Election 2014

Apocalypse Now! Climate Change "Deniers" Take Over Congress!


Climate Change Denial

Over at RealClearScience, Alex Berezow has a nice take-down of progressive hand-wringing over the 2014 mid-term electoral ascent of Republican climate change "deniers" in the Senate. Exhibit one is Bad Astronomer Phil Plait. Berezow explains:

In Plait's words, the Republicans will "put a cohort of science-deniers [sic] into positions of authority," which "quite literally affects the future of humanity." Why? Because, now, the United States will no longer be able to address climate change, "the single greatest threat we as a species face today."

Well, maybe. But Berezow makes the salient point that when the Senate was chock-a-block with supposedly Democratic "science-affirmers" they did nothing about the "single greatest threat" either:

In the 111th Congress, the Democrats had a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a large majority in the House. If the Democrats really wanted to do it, they could have passed climate change legislation. But, they did not. Instead, they did absolutely nothing. The House passed a cap-and-trade bill, 219-212, which then died in the Senate. Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, did not even call a vote on the bill.

Why is Phil Plait blaming Republicans, but not Democrats? Well, you can answer that question.

Yes we can.

The whole Berezow column is worth your attention.

Disclosure: I am happy to say that RealClearScience occasionally republishes some of my reporting.

NEXT: Ex-SEAL Robert O'Neill Says He Killed Osama bin Laden

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I love the smell of scaremongering in the morning.

    1. Almost as good as the smell of C-4

  2. Anyone taking bets on how soon Tony posts a comment?

  3. when the Senate was chock-a-block with supposedly Democratic “science-affirmers” they did nothing about the “single greatest threat” either

    Obviously the fault of those mean ol’ Obstrublicans.

    1. Both of them!

    2. Those mean ol’ drubblicans – as in drubbing the Dems. 😉

  4. medieval warm period,enough said


  5. While the Congressional Dems did nothing, the Obama administration has been busy with this evil agenda. Blocking Keystone, fucking with fracking, War on Coal, excessively stringent emissions and energy usage targets that are outrageously expensive.

    1. And of course none of this has made anywhere near a significant dent in emissions.

    2. what do you expect from people that think you can replace oil with wind and solar.One thing is not like the other

      1. I know! I know!~ Lets replace both with Solar Wind power!

        1. Oooooooooooo!!!

          *makes face like a Far Side caveman*

        2. Maybe a hundred years from now. Maybe.

          1. yeah,when the invent a ZPM,and cities will fly

            1. Where’s rodney when you need him?

              1. + 1 staregate

                1. *closes iris*

              2. I’ll take Carter any day

          2. Dyson Sphere?

            1. Dyson sphere surrounds a star, no? I think we’re a bit more than 100 years from that.

              1. It does, and who’s to say what technological marvels appear in the next 100 years – assuming authoritarian progtards don’t get in the way of human innovation and invention.

                1. Well, you never know. I tend to think that the wild, techno-future will have more to go with genetic engineering and easy access to information than Star Trek stuff.

                  1. Probably all of the above, except for warp drive, etc., and even that’s not totally out of the question.

                1. Leave Molly out of this!

            2. worm hole

  6. Instead, they did absolutely nothing.

    I have been bringing this up over and over, and I will continue to do so because it’s fun. The Dems could have passed any law they wanted. They could have addressed any and all the issues they claim are important. Instead, they threw everything they had into Obamacare, and right after that they lost the House, and the rest is history. They only have their own leadership’s arrogance and stupidity to blame.

    1. …”The Dems could have passed any law they wanted.”…

      Unfortunately, they did pass one.

      1. Yes. And the one they passed turns us all into subject, serfs, peons, slaves – what have you – who have to pay a fee or a tax for permission to live. It’s what they’ve wanted for generations.

      2. Which tells you how seriously they take ‘climate change’ as the greatest threat we face.

    2. Yes, just one, and it was the dumbest move they could have made. There were people talking about the Republican party going extinct. And that could have happened, if the Dems had just moved forward carefully, passing “moderate” laws with a sprinkling of leftist wish-list items. But nope, they had to go whole hog.

      1. You can almsot always count on Dem overreach.

        1. And we may soon be seeing Red over-reach.

  7. Sorry to see this. I was a Phil Plait fan via the Amazing Randi.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought “greenhouse gases” actually HAVE decreased — in the U.S.! — due to the increased use of natural gas (& fracking)? Am I mistaken?

    1. but not to zero! Al Gore and his jet has seen to that

      1. Having never seen an inconvenient truth, I’may curious as to what environmental destruction should have taken place by now.

        1. DOOM!!!,rivers of blood,plagues of frogs and locust,cats and dogs living together

        2. I’d ask the prog I know who watched it, but while he was telling me how great it was he slipped up and admitted falling asleep ten minutes in.

    2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought “greenhouse gases” actually HAVE decreased — in the U.S.! — due to the increased use of natural gas (& fracking)? Am I mistaken?

      You are.

      The *rate* of domestic CO2 production has gone down, but the *concentration* of CO2 is generally trending upwards. And that value is more a function of all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere throughout the northern hemisphere.

      In terms of differential calculus. The slope is still positive, albeit less so.

      1. thanks.

    3. I believe that is correct. I think that the US emissions have dropped to below what they goals of the Kyoto treaty would have been if we had taken part.

      1. As tarran points out, I’m talking about emissions, not atmospheric concentrations.

      2. I think that the US emissions have dropped to below what they goals of the Kyoto treaty would have been if we had taken part.

        thanks. that’s probably the factoid that I was remembering

    4. “Skeptics” seem to have a blind spot when it comes to issues where science and politics intersect. Not surprising, as they’re still humans, but it’s annoying.

      1. The “alarmists” however, are not prone to such blind spots, amirite?

        1. Eh, strike that snark, I think I misread your comment.

          1. I see where the confusion came from. “Skeptics” as in the Phil Plait skeptics, not the global warming “skeptics.”

            1. Yup, that’s exactly it.

    5. Phil’s totally political. He’s ridiculous on climate change and spews nonsense on other leftist issues. It’s a great disappointment, because in the early days, he focused on science–in his field, primarily–and on skepticism. Was a regular reader of his blog, years ago.

      1. Same here. Also used to listen to the SGU podcast. It would have been tolerable if they had at least 1 libertarian/conservative skeptic, but they were all leftists.

        1. Tell me how an actual skeptic could possibly run around accepting and parroting very strong yet unproven AGW claims and calling actual skeptics “deniers?” Seriously, mixing politics with skepticism is a bad idea.

          Heck, I’m skeptical even of some libertarian claims. I don’t shelve my reason just because my team takes a stand.

          1. Part of it is the “cocktail parteez” thing people here joke about.

            Another part is that many of them are not really skeptical. They just happen to believe things that align with a “skeptical” mindset, and so call themselves skeptics without doing the work of questioning the beliefs they like.

            1. I suppose with the huge successes of science and technology over the past couple of centuries, including economic success, that it’s not surprising that there’s some status in associating with at least some science/technology.

  8. Ronald – please remind me – what’s the

    1. did you hit that post button early or are you drinking?

  9. Global Warming Is A Socialist Scam! Alt text: Is it a scam when they actually believe it?

    If socialism itself is a scam, is it a scam when they actually believe in it?

    1. I’m going to say that it is not a scam when they actually believe it. Are churches all scams? (Some people will say, yes, of course. I try to steer clear of the whole question.)

      1. Some churches are scams. Like Owlgor’s Church of Global Warming for instance.

  10. I’m waiting for solar rooooadzz to rear its ugly head again

  11. What’s bad is that all of this chicken-little stuff–the catastrophic AGW claims that virtually no respectable climatologist publicly supports–will make it much harder if we actually do face problems because of AGW or other environmental problems, whether it’s now or in the future.

  12. the Republicans will “put a cohort of science-deniers [sic] into positions of authority,” which “quite literally affects the future of humanity.”

    Paging Chicken Little!

    1. MMMM,chicken

    2. Understanding this is the usual leftist drivel, I find it annoying how they keep treating pretty much every Republican as ANTI-SCIENCE. That’s facially invalid, as plenty of science and technology support comes from the right. Even during reform years, the GOP usually only cuts a little bit from science programs, and, of course, the right is at least marginally better about thinking that maybe science and technology shouldn’t be controlled by government.

      I don’t care for the anti-evolution position taken by some on the right, but, the reality is that they’ve dodged, parried, turned, and thrusted so much that even that usually ends up only being a problem in historical terms, as they keep having to concede that molecular biology and similar things actually work (microevolution!).


  13. SORRY!

    They tried to disappear me! But I

    1. You forgot to type “Argghhh”.

          1. Well if I really WERE dying, I wouldn’t have taken the time to carve “arrrghhh!” I’d have just SAID IT!


  14. The hyperbolic scaremongering does not jibe with published science. Just sayin’.

    1. That’s where I stopped accepting even the more modest claims at face value–because the catastrophic claims were being treated as the Word of God. With virtually no evidence. Yeah, that makes me on par with people who think the Holocaust was actually a vacation plan for Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political dissidents.

      1. Even the IPCC’s line is shifting. They are actually closer to us than the idiots who marched in NY a month or two ago.

  15. Understanding this is the usual leftist drivel, I find it annoying how they keep treating pretty much every Republican as ANTI-SCIENCE.

    Considering how many of the members of TEAM SCIENCE seem perfectly willing to pick and choose their scientific causes, it’s laughable.

  16. And, speaking of TEAM SCIENCE-
    What the fuck is up with this teevee campaign abut “ALL YOUR SPECIES ARE BELONG TO EXTINCTIONZ”?

    Did I miss something? Are we in the midst of some sort of Biblical plague wiping all life from the planet? I haven’t even seen any evidence of that much touted reduction of the honey bee population; they’re all over the place, on my acreage.

    1. One of the deep ironies of current radical environmental thought is this idea that warming is bad and extinctions are bad. Yet today’s cool climate–much cooler than in some periods in the past–supports a mere fraction of the total biota that warmer climates have supported.

      1. You are advocating a global experiment with no consent whatsoever from the participants in the experiment. Some libertarian. Why not just rebrand yourself as oilwhores?

      2. Pro Libertate, you have mistakenly engaged in the belief that leftists actually care about scientific facts. They only like to tell everyone they are the ones who support science. It is another leftist lie, just like most everything with the left.

  17. You may appreciate this comparison of electricity costs from various sources at peak and off-hours. Expand it if you want to be able to read it.

  18. Good!
    Perhaps they can stop wasting money on fighting a myth?

  19. Anybody want to make money off a REAL Threat, like meteors. I gonna start selling meteor insurance. And apply for grants to build a big rail gun.

  20. If your point, Ronald, is that the Dems haven’t done enough, fair enough. But that’s not to say they haven’t done anything, which CLEARLY is the path that will be taken by the GOP. Funny how you save your derision for the party that has increased fuel efficiency standards, put limits on CO2 from coal, and more, and yet you seemingly give a pass to our brand new head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who believes that AGW is a hoax, that its better to trust in religion and a God who will save us than it is to trust in warnings from science, and that what the heck, warmer temperatures might be better anyway. And quite honestly, that’s the take from the GOP party as well as many Libertarians.

    That guy you have nothing to say about. Funny.

  21. Phil Plait is just another leftist shithead with a blog. Giving him recognition only makes him worse.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.