, are you being intentionally difficult or what? Read Skier's posts and tell me there was one amendment again! Better yet, read the OP article (again?).

I think the purpose of the amendment can be more clearly be seen in the original versions of it. They watered it down eventually, but that doesn't change its purpose.

[skierinvermont]

Exactly, and this amendment was clearly an attempt to provide a symbolic statement in support of certain EPA actions. Purely political.

No it wasn't. The amendment was an ADDITION to a BILL which would prevent the EPA from regulating CO2. It seems pertinent that at a time when you are telling the EPA not to regulate carbon, you might also make a public statement saying you recognize the earth has warmed, but that you don't believe regulating CO2 is necessary.

How can an addition to a bill which prevents the EPA from regulating carbon be supportive of regulating carbon?

[skierinvermont]

Don't be naive. How often is politics really about "the truth"? You think the Dems just want the truth to be out there, for truth's sake?

I think it's both for the truth and because they will score points with their constituents who also recognize the truth that the earth has warmed. There are congressmen and women in both parties who have taken politically vulnerable positions which recognize the science. A GOP congressmen who was too vocal on the facts of climate science was targeted by the right and voted out last fall. There are very real and legitimate threats to the truth in the halls of Congress, and there are individuals who have taken principled stands to defend this truth, even when it is not politically favorable and your opponents will rake in industry lobbyist money and you won't.

[BethesdaWX]

No it wasn't. The amendment was an ADDITION to a BILL which would prevent the EPA from regulating CO2. It seems pertinent that at a time when you are telling the EPA not to regulate carbon, you might also make a public statement saying you recognize the earth has warmed, but that you don't believe regulating CO2 is necessary.

How can an addition to a bill which prevents the EPA from regulating carbon be supportive of regulating carbon?

Uhh, regulating carbon over a hypothesis? We're already in a recession. You cannot understand that the Republicans declining an amendment has nothing to do with the science, but the point they're trying to get across Politically regarding the EPA's regulation of GHGes, which should not be carried out by activists doing the gov'ts job.

who are you to put words on other peoples heads, and thoughts in other peoples minds?

I could go on and bash democrats to pulp right now, but thats not the point of the thread that shouldn't belong here anyway.

[skierinvermont]

lol

No republican ever said the earth hasn't warmed...thats not why they rejected the Bill, show me one friggin quote saying such.

Take this crap of a thread to the politics section please

Really? Really??? Just how many lies can you make up in one day Bethesda? If you don't know something.. don't state it to be true.

How about Senator Inhofe's claim that there has been "no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."

Or that global warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."

Or how about all of these statements by Republicans in the video and links that I ALREADY POSTED IN THIS THREAD.

Many of the committee members who voted down these amendments use double-speak to try to obfuscate whether the planet has warmed and what has caused it. Most of them receive funding from Koch Industries.

For example, Congressman John Shimkus, a member of the house Energy and Environment Comittee that voted down the amendments in Rusty's original post who nearly became the Comittee's Chairman, explains to us that humans cannot possibly be causing rising sea levels because the Bible tells us that the earth will not end in a flood and that humans will not cause the end of the world:

Where was this guy during the Cold War I want to know? So much for MAD.

Here is a list of statements by GOP committee members, and their respective contributions from Koch Industries:

http://wonkroom.thin...-climate-denial

These people are complete jokes.. it's really sad that these are the members of the UNITED STATES CONGRESS. There wasn't anybody else remotely more qualified, mentally balanced and less corrupt available for the job??

Please note the attack on the Clean Air Act as well, not just climate legislation.. these anti-science religious zealots industry funded politicians will do away with ALL environmental regulation on the basis of the bible, ignorance and money.

[skierinvermont]

who are you to put words on other peoples heads, and thoughts in other peoples minds?

I don't need to put words in their heads. Their statements and actions speak clear as day.

"no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century"

"global warming is the second biggest hoax perpetrated on the American people, after the seperation of church and state." (lol)

[skierinvermont]

I'm sure the GOP sees it as a slippery slope, and that's why they refuse to vote for it. Not saying that this is the right choice for them, but it's all for political reasons, from both sides. It's not like one side is all about the science and the other doesn't give a crap. It's how our goverment works, the two main parties will oppose the other as often as possible, given the chance. A lot of times it doesn't add up logically.

I know it's political, but that doesn't somehow make it OK. I oppose either party when they take a political stand against the truth.

[BethesdaWX]

Dude that is unrelated, we're discussing Congress rejecting an Amendment in response to the EPA & the issues regarding the misplaced power in the regulation of GHG due to a hypothesis.

The reasons for regulating GHG are political by the Dems, they don't give a sh*t about the science.

How about the democrat Hank Johnson who said the "Island would tip over due to over population"......

http://washingtonsce...ver-and-capsize

[BethesdaWX]

I don't need to put words in their heads. Their statements and actions speak clear as day.

"no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century"

"global warming is the second biggest hoax perpetrated on the American people, after the seperation of church and state." (lol)

Senator Inhofe????????

Aren't we discussing Congress rejecting an Amendment? That is friggin UNRELATED to the issue at hand, the Republicans did not reject the Amendment because of "lack of warming", it was a political issue invloving mis-placed power into the hands of the EPA...which will be taken away.

Stay on topic

[skierinvermont]

Dude.............In the article that we're discussing..................who cares if one nut says we haven;t warmed? That means nothing.

How about the democrat Hank Johnson who said the "Island would tip over due to over population"......

http://washingtonsce...ver-and-capsize

Well he's an idiot too then. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[BethesdaWX]

Well he's an idiot too then. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Senator Inhofe's opinion means nothing to the issue involving Congress and the rejection of an Amendment.....for political reasons regarding the EPA....

No republican stated in this instance that the earth hasn't warmed.

[skierinvermont]

Senator Inhofe's opinion means nothing to the issue involving Congress and the rejection of an Amendment.....for political reasons regarding the EPA....

No republican stated in this instance that the earth hasn't warmed.

Oh so now it's only in "this instance" that Republicans have denied basic scientific facts... again wrong... read the links.

[skierinvermont]

Senator Inhofe????????

Aren't we discussing Congress rejecting an Amendment? That is friggin UNRELATED to the issue at hand, the Republicans did not reject the Amendment because of "lack of warming", it was a political issue invloving mis-placed power into the hands of the EPA...which will be taken away.

Stay on topic

It is perfectly possible to pass a bill which removes the power of EPA to regulate carbon, but includes an amendment that recognizes the earth has warmed. Given the number of republicans that have denied the earth has warmed, and/or that humans have contributed to this warming, it would be pertinent to pass amendments clarifying both positions of the U.S. Congress.

[BethesdaWX]

Oh so now it's only in "this instance" that Republicans have denied basic scientific facts... again wrong... read the links.

Again, 1 nutjob (inhofe) is unrelated to the hundreds of republicans as a group. You think republicans in general rejected the amendment because they think the earth hasn't warmed? Find me one quote in this instance.

There are people on both sides that are dipsh*ts in their own ways, but those people do not represent the population as a whole.

[BethesdaWX]

It is perfectly possible to pass a bill which removes the power of EPA to regulate carbon, but includes an amendment that recognizes the earth has warmed. Given the number of republicans that have denied the earth has warmed, and/or that humans have contributed to this warming, it would be pertinent to pass amendments clarifying both positions of the U.S. Congress.

Yeah, and this amendment did not offer to remove the EPA's power. Dems dont want it.

[WeatherRusty]

I am on an iPhone so it is difficult to contribute, but what a sad state of affairs. We like to think our country hold a position of moral superiority and represents a place ofscientific enlightenment, but behind the scene we have this pathetic crap going on. We are loosing it people.

[skierinvermont]

Yeah, and this amendment did not offer to remove the EPA's power. Dems dont want it.

The BILL itself does that. This proposed AMENDMENT was an ADDITION to that BILL. Do you understand what an amendment is? It doesn't replace the bill.. it is an ADDITION. Quite a few Democrats voted for the actual bill, but they also voted to include the additions which recognize the earth has warmed.

[skierinvermont]

Again, 1 nutjob (inhofe) is unrelated to the hundreds of republicans as a group. You think republicans in general rejected the amendment because they think the earth hasn't warmed? Find me one quote in this instance.

There are people on both sides that are dipsh*ts in their own ways, but those people do not represent the population as a whole.

for the 9347th time... read the links. Republicans did not reject them solely for political reasons, they rejected them because they object to the content of the amendments.

[tacoman25]

No it wasn't. The amendment was an ADDITION to a BILL which would prevent the EPA from regulating CO2. It seems pertinent that at a time when you are telling the EPA not to regulate carbon, you might also make a public statement saying you recognize the earth has warmed, but that you don't believe regulating CO2 is necessary.

How can an addition to a bill which prevents the EPA from regulating carbon be supportive of regulating carbon?

So this is the statement the Dems were trying to make? That they believe the earth is warming, but don't believe regulating CO2 is necessary? Doesn't make sense to me.

I just don't see how the amendment is anything but a political statement, meant to either make the other party look bad or make a statement that supports their agenda, because that's what both parties like to do.

[tacoman25]

I know it's political, but that doesn't somehow make it OK. I oppose either party when they take a political stand against the truth.

So what do you think the motivation was for the amendment? I'm really curious. Please don't say: "Because it's the truth" again.

[nzucker]

" There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet"

Man it's just painful listening to these guys

Honestly, how could there have been 4000ppm CO2 in the age of the dinosaurs if the planet was created 6,000 years ago by Lord himself? Aren't dinosaurs and their fossils supposed to be from around 60 million years ago? Something is wrong here, the "Young Earth" theory doesn't work for global warming. Help.

I don't really think skier can criticize the rejection of the amendment when so much of Washington is a complex parliamentary game that we don't fully understand. On the other hand, I just find the matter irrelevant because neither party is really going to do anything about global warming so it's just a lot of talk anyway at this point. Obama's law to improve fuel efficiency to 35mpg by 2016 is a decent start, but no one has made any commitment to a carbon tax which would allow us to control for externalities within the free-market system. Until you have a global framework for taxing and trading carbon, you're not going to reduce emissions seriously. The problem is that one country regulating carbon when the others don't means that industry will inevitably flee and devastate the economy, so no major power is going to want to be the one to effect a real cap on emissions.

[skierinvermont]

So what do you think the motivation was for the amendment? I'm really curious. Please don't say: "Because it's the truth" again.

The reason for the amendment is 1) the bill prevents the EPA from regulating carbon and 2) GOP congressmen have denied global warming.

Given 1) and 2) it would seem like an appropriate time to clarify the U.S. Congress' position on climate change.

[skierinvermont]

I don't really think skier can criticize the rejection of the amendment when so much of Washington is a complex parliamentary game that we don't fully understand.

Yes I can.

1) GOP members are on the record objecting to the CONTENT of the amendments not merely the proposal of them. That is reprehensible.

2) It's not as mysteriously complex as you are pretending its is. For one thing rejecting the amendment loses the GOP NOTHING except the support of oil industry lobbyist money and radical theocratic anti-intellectual elements in the GOP. The GOP's courting of these interest groups is in and of itself reprehensible. I have no respect for a party that votes against amendments to pander to oil industry lobbyists and anti-intellectuals.

The fact that the GOP voted against these amendments isn't surprising, but that still doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

[WeatherRusty]

So what do you think the motivation was for the amendment? I'm really curious. Please don't say: "Because it's the truth" again.

It was nothing more than putting the Republicans on record as not agreeing that the Earth has warmed. It was not a bargaining chip, the bill will pass the House in the form the Republicans want it to. They have a clear majority and there is nothing the Democrats can do to derail its passage. It probably won't fly in the Senate and Obama absolutely will veto it if it reaches his desk. Most of these politicians have little first hand knowledge of the science, they are advised by handlers, think tanks and the party bosses as to what their position should be.

My own Senator Scott Brown when asked if he thought global warming was happening replied:

“It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling,’’ he said. “It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information.’’

Brown continued, saying: “I just want to make sure if in fact . . . the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and it’s unbiased by scientists with no agenda. Once that’s done, then I think we can really move forward with a good plan.’’

Sounds like he is not sure to me.

[BethesdaWX]

for the 9347th time... read the links. Republicans did not reject them solely for political reasons, they rejected them because they object to the content of the amendments.

haha++, dude, you make these dipsh*t statements with no proof. Pointing out 1 senator making a statement 2 years ago, and saying that the bill was rejected due to the Repubs believeing AGW is a hoax.....and not for political reasons??

40% of Repubs are AGwers, then we have the middle, those who are more modest in AGW/Nautral cycle cooling/warming......and then there are a few crazies who say the Earth hasn't warmed.

1) No, the Bill won't make it through the Senate until 2012 when the Repubs get seats back & the new Presidential election.......still being passed afterward with no gauruntee!................If republicans were to sign this Amendment, it would undermine their political agenda regarding the EPA, lowering the chances of the bill passing. It has NOTHING to do with thew repubs believing the eaerth hasn't warmed, since 40% of them are AGWers....there may be a few crazies, but the vast majority are not crazy.

Either way, AGW is a hypothesis that does not require GHG regulations that will cripple the economy, when we're already in a recession.

2) I've read everything, it says none of that. Show me one quote saying "the earth hasn't warmed" in regards to this amendment. That statement is a bunch of clusterf**k.

40% of republicans believe in AGW, there are some in the middle who believe in natural climate change/minor AGW, then there are the few crazies, like Inhofe. If you need to resort to Inhofe....well then...thats as far as I can go without lauhging my guts out.