On climate change, a destructive pattern reasserts itself

10-Earth-AP

The Obama administration is announcing a bold new initiative to address climate change, calling upon states to implement policies that would reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 32 percent by 2030. The new rules are certain to set off years of political and legal fights, beginning of course with the 2016 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, backs the Obama initiative, while major Republican candidates are uniformly critical. Asserting that “facts matter,” for example, Ted Cruz matter-of-factly denied last week that the planet is warming or that mankind could plausibly play in any role in that change. Marco Rubio has taken a similar position, and among the top GOP candidates only Jeb Bush has tip-toed up to the line of admitting that mankind might be playing a role in heating the planet.

It’s odd. In polling, Republican voters are hardly uniform in their denial of climate change, with substantial GOP minorities disagreeing with the party’s most conservative wing on the issue. (See here and here and here.) But as on many other issues, that conservative wing is allowed to dictate the limits of acceptable Republican opinion, to the point that climate-change denial has become a central tenet of Republican tribalism. And so far, NOAA reports and an ongoing string of broken heat records haven’t been able to overcome it.

The result is the same as that on health care, the Iran nuclear agreement and too many other policy questions.  Republicans bitterly, virulently oppose the Obama plan, asserting that it will produce immense disasters. They promise to block its implementation by any means available to them. Yet even after decades of contentious debate on the issue, they offer the country no alternative solution or course of action, and in the case of climate change they basically deny that a problem even exists.

And as with health care, that attitude persists even though the Obama administration has embraced what used to be a Republican proposal, in this case a market-based, cap-and-trade system, as a central feature in its plan to bring greenhouse emissions down. The basic approach was advanced by conservatives some 40 years ago, and as recently as 2008, a plan much like that now proposed by Obama was part of John McCain’s presidential platform.

Unfortunately, the days in which the GOP could actually propose ideas and accept compromises are long past. Now they are capable only of “no.”

——–

*In the 2000 campaign, former Texas oil man George W. Bush ran on a promise to regulate carbon dioxide and other gasses linked to manmade climate change, a position that he reversed once elected.  Instead, he offered a voluntary program, with the proviso that “If, in 2012, we find that we are not on track toward meeting our goal, and sound science justifies further policy action, the United States will respond with additional measures that may include a broad, market-based program as well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to accelerate technology development and deployment.”

It is now three years past that deadline.

Reader Comments 0

561 comments
Infraredguy
Infraredguy

Obama has a great plan, destroy the economy of the US with DA environmental laws and when most have lost their cars and start walking, PRESTO greenhouse gases lowered 

Cris Cassity
Cris Cassity

Who cares if we can't make one tenth of one degree difference in global warming like the IPCC says? What do they know? The US and Europe should still give Ban ki Moon a hundred billion dollars a year like Obama wants. We should have to pay for our past sins of industrialization. So even if global warming can't be stopped we will feel much better about ourselves.

honested
honested

Now, now, why should we mere proletarians expect a liveable biosphere?

Keeping it that way prevents those who make huge amounts ruining things from the profits to which they are 'entitled'.

LeninTime
LeninTime

@Hedley_Lammar 

He is

Outside of the South. 

Extremely so. 

***

Again, introducing qualifications to make the popularity look higher. 

But we're not talking about Obama's popularity in the US outside the South. We're talking about his popularity in the country, full stop.

gotalife
gotalife

I propose to catch Merkal and Harper that are running again, let our President run again to catch up. No term limits for President and Vice President to be fair and balanced and to compete in the global economy.


The President said he could win again and he could win another 8 years of no scandals and competing with Canada and Germany in the global market.

gotalife
gotalife

While the gop are focused on playing politics to get Hillary with lies and their fake scandals the President is finishing up this agenda. Then he will flood them with executive actions like this to prepare for our future.


His second term is going great breaking the mold of President's failures in their second terms.

Kamchak
Kamchak

@THEFEEBLELIBERAL 

chicken little liberals are all running around screaming; "the climate is changing the climate is changing"

Republican wordsmith and spinmeister extraordinaire Frank Luntz says, "What?"

THEFEEBLELIBERAL
THEFEEBLELIBERAL

\An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore

Oct. 12, 2007By MARCUS BARAM ABCNEWS


The verdict couldn't have come at a less convenient time for Al Gore.


One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.


The ruling came on a challenge from a UK school official who did not want to show the film to students. High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."


Burton found that screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom. But he allowed the film to be shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views, saying that the film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@THEFEEBLELIBERAL  One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.

\

Wrong


https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm


The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.


Gore won the case. LOL

THEFEEBLELIBERAL
THEFEEBLELIBERAL


As is said earlier, chicken little liberals are all running around screaming; "the climate is changing the climate is changing"




TBS
TBS

Your eyesight seems to have improved from the time you claimed it was the reason you had to type in all caps

Glad that you made it to the eye doc

Cool

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.


The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.


Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science.

THEFEEBLELIBERAL
THEFEEBLELIBERAL

@Hedley_Lammar


wrong wrong wrong


  1. Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".

  2. Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".

  3. Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

Just a quick little review of Al Gore's nuttiness in his movie. 


Obviously, it is impossible to adjudicate this argument with a quick post. But it is worth while at least taking a look at the judge's nine objections to the Gore movie, which are as follows:

  1. Burton found that Gore's assertion of a rapid rise in sea-levels caused by the melting of icecaps in Antarctica was overly "alarmist."
  2. Gore claimed that the disappearance of year-round snow from the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa was expressly attributable to global warming. The court was not convinced. According to Burton, the scientific "consensus" is that the reasons for the snow recession on Kilimanjaro cannot be established.
  3. Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had drowned by "swimming long distances--up to 60 miles--to find the ice." Evidence backing up this claim was not produced to the British court. The judge wrote that the only scientific study shown to him indicated "that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." See early news story on bear drownings here.
  4. Gore attributed the Hurricane Katrina devastation to global warming. The judge found that there was "insufficient evidence to show that."
  5. The Gore movie depicted the drying up of Lake Chad as a prime example of the effects of global warming. Expert testimony in front of the British court suggested that "far more likely causes" were "population increase, over-grazing, and regional climate variability."
  6. Gore suggested an "exact fit" between the rise in carbon dioxide levels and the rise in temperatures over a period of 650,000 years. According to the judge, scientists generally agree that there is "a connection," between the two phenomena, but claims of an "exact fit" cannot be established.
  7. An "Inconvenient Truth" claimed that citizens of some low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "have all had to evacuate to New Zealand" because of the inundation of their islands caused by global warming. The judge said that he found no evidence of "any such evacuation having yet happened."
  8. The movie suggested that global warming could shut down "the Ocean Conveyer," a process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe. The judge cited a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the co-winner of the Nobel Peace prize, which concluded that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyer would be shut down completely, although it might slow down.
  9. Gore argued that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge cited the IPCC view that it was difficult to separate the impact of stresses on coral reefs caused by climate change "from other stresses such as over-fishing and pollution."

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Doom Classical liberal https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm


The case went to court and only 2 factual errors were in the movie


One claim was in error, as was one attribution of a graph. The error was in the claim that climateclimate change had caused the shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro, although the evidence that the shrinkage was most likely caused by deforestation did not appear until after the film was made. The error of attribution was in reference to a graph of temperature and attributes it mistakenly to a Dr. Thompson, when it was actually a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and CRU surface temperature data.


Everything else was spot on accurate. 


BTW the movie won the case. 



StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

Ted Cruz Says Climate-Change Fears Falsified by Scientists....

Instead, Cruz said, government researchers are reverse engineering data sets to falsify changes in the climate. “They’re cooking the books. They’re actually adjusting the numbers,” Cruz said. “Enron used to do their books the same way.”

Science, however, does not back up Cruz’s position. Geochemist James Lawrence Powel peer-reviewed science journals and found that only two articles rejected climate change during 2013. His sample size: 10,885 articles.

http://time.com/3981623/ted-cruz-climate-change/


Where does the GOP find these non essential politicians they place in office?  They just run their mouths, get elected to office and never back up anything they are running their mouths about.

gotalife
gotalife

Time to start honoring our great President.

LeninTime
LeninTime

Barack Obama is so incredibly popular that his own party largely disavowed him in last year's mid-term elections. The party got shellacked anyway - again. 

But to Headley, he's still the rock star beacon of change on his European tour circa 2009.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@LeninTime  But to Headley, he's still the rock star beacon of change on his European tour circa 2009.


Nope


He has the political scars of 7 years in office


But for a two term President his numbers are really really good


Im sorry if that hurts your feelings comrade. 


and the midterms were decidedly setup in the GOP's favor based on where the races were contested. I know the concept of elections must be foreign to a communist.  

LeninTime
LeninTime

@Hedley_Lammar @LeninTime 

It has nothing to do with my feelings, comrade. I'm simply pointing to the facts. 

Sure, mid-terms always tend to favor the non-incumbent party, especially when it's the GOP, but that doesn't go anywhere near explaining the crushing defeat the president's party suffered, and that can largely be laid at his feet. 

To claim that he is 'incredibly popular' is laughable lib cheerleading.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@LeninTime @Hedley_Lammar but that doesn't go anywhere near explaining the crushing defeat the president's party suffered, and that can largely be laid at his feet


I'm sure that is the way you see it.


To claim that he is 'incredibly popular' is laughable lib cheerleading. 


To claim his numbers aren't really good. ( especially outside the South ) Is doing the very thing you accuse me of.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@LeninTime @Hedley_Lammar Because the South is a bit of an outlier


Pulling his numbers down. 


And there is a racial component to his unpopularity here. Call it the race card if you want


Its real. 

LeninTime
LeninTime

@Hedley_Lammar

It might be in the average range for second-term presidents, but again, at issue is your claim that he is rabidly popular. Which is, to say the least, greatly overstated.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@LeninTime @Hedley_Lammar It might be in the average range for second-term presidents, but again, at issue is your claim that he is rabidly popular.


He is


Outside of the South. 


Extremely so. 

JeffreyEav
JeffreyEav

If only Trump had said that then it'd be gold.

TBS
TBS

That effn Obama.

Always working to make the U.S. weak