President Trump signed an order on Thursday, Feb 16 to overturn the Stream Protection Rule. This rule was designed to prevent coal companies from dumping their mining waste into rivers by restricting mining within 100 feet of a waterway. Trump stated his action would "eliminate another terrible job-killing rule, saving many thousands of American jobs, especially in the mines." Of course, anyone paying attention has learned that Trump has great difficulty in getting his facts straight and this action is another example of it.
A study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found the rule would have eliminated approximately 260 jobs a year, not 'many thousands.' But, at the same time, it would have created about 250 jobs a year. Overall, the rule would have been about breakeven on jobs. Which just goes to show, you can justify anything by stating you want to save jobs, even if it isn't true. So, Trump's action will hurt the watershed, the environment and the
people living downstream. The things that will benefit? Nothing. Not even coal. Trump
did this to appease his coal mining friends. Interestingly, that CRS study also stated overall employment in the coal industry would continue to drop and would lose around 15,000 jobs of the current 90,000 in the sector between 2020 and 2040. I think it will be much higher. Read on to see why.
The truth is, Trump can't do anything to stop the decline of coal. In fact, Trump himself will be working hard to do just that. He has promised to overturn rules on the oil and gas industry to make it easier for them to drill. Coal's biggest enemy isn't the EPA - it's cheap gas. And, Trump is going to make sure gas stays cheap.
And, ironically, OPEC is helping out as well. OPEC recently caved and reached an output agreement to prop up the price of oil. This is already resulting in a second boom of fracking. The drill rig count for last April was 132 but has risen to 301 today. But, the story is the rigs are more advanced and efficient and they can each do more than the old ones. So, the disparity in the numbers doesn't reflect the true situation. Estimates are the US oil production will increase from 8.9 million barrels of oil per day currently to between 9.5 and 9.7 million barrels per day by the end of 2018. And, along with the increase in oil production will come an increase in natural gas production.
Even some conservative Republicans are getting into the act. Last Wednesday (the day before Trump signed his coal mining order), the Climate Leadership Council unveiled their plan for a gradually increasing, revenue-neutral tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Proceeds from the tax would be redistributed to the people. This plan is specifically designed to reduce CO2 emissions and address climate change. So, even conservative Republicans are saying there's a problem and we need to act. The plan has been well-received, but I have to be skeptical it will get passed by Congress. Too many members of Congress received funds from the coal industry to vote for something like this. But, the very announcement makes it more difficult for coal. Things are shifting when even Republicans admit manmade climate change is real and needs to be addressed. That doesn't bode well for coal.
And, to make it even worse, renewable energy is surging.
The number of solar cell installations in 2016 were up 95% over the number in 2015. The numbers nearly doubled in only one year. By the way, if Trump really is interested in creating jobs, the solar industry employs 260,000 people and the coal industry employs only 90,000.
And, last Sunday, February 12 saw wind power briefly account for over 50% of the electricity generated in the US.
So, the coal industry is surely celebrating Trump's action on the Stream Protection Rule. But, during that same week, reports came out showing renewable energy sources are continuing to increase their share of the market, reports came out showing natural gas production is surging again and even conservative Republicans said we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Overall, it wasn't a great week for the coal industry.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Peabody Coal Funded Climate Change Deniers
Anyone following the current events associated with the science of climate change should be aware of how the fossil fuel industry funds the anti-science climate change deniers. There is hard evidence of this in government filed documents, court documents, and insider statements. Now we can add the bankruptcy documents Peabody Coal filed with the court to that list. You can read an in-depth article about the list here.
When I reviewed the list I wasn't surprised to see some familiar names, people I've debated the issues with over the years. One I find very notable is Richard Lindzen. This is important because he spent years telling everyone he didn't receive any funds from the fossil fuel industry for his research. What he failed to say is that he was receiving massive amounts of funds for 'consulting' services. It is well-known, by his own admission, he was receiving money from ExxonMobil the whole time. Now, we find he was also receiving money from Peabody Coal. No wonder he left Harvard.
Another favorite is Roy Spencer, the former scientists who has been caught so often falsifying his data and writing false papers that he can no longer get published in any journal. The last time he did the editorial staff resigned in protest. He has sacrificed every bit of credibility he ever had, but he is still collecting money from Peabody Coal.
The Idso family also showed up. Yet another group of former scientists who thought easy money was preferable to hard work.
Willie Soon, the infamous engineer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims in public to be a climate scientist and was caught hiding his fossil fuel payoffs.
Oh, and CFACT, those guys who produced the anti-science film 'Climate Hustle'? They're on the list.
Speaking of disgusting groups (and we were), how about ALEC? In case you don't know this organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council arranges for law makers to meet with donors. In these meetings the donors will arrange for the law makers to submit bills favorable to the donors industry in exchange for financial support. This way, the name of the donors and their industry are not associated with the bill. ALEC does not deny this and this activity is not illegal (remember who rights the laws). To no surprise, we see ALEC received funds from Peabody Coal.
And, it is to no surprise to see the anti-science political party is well represented on the list. No fewer than eight separate Republican organizations received funds from Peabody. Two Democrat organizations are listed.
It is interesting to see the documentation of how this corrupt corporation was able to spread it's influence far beyond the purview of mining coal.
When I reviewed the list I wasn't surprised to see some familiar names, people I've debated the issues with over the years. One I find very notable is Richard Lindzen. This is important because he spent years telling everyone he didn't receive any funds from the fossil fuel industry for his research. What he failed to say is that he was receiving massive amounts of funds for 'consulting' services. It is well-known, by his own admission, he was receiving money from ExxonMobil the whole time. Now, we find he was also receiving money from Peabody Coal. No wonder he left Harvard.
Another favorite is Roy Spencer, the former scientists who has been caught so often falsifying his data and writing false papers that he can no longer get published in any journal. The last time he did the editorial staff resigned in protest. He has sacrificed every bit of credibility he ever had, but he is still collecting money from Peabody Coal.
The Idso family also showed up. Yet another group of former scientists who thought easy money was preferable to hard work.
Willie Soon, the infamous engineer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims in public to be a climate scientist and was caught hiding his fossil fuel payoffs.
Oh, and CFACT, those guys who produced the anti-science film 'Climate Hustle'? They're on the list.
Speaking of disgusting groups (and we were), how about ALEC? In case you don't know this organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council arranges for law makers to meet with donors. In these meetings the donors will arrange for the law makers to submit bills favorable to the donors industry in exchange for financial support. This way, the name of the donors and their industry are not associated with the bill. ALEC does not deny this and this activity is not illegal (remember who rights the laws). To no surprise, we see ALEC received funds from Peabody Coal.
And, it is to no surprise to see the anti-science political party is well represented on the list. No fewer than eight separate Republican organizations received funds from Peabody. Two Democrat organizations are listed.
It is interesting to see the documentation of how this corrupt corporation was able to spread it's influence far beyond the purview of mining coal.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Why Do Republicans Hate Science?
You might think the title of this posting is severe, but I don't. Take a look at the record of things Republicans have fought for over the last 50 years:
They fought against the science linking tobacco to lung disease and did so even after they already knew the science was conclusive;
They fought to push the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly known as Star War, even though the scientists said it was not feasible. Just one fact was enough to invalidate the entire idea - it is a lot cheaper to make dummy warheads than to defend against them. The Soviet Union merely had to make massive amounts of dummy warheads to overwhelm any system we devised. This was just one of many scientific criticisms of the plan. The politicians were aware of this, but the Republicans pursued SDI anyway;
They fought against the science of acid rain. The science was conclusive that sulfur emissions were causing acid rain, which was devastating the environment and caused numerous health issues. And yet, the Republicans did, and still do, deny that science and claim it is okay to overwhelm the atmosphere with sulfur emissions;
They fought against legislation addressing the ozone hole and denied the dangers it presented to the environment and the public;
They fought, and continue to fight, the science showing the dangers of second-hand smoke. The science is conclusive, but let's ignore that. Try to imagine a world where inhaling cigarette smoke directly is very harmful, but inhaling it second-hand isn't. You have to really reject science to buy into that line of reasoning;
They are now engaging in a campaign to denigrate Rachel Carson and are labeling her as a mass murderer for her efforts to bring the dangers of DDT to light. Their line of reasoning is a U.S. ban prohibited other countries from using DDT and this led to an explosion of malaria. This is a double false argument and extremely deceptive. No ban in the U.S. affects any other country and American chemical manufacturers are free to manufacture and sell DDT to other countries. In fact, they have. DDT use continued worldwide long after the American ban. The problem is mosquitoes rapidly develop resistance to it. An examination of the cases cited by the Republicans and their supporters shows DDT spraying not only continued in areas that experienced increases in malaria, the amount of spraying and the concentration of the solution both increased. The problem was not a lack of DDT. The problem was too much DDT. Why don't the people criticizing Rachel Carson tell the whole truth?;
Virtually every public supporter of creationism is a Republican. The people who fight to include this pseudoscience in our schools and try to water down the proven science of evolution are hurting our children by undermining our education system. When I had students working for me I would automatically reject the application of anyone subscribing to creationism. My reasoning was that if they rejected science once, they could be counted on to do it again. My experience has been they do;
And, of course, the Republicans are leading the charge on undermining the proven science of global warming a climate change. They seem to think they are being clever with the line, "I'm not a scientist, but..." then proceed to show how they have total disdain for the entire scientific community. They don't care what the science says. If it goes counter to their beliefs, then it is bad and needs to be rejected;
The COMPETE Act that passed the House but failed in the Senate, which eviscerated funding for geosciences and climate science, passed on a wholly Republican vote;
Republican donors hide their funding of anti-science lobbyists by using third-party entities, such as Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. If they thought what they stood for was so right, why are they working so hard to hide and deny their funding?;
Now, take a look at the stand the presidential candidates take on climate change. Every Democrat agrees manmade emissions are causing climate change. Only a few Republicans agree and those that do hedge their stance with comments about how we can't hurt the economy. Where does destroying the environment, causing millions of deaths and causing economic hardships help the economy? Oh, that's right! I forgot! It helps the billionaires providing the fossil fuels and, surprise!, funding the Republicans. What a coincidence.
This is quite a list. Unfortunately, I could go on, but I think I made my point. Republicans, for whatever reason, hate science. You can debate the pros and cons of this. You can argue the whys and wherefores. But, the bottom line is this: Republicans hate science.
Now, why is that and what are you going to do about it?
Disclaimer: I am not a Democrat and am not a liberal. In fact, I have voted Republican many times in the past (as well as Democrat and Independent) and may do so in the future. But, I will vote Republican in the future only if they start accepting science instead of rejecting it.
They fought against the science linking tobacco to lung disease and did so even after they already knew the science was conclusive;
They fought to push the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly known as Star War, even though the scientists said it was not feasible. Just one fact was enough to invalidate the entire idea - it is a lot cheaper to make dummy warheads than to defend against them. The Soviet Union merely had to make massive amounts of dummy warheads to overwhelm any system we devised. This was just one of many scientific criticisms of the plan. The politicians were aware of this, but the Republicans pursued SDI anyway;
They fought against the science of acid rain. The science was conclusive that sulfur emissions were causing acid rain, which was devastating the environment and caused numerous health issues. And yet, the Republicans did, and still do, deny that science and claim it is okay to overwhelm the atmosphere with sulfur emissions;
They fought against legislation addressing the ozone hole and denied the dangers it presented to the environment and the public;
They fought, and continue to fight, the science showing the dangers of second-hand smoke. The science is conclusive, but let's ignore that. Try to imagine a world where inhaling cigarette smoke directly is very harmful, but inhaling it second-hand isn't. You have to really reject science to buy into that line of reasoning;
They are now engaging in a campaign to denigrate Rachel Carson and are labeling her as a mass murderer for her efforts to bring the dangers of DDT to light. Their line of reasoning is a U.S. ban prohibited other countries from using DDT and this led to an explosion of malaria. This is a double false argument and extremely deceptive. No ban in the U.S. affects any other country and American chemical manufacturers are free to manufacture and sell DDT to other countries. In fact, they have. DDT use continued worldwide long after the American ban. The problem is mosquitoes rapidly develop resistance to it. An examination of the cases cited by the Republicans and their supporters shows DDT spraying not only continued in areas that experienced increases in malaria, the amount of spraying and the concentration of the solution both increased. The problem was not a lack of DDT. The problem was too much DDT. Why don't the people criticizing Rachel Carson tell the whole truth?;
Virtually every public supporter of creationism is a Republican. The people who fight to include this pseudoscience in our schools and try to water down the proven science of evolution are hurting our children by undermining our education system. When I had students working for me I would automatically reject the application of anyone subscribing to creationism. My reasoning was that if they rejected science once, they could be counted on to do it again. My experience has been they do;
And, of course, the Republicans are leading the charge on undermining the proven science of global warming a climate change. They seem to think they are being clever with the line, "I'm not a scientist, but..." then proceed to show how they have total disdain for the entire scientific community. They don't care what the science says. If it goes counter to their beliefs, then it is bad and needs to be rejected;
The COMPETE Act that passed the House but failed in the Senate, which eviscerated funding for geosciences and climate science, passed on a wholly Republican vote;
Republican donors hide their funding of anti-science lobbyists by using third-party entities, such as Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. If they thought what they stood for was so right, why are they working so hard to hide and deny their funding?;
Now, take a look at the stand the presidential candidates take on climate change. Every Democrat agrees manmade emissions are causing climate change. Only a few Republicans agree and those that do hedge their stance with comments about how we can't hurt the economy. Where does destroying the environment, causing millions of deaths and causing economic hardships help the economy? Oh, that's right! I forgot! It helps the billionaires providing the fossil fuels and, surprise!, funding the Republicans. What a coincidence.
This is quite a list. Unfortunately, I could go on, but I think I made my point. Republicans, for whatever reason, hate science. You can debate the pros and cons of this. You can argue the whys and wherefores. But, the bottom line is this: Republicans hate science.
Now, why is that and what are you going to do about it?
Disclaimer: I am not a Democrat and am not a liberal. In fact, I have voted Republican many times in the past (as well as Democrat and Independent) and may do so in the future. But, I will vote Republican in the future only if they start accepting science instead of rejecting it.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Climate Change Will Be A Problem For Republicans in 2016
I am not aware of any Republican running for president who is an advocate of acting on climate change. Admittedly, I make a great effort to ignore politics and I won't take a serious look at the candidates until October of next year, just before I make my decision on how to vote. Between now and then it's just a bunch of posturing. And, since I am a die-hard independent, I don't get to vote in the primaries.
But, I follow climate change very closely and I have seen the comments made by those who have declared they're running. This posting on ClimateProgress ranks the candidates from being the least to most extreme on climate change denial. The one they ranked the least extreme is former New York governor George Pataki who was on a commission which found climate change to be an urgent threat, but has not stated what his personal views on the subject are. Of note is John Kasich of Ohio and Chris Christie of New Jersey. They both have stated they 'believe' in manmade climate change, but then vetoed or canceled every initiative that came their way. Speaks one way, acts another. That isn't good for someone running for office. Ted Cruz is the candidate they rank as the most extreme, quoting him as calling climate change the "pseudoscientific theory."
In comparison, Hillary Clinton has announced her renewable energy policy. Clinton stated, “It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are.” Her competition on the Democratic side have taken even stronger stands on the subject.
What this means is there is a very clear divide between the two parties - those who support climate science and those who are opposed to it. Will the voters even care enough to make a difference in the election? I believe things are not going well for the Republicans in this regard. The weather extremes we have been witnessing in recent years continue to get worse with a number of disasters striking us here in the U.S. It is no longer a case of saying, 'Gee, those poor people in Africa. I'm really sorry for what is happening, but what can I do?" Now, it's becoming "My family and my friends are being hurt by this stuff. We have to do something!"
Once people think climate change is affecting them, they will be more inclined to factor it into their decision-making process. The two main parties have made it clear which side of the issue they sit on. I do not believe there is any chance the number of people who reject climate change will increase between now and election day. But, I do believe there is a significant chance the number of people who accept the science will increase. There are many reasons to believe that, but one thing in particular stands out - El Nino.
The El Nino we are currently in is growing fast. In just three months, it went from being weak (.5 Oceanic Nino Index (ONI)) to moderate (.7 ONI) and is now at .9. The computer models are pretty much in agreement it will continue to get stronger into the fall, peaking out in the October-November-December period. The official forecast is a 90% chance it will continue through the Northern Hemisphere winter and an 80% chance it will continue through early spring. Take a look here:
What we are looking at is a record of the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Pacific from South America on the right to Indonesia on the left. Time goes from top to bottom. If you scan the graph from top to bottom you can see how the sea surface temperature along the equatorial Pacific has changed with time, Aug 2014 - Jul 2015 in this particular case. Hot colors (yellow, orange and red) represent elevated temperatures compared to the long-term average. Shades of blue represent cooler temperatures. It is very easy to see how the temperature anomalies along the equatorial Pacific have greatly increased over the last year and this increase appears to be continuing. I would not be surprised to see the ONI increase to somewhere around 1.5 before it begins to fade. That would make this a very strong El Nino event. In comparison, the extreme event of 1997-1998 reached a high of 2.3 ONI.
What does this have to do with the presidential election? El Nino events bring chaotic weather. Strong El Ninos bring lots of chaotic weather. And, people don't like chaotic weather. As the news stories build up with more and more people realizing something isn't right, candidates telling them there isn't any problem and it's all a hoax will begin receiving a less favorable reception. Campaign managers will tell you, a small shift in public opinion can make all the difference.
Maybe I'm too close to the issue. It is entirely possible the typical American will not care about this issue, one way or the other. But, if they do, I believe the news about climate change over the next 15 months before election day will not go in favor of the Republican candidate. So, all of you die-hard Republicans out there, I suggest you get used to the idea of President Clinton the Second. After all, you are the ones who will be responsible for putting her in the White House.
But, I follow climate change very closely and I have seen the comments made by those who have declared they're running. This posting on ClimateProgress ranks the candidates from being the least to most extreme on climate change denial. The one they ranked the least extreme is former New York governor George Pataki who was on a commission which found climate change to be an urgent threat, but has not stated what his personal views on the subject are. Of note is John Kasich of Ohio and Chris Christie of New Jersey. They both have stated they 'believe' in manmade climate change, but then vetoed or canceled every initiative that came their way. Speaks one way, acts another. That isn't good for someone running for office. Ted Cruz is the candidate they rank as the most extreme, quoting him as calling climate change the "pseudoscientific theory."
In comparison, Hillary Clinton has announced her renewable energy policy. Clinton stated, “It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are.” Her competition on the Democratic side have taken even stronger stands on the subject.
What this means is there is a very clear divide between the two parties - those who support climate science and those who are opposed to it. Will the voters even care enough to make a difference in the election? I believe things are not going well for the Republicans in this regard. The weather extremes we have been witnessing in recent years continue to get worse with a number of disasters striking us here in the U.S. It is no longer a case of saying, 'Gee, those poor people in Africa. I'm really sorry for what is happening, but what can I do?" Now, it's becoming "My family and my friends are being hurt by this stuff. We have to do something!"
Once people think climate change is affecting them, they will be more inclined to factor it into their decision-making process. The two main parties have made it clear which side of the issue they sit on. I do not believe there is any chance the number of people who reject climate change will increase between now and election day. But, I do believe there is a significant chance the number of people who accept the science will increase. There are many reasons to believe that, but one thing in particular stands out - El Nino.
The El Nino we are currently in is growing fast. In just three months, it went from being weak (.5 Oceanic Nino Index (ONI)) to moderate (.7 ONI) and is now at .9. The computer models are pretty much in agreement it will continue to get stronger into the fall, peaking out in the October-November-December period. The official forecast is a 90% chance it will continue through the Northern Hemisphere winter and an 80% chance it will continue through early spring. Take a look here:
 |
| Source: National Weather Service |
What we are looking at is a record of the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Pacific from South America on the right to Indonesia on the left. Time goes from top to bottom. If you scan the graph from top to bottom you can see how the sea surface temperature along the equatorial Pacific has changed with time, Aug 2014 - Jul 2015 in this particular case. Hot colors (yellow, orange and red) represent elevated temperatures compared to the long-term average. Shades of blue represent cooler temperatures. It is very easy to see how the temperature anomalies along the equatorial Pacific have greatly increased over the last year and this increase appears to be continuing. I would not be surprised to see the ONI increase to somewhere around 1.5 before it begins to fade. That would make this a very strong El Nino event. In comparison, the extreme event of 1997-1998 reached a high of 2.3 ONI.
What does this have to do with the presidential election? El Nino events bring chaotic weather. Strong El Ninos bring lots of chaotic weather. And, people don't like chaotic weather. As the news stories build up with more and more people realizing something isn't right, candidates telling them there isn't any problem and it's all a hoax will begin receiving a less favorable reception. Campaign managers will tell you, a small shift in public opinion can make all the difference.
Maybe I'm too close to the issue. It is entirely possible the typical American will not care about this issue, one way or the other. But, if they do, I believe the news about climate change over the next 15 months before election day will not go in favor of the Republican candidate. So, all of you die-hard Republicans out there, I suggest you get used to the idea of President Clinton the Second. After all, you are the ones who will be responsible for putting her in the White House.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Republicans vs. Pope Francis
The Republicans and their fossil fuel allies have already shown they fear the encyclical Pope Francis is preparing to release on climate change and have gone so far as to send a contingent to Rome to try and talk him out of it. Now, they are demonstrating they are in near panic mode by picking a fight they never should have picked and are directly attacking the Pope.
Rick Santorum started this most recent bout by telling the Pope to butt out on the subject of climate change. Referring to the Church, he stated, “We probably are better off leaving science to the scientists, and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is theology and morality.”
Let's be perfectly clear, Rick Santorum is one of the Republicans that loves to spout, "I'm not a scientists, but..." before proceeding to prove he really isn't a scientist. So, he thinks he's qualified to talk about climate change and dispute the 97% of climate scientists who say manmade climate change is real, but the Pope, who has a degree in chemistry, isn't. Chris Wallace called him out on this very question, to which Santorum replied,
He even stated, “Any time you hear a scientist say science is settled, that’s political science, not real science.”
Really? Tell me, Senator, if I say it is settled the Earth revolves around the Sun, is that political science? Once again, you are demonstrating you really aren't a scientist. You are also demonstrating you don't understand enough about science to be talking about it in public. By the way, Senator, the Pentagon considers climate change to be a matter of national security. Wouldn't that be something of a concern for the President of the U.S.? This all means you are demonstrating you are not qualified to be President. So, don't go around claiming you are more qualified to speak on the subject than the Pope, or anyone else, for that matter.
And, maybe the public is taking note. Santorum recently made a campaign stop in Iowa that attracted only four people. That was right after another stop that attracted only 10 people. Maybe it's a good sign for the country.
Now, James Inhofe has waded into the fight and said, “Everyone is going to ride the pope now. Isn’t that wonderful. The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours.” This is the same James Inhofe who threw the snowball on the Senate floor this past winter. This is the same James Inhofe who has taken over $2 million from the fossil fuel industry over his career. This is the same James Inhofe who stated climate change was the "biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public". This is the same James Inhofe who stated climate change isn't real because it costs too much and that it isn't a problem because God won't let it be one. This is the same James Inhofe who has repeatedly stated he isn't a scientist, then proceeded to prove what a jackass he really is.
Now, this man is saying the Pope should butt out? And, he's saying he has a job to do? Well, yes, he really does have a job to do, he isn't doing it. Global warming and climate change are very serious concerns for the well-being of the people of America, including his constituents in Oklahoma. So, why isn't he taking care of them?
The Republicans are showing what hypocrites and science deniers they really are. And, they are demonstrating they are firmly in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. But, don't blame them for being afraid of the Pope's encyclical. It is going to hit home with a lot of people and will change things in this country.
Rick Santorum started this most recent bout by telling the Pope to butt out on the subject of climate change. Referring to the Church, he stated, “We probably are better off leaving science to the scientists, and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is theology and morality.”
Let's be perfectly clear, Rick Santorum is one of the Republicans that loves to spout, "I'm not a scientists, but..." before proceeding to prove he really isn't a scientist. So, he thinks he's qualified to talk about climate change and dispute the 97% of climate scientists who say manmade climate change is real, but the Pope, who has a degree in chemistry, isn't. Chris Wallace called him out on this very question, to which Santorum replied,
“But the point is that politicians, whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decision with regard to public policy that affects American workers.”Santorum really talked himself into a corner with this one. If, as a politician, he has to make decisions with regard to public policy, why is it he continually fails to make sound decisions? And, apparently, he really thinks he is qualified to be President of the U.S., even though he routinely rejects any science he doesn't like. Take a look a these other Santorum gems:
- He wants creationism taught in schools;
- Calls climate scientists 'climate change's Pharisees';
- Refers to other people that accept the reality of manmade climate change as 'flat earthers;'
- Believes human life begins at inception;
- Called climate science 'speculative science' and 'political science'
He even stated, “Any time you hear a scientist say science is settled, that’s political science, not real science.”
Really? Tell me, Senator, if I say it is settled the Earth revolves around the Sun, is that political science? Once again, you are demonstrating you really aren't a scientist. You are also demonstrating you don't understand enough about science to be talking about it in public. By the way, Senator, the Pentagon considers climate change to be a matter of national security. Wouldn't that be something of a concern for the President of the U.S.? This all means you are demonstrating you are not qualified to be President. So, don't go around claiming you are more qualified to speak on the subject than the Pope, or anyone else, for that matter.
And, maybe the public is taking note. Santorum recently made a campaign stop in Iowa that attracted only four people. That was right after another stop that attracted only 10 people. Maybe it's a good sign for the country.
Now, James Inhofe has waded into the fight and said, “Everyone is going to ride the pope now. Isn’t that wonderful. The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours.” This is the same James Inhofe who threw the snowball on the Senate floor this past winter. This is the same James Inhofe who has taken over $2 million from the fossil fuel industry over his career. This is the same James Inhofe who stated climate change was the "biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public". This is the same James Inhofe who stated climate change isn't real because it costs too much and that it isn't a problem because God won't let it be one. This is the same James Inhofe who has repeatedly stated he isn't a scientist, then proceeded to prove what a jackass he really is.
Now, this man is saying the Pope should butt out? And, he's saying he has a job to do? Well, yes, he really does have a job to do, he isn't doing it. Global warming and climate change are very serious concerns for the well-being of the people of America, including his constituents in Oklahoma. So, why isn't he taking care of them?
The Republicans are showing what hypocrites and science deniers they really are. And, they are demonstrating they are firmly in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. But, don't blame them for being afraid of the Pope's encyclical. It is going to hit home with a lot of people and will change things in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)