Republicans Increasingly Defensive on Climate

May 9, 2014

Above, GOP Senator Marco Rubio complains that President Obama is ‘not a meteorologist”, so shouldn’t, apparently, listen to people that are.  He states he “understands there is a vast consensus” on the science of climate change.
He then shifts, and resorts to fogging the issue with straw men, successfully running out the clock on the interview.
This behavior, and other observations, indicate the increasing discomfort in the GOP that facts are catching up with them, and time is running out on the united front of denial.


Not all that long ago, leading Republicans took strong positions on climate change. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, co-authored legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. And former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee presented the fight against global warming as a religious cause.

These days, it’s difficult to find a Republican candidate willing to speak out in favor of doing something. Anyone who does so risks defeat in GOP primaries, where ardent climate change skeptics hold sway.

This is a problem for the country, indeed the world.

The National Climate Assessment, released this week, adds to a mounting and overwhelming body of evidence that the effects of rising temperatures are here and now — and that even higher sea levels, more extreme weather and water shortages are in our future if nothing is done.

Addressing the threat won’t be easy, or popular. But denying that a problem even exists — which is common among the most vocal of Republicans — risks branding the party as one that is anti-science and refuses to participate in constructive governance.

Given the increasing scientific certainty about global warming, and the likelihood that public opinion will shift in the face of ever more compelling evidence, Republicans should be thinking of ways of getting out in front of the issue.

Otherwise, like climate change itself, it will overtake them before they can react.

Below, on CNN, ‘conservative” S.E. Cupp complains that “Science Guy” Bill Nye is ‘bullying” her with the facts.(hard to watch, go to 5:20 for the takeaway)

Facts are stubborn things. That climate deniers are more and more changing tactics, less to deny the science, and more to tap dance around and delay actual solutions, shows that they feel the ground shifting beneath them, but don’t know how to respond.
Fact based citizens should continue to firmly, politely, and repeatedly point people to the best resources on climate, that every poll shows people still trust above all, our mainstream scientific organizations –  NASA, NOAA, National Snow and Ice Data Center, National Academy of Science, and the peer reviewed literature.

The clip below is an extended piece from the current Showtime series, Years of Living Dangerously – I’ve posted part of this before – where (recently indicted) GOP congressman Michael Grimm is, at least here, honest about the the increasingly unsupportable GOP intransigence on climate. What’s new here is the prelude, a conversation between Grimm and former Rep. Bob Inglis, a conservative who gets climate, and understands, as USAToday noted above, that its well past time for conservatives to begin proposing solutions.



88 Responses to “Republicans Increasingly Defensive on Climate”

  1. omnologos Says:

    The issue isn’t that climate change isn’t enough Republican…the issue is that it is too much Democrat. This will keep it a poisoned argument in GOP circles, like the EU is almost invariably a killer for any British Tory candidate. The result is tepid policies in the hope that people will look elsewhere soon and fast!

    It will be interesting to see if and how the topic will affect results where the two parties are near each other in the polls. I would be surprised if those with almost-guaranteed seats will change their minds.

    • Political positions can shift big time where the position of one political party shifts to the other side. Example: back in the 1930s the Republican party was the party of isolationists. The internationalists were left wingers. After WWII there was a major shift among internationalists to the right, so that after Vietnam the internationalist party became the Republican party, and the “isolationists” became mostly left wingers.

    • jpcowdrey Says:

      Gotta love the circular reasoning there, maurizio.

    • miffedmax Says:

      The real problem is that by pandering to their base and refusing to face the facts, the Republicans are conceding the field to the Democrats and not coming up with any solutions. Being an Independent, I’m not entirely comfortable with one party completely dominating the discussion of what is to be done about mitigating climate change, but the GOP has completely abrogated its responsibility to come up with conservative-based, free-market driven solutions.

      I’m not saying the Democrats haven’t come up with some of those, or that those would necessarily be the correct solutions. But it would certainly be nice to hear them put on the table by leaders from the right side of the political spectrum as part of a reasonable debate instead of a bunch of hot air and denial.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        All either party has put forth are “conservative-based, free-market driven” proposals – and none of them are close to being a “solution”.

        What we need to have as well are liberal-based non free-market driven plans. See what I did there?

      • jimbills Says:

        We’re already doing “free market” solutions. They don’t need to propose them.

      • andrewfez Says:

        =The real problem is that by pandering to their base and refusing to face the facts=

        From my perspective it was the politicians that played a significant roll in instructing and reinforcing to their base that there was ‘no such thing as global warming’. They played off their base’s already established paranoia of the government: ‘The scientists just want grant money…’, etc.

        = the GOP has completely abrogated its responsibility to come up with conservative-based, free-market driven solutions.=

        Every person on this planet needs to keep in the back of their mind that it is cheaper to use less energy than it is to make new energy. Designing everything to use less energy pulls money away from the Fossil sector and redistributes it to other sectors and bank accounts. And using less energy is profitable. Further, a well executed plan that would quickly drop demand, even if only in the mid-term, would significantly wound those coal and fracking industry participants that are working on the thinnest margins. The challenge is that our structures have low, 50 to 100 year, inventory turnovers, and thus retro-fitting is needed.

        Get rid of the tariff for imported Japanese cars. That may reduce the price of a Prius or Leaf by up to 2.5%.

        Fee-bate everything: the price of an incandescent bulb should be raised, whilst the price difference is used to subsidize led lighting. Same with ICE’s versus hybrids and EVs. Same with hot water heaters. Fee bates would be temporary just to jump start demand and allow the newer stuff to gain an economy of scale advantage.

        Re-write the tax code for fossil stuff. I’m invested in a MLP that pays me a 10% annual dividend. Why can it afford to pay me such an outstandingly high return on investment, year after year? Because of tax advantages little gas companies have in the US. Same with coal: the mines had their tax structures reworked in ~1950-51 so they wouldn’t be subject to the same high rates as everyone else.

    • A detectable Democrat policy pulse on almost every issue is spun as being “too much Democrat”. Can you find more than one Republican congressman who (only recently) supports climate action? If so, they are stealthy.

    • jsam Says:

      It’s the left’s fault that the right denies physics.

      I guess that’s the same logic as it’s the parent’s fault that the child is misbehaving. The more mature party wears the collar.

      • omnologos Says:

        Rubio has just shown that the Republicans aren’t too much on the defensive about climate change, after all.

        But as I tried to explain (and I think only Andrew Fez agreed) the lies come from all parties – that is normal in a representative democracy and it’s up to the voters to deal with the issue. Unfortunately some voters think the solution is to pretend their party doesn’t lie, and all the rubbish anti-science propaganda is with the other party.

        Perhaps in Europe where multiparty democracies are more common, such a fantasy is harder to mantain and that makes voters more immune to hyperactivism.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Omno grasps at the statement Andrew made to the effect that we should believe nothing that comes from either party. Out of respect for the many sensible things Andrew contributes, none of us took him to task for that bit of temporary insanity, and he seems to have gotten over it. Omno, on the other hand……

          PS Rubio is not only out of touch with reality re: climate change, but he has now told the world that he is “ready to be president”

        • jsam Says:

          My vote follows evidence-based policy decisions whether right or left. Good data and good analysis helps to drive ideology out. Unfortunately it is easier to sell ideology than science. Witness the Global Warmers Protection Fund in the UK.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Ignoring Omno’s fractured logic that brought this subthread out, there may be some small truth to the idea that the Democrats actually DO bear some responsibility for the Repugnant’s bad behavior. Obama has done a lot of “enabling” by failing to see that bi-partisanship wouldn’t work with this bunch, and all too many of the Dems in Congress have sold out to the special interests and big $$$$ after seeing the example set by the Repugnants.

  2. This is the direct result of their willingness to lie to get votes, in my opinion. The more they lie to get people to vote for them, the deeper they dig their hole. Their constituents have taken their lies and internalized them into their sense of who they are. So now the so-called leaders find themselves in quite a bind, because they have to keep lying to ever hope to win elections now. I patently do NOT believe all these Republicans are so stupid they don’t think climate change is happening, no matter what they keep saying.

    • Andy Lee Robinson Says:

      This is unfortunate if a majority of the electorate has no problem with lying in order to gain or maintain power and wealth. They just don’t share our values.

      Let’s hope that there is still a majority of decent honourable people around that can see through their charade and vote them into oblivion where they belong.

      • omnologos Says:

        Frankly in a representative democracy the most dangerous people are the ones who believe lies, propaganda, corruption, etc all belong to other political parties than the one they support.

        • I agree that those who believe lies are dangerous, but so are the people doing the lying. However, it sounds like you are saying I’m dangerous because I think the GOP leaders are lying. Really? The GOP are the ones who are blathering nonstop about how climate change is a conspiracy or false or scaremongering. You don’t hear Democrats saying the scientific community are a bunch of idiots, and the politicians are that much smarter than all the scientists combined.

          • The Democrats just purge scientists who stray beyond the prescribed boundaries (e.g. James Watson, forced out of the Cold Spring Harbor lab for saying something “insensitive”).

          • dumboldguy Says:

            James Watson was PURGED by DEMOCRATS ???? WOW!
            CSH is run by the Democrats? Did they also run the church and “get” Galileo?

            Watson was nearly 80 years old and had been saying “insensitive” things for years. He is also a pillar of modern biological science and his work on DNA was one of the main things that caused me to move into the biological sciences for my graduate work. A very poor example—-have you got better ones showing that Democrats “purge” scientists?

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          Yeah, ….. sure.

          That is why it was CNN, not Fox News that went to court to protect their ‘right’ to deliberately lie and still call it “News”. Oh, wait , second – it wasn’t CNN!

          You think your remark is trenchant? Prove it. Show us how the Democrats and Republicans are equally corrupt, equally untruthful, equally manipulative of the media and the political process.

          I dare you. I double dog dare you.

        • andrewfez Says:

          One shouldn’t believe anyone about anything from either party. [And probability and statistics and how to properly self-research a topic of interest should be a course requirement in high school.]

        • dumboldguy Says:

          We are again treated to some of Omno’s faulty logic. He would have us believe that people who believe lies are more dangerous that those who tell them. Perhaps he should be forgiven a bit, because he is a “foreigner” and is obviously ignorant of what goes on in the USA.

          Since the Repugnants tell vastly more lies about nearly everything than the Democrats, there is a serious inequality in who is more “dangerous” when they blame the other guy. Democrats who believe that all lies, propaganda, corruption, etc. come from the Repugnant Party are perhaps only 1/10 as dangerous as the inverse.

          Rubio, Cruz, Paul, and the other Tea Party favorites are the liars and propagandists, as this Crock clip and recent comments by the other two demonstrate (see Cruz’s “76” speech to the Federalist society last week).

          The only good thing is that their lying will again destroy the chances of the Repugnants ever nominating an electable candidate for POTUS in 2016. The 2012 Candidate Clown Circus is warming up for a repeat performance. Place your bets now on Hillary.

  3. dumboldguy Says:

    Good comments from miffed and lurker—-they get it.

    On the other hand, certain circular arguments that Omno would like to morph into a “spiral” look to me more like a disassembled triangle, and the three sides are made of cooked spaghetti, and I’m having a difficult time making anything of that.

    And are the Repugnants really feeling “discomfort” and “feeling the ground shifting beneath them, but don’t know how to respond”. I wonder. I think the vast majority are still in serious denial and a state of cognitive dissonance.

    Anyone who would accuse scientists of “bullying” on AGW is seriously messed up.

    • Andy Lee Robinson Says:

      The muffled ‘crump’ of the collapsing ideological GOP-hole seems inevitable as reality starts to bite, but it can’t come too soon.
      We have a planetary emergency to deal with.

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      Yeah the bullying comment was a jaw dropping WTF moment. Do people in the GOP seriously believe that? I doubt it. Just another disingenuous talking point that gets picked up and repeated ad nauseum until it becomes ‘fact’ in their fantasy world.
      In fact,climate scientists have been repeatedly criticized for being too passive and nuanced in communicating their message in the past. Now that they are speaking up publicly,they are framed as bullies. Cheap tactic.

      • ubrew12 Says:

        That’s also my perception. The CNN Crossfire debate is instructive for two reasons.
        1) SE Cupp makes the argument you noted. Says she: “The scare tactics have not worked!” OK, so what are ‘scare tactics’? They are a form of bullying: “if you don’t do what I say, I’ll beat you up (or Nature will)”. And they have not worked, why? Because We The Right-thinking Americans do Not get Bullied! Do you see what she did there? She’s standing up for anyone who has ever been picked on (by those juvenile delinquent scientists during recess). So YES, this is going to be what we’re going to hear from now on: “we in the GOP ‘would’ have done something but we don’t like being bullied.” Reality? I use scare tactics when I’m genuinely scared. ‘That guy is trying to kill us’ is not a scare tactic, if that guy is actually trying to kill us.
        2) This provides cover for Loris (Heritage Fndtn economist) to spout disinformation, specifically ‘Hurricanes aren’t increasing; we’re in the longest Hurricane drought [in decades]’. And THAT is the real scandal in that Crossfire episode and it seems no one has picked up on it. He’s out and out LYING. NOT by claiming that Hurricanes aren’t increasing, but by implying that that MEANS ANYTHING. Land hitting Hurricanes are like holes-in-one, so rare you can’t really judge any trend on their frequency. That’s the point driven home by Kerry Emanual in this climate crocks segment:
        And don’t think that this ‘Hurricanes aren’t increasing’ false-factoid is a mistake or an isolated incident: George Will made the SAME argument just the other day.

        It seems clear these two ideas are the united front conservatism is going to put up to defend Big Fossils. a)stop your bullying ‘scare tactics’ b)focus on extremely rare or insignificant events and then claim their behavior Conclusively refutes Climate Change.

      • Any information that is inconvenient will easily be considered “bullying” into submission by a person not informed. The question is really how long you go about denying reality and its unfortunately perfectly possible to draw the problem so deep that brinks on insanity with resulting darkness.

        Gore’s term “Inconvenient truth” is really perfect for describing the problem as even if you admit that human actions is the cause of it – its still very hard to do anything about it even if you are a democrat and “get it”. Naturally its even harder for a republican who gets it, since the solutions to high CO2 emissions is to lower CO2 emissions, which brings with it less growth and more regulation. Like I have said many times, if you can bring to the table a free market, no regulation way of bringing CO2 emissions down, then by all means do. But so far the carbon trade stuff that has been made or any move into renewables has been about finding ways to make money from the “green awareness” landscape, and supporting growth with additional energy forms. Neither of the solutions have actually solved the problem, by lowering carbon emissions, only recession has…

        Its interesting though to note that changes in behaviour through whats considered “hip” and “cool” affects a lot of choices. Young people today aren’t as keen about driving their own car as the previous generation. But at the same time they have grown new habits like the importance of snapshots on facebook with themselves on top of a pyramid in Egypt, or “selfies” depending on high energy services. What we need is “not to consume” to be the new “hip”.

  4. jimbills Says:

    The Democrat vs. Republican divide on this issue was always meant to happen. Republicans favor less governmental regulation as a principle, and Democrats favor governmental regulation when it will benefit the group as a principle. Action towards climate change generally falls more easily into the latter political philosophy and rubs directly against the former.

    Republicans will face increasing pressure to justify their stances as climate change effects become more obvious and the poll numbers continue to turn against them. But, the history of the GOP and of right-wing political think tanks shows one thing – they can adapt to changing times and maintain their core philosophies. They’ll adopt some new and more subtle line to achieve the same effect instead of outright denial.

    One thing that is almost certain is that they won’t change their core philosophy any time soon. This is largely because they both fervently believe in it and because of systemic issues in the election process.

    Those systemic issues are of course money from particular donors in the campaign cycle but also the effect of gerrymandering in districts. Gerrymandering has long been an issue in the States, but it has ramped up in recent years:

    What it creates is districts that are virtually guaranteed to go Republican or Democrat. This creates a campaign where the primary is actually far more important than the general election. House Republicans are too frightened of getting replaced by some new hard-liner to shoot straight on climate change. Bob Inglis provides a very good case study of this phenomenon.

    The end result is that most Republicans really can’t open up about climate change, because they know it will have the twin effects of pissing off their donors and opening themselves up to easy sound bites for new GOP contenders in the primaries. They can’t really argue for governmental intervention in this era even if they personally believed it might be justified (which most of them would have a problem with, anyway).

    It’s only AFTER they’re out of office, when they can form their own lobbyist firm (Inglis), that the can really speak their mind, and even then the likelihood they’ll do so is what – 1 out 100, 1 out of 1000?

    Additionally, even IF there was a sudden groundshift in GOP philosophies, it’s not as if the Democrats would move heaven and earth to enact real, meaningful change. Many of them are under the same influences in campaign donors, and virtually none of them would be willing to sacrifice much GDP growth for aggressive mitigation policies.

    Rubio’s comments at the end is deeply cynical. He’s right that Obama’s changes won’t have a great effect, but 1) he wouldn’t support even those in the first place, and 2) it’s not like he’d ever be willing to enact the needed changes himself.

  5. omnologos Says:

    In Europe the big green divide never happened…I surmise that’s because the environment joined motherhood and apple pie, or their local equivalents (in Italy it’s motherhood and permanent jobs). Greenery in other words became a quick-win and possibly an escape route also, for those unable to rally support on the basis of something more practical and nearer to the lives of the voters.

    In the USA it’s been 200+ years of extreme partisanship, as we can read in these very pages 😉 – apart from motherhood, and apple pie that is.

    • ubrew12 Says:

      I surmise that’s because they are much more socialist than we are, so cannot support the kinds of 24/7 corporate media disinformation we have here. Failing the disinformation (in which any reality upsetting to the profit streams of major corporations gets inflated into ‘The Center of the Culture War’), Europeans tend to accept the Science more readily. They are also a lot less religious, which may, in part, reflect the same conditions. There’s little doubt that Religion is being used to turn Americans away from the Climate reality.

  6. Steve Reed Says:

    Watch how fox will go from climate change hoax position to ” Fox News reported on the changing climate First ” They are already getting tangled up in their underwear and it will only get worse for them. On their website was a story about some expert disputing the validity of the governments recent CC report, and two lines above that a story about a huge ice beak off in the Antarctic. They will valiantly square the circle for mammon
    in the months and years ahead

  7. Everyone wonders why Climate Change is such a partisan issue, when it’s really quite simple. Each and every proposed mitigation tactic involves a form of government regulation or oversight.
    Republican 101 : Lesson 1 – Less Government = Better Government.

    If there was a proposed tactic that didn’t involve carbon taxes, carbon credits, or other methods that ultimately involve an increased cost of energy… there would be 100% acceptance overnight.

    The only way Republicans will come on board fully, is if they perceive certain impending imminent doom. Until that time, Republicans will never justify potentially damaging the economy or increasing costs… to mitigate a potential problem in the future. Unfortunately with climate change… it’s a “slow burn”.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      if that’s all there was to it, Republicans would be offering their own solutions.
      Instead, they are desperately, deliberately, distorting and spinning the evidence to further confuse as many people as they can.
      This is fundamentally dishonest, not any kind of honest disagreement. It is a psychosis.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        It is a psychosis only in the general sense. Many Republicans of national renown go beyond “dishonesty”, and the party as a whole is as you say the Party of Lies. Some of them display sociopathic and even psychopathic tendencies. In plain English, too many of them are rather “sick f**ks”, and the country will be in great danger on many fronts if they don’t return to “normality”, preferably by being retired from office.

      • I doubt very much it’s psychosis.  A lot of pols are psychopaths (prominent dems among them), but the positions are driven by money and the demands of party membership.  Alienate the party faithful too much, you get primaried out; alienate the money too much, you get clobbered in the general election.

        The money behind the Republicans has long demanded that there be no action that hurts fossil fuel interests.  Fine, climate denial works.  But as the science gets more obvious and the evidence gets in people’s faces, there is nowhere to retreat.  Carbon taxes or feebates are obvious market-friendly ways to create incentives to cut emissions and shift energy supplies to low-carbon sources, but the Republicans have ceded the entire policy arena to the left.  Even nuclear energy, which Republicans (and the public at large) tend to favor, cannot be promoted as carbon-free because that would involve admitting that carbon is a problem.

        You can blame the SCOTUS for this; if money wasn’t almost everything in electioneering, pols would have more freedom to define their own positions.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          “…a lot of pols are psychopaths (prominent dems among them)…”?

          Look at E-Pot, being as fair and balanced as Fox News. Care to name names on the “prominent dem psychopaths”, E-Pot. I’ll match you one-for-one with the names of “prominent repug psychopaths” and we’ll see who runs out of names first.

          (PS You might also become more familiar with the terms “psychosis”, “psychopath”, and “sociopath”. They are not the same thing, particularly the first two.)

          • Care to name names on the “prominent dem psychopaths”, E-Pot. I’ll match you one-for-one with the names of “prominent repug psychopaths” and we’ll see who runs out of names first.

            You implicitly asserted that only Republicans met the criteria.  I don’t think you could refute the assertion that Chuck Schumer and Teddy Kennedy were/are psychopathic, using the power of law to attack whole populations they consider unworthy.  I won’t go into the public statements of certain Dem congresscritters which are so ridiculous they suggest mental retardation, but a little thing about Guam capsizing from overpopulation caused a minor sensation not long ago.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Charles Schumer?? and TEDDY KENNEDY???? BWA-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

            E-Pot conclusively proves to us that he is an avid reader of the right-wing-whacko-nut-job sites, the only places you can find this kind of horsepucky. He has badly overreached yet again, and perhaps recognizes that, since he is doing a little tap dance and attempting to segue over into “mental retardation”. Perhaps he has looked up “psychopathic” and now realizes his error?

            It is time to fold ’em and drop it, E-Pot, rather than double down on a bad bet. Do as you did with bacterial genetics and DESMIDS rather than further embarrass yourself by running your mouth about things you don’t understand.

          • Oh, how could I forget Sen. Howard “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns” Metzenbaum?  In that rare moment of honesty, he revealed that his purpose was to hurt non-elite Americans even at the cost of increased crime.  Definitely a psychopath there.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            E-Pot is now revealing a bit of Anti-Semitism to go along with his previously demonstrated racism and xenopphobia? Of all the others he could have picked as his next feeble example of a dem psychopath, why else would he pick Metzenbaum? I could have come up with better. This is also evidence that he has swallowed the NRA’s horsepucky, since Metzenbaum’s (successfully) pushing anti-gun legislation is hardly “psychopathic” except to the psychopaths themselves.

            Nice job, E-Pot. And Metzenbaum served a number of years in the Ohio House and Senate, and 20 years in the U.S. Senate, so he must not have been too much of a psychopath for the voters of Ohio. Do you think Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, Inhofe, Issa, Sanford, Vitter, Coburn, the Pauls, Palin, “Queen” Bachmann, and all the other Repugnant psychopaths will be as well remembered and well thought of as Metzenbaum?

            If anyone is “definitely a psychopath” here, it’s you. And I am doubling down on my bets that you will continue to prove it to us by not folding on this subthread. Go ahead—Make me rich! Maybe I will be able to buy some Berkshire Hathaway stock with my winnings!

          • E-Pot is now revealing a bit of Anti-Semitism to go along with his previously demonstrated racism and xenopphobia?

            I figured you’d say something like that.  The rule “you cannot criticize a minority without being racist, and you cannot criticize a Jew without being anti-semitic” has certainly got its enforcers here.

            Which is why I do it.  If you can’t criticize people who do and say ridiculous things because of their race, religion or other trait, you’re just holding them to a lower standard of behavior.  Didn’t we have a name for that once?  Oh, yes, “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.  Can’t expect the Jewish senator to have any respect for the Constitution he swore to uphold, because HOLOCAUST!

          • dumboldguy Says:

            You “figured” I’d say “something like that”?

            Yes, I also “figured” that YOU would say something “like that” in the response that your narcissism requires you to make (ie. “This is why I do it”). You provide proof positive that you ARE indeed a racist, xenophobe, and now an anti-Semite and probably a “gun nut”. And you don’t seem to be even slightly aware of the fact that your attempts at self-justification only dig you in deeper.

            Why have you now proven yourself to be those last two things? Easy answer.

            First, remember we were talking about “pyschopathic” politicians. Of all the dems you COULD have picked (George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, etc.), who demonstrated MUCH public pathology, you went off into the shadows and dragged out one of the few Jews? Perhaps their “pathology” was not evident to you because of your racism and you view them as heroes? And over the gun issue rather than the many more important issues we face?

            Thank you, E-Pot. Go back and reread my last paragraph. I am making a bundle by doubling down on my bets that you will NOT fold this unplayable hand. Maybe I WILL soon be able to buy that B-H stock, and can someday leave it to my descendants—-I hope doing so doesn’t cause them to become flaming anal orifices like others who have gotten such bequests.

          • The hilarious part is that all I did was name him and quote him.  YOU immediately leapt to the accusation of anti-semitism, implicitly admitting that what he said (and did) was utterly indefensible.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            OK, it’s too early to begin real life, so I’ll play the game with the self-deluded fool for a while.

            I will repeat—-that of all the “psychopathic democrats” E-Pot could have picked (like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace) that did major damage to the country for many years, he chose to pick a Jew and focus on a rather obscure and limited action. Anti-Semitism is the ONLY conclusion that can be reached.

            I most certainly did NOT implicitly state that what he did was “utterly indefensible”. IMO, it was the right thing to do, and needs no defense. E-Pot’s fevered brain has attempted to put words in my mouth to try to justify his earlier idiocy. He once again doubles down on a bad bet just because he can’t STAND the idea that I’ve gotten the best of him (yet again).

            There is nothing hilarious about your racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and sexism, E-Pot. If you have really been serious about all of it rather than just stirring the pot and “jousting”, you are one sorry-ass individual and a poor excuse for an American.

          • I will repeat—-that of all the “psychopathic democrats” E-Pot could have picked (like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace) that did major damage to the country for many years, he chose to pick a Jew and focus on a rather obscure and limited action. Anti-Semitism is the ONLY conclusion that can be reached.

            Rampant projection.  Obviously, you choose your targets for their racial or ethnic properties.  I remembered the “just want to get the guns” quote but had no recollection who said it, just that it was attacking ME and mine for what is provably no good reason (crime rates in general, especially among the white majority population in rural areas, have been falling for decades).  I looked it up to attribute it properly.  THAT is the only reason his name is attached to it:  he said it.  Your hysterical response is all that’s required to prove me right.  It is your only way to deflect attention from what is utterly indefensible.

            As for Wallace and Thurmond (oh, and let’s not forget former-KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV), I don’t spend any time thinking about (much less obsessing over) them.  I’m sure they said lots of things.  We could argue whether they were right or not, but given the left’s collective case of the vapors when Sen. Moynihan’s 1965 report about rapidly rising dysfunction in the Black population came out you’d have a hard time without playing the race card again.  The Moynihan report’s near-total burial thereafter, plus the left’s handwringing and blaming of the (ethnically cleansed by Black violent crime) majority population for the completely foreseeable social and fiscal collapse of cities like Gary, Birmingham and Detroit are more things that call the whole “progressive” agenda of the 20th century into question.

            But yell “anti-semite!” a few more times, and maybe people will forget that.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, E-Pot offers us proof positive that he is a racist, anti-Semite, and a GUN NUT, and is so clueless that he rambles on about “Looking it up properly” and “ME and MINE”, and admits that he “doesn’t spend much time thinking about” certain psychopaths (in denial of the true nature of his heroes?). The icing on the cake is that he says “we COULD argue whether they were right or not”, thereby pulling the hole he has dug for himself in around him.

            He also has apparently not studied American history enough to understand what brought on the “collapse of the cities” he references (or why they consistently elect Democratic mayors).

            BIG CLUE, E-POT! —-saying “ethnically cleansed by Black violent crime” is like putting a big scarlet “R” for “racist” on your chest. A glow-in-the-dark “R”.

            And who’s yelling “anti-semite”? You do such a good job of proving all my points for me that I only have to whisper and anyone who is watching will nod in agreement. The only thing I WILL shout is “E-POT IS A FLAMING ANAL ORIFICE”, and that is self-evident also, so I really needn’t bother. It makes me smile to do so, though, and that’s your greatest value to Crock—amusement.

            Please tell me why you continue to double down on foolishness, E-Pot? We may need to invent a new acronym for that if you continue—-DDOF. At least you seem to have given up on the silica gel and power tower.

  8. […] Above, GOP Senator Marco Rubio complains that President Obama is 'not a meteorologist", so shouldn't, apparently, listen to people that are. He states he "understands there is a vast consensus" on…  […]

  9. The CNN discussion missed several points (at least in the clip posted): the cost of not responding to climate change is *far* more costly than addressing it as soon as possible. The longer we wait, the more it will cost.

    The teaser question S.E. Cupp is bogus, because the cows are “emitting” carbon that comes from the food they eat, so it doesn’t add to the level in the air; in and of itself. The fact that we force feed cows food that they have not evolved to eat, and that makes them sick – and that it was grown with manufactured chemical fertilizers so *that* is where the additional carbon comes from.

    Obviously, carbon from fossil fuels is the problem. Not carbon from decomposing plants, or from cow farts – these do not change the level in the air – because it came from the air.

    The economist says the “Arctic ice globally increasing” which is the strange idea that *if* the Antarctic ice is increasing (I don’t think it is) that this somehow offsets the melting Arctic ice.

    All in all the two “conservatives” are dismissive of the magnitude and the effects of climate change. As Bill Nye says, we have to accept the facts, and go from there.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      An aside. The methane that cows and other ruminants release is predominantly in the form of “belches”, NOT “farts”.

      • And cows eat grass. Grass uses carbon. Life cycles. You, being a biologist know how complicated this is. The nitrogen and carbon cycles. Thanks for the correction. I was cringing at some of the errors. Cows are ruminants.
        Methane is produced by the bacteria described above within the rumen, and this methane is released to the atmosphere. The rumen is the major site of methane production in ruminants.[18] Methane has 23 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide and its production by ruminants contribute to the greenhouse effect and climate change. In 2010, entric fermentation accounted for 43% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from all agricultural activity in the world.[19] The meat from ruminants has a higher carbon equivalent footprint than other meats or vegetarian sources of protein based on a global meta-analysis of life-cycle assessment studies.[20] Methane production by animals, principally ruminants, is estimated 15-20% global production of methane.[21][22]

  10. Gingerbaker Says:

    “Republican 101 : Lesson 1 – Less Government = Better Government.”

    Nope. There is zero consistency with the Republicans in this regard.

    Republicans only want “less government” when it comes to restricting blood-red corporatism. Anything that can raise wages or transfer money to people with less money than themselves is taboo.

    They are more than happy to have “more government” when that means government subsidies for big business, obscenely high and wasteful sending on defense, imposing their Christian attitudes into women’s bodies, waging a completely unsuccessful and destructive global War on Drugs, increasing the number and expenditures of lobbyists and PACs.

    Republicans don’t want smaller government, they merely want it to supply their needs and to hell with everybody else.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Well said, especially the need for a “new hip”. Consumerism, especially that displayed by rich conservatives, is going to be the death of us all.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Don’t know how this ended up here. Ir was meant as a reply to John Christian’s 6:57 AM comment.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: