Global Warming

The headline for this News-Leader post by Deirdre Shesgreen reads, "Blunt iffy on cause of global warming?" 

Why the question mark?  Roy Blunt is firmly on the record stating that human beings have nothing to do with climate change and global warming.  From a Human Events interview during his Senate campaign: 

Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told HUMAN EVENTS Editor Jed Babbin that Republicans accept that the climate is changing, but added, “There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.”  Asked if Republicans would offer a substitute for the Dems’ bill [to address carbon pollution and climate change], Blunt said no. 

This positions is, of course, dumb. Blunt's positions has everything to do with protecting polluters and avoiding action to limit climate change -- it has nothing to do with science.  

Missouri's entire GOP delegation in the U.S. House voted against a very simple amendment yesterday "that would have put the chamber on record backing the widely held scientific view that global warming is occurring and humans are a major cause."  The proposed amended was very simple:

Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate changes is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.

That was it.  Todd Akin, Jo Ann Emerson, Sam Graves, Vicky Hartzler, Blaine Luetkemeyer and Billy Long all voted against it.   Reps. Cleaver, Clay and Carnahan all supported the presumably noncontroversial statement.

h/t Political Wire

Chris Mooney, author of the bestselling book, The Republican War on Science, responds to Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer's efforts to end U.S. funding for the United Nations' climate change research: 

Time was when I, and many others tracking and critiquing the climate "skeptics," would linger on their manufacture of uncertainty, their sowing and merchandising of doubt. “Doubt is our product,” as the infamous tobacco memo put it....

But that’s not really what you see out there anymore. A decision to defund the IPCC, rather than attack or criticize it, doesn’t bespeak a strategy of doubt-mongering. It signals extreme certainty that one is right, that we don’t even need to consider (skeptically or otherwise) any more new results from climate scientists...

Blaine Luetkemeyer announced today that he is re-introducing legislation that he says would prohibit the US from "contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science."  Luetkemeyer introduced similar legislation in the lass Congress, winning the support of fellow luminaries like Michele Bachmann, Todd Akin, Steve King and Joe Barton.

This move should shock no one.  Luetkemeyer has a long history of completely misrepresenting scientific data about climate change, and believing "man-made global change is nonsense." 

Here's what the Post-Dispatch wrote in July 2009 about his embarrassing work in Washington on issues of climate change and clean energy policy. 

JUST BLAINE WRONG
REP. LUETKEMEYER FLUNKS SCIENCE - AND BASIC MATH, TOO.

Last year's global average temperature was the 10th warmest since 1850. In fact, eight of the past 10 years, and 13 of the last 14, are among the warmest on record.

So naturally, Blaine Luetkemeyer, a Republican member of Congress from Missouri's 9th district, has concluded: "We are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling."

Mr. Luetkemeyer, of St. Elizabeth in Miller County, was a farmer, insurance man, banker, state representative and state tourism director before being elected to Congress last November. His college degree is in political science, not climate science.

Nevertheless, he has now proclaimed the data behind concern over global warming to be "international junk science."

Last week, he introduced a bill that would prohibit U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's most authoritative scientific body. The IPCC won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for compiling and publishing mountains of scientific data on global climate change.

But Mr. Luetkemeyer - who freely admits he hasn't read any of it - thinks its junk science.

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

If Republicans and their donors hadn't spent enormous sums of time and money in recent years misinforming and confusing the public about the reality of global warming and climate change, this tweet from Rep. Jo Ann Emerson might be funny. 

But they have, and it isn't.

Emeron's tweet is part of a proud tradition here in Missouri.  Leaders in the MOGOP have done way more than their share to advance the causes of their polluting special interests.  Here's just a sampling:

• Sen. Roy Blunt believes "there isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth."
• Rep. Billy Long says "there’s always changing and nobody really knows if it [climate change and global warming] has anything to do with man or not..the science I’ve says it does not."
• Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer says “that human emissions of carbon are causing our climate to change has been proven very doubtful at the most by the sound science that’s being promoted at the present time."
• Rep. Todd Akin says he's "not convinced of the soundness of the science of climate change." 
• Senate candidate Ed Martin thinks "the climate change debate has been now discredited in the sense that the ideological interests involved and the special interests involved have been shown to be corrupt."
• Rep. Vicky Hartzler says "a lot of data I’ve seen shows that perhaps we don’t even have global warming.
• Gubernatorial candidate Peter Kinder says the "science behind global warming is discredited"

Media Matters has uncovered a Fox News memo documenting what we already knew: "In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the 'veracity of climate change data' and ordering the network's journalists to 'refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.' ... Contrary to [Washington managing editor Bill] Sammon's email, the increase in global temperatures over the last half-century is an established fact. As the National Climatic Data Center explains, the warming trend 'is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change' and 'is also confirmed by other independent observations.'

The League of Conservation Voters launched a new website and web video today at FlatEarth.tv focusing on the incredible refusal of Republican candidates to come to terms with basic science about climate change and global warming.  “These candidates are full-fledged global warming deniers and in most cases, are backed by Big Oil and other corporate polluters,” said LCV President Gene Karpinski. 

Roy Blunt's April 2009 statement to Human Events, "There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth," is featured prominently in the spoof.  Watch it:

Not caring about the world we live in is a conservative value.

Depressing stuff from ThinkProgress: "A comprehensive Wonk Room survey of the Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate finds that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution...Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, only one — Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware — supports climate action. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line."

As you probably know by now, Roy Blunt believes "There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth."

A letter to the editor printed today in the Washington Post from Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, includes some a still-incredible quote from Roy Blunt, first highlighted here on Fired Up! last April:

Stephen Stromberg's Sept. 3 PostPartisan commentary, "A downside to Murkowski's exit," hit the nail on the head about a disturbing trend that has emerged this year among almost a dozen Republican Senate candidates. These candidates are full-fledged global-warming deniers. If they win, the number of card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society will rise exponentially in the world's greatest deliberative body.

[For example]...Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt said, "There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the Earth."

If candidates like these replace climate champions in November, we will feel more than just the loss of a few elected officials. We will lose out on a clean energy future that creates jobs, increases our national security and protects the planet for future generations.

As summarized by the Post-Dispatch's Bill Lambrecht:

[League of Conservation Voters Action Fund's Tony Massaro] said his group's survey turned up a bit of a surprise: A plurality of voters endorsing climate change legislation in Congress.

Here's how the question was asked, followed by the results:

Here are some laws passed in at least one House of Congress in the past two years. Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of each one:

The plan to encourage clean energy production known as cap-and-trade.

Approve: 45 percent. Disapprove 40 percent.

With voters mostly concerned most about the economy, Massaro said, a primary mission is persuading Missourians of the economic benefits of green technology  -- and in so doing influencing how they vote.

An editorial cartoon worth sharing from Joel Pett of the Lexington Herald Leader: 

h/t Center for American Progress

No matter what happens, I'll hold onto the conspiracy theories and believe global warming is a big hoax.

Meanwhile...

Two reports released this week have "reaffirmed the integrity of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the scientists involved in the so-called 'Climategate' affair."

But I haven't seen a peep out of Blaine Luetkemeyer, Ed Martin, Peter Kinder, silly Star columnist E. Thomas McClanahan, Ed Emery, Doug Funderburk, Vicky Hartzler or any other climate change deniers apologizing their uniformed hysteria, or even explaining how they're still smarter than people who actually study climate science.

Another day, another tweet that reveals Peter Kinder's way-outside-the-mainstream thinking:

In other news, a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences "underscores the widespread consensus among climate scientists that human activity is driving climate change."

The two recipients of "Big Oil's Six Figure Love" on the House Energy & Commerce Committee: Blunt and BP apologist Joe Barton

On FM NewsTalk 97.1 this morning, esteemed environmentalist climate change denier Roy Blunt informed us that stopping clean energy legislation is actually the right thing to do for the environment.

Cap and trade is a terrible thing for our state, it's a terrible thing for the country, and it's a terrible thing for the environment.  Because when we lose the jobs, those jobs go to somewhere that cares a whole lot less about what comes out of the smokestack than we do. And you know, America is a lot of great things, but it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not a planet. So we can't solve this problem ourselves. 

We can make it worse by ourselves by saying we want to penalize American jobs and Missouri jobs, and we'd just assume those jobs -- we understand those jobs are gonna go to Mexico or Brazil or India or China. And we really don't care because we wanna lead the world in doing the quote right thing, and of course, all the whole time we'd be doing exactly the wrong thing.

Listen:

Only in the GOP fantasy world could reducing carbon pollution be the bad thing to do for the planet. In Blunt's mind, the United States should not reduce its carbon output in any way, because, well, other countries might continue to pollute too. God forbid the USA might show some leadership, or have some credibility in negotiating with other countries. 

But hey -- what do you expect from a man who believes "there isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.”

Last Thursday, the Senate voted 53 to 47 to defeat the Murkowski resolution that would have undermined the EPA's ability to reduce global warming pollution. The vote provides a useful guide to how senators might act on a climate vote.

Of course, it is not a clear-cut comparison because some people voted against the flawed resolution to make a point about process or simply to support the science. It is significant to note that we have 10 more votes in favor of reducing carbon emissions than we did the last time climate change was discussed on the Senate floor two years ago.

Partisans freaking out about the costs of the Senate's proposed American Power Act should take a deep breath.  ABC News reports that an EPA study shows that the clean energy bill would cost between $79 and $146 per household per year. McClatchy has more:

The energy and climate bill that Republicans call a light-switch tax would lower electricity bills, at least in its early years, the Environmental Protection Agency reported Tuesday...

The EPA also estimated that the overall cost of the legislation would be an average of $79 to $146 more per household per year through 2050, including higher energy costs and increased prices of goods and services.

The bill would require electric utilities and large industries to pay for permits to emit heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide. The permits could be traded on a market. Oil and gas sectors also would have to buy permits in quarterly auctions but wouldn't trade them. The bill also would put a declining limit on the amount of carbon pollution that large sources can emit. Farms and small businesses would be exempt.

The News-Leader asks Roy Blunt today why he continues to use inflated partisan talking points instead of non-partisan data.  Professors from Missouri State University and Drury University drafted the questions to Blunt, and wanted to know: "What is your basis for saying Missouri's costs would be 17 times higher than the [non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's] national average estimate?"

To which Blunt replied: I find the inflated Heritage Foundation numbers to be far more useful, but thanks. And also, I'd prefer to exaggerate the very-worst-case scenario outlined in a letter from the Unified Missouri Electric Utilities. 

While I understand Blunt's political motivations for using wild estimates, it's worth pointing out again that the gulf between Republican and non-partisan talking points is significant.  For instance, the day before Heritage provided "expert" data to help their GOP friends, Reuters published the following:

A new U.S. government study on Tuesday adds to a growing list of experts concluding that climate legislation moving through Congress would have only a modest impact on consumers, adding around $100 to household costs in 2020.

Under the climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June, electricity, heating oil and other bills for average families will rise $134 in 2020 and $339 in 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration, the country's top energy forecaster.

This isn't to say that there won't be some variation in costs between states, but these huge numbers from GOPers just don't jive with non-partisan analyses. 

In fact, Blunt has a long history of peddling manifestly bad information about clean energy legislation.  His junk has been debunked by PolitiFact and others -- winning both "False" and "Pants on Fire" awards (woo hoo!). 

Kit Bond says that even "if you actually believe climate science," the US shouldn't worry about reducing its carbon emissions because China will probably keep polluting too. In other words, maintaining the status quo is the best course of action, even for those who "actually believe  climate science."

Tuesday, Bond said that carbon pollution isn't a problem because "without carbon, my trees would die."  Last summer, he told KY3 that "there is not a crisis in global warming."

Can someone explain why we're supposed to take any leaders seriously who won't join the rest of us in the real world?