Red States Are Getting a New Shade of Redder-people who deny climate change most likely to suffer

Slate ^ | December 12, 2014 | Joshua Zaffos

[Cincinatus' Wife]

".....Yuma,Colorado, a farming town of 3,500 people near the Kansas border, celebrated last month as homegrown Republican Cory Gardner was elected to the U.S. Senate. Gardner, a high school football player and the son of a farm equipment dealer, defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall to help the GOP gain control of the Senate in the second-most expensive congressional race of all time.

Gardner represented Colorado’s 4th Congressional District for four years, an expansive territory that covers the mostly flat and rural eastern third of the state. Farmers there mostly grow corn to feed cattle, and water comes from the quickly depleting Ogallala Aquifer.

Gardner ran for Senate as “a new kind of Republican.” That means he was bold enough to stand in front of a wind turbine and voice support for both renewable energy and natural gas. But Gardner, who leans toward the Tea Party, has also questioned whether people are causing climate change. His climate-skeptic position is ironic—and dangerous for his very constituents.

....That’s according to analysis from a forthcoming peer-reviewed study in the journal Ecosphere by Brady Allred of the University of Montana and colleagues. Allred’s study looked at political representation, agricultural and natural-resources land cover,and projected climate disruptions across the nation’s 435 U.S. House districts. The researchers discovered that the districts with the most agriculture and natural resources are predominantly represented by Republicans who, like Gardner,generally deny the science of global warming. Those districts also likely face the most severe climate changes.....

The disconnect isn’t just depressing news for climate-conscious voters in other parts of the country. The failure to act on climate issues could devastate the nation’s breadbasket. Climate change could harm corn, soy, wheat, and cattle production,affecting U.S. and global food supplies. In other words,the effects of political polarization and Republican aversion to climate action could harm everyone....

[Ditter]

I will admit it. I am a denier.

[dead]

Liberals get all warm and fuzzy when they imagine that their goddess Gaia practices karma. While they are terrified of the horrors she may unleash on evil man, they find comfort if they can believe deniers will be subjected to even more painful forms of retribution under her wrath.

Angry impotent gullible little goofballs.

[MrB]

Without a man-caused danger to the erf,
where is a leftist to seek his own righteousness
for “caring”?

[eyeamok]

So Basically, if you live in a State ran by Republicans, you are going to burn up in out of control Global Warming, ONLY in those States??

[dead]

After Katrina, I remember that idiot Joe Kennedy claiming that the hurricane swung towards Mississippi intentionally to punish the state that produced Haley Barbour.

His contention was that government policies supported by Barbour's Republican National Committee created the global warming that allowed Katrina to form.

He was serious - like Katrina was angry at her own creation or something and went after Barbour like the Bride of Frankenstein seeking retribution on the mad genius who brought her to life.

[eyeamok]

Vanity, Vainglory, My Favorite Sin

Do you think any of them are smart enough to understand that?

[Raycpa]

Climate disruption is a new term to me. Hard to keep up. Is winter a disruption?

[smoothsailing]

I agree. Cheesy trash and leftist psycho-babble bs.

[edzo4]

Disagree, even if there was global warming and even if it did affect crops ect and even if less food was produced it would be the blue states where most of the food is exported to that suffers. After all would you feed your friends and family first or send it off to new York city.

[central_va]

Wouldn’t it be crazy if the next Civil War was triggered by “Climate Changers” vs “Climate Deniers”?

[GOPJ]

Has Joshua Zaffos heard of peak oil? Or Club of Rome? Or ‘The Population Bomb’? Or any of the other 20 or 30 ‘sky is falling’ democrat lies pumped out over the years to separate citizens from their money and power? Or is he corrupt? Or stupid? Or a liar? Or a fool?

[justa-hairyape]

We do not deny the science of global warming, we have proven the science of global warming wrong. It has been falsified, therefore it is not acceptable science. Simple as that. Make one prediction based on the falsified global warming science that proves true. You cannot and never will be able too. Farmers deal with reality, not political science.

[Mike Darancette]

Climate change denial is now “something of a litmus test for Republican politicians to prove their conservative bona fides,” says Riley Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University.

Skepticism is a litmus test for the aptitude of critical thinking. Who in their right mind believes that CO2 levels can be reduced to 1850 levels or that the totality mankind's GHG output can be eliminated by 2050?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Obama's Science and Technology Czar/Adviser: John P. Holdren, is long-time colleague and collaborator of Paul R. Ehrlich - "Population Bomb."

With a quick Google:

[PDF]John P. Holdren Paul R. Ehrlich - Stanford University mahb.stanford.edu/...1974_holdren_ehrlich_humanpopglobalEnviron.p...by JP Holdren - ‎Cited by 557 - ‎Related articles John P. Holdren. Paul R. Ehrlich. Three dangerous misconceptions appear to be widespread among decision-makers and others with responsibilities related to ...

[PDF]Impact of Population Growth Paul R. Ehrlich; John P ...faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Ehrlich.pdf University of Washington by PR Ehrlich - ‎Cited by 1557 - ‎Related articles Mar 21, 2007 - Impact of Population Growth. Paul R. Ehrlich; John P. Holdren. Science, New Series, Vol. 171, No. 3977. (Mar. 26, 1971), pp. 1212-1217.

Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R ... www.questia.com › Browse › Books Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Book By Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren Ecoscience Population, Resources, Environment By Paul R ... archive.org › eBooks and Texts › Community Texts Internet Archive

Ecoscience Population, Resources, Environment By Paul R. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren And Anne H. Ehrlich ( 1977)

"In 1993, the Prize went to Professor Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University and Professor John P. Holdren of the University of California in Berkeley, whose work laid the foundations of our understanding of how the dynamics of population growth, rising living standards and changing technology, as well as the relationships between them, interact in the context of environmental problems." Volvo Environment Prize

[Cincinatus' Wife]

And...

“A hypothesis can be refuted (proven wrong, or falsified), but it never can be proven to be true. (It is impossible to perform enough experiments to be certain that the answer will always be the same, and that the same explanation will hold true every time.) However, if a hypothesis is tested again and again and is never falsified, it may become elevated to the level of a theory.”

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html

[figgs500]

This is the official word from the EPA:

The historical record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.

[ NRC (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change . National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.]

Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, human activities can very likely explain most of that warming.

Do you see the words in bold? This means they do not have any proof. If there was definite evidence humans are causing climate change the "scientists" would use definitive words. Indications and likelihoods are not facts.

Does one say "It is likely the sky is blue."? No. We can see the sky is blue and use definite speech to declare it.

Does one say, "My studies indicate when I add 4 cups of sugar to a quart of water it will taste very sweet."?

No again, because we have clear evidence adding sugar to water makes the water sweet. We do not use "indicate" or "suggest" or "it is likely" when the facts are clear.

Do not be fooled by the global warming buffoons. I am certain there is a long term goal in mind, most certainly the result being a loss of freedom, a loss of constitutional rights such as: "You exhaled the pollutant carbon when you used that speech, so to avoid pollution you must not use that type of speech anymore."

I know that sounds utterly stupid but that is the kind of stupidity coming from the liberals these days.

Something stupid and hateful towards our freedom is on the way if we do not stop the AGW garbage soon, mark my words.

[sr4402]

The perilously liberal Slate desperately tries to hang on to Liberal press “power”.

You disagree with the above?

[edzo4]

I don’t disagree with your comment I disagree with the article’s premise that the red states would suffer most.

[5by5]

Dear Ecosphere warminista weenies,
We’re quite pleased to take our chances with Senator-elect Gardner. Thank you for your concern.
Signed,
A skeptical Coloradan

[GOPJ]

Thanks for sharing that Cincinatus’ Wife...