Republicans go bat-shit crazy on global warming

I'm not sure what the origin of the term is, but calling Congressional Republicans bat-shit crazy sounds so right to me. They're acting insane on many issues, but global warming is where their disconnect from reality reaches its zenith.

I've never seen a political party in this country go so far astray from facts. We're not talking here about a difference of opinion, a philosophical dispute, or a questioning of which data are more accurate.

No, the freshly empowered Republicans who have taken control of the House of Representatives are purely and simply lying. So I'll amend my description of them into bat-shit crazy liars.

This is even more objectionable, because I can excuse craziness.

We all go a bit (or a lot) outside of the sane range from time to time, especially under extreme stress. I can understand how the spectre of Barack Obama -- all rational, calm, cool, and collected -- could push hot-headed right-wingers into saying crazy stuff.

But it's become clear that Congressional Republicans like House Energy chair Fred Upton are consciously lying about global warming. Only two years ago he said, "Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions."

Now, Upton is claiming that global warming isn't manmade. That's a lie. A bat-shit crazy lie. So says the highly respected and independent National Academy of Sciences in a 2010 report.

As part of its most comprehensive study of climate change to date, the National Research Council today issued three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. 

The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America's Climate Choices.

...The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. 

While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never "closed," the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change.  The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems," the report concludes. 

I've lost all respect for Congressional Republicans. Reluctantly, really.

My mother was an avid lifelong Republican. I grew up reading National Review and William F. Buckley. Back then (the early '60s), conservatives were intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful of both science and opposing views.

Now, the Washington D.C. variety have turned into truth-denying morons.

They don't even claim to put forward alternative facts that would purportedly explain why 2010 was the hottest year on record (tied with 2005) and the past decade was the hottest ten years ever, while carbon dioxide spewed out by humans has increased in amounts that predict this much global warming.

The bizarre behavior of Republicans would be amusing, if the need to develop alternative energy sources and reduce our nation's carbon footprint wasn't so pressing. The world's oil supply obviously is limited. Peak oil, when production plateaus, is near at hand, if not already here.

Yet the non-geniuses in Congress with an "R" after their name want to preserve multi-billion dollar subsidies for oil companies while slashing funding for alternative energy research and development of renewable energy supplies.

Fortunately, they're on the wrong side of public opinion.

Americans strongly support protecting our air and holding polluters accountable

Seventy-seven percent of the public—including 61 percent of Republicans—oppose efforts in Congress to block Clean Air Act updates for carbon dioxide, smog, and other pollutants according to a recent National Resources Defense Council poll.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect our air and water.

A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll showed that of the eight actions Congress could take this year, Americans most favor an energy bill that provides incentives for using alternative energy (83 percent).

The vast majority of Republicans—as well as a majority of Americans—oppose the Newt Gingrich plan to dismantle the EPA. More than 75 percent of the respondents oppose congressional efforts to limit the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Air Act.

So Republicans are being doubly crazy. While denying scientific facts about global warming, they're also ignoring public opinion about how to deal with climate change. That'll come back to bite them in the next election.

Comments

[Stacy]

"That'll come back to bite them in the next election."

Oh, how I wish. Public opinion and the desires of the majority seem to have very little meaning to republicans and their base.

[Willie R]

Brian - I find your Churchless blog very interesting and challenging and generally agree with your "existential" (if you will) stance. The HinesSight blog which you subtitle "how things look through an Oregonian's eyes", does often digress from things with which Oregonians should properly be concerned - and that is what goes on in Oregon. This whole global warming issue is one to which just as many Oregonians are indifferent, as those who are concerned. I am not from Oregon, but I can assure you that statistics would underwrite my assertion.

I have no dog in the climate change hunt. My life is for the most part behind me. My three sons will most likely never father any offspring, so I am not personally concerned that my own admitted lust for the luxuries afforded by burning hydrocarbon fuels will have an effect upon later generations. I can afford to be apathetic.

I will offer a prediction. I would take large bets if there were some way to devise a method of collection, but all bettors will be deceased long before my prediction comes true.

Human beings will not, under any circumstances, desist from burning hydrocarbons.

Level-headed Democrats will never succeed in passing legislation that will have a significant impact on the burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Bat-shit crazy Republicans will not be remembered as being to blame for the awful cataclysms which will inevitably occur when the chemistry of the atmosphere rearranges all the furniture in the comfortable living room we call Earth.

It's a done deal.

[Laurie Dougherty]

Brian, Joe Romm is looking for a better, stronger phrase than “climate cranks” to describe the GOP and hard core climate change deniers in general. Maybe you should suggest "bat-shit crazy." I think it fit’s the bill quite well.
(Climate Progress 2/15/11 - Calling out the climate cranks: Galileo moment for GOP)

Note to Willlie R. - Any Oregonian can have thoughts on anything that anyone else has thoughts on. Not to mention that there are plenty of reasons for Oregonians to be concerned about climate change. The US Global Change Research Program most recent national assessment (2009) describes impacts of climate change for each region of the US (many of these impacts are already happening):

For the Pacific Northwest the key issues are:

--Declining springtime snowpack leads to reduced summer streamflows, straining water supplies. [Not only is the Pacific Northwest very dependent on the timing of the melting snow pack for water for agricultural, industrial and household use, 70% of the electricity in the NW comes from hydropower, more than any other part of the US. The declining summer stream flow may be coupled with a decrease in summer precipitation.]

--Increased insect outbreaks, wildfires, and changing species composition in forests will pose challenges for ecosystems and the forest products industry. [Also affecting agriculture, especially fruit trees, which are a large part of agricultural production in the NW.]

--Salmon and other coldwater species will experience additional stresses as a result of rising water temperatures and declining summer streamflows.

--Sea-level rise along vulnerable coastlines will result in increased erosion and the loss of land.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

Willie R., you’ve made it clear that you don’t care about anyone beyond your own narrow circle, but that’s no reason to fault Brian for his concern.

(Tried to post this earlier, but it didn't seem to take. Apologies if it goes through more than once.)

[Willie R]

Laurie - I am not faulting Brian about anything. The point I wish to make is that human concern, or lack of it, will have zero effect on climate change. Even if it is beyond doubt that humans are entirely responsible for the destruction of the environment, we are still going to destroy it. Existence is temporary. We are naturally occurring creatures serving as energy transformers. That's all.

[Mark]

Rules I live by:

You either embrace the solution or embrace the problem;

Almost everything everyone does will - all by itself - seem insignificant, and when you take all those little things together that's what makes history... so its vital that you do them anyway.

What matters most is the stories that are told by whatever people are still around a couple centuries from now. Will those stories be ones of limits and stewardship? Or another 'round of cultural stories justifying brutal competition for scarce resources?

Those stories have their roots in the stories we tell today. Tell the right story.

"Once upon a time, the leaders became bat-shit crazy. And then...."