What a misleading title on that article! It says, “Meet the Republicans who don’t believe climate change is real”, then goes on to list 19 Republican Senators, of which only 3-4 seem to be saying that climate change isn’t real. The article even admits it. This is what they have to say about John Thune:
So if Thune admits that climate change is real, and that humans are helping to cause it, what’s he doing on a list of ‘Republicans Who Don’t Believe Climate Change is Real’?
http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/06/inhofe-senate-environment-committee
Just as an example.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/
There’s a bunch of dumbasses who don’t get it.
Perhaps it’s an overstatement that they think it’s a hoax. But it is exceedingly common for them to apply some form of denialism - from the full-on “the earth is not warming, everything is fine, god will provide massive conspiracy blah blah blah” bullshit of Inhofe and his ilk to the “We don’t know what’s causing it” nonsense to the “It’s probably a good thing” line to “we couldn’t do anything without crippling our economy” to “we couldn’t do anything about it anyways”. What you won’t find much of is republicans who will openly say “climate change is real, we’re at fault, and the repercussions will be serious”.
It’s a gross overstatement. Here is your original claim:
[QUOTE=Budget Player Cadet]
Err, you do realize that the common line among congressional republicans is that global warming is a hoax, right?
[/QUOTE]
That’s not even close to true. I do appreciate you admitting that you overstated your point. But let’s keep in mind that when both you and GIGO tried to substantiate the claim, neither of you could even come close to doing so. So, maybe hold conservatives’ feet to the fire for stuff they actual believe and disagree with you on rather than misrepresent their actual positions.
On preview, I see that Sam Stone saved me the work of making those points about GIGO’s “cite”.
Read it again and next time stop setting a straw man. What I said was that “most claim that they do not know anything and deny that humans are responsible in large part.”
Of course misrepresenting a poster to claim others misrepresent conservatives seems to be OK.
And Sam found one that should not be on the list, but he point stands: others have noticed the abysmal levels of denial in the current Republican party:
http://thehill.com/opinion/bill-press/222711-the-party-of-denial
Context is missing here to claim that. As one of the very few Republicans that do accept the science, the article makes the contrast with the few ones that do not, “Thune is another Republican who admits a potential role for humans in climate change”,
The problem with Thune is that no sooner he claims to follow the science, he does hedge by reporting that no matter that most scientists see the human component in the warming as the most important one, Thune declared we are only a factor, then he goes also for the denial of what most economists reported that we should do something now with less cost than doing it later with a very high cost, and there is also the full of bull issue of using the jobs card:
The Republicans that do not look at the science, that claim that this is not going to be a problem or are misguided enough to not do anything about it are legion; in the end the result is the same, they push only inaction.
Then you can prove the veracity of THAT claim, which your cite did not do either. And to save time, please do read your cites before you offer them as substantiation. Alternatively, maybe get a bigger shovel.
Again showing all that you miss the point is not my problem, I did not said what you claimed I did, and it was Politifact who asked the Republicans, my point stands as you are still mistaken that what claim is an absolute, the reasons for the inaction from the Republicans run from exagerated costs (that implies denial of what economists have reported too) to complete denial of the science.
You made a claim. Substantiate it. And don’t forget the “most” part. And as far as what your claim is or isn’t, was or wasn’t, one just needs to read it. Here, let me help.
Here is your original claim:
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
To be precise most claim that they do not know anything and deny that humans are responsible in large part.
[/QUOTE]
And here is YOU restating it:
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
What I said was that “most claim that they do not know anything and deny that humans are responsible in large part.”
[/QUOTE]
magellan01, WADR I think you are missing the point.
"What are we going to do about it, and at what cost?” is a question which cannot be answered without touching on areas on which there is no real consensus, scientific or otherwise. Hence the effort to classify Republicans who ask it as denialists.
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes:
I did substantiate it already, the article does not report that all are deniers of the science, just that most claim ignorance (“Meet the deniers in congress” does not = all are deniers) (“I’m not a scientist” became a mantra among Republicans during the last elections - not likely as a coincidence, it was a tactic made to avoid a lot of inconvenient questions - ) and many Repubicans report that humans are not a big factor, or deny that this is a problem at all.
IOW, I did specify the gamut of positions made and pointed at the many options used by the repubicans in congress *, the final point was the realization that it doesn’t matter the reason, all these Republican options result in innaction.
Heh heh. I’m pretty solidly conservative, and I’d love to get worked up about government intrusion into private matters, but seriously. “Redskins”?! I know it’s had that name for a long time, but we wouldn’t tolerate a team named the Niggars, and a playoff series between the Crackers and the Beaners would be out of the questiion. Change the damn name already.
:dubious: What such articles reflect is Krugman’s deeply informed knowledge that in 2009 nothing else would have worked.
RED-SKIN, n. A North American Indian, whose skin is not red — at least not on the outside.
– Ambrose Bierce
My answer to the OP:
The government should base taxation upon your ability to pay. Rich people need to pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes than poor people.
Prosecutors should be immune from lawsuits over their official actions. So should politicians.
Some people shouldn’t have control over what chemicals they put into their bodies.
We need to maintain a massive military and use it to advance our interests overseas.
Public schools should inculcate correct morals in youth.
The government needs to be involved in healthcare, and some things should not be left up to patients and their doctors.
We need a large state security apparatus, the inner workings of which must be kept secret.
During economic downturns, we should (as Keynsian economics dicatates) increase spending, because it will act as a stimulus; during flush economic times, we should (as classical economics dictates) increase spending, because, hey, free money.
Massive budget deficits are a real problem and a threat to our future that must be dealt with in the future, but not right now.
The ever-increasing power of the executive branch is a cause of concern, brought to notice every time the wrong kind of person is elected president.
I had a model a few years ago. It said if we had simply stayed in Iraq for 10 more years we would have won the war and installed a stable democracy.
I guess that makes me the Paul Krugman of foreign policy.