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
A Lumpkin Resident
September 16th, 2010
12:14 pm
There you go, Cynthia. Polarizing politics, trying to win folks to the Democratic viewpoint by insulting them.
I’ll repeat it everytime I see it: Why do Democrats believe that they can win hearts and minds by insulting people? You’ galvanize your loyal base and alienate everyone else. That is NOT the prescription for holding on to power.
Because YOU believe in global warming, it is fair to insult everyone else. But then we read stories like the Canada Free Press FIVE HOURS ago that show that the arctic sea ice extent… that stuff that Al Gore said was going to disappear… is higher in both 2009 and 2010 than the average from 1979-2000. But what has the Press reported? Virtually nothing for 2009, and only reported in 2010 when the sea ice extent finally, about two weeks ago, dipped lower than 2009. Yet BOTH are higher than the 1979-2000 average. Of course, they did not mention that, but that it was now less than 2009. The main stream media ONLY reports what they think will indicate global warming… even when it doesn’t. And yet when people see these things and become skeptical of the pile of horse dung reporting and science, the almighty Cynthia Tucker calls them “know nothing flat earthers”.
Way to go, Cynthia. “Insult and alienate” should be your motto of the Democratic party.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:16 pm
Thomas Lee Elifritz: Denial of science has far more deleterious consequences than elections.
—————–
Well, I’m sorry but your Idiot Messiah says that whoever wins gets to do whatever they want, so you’ll just have to deal with that.
As for your obsession with religion, you should get help for that. Rage-a-holics comes to mind. Just for fun, you might try to find any statement of mine that’s reveals any sort of religious belief. Oopsies! You don’t know that you don’t know, and that’s the worst kind of stupid.
Big D
September 16th, 2010
12:17 pm
JM, It is a science and a discipline that requires years of education and we have neither of those in your case to deal with, but thanks for proving my point.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:17 pm
Yeah, and he was copying from the New York Times (or Media Matters, or the AJC, or HuffPo), of all the sad things.
No, it was a list from Think Progress of the anti-science ignorance of the right — quoting them.
You’re dumber than I thought, but I guess that shouldn’t surprise me.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:17 pm
Why didn’t Obama pass cap and trade? Hmmm?
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:18 pm
JM, It is a science and a discipline that requires years of education and we have neither of those in your case to deal with, but thanks for proving my point.
You didn’t have a point, you ran away. Remember?
Those who do have those things agree with me. And now you’re all caught up.
You can thank me later.
Meathead
September 16th, 2010
12:19 pm
Azazel
September 16th, 2010
12:05 pm
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?
Yeah that’s it! If we just wait a few months, all that carbon will recycle itself back to coal and oil in the ground. You sure are smart!
Azazel
September 16th, 2010
12:19 pm
Big D — Most atmospheric carbon comes from volcanoes and plant transpiration, and, are “continuous” or “baseline ” processes, which act in addition to the release of sequestered carbon.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:19 pm
The biggest threat to the Earth, and Obama stood by and did…nothing.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:19 pm
Well, I’m sorry but your Idiot Messiah says that whoever wins gets to do whatever they want, so you’ll just have to deal with that.
I’m pretty sure that’s called ‘authoritarianism’. Good luck with that. If you want to see how that worked out the last time read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. But if that’s the way you feel, then feel free to give me a link to where my preferred imaginary deity or prophet said that. I’m pretty sure that’s called a ’strawman’ in the world of high school debating clubs.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:20 pm
Because YOU believe in global warming, it is fair to insult everyone else. But then we read stories like the Canada Free Press …
BWA-HA-HAAAAAA!!! I think I see your problem.
Pointing out that people who are dumb enough to believe what they read in Canada’s answer to FOX News aren’t very bright isn’t an insult, it’s the truth.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:21 pm
Why didn’t Obama pass cap and trade? Hmmm?
The Senate.
There, that was easy … just like all your other cute little questions.
Billybob
September 16th, 2010
12:21 pm
Thomas Lee Elifritz,
Wow, you ARE smarter than everyone else here. All hail Tom. Congratulations!!! I bet that attitude changes when you meet your maker. Good luck to you sir…..
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:21 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout:: Well, I’m sorry but your Idiot Messiah says that whoever wins gets to do whatever they want, so you’ll just have to deal with that.
Thomas Lee Elifritz: I’m pretty sure that’s called ‘authoritarianism’.
——————————-
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I’m going to agree wholeheartedly with that.
Progress!
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:21 pm
It is a science and a discipline that requires years of education and we have neither of those in your case to deal with, but thanks for proving my point.
A ten year old script kiddie already hacked your super secret science password and handshake, so we want in on your secret science society.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:22 pm
And who had 60 Democrats in the Senate? Hmmm?
Dave
September 16th, 2010
12:23 pm
My source is better than your source…. nya nya nya nya……
The childishness in here is starting to get unbearable…. but that’s nothing new…
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:23 pm
I bet that attitude changes when you meet your maker.
Right, and your preferred imaginary deity is better than everyone else’s preferred imaginary deity. I hope you don’t mind if I deal with reality here and now, but thanks for your CONCERN.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:23 pm
And who had 60 Democrats in the Senate? Hmmm?
… and their positions on Cap and Trade were … what?
The reason you don’t know this very basic stuff is because you’ve been hiding in the pages of the New York Post.
Safer for you that way, I guess.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:23 pm
60 Democrat votes in the Senate, a Democrat majority in the House, and the most serious issue to ever face mankind staring them in the face.
Blink.
Big D
September 16th, 2010
12:24 pm
JM,
I’m sorry you missed the “point”, but I guess that happens a lot with you.
The “point” was that you are to ignorant and uneducated to be blindly following anything that CT blurts out. It involves a very complicated set of circumstances that lead to an educated evaluation of the supposed global warming by mankind’s doing.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:24 pm
My source is better than your source…. nya nya nya nya……
Yes. Your sources are in inferior, which is why you are inferior.
Now you know.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:25 pm
Hell, at least two Republican senators were likely to help pass cap and trade. And then…nothing happened.
Obama: Fail.
Mike K
September 16th, 2010
12:25 pm
@Thomas Lee Elifritz
Actually, our models aren’t ‘economic’ models like the ones you’ve read about in the papers. We use linear programming models to calculate the optimal dispatch of electricity throughout the North American grid (we also do some work in Ireland) and to calculate the cheapest way to comply with environmental policies. The models are economic in the sense that they are cost minimization models, but they are primarily based on the physical structure of the US electricity grid.
While I wouldn’t say our models are better than the climate change models (since that’s a meaningless thing to say), I will say that we are modeling a significantly less complex system that has a wealth of publicly available data. In spite of that, the predictive power of our models is limited. We can make broad-based predictions with a great deal of accuracy, but the more precision is required the less accurate the models are. Moreover, the models are heavily assumption driven – that’s an unavoidable fact of modeling. If you ask me what electricity prices in Chicago will look like in 2020, I’m going to tell you that depends on hazardous air pollutant regulations, on whether the Green Power Express gets built, on gas prices, and on US CO2 policy. I can make an educated guess about what will happen in each of those arenas, but, at the end of the day, I can’t control the government and I can’t predict when something previously unknown (like the development of economic shale exctraction techniques) will occur.
All I’m saying is that modeling is an art masquerading as a science. Certainly, there are quantitative aspects and the work we do has meaningful predictive value, but attempting to assign causation to changes in something as complex as the planents climate over a 100 year period with spotty data is next to impossible. I should add, I’ve worked with econometric models as well and model that attempt to predict the future based on the past. My understanding of the climate change models is that they are based on similar statistical analyses. Because those models deal with uncertainty as well as imperfect information (which is a more complex problem), their predictive power is far less than LPs. My understanding is that climate change models (much like macroeconomic models) involves heavy statistical analysis. That’s why I take what climate change scientists say with a grain of salt.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:25 pm
60 Democrat votes in the Senate, a Democrat majority in the House, and the most serious issue to ever face mankind staring them in the face.
And then there are all those other details you left out. But I guess it’s too complicated for you.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:26 pm
I guess if you want to blame someone for inaction on global warming, the best place to start would be the Democrat-run federal government. They could have passed whatever they liked, and chose to do nothing.
CYNT U MUST KEEP UR JOB
September 16th, 2010
12:26 pm
WHY IS THE TRUTH BEING TAKEN DOWN CYNT?
Scout
September 16th, 2010
12:26 pm
Here’s the bottom line.
I don’t know if there is a little global warming (or cooling) going on out there or not. Frankly, I’m not that worried.
However, it just goes to show you that Liberals have to have a “feed good” cause and if there isn’t one they’ll make one up.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:27 pm
I’m sorry you missed the “point”, but I guess that happens a lot with you.
You’re right, I did miss it, because you haven’t made any, and you then refuse to let us into your secret science society by failing to provide us a LINK to your point and its evidence.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:27 pm
The “point” was that you are to [sic] ignorant and uneducated to be blindly following anything that CT blurts out
I’ve never read her before, and you still can’t write good English. My sources on climate research are climate researchers.
I think I see your problem. You’re on the wrong side of this issue because you’re ignorant.
Got it.
Big D
September 16th, 2010
12:27 pm
AZ,
Thank you for thinking in the one tenth of one percent.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:27 pm
JM, maybe you can help me out and explain why the very intelligent, fact-based, science-obsessed Democrat party chose not to do anything about global warming. I don’t get it.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:27 pm
I guess if you want to blame someone for inaction on global warming, the best place to start would be the Democrat-run federal government. They could have passed whatever they liked …
GONG!!!
Basic fact fail.
Kim
September 16th, 2010
12:28 pm
Good grief: The fact is, the science IS in on this. That is why there is NOT a strong consensus within the scientific community that more study is required.
LydiasDad
September 16th, 2010
12:28 pm
Atlanta rejects Cynthia Tucker, because she’s a nutjob.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:29 pm
I don’t know if there is a little global warming (or cooling) going on out there or not. Frankly, I’m not that worried.
Invisible things can’t hurt you anyways. Atoms, viruses, bacteria, you’re right, what me worry.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:29 pm
Here’s the bottom line.
I don’t know if there is a little global warming …
However, it just goes to show you that …
Wait, you admit you don’t know something, then use that ignorance as evidence?
Clearly stupid enough to be a conservative.
Billybob
September 16th, 2010
12:29 pm
I know my diety is different from yours, I believe in Jesus Christ and the LORD, which is why I said….”YOUR MAKER”…..I love exposing lib’s who trade on intolerance….wait, that seems to be most these days.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:30 pm
Atlanta rejects Cynthia Tucker
And of course, LydiasDad speaks for all of Atlanta. LydiasDad isn’t and ‘authoritarian’! No!
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:30 pm
Mmm hmm…fact fail you say? Sounds like you’ve got nothing.
No cap and trade, for one, thanks to the do-nothing Obama-led Democrat party.
Azazel
September 16th, 2010
12:30 pm
Meathead — Probably more than a few months. There are several dependcies: surface area of carbon “receptors” like plants, forests, and alge — higher surface area = greater carbon uptake; and, the amount of carbon released in relation to the uptake capacity.
So, as more land area, containing carbon recptors is used for, say commercial terra-forming (like shopping malls, suburbbs, and so on) , and oceanic pollution (which afects alge populations), then carbon uptake capacity is reduced.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:30 pm
I don’t get it.
Considering that your handle shows you don’t know who authored the bailout, I think it might be easier to keep track of those few things that you do get.
It might save time.
JM
September 16th, 2010
12:31 pm
I know my diety [sic] is different from yours
Clearly.
Dave
September 16th, 2010
12:32 pm
“The reason you don’t know this very basic stuff is because you’ve been hiding in the pages of the New York Times (or Media Matters, or HuffPo, or the Washington Post).
Safer for you that way, I guess.”
This game is fun!
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:32 pm
I know my diety is different from yours, I believe in Jesus Christ and the LORD, which is why I said….”YOUR MAKER”
And I presume you provide the bible as the inerrant word of god as evidence of your beliefs.
And of course, you expect rational people to accept that without questions or dissent.
Wow, just wow. America is the bestest and smartest nation in the WHOLE UNIVERSE!
paleo-neo-Carlinist
September 16th, 2010
12:33 pm
Lil Barry, @12:03. does the “40%” include Muslim Americans who “believe in the inerrent word of god”? just checking
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:34 pm
All right, JM, you’re not going to respond to the question of why a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate and a Democrat-controlled House couldn’t pass legislation to deal with this most serious issue. I do get that.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to catch a flight back to Atlanta, a flight for which I have not offset my carbon footprint.
barking frog
September 16th, 2010
12:34 pm
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
12:13 pm
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.
———————————————————————-
and psychic as well.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
12:35 pm
That was actually Elfiritz’s statement that I C&P’d. Check with it.
Cynthia Is Sexy!!
September 16th, 2010
12:35 pm
Uh NO.