Posted on 12/27/2015 5:18:38 PM PST by Libloather
The Republican Party is divided over whether to attack the science of climate change when opposing liberal policies.
Many of the most vocal Republicans say they have significant problems with the scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is the main cause. The skeptics include presidential hopefuls Ben Carson and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Capitol Hill chairmen Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas).
But others in the GOP aren't interested in litigating the science. They say it's more important - and far easier - to show that Democratic climate proposals would be disastrous to the economy and kill jobs.
The split comes as more and more voters, particularly young people and minorities, say in opinion polls that they believe climate change is real and want action to fight it.
Democrats have lined up firmly behind that view, with President Obama set to implement carbon dioxide limits for power plants that amount to the most significant action yet by the federal government to fight climate change.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said that since science underpins climate change policies, it's important to examine it in detail.
"We know that there's an ideological obsession to advance on this global warming agenda," said Sessions.
"Good policy should reflect the best science that we have. But a lot of the predictions that were confidently made have not occurred," he said, pointing to predictions of temperature increases and storm activity that he said did not pan out.
Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, brought national attention to his crusade against climate science when he threw a snowball on the Senate floor during on a cold February day to mock alarmist climate conclusions.
"Do you know what this is?" he asked Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who was presiding over the Senate's debate, as he removed the snowball from a plastic bag.
"It's a snowball. And it's just from outside here. So it's very, very cold out. Very unseasonable."
Comedians, Obama, greens, Democrats and others still bring up Inhofe's "snowball moment" to mock the Republican Party's "denial" of climate change.
Many of the party's presidential hopefuls have aligned with climate skeptics, including Cruz, Carson and real estate mogul Donald Trump.
"I am not a believer," Trump said in a radio interview. "I believe there's change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again."
At a hearing Cruz chaired in December on climate science, he repeatedly railed against climate change "alarmists" and said the Earth has not warmed in 18 years.
But Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), the only other Republican to speak, only asked questions about the cost of Obama's climate policies.
Daines declined to directly attack Cruz, but said after the hearing that his constituents' top problem with Obama's policies are their impact on the economy.
"Montanans are most concerned about these regulations from the EPA and what effect it's going to have on their pocketbooks and their everyday lives," the freshman senator said. "That's where the conversation's going back home."
It's a line that has been taken repeatedly by other Republicans, and not just those who lean toward the center.
"What we in Congress ought to focus on is the economic impact of the president's plan," said Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). "We know that his regulations on energy sources have cost the American consumer hard-earned dollars, and it's costs the country jobs."
Freshman Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who leads a loose coalition of 11 House Republicans who say they believe that humans are changing the climate, went even further.
He said efforts like Cruz's climate denial hearing and Smith's investigation into climate research at a federal agency are a waste of time.
"I think it's a likely a poor investment," he said. "We should instead invest resources and time into coming up with conservative, market-driven solutions for the challenges posed by climate change."
Mike McKenna, a Republican energy industry consultant, said most Republicans don't want to concede the science on climate change, because they fear it will inevitably lead to policies that make fossil fuels more expensive.
"If you concede that the other side is right on the characterization of the problem, then you're done," McKenna said. "If you concede the frame, you're toast."
McKenna said climate change is extremely low on voters' lists of priorities, so it can do little to hurt Republicans if they fight the science.
Ford O'Connell, a GOP strategist, said rejecting climate science can be a dangerous game for Republicans, depending on their goals.
"In Congress, because you know your district, if you want to stay all-out skeptical, that's fine," he said. "But if you're in a swing district, or if you're running for president, you're far better off talking about it in terms of its relationship to jobs and the economy."
O'Connell said Democrats are nearly certain to make climate an issue in the presidential race, something the GOP nominee will have to be prepared for.
"The only person who's going to really have to in any way plausibly be concerned about solutions is whoever the Republican nominee is, because that's something that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats want to make an issue," he said.
Democrats and environmentalists, for their part, say they are hopeful the GOP will eventually come around on the issue.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said he'd welcome debate about conservative ways to fight global warming.
"It's not mandatory that everyone takes the Democratic position on climate, but it's becoming a test of whether or not you're a serious politician if you're going to simply ignore that the problem exists," he said.
Schatz said he sees the GOP moving away from skepticism.
"There are many members who realize that it's a loser for them in terms of being on the right side of history and on the right side of the voters," he said. "Members are moving from outright denial to merely being critical of the solution set that's being put forward by this president. And that gives us space to negotiate."
Let the hoax deniers STAND UP!! so we can see these idiots!!
Religion of global warming bump for later...
To me, this is simple. A dozen years ago we put up a satellite designed specifically to prove global warming. Even NASA agreed this would provide the undisputed proof we had all been working for. The problem is, this satellite has shown NO INCREASE in the temperature of the earth for over 12 years.
But they don’t care. They don’t even try to explain this away. They simply ignore it. All any “politician” has to do is remind them of this fact. It will not solve the problem, but it is firm ground to stand on.
Only the truly honest and courageous will at a minimum, say there is true room for debate and that a fair and comprehensive scientific debate is in order.
(Hints: the computer models have thus far grossly failed and the south pole ice cap is growing with sustained vigor.)
.
China, one of the worlds foremost polluters promised obamie mammie they might start working on it in 2035.
Being skeptical of a theory that keeps failing is NOT attacking science. It is PRACTICING science.
The establishment always reacts in effect letting the left set the agenda. They bargain with the devil and cede the argument in doing so.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Ted Cruz demolishes Sierra Club president on global warming hoax
everyone gets paid
Put a giant pair of sunglasses between us and the sun.
Ray Bans?
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said he’d welcome debate about conservative ways to fight global warming.
“It’s not mandatory that everyone takes the Democratic position on climate,...”
Well there you have it. Democrats reaching across aisle to “compromise”.
“Climate science”? Is that what the thieving lowlifes are calling it these days? What a bunch of clowns.
I became even a bigger skeptic when global warming morphed into climate change.
RINOs refusing to confront the hoax of climate change for political reasons are bigger whores than those who support it for money.
If your holding a Congressional seat and you believe in anthropogenic global warming you are unfit to hold ANY public office.
Out of the couple thousand scientists surveyed, the criteria kept changing until they got down to 75 out of 77 hand picked scientists.
NO INCREASE in the temperature of the earth for over 12 years.
I believe you will find it’s actually closer to 19 years now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.