The GOP alone in the world in its rejection of climate science

On Dec. 12, 2015, leaders and delegates of more than 190 nations unanimously committed to reducing the impact of manmade climate change, which they described in their Paris agreement as “an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet (that) thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries.”

Here at home, though, the Republican Party cannot bring itself to admit that manmade climate change even exists. Its isolation on the issue is so complete and extreme that around the globe, it is the only major conservative party that takes such a stance.¹ Even a longtime climate-change skeptic such as ExxonMobil is now publicly admitting that without significant government action, potentially catastrophic heating of up to 9° F is likely, with even greater increases well within the realm of possibility.

“We believe the risks of climate change are real and those risks warrant constructive action by both policymakers and the business community,” as ExxonMobil Vice President Ken Cohen puts it, using words that none of the GOP frontrunners could bring himself to utter. ExxonMobil even advocates that a global carbon tax be placed on its own products as the most effective means of reducing greenhouse emissions, with all revenue generated by the tax used to reduce other forms of taxation.

Think about that. An oil company so frightened about the prospect of climate change that it advocates taxing its own product to reduce the risk.

Other major oil companies — including BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Saudi Aramco — have also embraced the findings of climate science and voiced vocal support for the Paris climate-change agreement. Clearly, they too believe that the climate is warming to a dangerous degree, and that action must be taken to reduce the damage as much as possible.

And the data continue to roll in to confirm that finding. Last year was the warmest on record; this year will break that record. Thirteen of the 14 warmest years on the global record have occurred since 2000. In October — the most recent month for which we have global data — the temperature deviation from the monthly norm was the highest ever recorded. The autumn of 2015 — from September to November — was the warmest ever recorded in the contiguous United States, with the average temperature some 3.3 degrees above the 20th century average.

tave-anom-201509-201511

But hey, maybe all that data are mere coincidence and the Republicans are right. Maybe the governments of more than 190 countries are wrong, and the Republicans are right. Maybe the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are wrong, and the Republicans are right. Maybe the folks at ExxonMobil and BP and other major oil companies are wrong, and the Republicans are right. Maybe earlier generations of Republicans that proposed to address the threat of manmade climate change were wrong, and the modern GOP with its cult-like insistence on ideological conformity is right.

Maybe. But I don’t want to bet the planet I leave to my children and grandchildren on that unlikely event.

————

¹In Britain, for example, the Conservative Party ran for re-election this year on a promise to “push for a strong global climate deal (in Paris) … one that keeps the goal of two-degrees (Celsius increase) firmly in reach.” That is exactly the final goal agreed to in Paris.

Reader Comments 0

1247 comments
truth2power
truth2power

The GOP is the American Taliban-  anti-science and misogynistic.

GB101
GB101

"On Dec. 12, 2015, leaders and delegates of more than 190 nations unanimously committed to reducing the impact of manmade climate change, "


But did they really do this?  For another perspective and more detail:


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428509/paris-climate-change-talks-do-not-accomplish-much


I have not read the Paris agreement - or non agreement.  I suspect that Mr. Bookman has not either.  Perhaps he could tell us more about the document before he tells us about this unanimous commitment in such definite and unqualified terms.


If Lowery and others are right about the agreement - that it is non  binding and nothing but window dressing - then perhaps the Republicans are not as isolated as Mr. Bookman tells us.  Perhaps they are just more honest.  After all, if this crisis is as dire as we are told, and it the steps proposed to address it are at all effective, wouldn't this consensus result in a real agreement to act?

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

And we have yet another poster who says - "why - this agreement isn't going to solve all of the problems of AGW -we shouldn't do this".

I am sure 110 years ago you'd have said "hey Orville - you only flew 280 yards and it took you 3 attempts to go that far - trying to fly is a waste of time."

ByteMe
ByteMe

When was the last time Republicans used "faux science" to do something good for humanity?

Buzzzz
Buzzzz

Liberals are loving this faux science.  They are also making a fortune off of the myth. Ask Al Gore.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Buzzzz Damn, forgot to include the "ALGORE" deflection in my list of responses the nutters would bring up.  My bad.  Apologies to all for forgetting how far afield the nutters get.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Buzzzz I'm amused when climate illiterates bring up "faux science" as though they think they know what's going on.

DoctorJNB
DoctorJNB

Bookman's opinion on this is worthless.   About half the scientific community does not believe in the predictions or conclusions of the Alarmists regarding anthropogenic global warming, not the 3% so often cited by the Chicken Little folks.  You rarely hear the Skeptics side of the debate because their very valid criticisms of the data manipulation and bogus modeling is suppressed within the scientific community, in its conferences and publications.

CherokeeCounty
CherokeeCounty

@DoctorJNB

And why would they do that?  All those scientists around the world just doing their best to destroy god fearin' Muricans, right?

ByteMe
ByteMe

@CherokeeCounty he's sure it's the only way those scientists get paid by... um... not corporations... government?  No, they don't have a reason to care... hmm... George Soros!  Yeah, that's the ticket.

RaindroidWillBoy
RaindroidWillBoy

@Visual_Cortex @Mustang100


What do you have to say about the seldom discussed fact that global temperature readings are of excessively low credibility and subject to  manipulations in data?

ByteMe
ByteMe

@RaindroidWillBoy You're acting like the trend varies wildly.  Even a single poorly calibrated sensor over time will -- if functioning properly -- show a trend.  Now having well over 90% of them showing the same trend toward excessive warming and you think maybe you're the one being manipulated?


So you'd have to fall back on "all the sensors are broken", which defies logic.

TBS
TBS

@RaindroidWillBoy @Visual_Cortex @Mustang100


Please post the data that shows there is widespread data manipulation, incorrect readings and faulty models being used.

Do keep in mind that your data will need to show that this is being done world wide because scientists all over the world working for governments, non-profits and big business are researching climate change. 

Thanks in advance for posting more than anecdotal information

This is some kind of conspiracy, huh?

RaindroidWillBoy
RaindroidWillBoy

@ByteMe @RaindroidWillBoy


Please.  Don't you recall that NASA admitted after all the fanfare that the readings are are at 38th percentile?  


Its not trend its the underlying math suggesting such.

TBS
TBS

@ByteMe @RaindroidWillBoy


Or he could just post evidence that shows manipulation taking place around the world among governments, non-profits and big business. 

He seems so sure that his assertions are correct yet his evidence posted to date does not match his assertions.

RaindroidWillBoy
RaindroidWillBoy

@TBS @RaindroidWillBoy @Visual_Cortex @Mustang100


Where did I say widespread manipulation?  Subject to manipulation was my comment.  What have the models told us that actually happened?  


No conspiracy, simply that when using a concept of global temperature, one would like the prediction that is higher than 38th percentile.


The algorithms used are based on hundreds of variables with values selected for each within a range.  This opens opportunities to select the highest possible values.  


The underlying problem is the use of 99.9999% proxy data.  Imagine if they are off a mere 1 degree in guesstimates for temperatures prior to those recorded?

RaindroidWillBoy
RaindroidWillBoy

@ByteMe @RaindroidWillBoy


Familiar with the site which attracts folks to it based on misdiretion (Skeptical Science?).  This is the Media Matters of the global warming business.



RaindroidWillBoy
RaindroidWillBoy

@TBS @RaindroidWillBoy @Visual_Cortex @Mustang100


So you are trying to shut down the conversation by asking for proof that advocates are manipulating data? 


Why won't NOAA release internal data and analysis for review by others?


The data is subject to or in other words, lends itself to manipulation by the virtue of the selection of values.  


A fundamental understanding of the vagaries involved in such models is valuable in looking at this objectively.  Plus you have political motivations which make all of this data subject to dispute.  Especially since we are talking gin fractions of degrees over hundreds, if not thousands of years..



Think of an accounting end of year audit.....


straker
straker

Republicans in Congress are bought and paid for by Big Business.

Business does not like the idea of curbing greenhouse emissions because of its impact on PROFIT. Needless to say, they also don't want any curb on gun sales, for the same reason.

So, look for increased global warming and increased gun murders.

Only in America.

InTheMiddle2
InTheMiddle2

@straker Ooooooohhhhh, bought and paid for buy big business, ooooohhhhhhh... Get a new bumper sticker.

InTheMiddle2
InTheMiddle2

So global warming has been covered this week. Wonder if today will be Trump or Guns or something something anti-GOP

InTheMiddle2
InTheMiddle2

@Menace @InTheMiddle2 Let me guess, you like to surround yourself with people that think like you so you won't have to generate a thought of your own.

YouLibs
YouLibs

@InTheMiddle2


I was wondering if another dumb rube would show up here today expecting a liberal opinion writer to do a column with a conservative slant.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@InTheMiddle2 You're the one complaining about the environment here.  He's helping you solve your problem the most expedient way possible.  Thank him.  You're welcome.

Peachs
Peachs

I expect Christie to have a good night tonight, I really think Trumps wheels are coming off, but TC is no replacement. 

SFM_Scootter
SFM_Scootter

@Peachs None of that matters. The GOP has no one that can beat Clinton. IMO

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@SFM_Scootter @Peachs 
I still say Kasich's prospects in a general election matchup would be competitive. But it doesn't look like the GOP voters have the common sense to get behind him.