Score one for bipartisan pushback against climate change denial

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LizKat, Jul 15, 2017.

  1. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #1
    Looks like Trump should pay more attention to Ivanka's murmurs about climate change. In the House, the GOP is no longer a monolithic skeptic on the issue.

    The bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus (24 Republicans, 24 Democrats) voted almost unanimously against an amendment to the defense funding bill that had proposed to suppress a Defense Department report on the threats to military installations posed by climate change. Gaining support of 46 Republicans in total and all but 6 Democrats, the amendment to nix the report was defeated.

    Curbelo’s gang of moderate Republicans defeats anti-climate change legislation (McClatchy)

    Excerpt:

    A bipartisan majority of Members are on the record saying climate change and sea level rise must be taken into account when planning for our national defense,” Curbelo said in a statement. “With military bases like Naval Air Station Key West extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, this vote was a huge win for our coastal military communities. I’m proud of the Climate Solutions Caucus Members who worked to defeat this amendment and I look forward to continuing to build momentum for this cause in the Congress.”

    A Curbelo staffer said that an informal vote-counting push by Climate Solutions Caucus Republicans occurred before the vote. Every Republican on the caucus voted against the proposal by Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., with the exception of Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., who voted in favor and Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., who was absent. The full House vote was 234-185.

    Another:

    If all 24 GOP members of the Climate Solutions Caucus vote in line with every Democrat in the House, Curbelo’s group has the votes to sink legislation.

    But on Thursday, the Climate Solutions Caucus had cover from other Republicans, as 46 decided to vote against Perry’s amendment.


    Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis acknowledged the impacts of climate change during his Senate confirmation hearing, calling climate change a “driver of instability” that “requires a broader, whole-of-government response.”

    Military installations on waterfront properties are facing hundreds of floods a year, and in some cases could be mostly submerged by 2100, according to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report calculated that a three-foot sea level rise would threaten at least 128 U.S. military bases, which are valued at $100 billion. Nine of those are major hubs for the U.S. Navy.


     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    There are very few climate change deniers, climate change is inevitable. There are those that believe human contributions to climate change are overstated.
     
  3. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #3
    Of course, the problem is not that the climate changes; that's been happening since the earth was formed.

    The problem is that the climate is now changing rapidly. Radically. Unnaturally. Climate scientists are not spreading alarms about how "the earth is doing what it has done for the last hundred thousand years", but rather "the earth is doing something never seen before".

    So if humans are not the cause, what's your belief? Space aliens?
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    Well, when you have the Defense Dept and Exxon Mobil worried about Climate Change - maybe you should take a minute. Also, as to the argument of how much humans have contributed to Climate Change - that's kinda irrelevant when it's happening. In the near-future, parts of the earth will be inhospitable/uninhabitable. Food and water supplies will be threatened. There will be mass migrations and Political unrest. The amount of Methane in the Permafrost (maybe not so perma) could accelerate Global warming by an alarming degree. We're an innovative species, why argue over why at this point? Get your **** together and deal with it...
     
  5. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    Well, there is one significant reason to argue about it -- if the human release of carbon into the atmosphere is not the cause of climate change, then obviously, reducing the amount of carbon humans release will not have any effect. There's no point in trying to reduce pollution if pollution doesn't change the climate in the first place!
     
  6. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #6
    Do you want to try and put that another way?

    I don't think you would find anyone that thinks we shouldn't try and reduce "pollution".
     
  7. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #7
    Heh. You don't want to avoid global warming, but you do want to make sure the planet looks "pretty" while it heats up. Is that what you're saying? ;)
     
  8. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #8
    The weather on this rock has been changing for billions of years, it's only man's hubris that makes us think it would ever stop, but if you want to try and change the weather, your free to do so, and I won't try to stop you.
     
  9. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #9
    Right. "Climate change is inevitable. We should all just sit back and continue the same practices we've always done. Nothing to see here, move along."
     
  10. DearthnVader, Jul 16, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017

    DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #10
    I didn't say that, I clearly said, you can do something to try and stop it, while I laugh at you.

    Stop putting words in my mouth, it's a very annoying habit.

    Anyway, here is my position on "Climate Change", I agree it's getting hotter, some places, and some of it is likely "manmade". Unfortunately, there is a tipping point, a point of no return, where the permafrost melts and releases more CO2 than man has in the history of all things, and I believe we are past that point.

    However, if you would like to bang your head on that wall, and say you are doing work, be my guest, I won't try and stop you. You see, I use to take the position that as long as you didn't want to levy a tax on the entire world, that anything else you did would be ok, but then I realized that "why would I want to prevent you from taxing the whole world?".

    It's a religious position, the first thing, in the story of Jesus is:


    So, I'm figuring, that if it took a "World Tax" to bring Jesus the first time, and we've been waiting 2000 years for his return, maybe all anyone had to do, was put forth a decree to tax all the world.:eek:
     
  11. Adam Warlock macrumors regular

    Adam Warlock

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    #11
    Those who feel strongly about man-made climate change should do their best to live their own lives in such a way that they believe will help the environment without bothering or interfering with the rest of us. IOW, If you have found a path to salvation revel in it, but don't f_cking bother me with it. Stop trying to force your beliefs down everyone else's throat, telling us how to live and what we can and cannot do. It is simply not your business. End of story.
     
  12. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #12
    Did it occur to you that we will stop bothering you the minute you stop bothering us by using the atmosphere as a garbage dump for your CO2?
     
  13. Adam Warlock macrumors regular

    Adam Warlock

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    #13
    That's not your business. I love CO2. It's tasty and refreshing and less filling, in that order. I'll say it again: reduce your own CO2 production as much as you like, but piss off when it comes to me. Thanks!
     
  14. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #14
    Of course I will point out that humans, and other animals breath in oxygen and exhale CO2, and plants "breath in" CO2, and expel oxygen.

    So want to fight CO2, plant a "f"ing tree.:p
     
  15. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15
    My thinking is if you are stating that warming rapidly increased after the industrial revolution days then it's ultimately a death sentence because we won't get the earth back to pre-industrial revolution emissions, period.

    I also think scientists working in this area have an incentive to manipulate observations to sensationalize the topic, and politicians have an incentive in order to exert further control over populaces. Not to say humans don't have an impact at all, but I don't buy the change or we all die scenario.

    Ultimately I'm for natural power sources, so the goals are the same, but I don't choose to strangle the economy to get there.
     
  16. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #16
    Part of the story, in this thread, is that there are as many as 193 Republicans in the House --and six Democrats-- who don’t even want the public to read a Defense Department report on the threat to a hundred billion tax dollars’ worth of our coastal military installations. While causation is certainly of interest to some in government, a clear task at hand in the Defense Department purview will be flood abatement.

    The linked report in the OP by Union of Concerned Scientists does not reference “man-made climate change” either. It merely addresses the need to acknowledge that we have military installations at risk of submersion or high dysfunction due to present and projected increase of climate change related flooding in coming decades, and makes some recommendations as to abatement. The only even oblique reference to man-made climate change that I found in any of the supporting documents to their piece was this:

    The projections do not account for any change in the rate of anthropogenic subsidence.

    In other words they’re not even assuming that we’ll step up efforts to reduce any human contributions to the eventual immersion of our coastal military facilities.

    We’ve already had Congressmen express interest in consulting with experts on ocean flooding in Rotterdam: citizens are at permanent risk in the Netherlands, and have long since taken robust measures to deal with it, even teaching all children to be able to swim in their clothing in the event of a breach.

    And in the USA, apparently the Defense Department is thoroughly awake and ready to explore abatement measures as well, even if some Congressmen didn't want the public to read or understand how climate change remotely relates to our defense budgeting. Again, regardless of cause, climate change has already made its mark on our coastal military installations.

    But, you could take that heavy load off your shoulder and mind, if you're so inclined, and just enjoy your day. Other people are so far willing to learn how to deal better with the effects of a phenomenon that is already eating our tax bucks one gulp of seaside naval offices and jetties at a time. Maybe someone will phone you when it’s time to vote for (or against!) any further investments needed to protect the investments we’ve already made, but of course no one will force you to exercise that option either.
     
  17. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #17
    Stopping pollution does a lot more than just make the planet look pretty.
     
  18. statik13 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    #18
    In other words you want to be free to make all the mess you want and leave it for someone else to clean up?
     
  19. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #19
    The concept of freedom of speech involves potentially being bothered by others. I cannot make you accept freedom of speech, but I will also not accept your standpoint that your wish to abolish freedom of speech is none of my concern. I find it bothering, as it were. However, arguing for the right to bother without being bothered is hypocritical in the extreme, and it is an endeavor I will not join you in.

    It seems rather strange to actively solicit the opinions of others by engaging in the debate of this forum, and then to tell other participants in the debate to "piss off". Do you want to elaborate on what you are trying to accomplish here?
     
  20. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #20
    Probably a good thing about Trump.
    Republicans are not afraid to go against the President with ever worsening leadership respect.
     
  21. Adam Warlock macrumors regular

    Adam Warlock

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    #21
    What the Hell are you babbling about? Free speech means government cannot censor you, not that Joe Blow on the street is required to listen to you. As for telling you to piss off, you know damn well I meant trying to force your eco-beliefs on others, not your Internet ramblings.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 18, 2017 ---
    It's not your business what I do or don't do, and I don't even agree with you about what exactly a "mess" in this case would be, let alone if it really will be a "mess". That's your belief. You are so certain of it that you cannot even imagine someone not agreeing with you. That's close to religious fervour IMO.

    As for someone else having to clean it up, that's nonsense. Our ancestors made decisions big and small that affect us today in all sorts of ways, most of which we're not even aware of. So what? That's life. What would life be today if the Industrial Revolution hadn't occurred? What about irrigation farming? There are all sorts of things that some would call a "mess" made in the past that affect us now.
     
  22. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #22
    That CO2 levels are rising is undeniable. That CO2 (and methane, another gas we're releasing into the atmosphere) acts as a greenhouse gas is also undeniable. Even if one grants that natural climate change is occurring, the question is why make things worse by adding additional effect of CO2 (and methane), particularly when we do not need to generate as much CO2 as we do now. We cannot perform an experiment to confirm that the Earth's temperature is rising because of CO2, but a natural experiment of sorts is known to us:

    [​IMG]

    Venus - where greenhouse gases, predominately CO2, lead to sufficiently high temperatures to melt metal.
     
  23. Adam Warlock macrumors regular

    Adam Warlock

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    #23
    Who is stopping the public from reading the report?
    Yes, and? It's the DoD's job to be prepared for possible eventualities, no matter how likely or unlikely. They need to be prepared for nuclear attack, natural disasters and even alien invasion. So what?
    The only heavy load is the one you and your fellow travellers are trying to create and foist on others. Priests and shamans have been pushing guilt on others since the earliest days of humanity and the goal is always the same: control.
    That's wonderful for them. Again, why aren't they happy to do their bit? Why must they insist everyone else do the same?

    Ah, but you eco-fanatics are attempting to "force" others to live according to your beliefs. So far the only net effect of these idiotic eco-policies has been the rise in cost for nearly everything (plus
    unnecessary worrying and guilt) with no reduction in CO2 or whatever boogie-man you guys are pushing. That's another thing, it's never enough, is it? We will never reduce emissions to a level acceptable to eco-warriors. It's like the Office de la langue francaise in Quebec, tasked with ensuring the primacy of the French language. Most reasonable people that live in the province would agree the Office's job is done as 99.9% of signage is in French, for example, and the vast majority of offices work in French. Alas, the department now busies itself finding inventive ways to justify their continued existence: Pastagate, for example. The same seems to hold true for eco-partisans as they are never happy. No, sorry, leave me and others out of your religion. We have enough fanatics already!
    --- Post Merged, Jul 18, 2017 ---
    Who is generating more CO2 than needed? Who is to say how much is needed and why? You?
    Who pumped all that CO2 into the Venusian atmosphere and how long did the process take?
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    That is a perfect example of Climate Change denial.
     
  25. LizKat, Jul 18, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017

    LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #25
    No one. Fortunately the Congress had the sense to squash the amendment preventing its release.


    Precisely to points of my post. That it's reasonable for the bill in question to include language that justifies the expense of flood mitigation at our coastal defense facilities. That it was sensible for Congress to defeat the amendment trying to omit that language. That it was due to the whip efforts of a bipartisan committee that enough Republicans in total did help defeat the amendment.




    What are you on about there?! I merely commented on that chip on shoulder you're carting around.

    LOL I didn't insist. I suggested you go on about your day and let others read up on the subject if they're interested. I tacked on that if it came to where the public was invited to vote one way or another on the issue, maybe someone would let you know, so you could exercise your choice.

    :confused: :D This post merely noted that it was bipartisan action in Congress that helped ensure that language describing importance of flood mitigation at our coastal military facilities would be included in the Defense Department's appropriations request. Bipartisanship in this Congress, which is often divided right down the middle, seems unlikely to land in the "fanatical" column.
     

Share This Page