The GOP is now a party of know-nothing flat-earthers
One of the greatest crises of our time is climate change, which threatens to create food shortages (as the Russians learned this summer), change geography, eradicate entire eco-systems and even wipe out cities and towns in coastal areas. (NOTE: If you are an anti-science know-nothing, don’t bother to comment. The clear scientific consensus indicates a warming climate caused by human activity.)
But we’ve reached the odd and depressing point in American politics where not a single Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate supports aggressive action to mitigate climate change. The last science literate, Delaware Congressman Mike Castle, was defeated by tea party favorite Christine O’Donnell.
The blog Think Progress did a survey of GOP Senate candidates, and it found that even those who had previously supported policies that would curb carbon emissions have backed away, fearing a backlash from their know-nothing constituents.
Many others have simply chosen to be ignorant anti-science flat-earthers. Alaska’s Joe Miller, who defeated incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary, is an example of the latter category. He told an Alaska newspaper,
“We haven’t heard there’s man-made global warming.” [Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 8/23/10]
Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson is in the more sophisticated category, too smart to deny the science outright but unwilling to buck a tide of flat-earth voters and selfish businesses that don’t want to change their ways. This was Isakson’s response, according to Think Progress:
Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions. footprint.
Interestingly, though, Isakson doesn’t support any “proactive measures” to combat climate change.
The current GOP represents a step backward from the Bush administration, which acknowledged the threat of climate change. In 2007, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US was “a major emitter” and was not “above the international community on the issue.” She also said that “all nations should tackle” the “growing problem” of climate change. (h/t The New Civil Rights Movement)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
679 comments Add your comment
Good Grief
September 16th, 2010
11:27 am
barking frog – wonderful answer. You have laid to rest all my fears about cap and tax… er.. trade.
CP
September 16th, 2010
11:27 am
Poor Ms. Tucker. She is joining her follow liberal elitists in a state of complete meltdown. How DARE we smelly, ignorant peasants reject their benevolent rule? How dare we question authority? How dare we disagree with those, like Ms. Tucker, who know everything and only want to dictate what’s best for us?
I can’t wait to see what she and her fellow Lefties do after election day. (If we’re really lucky, they’ll all get together and drink some Jones-flavored Kool-Aid.)
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:28 am
Mankind can adapt to the changes.
Well in the future you’ll just have to resort to cannibalism, because plants and animals can’t adapt to this kind of rapid climate change, which is now occurring an order of magnitude faster than any previous climate change short of an asteroid or comet impact. Don’t worry, Soylent Green tastes good!
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:30 am
How DARE we smelly, ignorant peasants reject their benevolent rule?
That’s right, the tea bagger congress with change the laws of physics themselves. It’s easy. Just make things the way they outta be, and not the way they are. Problem solved!
left wing
September 16th, 2010
11:33 am
Thomas Lee Elifritz @ 11:30 – don’t be silly. Tea baggers don’t believe in physics. It requires too much thought.
godless heathen
September 16th, 2010
11:36 am
“which is now occurring an order of magnitude faster than any previous climate change”
Source?
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
11:39 am
The Leg Lamp: “MICHELLE IN ‘HELL’: ‘CAN’T STAND’ FIRST LADY JOB ”
———–
Don’t let the door hit you in that huge Oprah-sized azz of yours on the way out.
Billybob
September 16th, 2010
11:39 am
Granny,
media matters was created to push the far left agenda and uses the same liberal template that Tucker used here(if you don’t agree with us you are ignorant, racist, science illiterate, etc). Tell me I’m wrong. “Climategate” was a scandal du jour that has been refuted is the same premise. The ‘global warmers’ judged that the ‘global warmers’ were not wrong and are still ‘global warmers’. Manipulated much……ah yes!
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
11:41 am
Thomas Lee Elifritz: plants and animals can’t adapt to this kind of rapid climate change.
Really? Which plants grow FASTER in cooler temps?
In any case, they don’t have to adapt, they just have to move toward the poles.
BH
September 16th, 2010
11:42 am
So not that anyone’s listening to each other.
But the science is solid. The IPCC wasn’t rebuked by a “top notch independent investigation”. It was a group with a history of attacking climate change with funding from corporate interests who have a financial interest in making sure that that action on climate change is delayed as long as possible. But if you really believe that then there’s no need to discuss this any further. A solid majority, by the way, do believe it and certainly the vast majority of climate scientists do. (Remember, meterologists are not climate scientists. The Weather Channel founder isn’t an expert.)
Anyway, for those who accept that this is real but don’t like cap-and-trade, then bring something else to the table. What have you got? Laissez Faire won’t cut it. The market won’t begin to recognize the true costs of the CO2 emissions we’re generating until it’s way too late, if ever. Our market economy isn’t good about recognizing external costs. So how do we handle the issue? Any other ideas?
A version of cap-and-trade (which was proposed by republicans as a compromise by the way) was very successful in eliminating acid rain on the east coast. It did so at a much lower cost than anybody believed it could because it, in essence, used a market mechanism to promote low cost solutions. That’s why it’s been proposed to deal with the larger problem of climate change.
Anyone got a better idea? I’d love to hear it….
Azazel
September 16th, 2010
11:43 am
Frogs in fish bowl; water heated gradually; frogs adapt, for a while, but die from over heating; If water heated rapidly, then temperature change would produce and “escape” reposnse to leave fish bowl. So denial is more a product of incrementalism and adjustment; until, of course, the water starts to boil.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
11:44 am
Lil’ Bush Bailout: compare total jobs lost during Bush’s last 20 month to Job losses during Obamas first 20
————————–
And yet, the unemployment rate during those months was never as high as it has been EVERY month of the Idiot Messiah regime. How disappointing for you, America hater.
I guess it was all those “jobs saved” by our President Bush. Heh heh.
Billybob
September 16th, 2010
11:44 am
The conservatives are being proactive in purging themselves of their own who are about power instead of the people. Trust me, at some point the moderate Dems will be forced by the FAR LEFT Dems to do the same thing. Even Rangel and Waters will be held accountable for their actions. True conservative people always lead in this area…..
left wing
September 16th, 2010
11:45 am
BH @ 11:42 – Laissez Faire won’t cut it. The market won’t begin to recognize the true costs of the CO2 emissions we’re generating until it’s way too late, if ever. – From an economic perspective, this is called an externality. This means it’s someone else’s problem; someone else’s cost. Which is why we need a regulated marketplace.
barking frog
September 16th, 2010
11:46 am
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:25 am
You pick your beliefs. Reality slaps you in the face.
I prefer beliefs that allow me to predict when reality is going to slap me in the face, and so far scientific methods and evidence works for me, very well, in fact, well enough to post text messages on a world wide broadband network with a supercomputer in my lap. But you have your bible, so you’re good. Good luck with the bible thing.
————————————————————————————————————-
Better pray there’s no power outage.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
11:46 am
The Idiot Messiah’s plan is to tax carbon based fuels so we’ll use less of them, and then rebate the taxes to consumers to offset the pain we’ll feel.
Huh?
Metro Coach
September 16th, 2010
11:49 am
So every Ice Age ended because of man made global warming? Dinosaurs and wolly mammoths had SUVs? Wow, you learn something new every day.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:50 am
In any case, they don’t have to adapt, they just have to move toward the poles.
Which is exactly what the evidence suggests they are doing, if you haven’t noticed. Apparently the bible didn’t adequately cover the concepts of adaptation and evolution. The millions of species effected can’t evolve adequately to these changing climatic circumstances because evolution requires timeframes longer than nearly instantaneous geological timeframes involved in their adaptation to HUMAN BEHAVIOR, which goes well beyond mere climate change. Not only are you messing up the climate they have adapted to and evolved into, you are mucking around with their habitats in a nontrivial manner, and then you are also killing them off wholesale, mostly for sport and profit. So are burning down their homes, shooting at them, and forcing them onto reservations. How did that work out for the American Indian population? You don’t have a clue how biology works, do you?
Tony
September 16th, 2010
11:50 am
CT- I am not a “tea partier”- but do you know what a “tea bagger” is? Can I start using the word puss# on the blog?
Dean
September 16th, 2010
11:50 am
“The ultimate stupidity is that you think you have any control over nature.
The Earth has been warming and cooling cyclically for the better part of it’s 4.5 billion year existance.”
The Earth has also had fires long before we were here. That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as arson. Lightening causes fires. And so do we.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:51 am
So every Ice Age ended because of man made global warming?
Can you please post more of your naivete here? We need to recalibrate our stupidity meters, because you have pinned the needle on the low end of the scale and now it’s stuck there.
Dave
September 16th, 2010
11:52 am
Granny – the fact is that your source is wrong. Deal with it….
See, I can play that game too…
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
11:53 am
Thomas Lee Elifritz: Which is exactly what the evidence suggests they are doing, if you haven’t noticed.
—————-
Cool! (so to speak). When do the bananas and coconuts get here? I love them, and they’re better when fresh. All that eat local propoganda, dontcha know.
And once again, the plants don’t have to adapt, they just have to move. Nothing says we can’t help. You know, by planting them? Duh.
PS–why are you obsessed with the bible? Freak.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:53 am
Can I start using the word puss# on the blog?
Sure you can, the bill of rights and the Constitution protects that kind of language. It’s not like you are yelling ‘climate change’ and a vastly overpopulated planet or anything.
Sanders
September 16th, 2010
11:55 am
Jimmy62
September 16th, 2010
8:56 am
The main point is that you are assuming the best answer is to spend ourselves into oblivion trying to prevent global warming. I disagree. Let the Earth warm, fix the symptoms. The planet won’t die, it’s been a lot warmer than this before and done just fine.
And here in two sentences, we can see precisely what’s wrong with the conservative argument. “It’s been a lot warmer…” How do you know? Science. Were humans around back then? No – and any rational being knows the planet will exist long past humans. But we should “…fix the symptoms.” With more burning of fossil fuels? Why not make the investment in clean fuels NOW, and not worry about the symptoms?
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:56 am
PS–why are you obsessed with the bible?
Because 40 percent of Americans believe it to be the inerrent word of God, and thus believe the universe was created in seven days by an imaginary sky daddy, and it’s 6000 years old?
Perhaps?
Freak.
Oh gosh, I’m so insulted. I’m so afraid now I guess I’ll just have to quit posting here.
Better get right out there and start moving some of those plants, winter is coming!
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:58 am
The planet won’t die, it’s been a lot warmer than this before and done just fine.
That’s right, seven billions humans will survive the collapse of the agriculture, the collapse of the global and financial system, the resulting chaos, wars, starvation and dieoff just fine.
Civilization, who needs it. Agriculture will do just fine without all that carbon combustion to support it.
Meathead
September 16th, 2010
11:58 am
Metro Coach
September 16th, 2010
11:49 am
So every Ice Age ended because of man made global warming? Dinosaurs and wolly mammoths had SUVs? Wow, you learn something new every day.
Scary to think you may be coach influencing young minds. Has the earth ever warmed at such a rapid pace? You need to start thinking in tens of thousands of years, rather then in decades.
Fang1944
September 16th, 2010
11:59 am
Bubba
September 16th, 2010
10:12 am
Would MIT professor Richard Lindzen, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, be considered a know-nothing flat-earther?
————–
No, he’d be considered a shill. He’s taken bags of money from the oil companies. He also claimed that smoking didn’t cause cancer long after we knew that it did.
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen’s assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had “sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound.” (New York Times)
Mike K
September 16th, 2010
12:01 pm
I haven’t read the whole post yet (I will), but I have to comment on this statement:
“(NOTE: If you are an anti-science know-nothing, don’t bother to comment. The clear scientific consensus indicates a warming climate caused by human activity.)”
I find this statement amusing because it implies that science is, somehow, a democratic discipline. When Einstein developed his theory of general relativity the clear scientific consensus was that he was wrong, but, of course, it doesn’t matter how many people with fancy degrees thought he was wrong – he was still right (or at least more correct than his critics). Even the title of this post reveals the falseness of the above statement. There was a time when the vast majority of people believed the earth was flat – that was the consensus opinion – but it didn’t make it true.
I am not a climate scientist; however, I do model the economics of climate change quite extensively. While there is no doubt that the earth has experienced a warming trend during the past 100 years, I’m very skeptical of scientists who assert that the warming is primarily driven by human activity. From first hand experience, I can tell you that it is very difficult to draw both accurate and precise conclusions about complex systems from models because we simply lack the abililty to model the full complexity of the real world. I see this in modeling the electricity grid, which is far simpler than the planet’s ecosystem (plus, the grid has a far more complete historical record).
Mind you, I’m not saying that humans didn’t cause global warming. Maybe we did. Personally, I suspect that climate change is largely driven by natural climate patterns that have little to do with humans, but I may very-well be wrong. I just think it is wrong to suggest (as Cynthia does) that it is simply ignorant to question the position that climate change is primarily anthropogenic.
As I said, I’m not a climate scientist, but I’m sure I have more experience modeling than Cynthia does and I’m sure I’ve spent more hours analyzing the costs of climate change policies than Cynthia has. I’m certainly not a no-nothing and I share Cynthia’s attitude towards individuals who deny that global warming is occurring and who completely dismiss the possibility that humans have contributed to it. However, unlike Cynthia, I also dismiss individuals who refuse to consider the possibility that climate change is not primarily anthropogenic and who refuse to honestly consider the costs of climate change policy relative to its potential benefits.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:03 pm
Thomas Lee Elifritz:
PS–why are you obsessed with the bible?
Because 40 percent of Americans believe it to be the inerrent word of God
———————
I’m not sure why that’s any of your business.
If you oppose religion, don’t have one.
And remember, elections have consequences.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:03 pm
However, unlike Cynthia, I also dismiss individuals who refuse to consider the possibility that climate change is not primarily anthropogenic and who refuse to honestly consider the costs of climate change policy relative to its potential benefits.
So your economic models are better than planetary scientists PHYSICAL models?
Sure, uh-huh.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:03 pm
Meh. The Republicans are just saying what they’re paid to say. I doubt any of them would send their kids to some phony creationist college like Regents University.
Don’t worry, they don’t actually believe this stuff. They just use it to rip off climate creationists like “Dave,” above.
Dave
September 16th, 2010
12:03 pm
“No, he’d be considered a shill. He’s taken bags of money from the oil companies”
Yup, follow the money. Like, where do all of the “believers” get their funding??
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:04 pm
Hey Elfie, aren’t you pissed that Obama didn’t bother getting his cap-and-trade bill passed when his own party had 60 in the Senate?
Bummer.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:05 pm
So every Ice Age ended because of man made global warming?
See what I mean? These are the idiot they’re exploiting, to drag the rest of us down. They’ve done it before and they’ll do it again.
Azazel
September 16th, 2010
12:05 pm
Does anyone remember: Carbon , Water and Nitrogen cycles?
Consider Carbon cycle — carbon sequestred in earth as oil, coal and NG over Millions of years (and is continuing); then in a few years much of this carbon is then released back into atomosphere through human actiions– automobiles, coal burning for electricity and industrial materials (steel) and lots and lots of other carbon based materials.
So if earth cooled by carbon sqquestration, then what happens when all that cabon is put back?
The GOP is now a party of know-nothing flat-earthers - Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) :: CCB4you.com
September 16th, 2010
12:06 pm
[...] here to see the original: The GOP is now a party of know-nothing flat-earthers – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) Comments(0) Climate Control Blinds [...]
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:06 pm
What happens when all these windmills disrupt the normal airflow patterns around the globe?
UK Unprepared for Climate Change, Must Do More to Adapt — Report – New York Times
September 16th, 2010
12:08 pm
[...] under fire for failing to tackle threat of climate changeYorkshire PostFarming UK -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -BBC Newsall 179 news [...]
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:09 pm
You know-nothing windmill-huggers might want to revisit your second law of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:09 pm
The IPCC wasn’t rebuked by a “top notch independent investigation”. It was a group with a history of attacking climate change with funding from corporate interests who have a financial interest in making sure that that action on climate change is delayed as long as possible.
Yeah, and he was copying from the New York Post, of all the sad things. I mean, it’ s one thing not to be able to think for yourself. It’s quite another to scoop filth out of the sewer and pretend its your new brains.
Big D
September 16th, 2010
12:09 pm
CT, No worse than the “Democratic Jackass lunatic Party”
The science that one needs to disseminate in order to come to a “logical” conclusion on this issue is far beyond you and 99.9% of the people writing on this blog.
Not one of you has even the first clue as to what really contributes the most to atmospheric carbons…so pleassse don’t try and act so smart…your not.
No…I don’t have the time or inclination to educate the “lefties” who will come with their S.A. dribble.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:10 pm
I’m not sure why that’s any of your business.
Well guess what, I’m MAKING IT MY BUSINESS.
And I’ve got a copy of the United States Constitution in my wallet, so I’m ok with it.
If you oppose religion, don’t have one.
I’m not opposed to all religions, just yours, when it denies science.
And remember, elections have consequences.
Denial of science has far more deleterious consequences than elections.
Azazel
September 16th, 2010
12:11 pm
LBB — interesting question. I am in favor of solar, since collection energy is independent of collectors — or a solar cell does not “disrupt” the incidence energy to other collectors (e.g., plants)
Dave
September 16th, 2010
12:12 pm
Yeah, and he was copying from the New York Times (or Media Matters, or the AJC, or HuffPo), of all the sad things. I mean, it’ s one thing not to be able to think for yourself. It’s quite another to scoop filth out of the sewer and pretend its your new brains
fyt….
Big D
September 16th, 2010
12:12 pm
LBB, that would be as hard as trying to explain Hyper physics to them and the relation to conservation.
Just let them go on and on showing their complete ignorance of the science.
It is kind of fun to watch…
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:13 pm
Not one of you has even the first clue as to what really contributes the most to atmospheric carbons…so pleassse don’t try and act so smart…your not.
Can you give us a citation, because I’ve got a pretty good handle on the carbon fluxes on a life bearing terrestrial planet with an atmosphere, continents and oceans, and I’m also familiar with the breakdown of radiative forcings involved as well. So please do enlighten us.
Thanks!
Mike K
September 16th, 2010
12:13 pm
I just read the rest of the blog – my initial opinion has not changed.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:13 pm
No…I don’t have the time or inclination to educate the “lefties” who will come with their S.A. dribble.
Run away! Run away!
If you weren’t a coward, you wouldn’t be a Republican.