The Price for Denying Climate-Change

Lucia Graves of the National Journal writes there’s evidence that efforts are paying off to make climate-change denial an issue of vulnerability:specifically, that along with other defining issues like gun-control, gay marriage, and immigration, the media is increasingly asking GOP candidates about their views on climate change.”

“Climate change, as National Journal‘s Ronald Brownstein has observed, is one of several issues that matter to core Democratic constituencies, including and maybe even especially young voters. By embracing priorities that matter to these groups, like climate change, gun control, and gay marriage, Democrats are hoping to appeal to what Brownstein describes as a ‘coalition of the ascendant.'”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
  • opinionated1234

    The younger generation no long believes in anything this administration tells them….they have been screwed and now cant find jobs!!! They want nothing to do with this current administration….They are now officially unindoctrinated!

  • TravisJSays

    So the liberal media pushing a liberal agenda asks questions with a liberal bias. Surprise, surprise.

    The real surprise would be when the liberal media owns up to their overhyping ‘climate change’ and spreading unscientific FUD that overstates what is really going on.

    In fact, climate has been changing for 4 billion years, and will continue to do so. The earth survived well with a lot more CO2 in its atmosphere and the increase in CO2 in the last 70 years has had only a mild and benign increase in temperatures. About 0.7C. Yet rather than state facts, we’ve had Al Gore lie about antartica melting, IPCC falsely claim himalaya glaciers were going away, and scores of other false and phony claims and fears, like ‘oceans are rising’ … yeah, 2mm a year. BFD.

    Turning non-problems like this into ‘crises’ is anti-science and anti-humanitarian. Those who peddle these false fears are a danger to public policy and should the shamed and shunned.

    • moderatesunite

      what you write off as “mild changes” are more than enough to cause significant problems now and in the coming decades to human infrastructure and humans living along the coast, farmers dealing with changing rainfall patterns etc.
      The point is to change our behavior to avoid more dramatic effects. Like the melting of West Antarctica that was confirmed only a couple weeks ago.

      • TravisJSays

        “what you write off as “mild changes” are more than enough to cause
        significant problems now”
        False. The level of change of 0.7C is less than what happens EVERY SINGLE MORNING in most places in 5 MINUTES after the sun comes up. Even the IPCC tells us that no significant issues at less than 2C rise, and 0.7C < 2C.

        "and in the coming decades to human
        infrastructure and humans living along the coast"
        A 2mm rise a year is NOT a problem… it would take a decade to drown your toes!

        ", farmers dealing with
        changing rainfall patterns etc."
        Gee, that's called 'weather', farmers have dealt with it for centuries. But thanks to CO2, plants are more drought resistant than before.

        "Like the melting of West Antarctica that was confirmed only a couple weeks ago." that's a) due to a volcano and b) will take 1000 years.

        PULEEZE lets deal with REAL issues, like the famine in South Sudan, the lack of clean water, or stamping out polio, instead of this mythical over-hyped nebulous Fear of Climate Change in a planet than naturally is changing every day.

        • moderatesunite

          All right I’ll go through this one step at a time.

          you make the classic mistake of confusing localized and transient changes with a global average.

          The temperature at any one location can indeed very substantially on a given day without it mattering much.

          Weather= It’s sunny this morning, this afternoon it will rain

          Climate= changes that are persistent for decades, centuries, or longer. On the shortest timescale it can mean last decade we got 30 inches of rain a year on average, this decade we will get only 20 sending us into a deep drought.

          sea level

          MIami is a specific example of a place in the US where even small change in sea level has big effects.

          also the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, The rate over the last 20 years has been 3.16 mm a year, nearly double the average since measurements began.

          West Antartica, nope not a Volcano, I read a science fiction book once where a volcano under Antarctica caused sea level to rise, but this is real life, and the conservative estimate is 200-900 (200 at the current rate) years to melt everything. It’s mostly due to warmer ocean water being pushed up against the grounding lines of the glaciers and causing them to retreat. If you did even basic research you would know that.

          a short video to explain the concept

          stamping out polio, access to clean water, and the famine in south Sudan are all important things deserving more attention. The cost of addressing them though is incredibly small. The main obstacles are violence and corruption in the regions affected, and the willingness of rich countries to send money to those causes. This is not an either or thing, we should do both.

          I’m sorry you feel it’s overhyped if someone gave you the impression that all the glaciers are going to melt in your lifetime, or the planets going to blow up then that is mistaken, but many scientists think climate change is making those droughts in Africa worse, and its a perfect example of what is actually put at risk. Humans, human infrastructure, and the complex ecosystems on which we depend.

          • TravisJSays

            you make the classic mistake of confusing localized and transient changes with a global average.”

            No I don’t. OTOH the globaloney hypers have done exactly that, like when Obama WH insanely blamed cold winter weather due to local changes to ‘global warming’.


            Your bizarre patronizing statements about the difference between climate and weather needs to be tattooed on the forehead of every fearmonger – including Al Gore – who falsely blamed weather events on ‘global warming’. Total absurd junk pseudo-science, in fact climate scientists now state that global warming does NOT imply more extreme weather, eg, not more hurricanes etc.

            “I’m sorry you feel it’s overhyped if someone gave you the impression that all the glaciers are going to melt in your lifetime”

            LOL! *someone*!??!?! IT WAS THE IPCC!! You make it sound like it was some random internest poster … what we are talking about is the so-called “Authorities” have LIED. The IPCC lied and had to backpedal on this when it was exposed and challenged … “Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist”


            “Panel head apologises for unsubstantiated assertion”

            They falsely claimed himalaya glaciers would melt in 30 years. It was specious. That is just ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES. The tip of the glacier so to speak …

            Richard Tol on IPCC in 2011: ‘The models have not been validated. So, the hypothesis so confidently expressed by the IPCC has no empirical content…Writing the 1st-order draft, the authors of Chapter 11 were aware that there is no consensus (their words) on the effect of induced
            technological change on the costs of emission reduction. Writing the 2nd-order draft, the authors claimed that there is a consensus. In the published chapter, there is not a sliver of doubt on the sign.’

            The IPCC has SPUN science and not been even-handed:

            See also:


            We know for a fact that IPCC and the ‘Climategate’ scientists suppressed dissenting science results and data that contradicted the agenda-driven claims of the IPCC. We know for a fact that the models that predicted warming have overstated warming by 3x or so … so any dire Antartica claims simply dont merit any attention.

            One more example:


            ” paper titled “The rate of sea-level rise” published in Nature Climate Change on March 23 by Cazenave, et al. shows that during the last decadethe rate of sea level rise has declined by about 30% during the period
            2003 through 2011 to about 2.4 mm/year from the rate of 3.4 mm/year in the period 1992 through 2002. The paper argues that this decrease is theresult of short-term natural climate variability …”

            Now I’m sure your statement of acceleration of sea level rise was stated honestly, but it is YOU who has been misled by others, making you believe the ‘acceleration’ claims, when in fact that is not correct science. See recent Judith Curry blog post and discussion that most sea level rise is NATURAL variability.

            … the climate change hypers have cried wolf WAY too many times. They have zero credibility on their predictions, so we might as well ignore all they say and just see what the real record shows over time.

            So far, its NO BIG DEAL despite your claims contrawise.

        • moderatesunite

          One more thing

          On a global level

          The difference between conditions now and a full ice age is only about 6C, the difference between conditions now and several meters of sea level rise appears to have already been crossed, but is certainly no greater than 2-3C

  • Buzz Allnight

    They are talking about climate hysterics!!!
    House appropriators are worried that a significant number of researchers aren’t meeting the “gold standard” for science — the ability to reproduce results.
    The House is debating a proposed fiscal 2015 spending bill that covers the National Science Foundation — which funds roughly 24 percent of the federally backed basic research at higher-education institutions in the U.S. The committee report associated with the measure states:
    The Committee concurs in the view that the gold standard of good science is the ability of a research lab to reproduce a method and finding, and shares the growing concern that a significant amount of recent research cannot be easily reproduced.
    The report goes on to direct NSF to provide the panel with recommendations for addressing the replication issue, and a “description of how NSF will support research on practices that improve research methods, increase research transparency and allow for increased scientific replicability.” Various news outlets have written about the issue in recent years.
    The head of the National Institutes of Health, Francis A. Collins, and NIH’s principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in a piece in Nature earlier this year that this “lack of reproducibility” is due to a “complex array” of factors, including “poor training of researchers in experimental design; increased emphasis on making provocative statements rather than presenting technical details”

Read previous post:
Good News: Inflation is Rising

Ylan Q. Mui of the Washington Post argues that "inflation can be a scary word, but there’s nothing to fear...