Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Trump's First 100 Days are a Climate and Environmental Nightmare

Trump's first 100 days have been a dismal failure. Trump failed to deliver on almost every single one of his promises leading many to conclude that the self-proclaimed deal-maker can't seem to close. True to his word he is making progress on one front, depriving Americans of clean air and clean water.

Trumps Muslim ban failed, his attempt to pass health-care legislation also failed. Congress will not finance his wall and nor will Mexico.  Rather than drain the swamp he has made the swamp bigger. The president has rewarded the wealthy on the backs of the poor and the middle class. His one-page reward-the-rich tax plan does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing and if it were ever enacted by Congress it would trigger economic ruin.

Clearly, Trump does not have a clue about how to get things done in Washington.  Here is a general summary of Trump's first 100 days, by most accounts, the worst 100 days in modern US presidential history.



Trump's inauguration was a gloomy affair heralding the coming darkness. Even before Trump took the oath of office he cast a shadow over the proceedings at COP22.

Early in his term, some had the audacity to suggest that a Trump presidency would not be as bad as it seemed. They did not have the courage to face the truth about what a Trump administration would mean for the planet. However, their naive hopes were quickly dashed. Shortly after the inauguration, his administration purged all mention of climate change from the White House and State Department websites. However, they did leave one reference, a promise to eliminate Obama-era climate change policies.

Trump then picked Scott Pruitt to head the EPA and ex-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be the secretary of state. These two men and other members of the administration oppose science-based climate action plans. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, like so many others in the administration, opposes government funding for climate research.

This brings us to Trump's budget which was a declaration of war against environmental protections, climate action, and scientific research. Trump made it clear that he wants to decimate environmental protections and climate action in the US.

In their first month, the Trump administration resurrected dead or dying pipelines (the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline). Within the first two months, they began eliminating vehicle fuel efficiency standards and then they went to work gutting the EPA with proposed budget cuts of 31 percent.

Trump has broken almost every promise he made except for one, the promise to eliminate environmental regulations

On the one hand, Trump is the most ineffectual US president in history on the other he has wreaked unprecedented environmental damage in his first 100 days.  His Executive Orders have systematically rolled back all vestiges of environmental progress in the US. These are protections that began under Republican presidents. He has ended the era of progressive climate action that we saw under President Obama and he has turned the US into a global climate pariah.

When he was running to be president leading Republican insiders suggested he was not fit to be president. After one hundred days in office, it is safe to say that those who made this statement have been vindicated. Even Trump himself conceded that the job is far harder than he had imagined. One hundred days into his presidency Trump has joined the chorus of those who say he is is not up for the job. The point may become moot if he is impeached for collusion with the Russians.

More than any other president who preceded him, Trump is an unmitigated disaster. However, people are standing up and offering unprecedented opposition.

Even before he was president heads of state, climate scientists and business leaders have all urged him to act on climate change. Early in his term, there was the Women's March. This was followed by the March for Science on Earth Day where scientists and others called Trump out for his war on science. One week later there was the Peoples Climate Movement event that drew attention to his utterly irresponsible climate conduct. Just to make sure we get the point, on April 28th, the eve of the Peoples Climate Movement event, all vestiges of climate science were removed from the EPA website.

Trump's strategy is encountering resistance from some business leaders and the courts are challenging his authority.  People are feeling that it is both necessary and appropriate to protest against Trump and they are seeing that there is power in their resistance.

The situation is grim but we need to try to stay hopeful and keep resisting the incompetence of this administration.

RelatedGlobal Warning 2017: Combating the Dystopia of the Trump Administration
Trump and the Darkness of Post-Factual Media
The Trump Administration is a Kakistocracy

Republicans Trying to Kill the EPA Quickly

Trump drew first blood with an Executive Order that enfeebled some of the EPA's activities, now Republicans are going in for the kill. They recently proposed a bill that seeks to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Known as H.R.861, the bill has the following self-explanatory title: "To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency."

While this bill is unbelievably destructive for the American people it should come as no surprise when you consider Republican obstructionism for the last eight years and the man who is now President of the United States. Within his first two weeks in office, Trump signed an Executive Order that targeted the EPA.

The nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA sent a clear message that made his intentions clear. Pruitt has spent a good chunk of his adult life trying to dismantle the EPA from the outside. Now after having been confirmed in committee he gets to destroy the agency from the inside.

The proposed bill that would kill the EPA has moved on to committee. Don't wait to see if it moves forward from there. Call or email your congressman, write letters to your local newspapers, talk to your friends, don't let the EPA go down without a fight. Despite what Trump may say, the EPA is not a partisan body. Both Democrats and Republicans want and need clean air and water. Don't let Republicans deprive you of your basic human rights.

Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 to reach your senators or representative, you can also find the direct number to any member's office by consulting the Senate phone list or House phone list.

Related
Republicans to Sell Off Public Lands and Strip Powers from Federal Agencies
The GOP Starts Gutting Environmental Protections and Transparency
Trump's War against the EPA has Begun
The Importance and the Power of Protest: Why We Must Stand Up to Trump
Pipelines Reborn: They're Back Thanks to Trump
Camps Raided as Trump Moves Forward with DAPL
The Obama Legacy and How Trump Signals the End of an Era (Videos)
Trump's Inauguration Met with Protests as Darkness Officially Descends

Video - Bipartisan Scientists Call for Bipartisan Solutions to Climate Change

Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians

A new analysis from the NRDC Action Fund and the advocacy group Environment America reveals that money from oil interests appears to be influencing the voting records of US lawmakers. The analysis of the relationship between oil money and American politicians was published on September 12 in a report titled "Who Votes Dirty?" Along with examining the votes on House and Senate bills for or against air pollution regulations, the NRDC analysis also looked at campaign contributions from "dirty industries."

The NRDC Action Fund analysis found a strong link between campaign contributions from polluters, and votes against clean air legislation. Congresspersons who took more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from career polluters also voted against clean air laws nearly twice as many times as those who accepted less than $100,000 from dirty industries. In the Senate, those who took more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from career polluters, voted against clean air laws three times as often as those taking less.

Using OpenSecrets data, the authors of this report found Senate members receiving more than $500,000 in career polluter campaign contributions voted against clean air laws three times as often as those taking less, on average.  House members with similar contributions above $100,000 voted against clean air laws nearly twice as many times as those receiving less than that amount.

To get the facts before going to the polls on November 6, click here

Related Articles
Political Heroes and Villains on US Air Pollution
Mitt Romney's Love Affair with Fossil Fuels
Romney's Coal Fired Campaign Versus Obama's Wind Power
What Romney's Energy Policy looks Like on the Ground (Video)
Mitt Romeny: The Legacy He Will Leave for our Children
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Climate Change
Climate Denying Republicans Delay their Convention Due to Extreme Weather
GOP VP Candidate Paul Ryan's Unsustainable Voting Record on Energy and the Environment
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP Presidential Candidates
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone XL
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Denialism
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Crisis and Implications for the Environment
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and Redistricting
Republican's Fail in their Bid to Defund the EPA
Defend Clean Air and Oppose the TRAIN Act
Republican Assault on the Environment
EDF Campaign Opposing US Anti-Environment Bill
Environmental Implications of the Credit Ceiling Agreement
Chu Video: The Worst Anti-Environmental Bill of her Career
Connolly Video: Climate Disasters And GOP Denial
Blumenauer Video: 'The Jihad Against Climate Change Continues'
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Ceiling Risks Global Environmental Collapse
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Supreme Court Decision Undermines Climate Change Legislation
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception

Climate Denying Republicans Delay their Convention Due to Extreme Weather

The GOP may be dismissive of global warming but they cannot avoid the reality of extreme weather. Republicans were forced to delay their National Convention due to a hurricane that is expected to make landfall in Florida on August 27th, 2012. What makes this ironic is the fact that there is a clear link between climate change and extreme weather borne out in the research. This idea was evinced in the 2011 report, known as the "Current Extreme Weather and Climate Change" as well as many others studies (see "Related Posts" below).

The tropical storm known as Isaac is bearing down on Florida and surrounding states. As it prepares to make landfall it is still a tropical storm but Isaac is fast developing into a hurricane. There are some eerie similarities between the track of Isaac and hurricane Katrina 7 years ago. Isaac is on track to land with hurricane force at roughly the same time and in the same place as Hurricane Katrina. Evacuations are being made along a wide area of the region as many residents recalled the devasation of Hurricane Katrina seven years ago.

Hurricane Katrina first made landfall on August 25, 2005, and ended up being the second strongest hurricane ever recorded in the U.S. It is the costliest natural disaster. At least 1,836 people died in the actual hurricane and in the subsequent floods. total property damage was estimated at $81 billion (2005 USD). It was just a bit more than 20 years ago that Hurricane Andrew hit Florida (August 24, 1992). Andrew cost almost 30 billion and killed 15 people. Hurricane Irene struck one year ago andkilled at least 67 people. Irene ranks as the costliest Category 1 storm on record since at least 1980. It caused an estimated $15.8 billion in total damage. A total of 3.3 million households lost power

It is more than a bit ironic that the Florida convention has been delayed by extreme weather. Republican officials convened the Convention on Monday and then immediately declared a recess until Tuesday afternoon. They say safety concerns about the storm prompted their decision.

At the convention, the Republicans will formally nominate Mitt Romney and his vice presidential running mate Paul Ryan as their candidates.. This climate denying duo may not accept the facts about climate change, but there is no escaping the effects of extreme weather.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
2012 is but the Latest Year Marked by Heat and Drought
Heat in the US Northeast and Drought Around the World
Strong Body of Evidence for a Warming Climate
Interactive Map Reveals Warmer Spring
Temperature Data: 1880 - 2011 (Video)
The Effects of Global Warming
Bill McKibben: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Extreme Weather
Climate Change Science
The Effects of Global Warming
Top Four Climate Studies of 2011
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather
Bill McKibben: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Strong Body of Evidence for a Changing ClimateExtreme Weather
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate
Climate Change Science
The Effects of Global Warming
Top Four Climate Studies of 2011
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Debunking CO2 Myths and The Science of Climate Change
Primer on CO2 and other GHGs
Temperature Data: 1880 - 2011 (Video)
Video: Why People are Confused about the Scientific Veracity of Climate Change
Bill McKibben on Connect the Dots Events
Interactive Map Reveals Warmer Spring
100 Global Activities for Climate Impacts Day
The World “Connects the Dots” Between Extreme Weather & Climate Change
Business and Climate Impacts Day
Bill McKibben on Connect the Dots
Connect the Dots End Fossil Fuel
Extreme Weather
McKibben Attributes Extreme Weather Events to Climate Change
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change
Hurricane Irene and the Staggering Costs of Climate Change
Deadly Tornadoes in Massachusetts
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
Floods in the Philipines Underscore the Deadly Toll from Climate Change
The Costs of Global Warming
24 Hours of Reality
Science and Pernicious Ignorance of Climate Change Denial
More Scientific Support for Anthropogenic Climate Change
World Day to Combat Desertification
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report

Mitt Romeny: The Legacy He Will Leave for Our Children

Now that Mitt Romney has formally secured the Republican presidential nomination he is going on the attack with new ads that reveal his anti-environment agenda. These ads indicate that his top priorities include approving the Keystone XL Pipeline and the repeal of regulations designed to protect human health. Romeny wants to transport dirty tar sands oil from Canada, through highly sensitive areas of America, to the already endangered Gulf Coast. He has also indicated that he wants to repeal regulations like those put forth by the EPA. He dismisses the idea that some regulations are good and can actually create jobs while keeping people safe.

The unlimited funding allowed by Super PAC are sure to provide Romney with vast sums of money from billionaires who will use their influence to get the executive office to do their bidding.

Romney has sought out "advice" from people like Harold Hamm who serves as Romney’s top energy advisor. Hamm is the billionaire chairman and CEO of Continental Resources. He has contributed nearly $1 million to the pro-Romney Super PAC.

The influence of these billionaires will hurt average Americans while the wealthy will benefit from another tax cut. Another assault on regulations will further erode America's troubled environment.

Before they vote for Romney, Americans need to ask themselves if they care about basic quality of life issues like clean air and water. Perhaps most importantly Americans need to ask themselves what their children will think about the environmentally destructive legacy that Romney will leave behind.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts

Environmental Gap Narrowing Between Dems and GOP

The majority of Americans think that protecting the environment both fosters growth and creates new jobs while less than 20 percent think that environmental protection hurts the economy and job growth. Although Democrats tend to be ardent supporters of the green economy, there is evidence that more Republicans see the economic benefits of going green. This data has important implications for the choices Americans will be making between Democrats and Republicans this fall.

As reported in a Triple Pundit article, these results are from a recently released poll by Yale University and George Mason University’s climate change communication program. The survey indicated that 58 percent of Americans think that protecting the environment improves economic growth and creates new jobs and only 17 percent said that environmental protection hurts the economy and job growth (25 percent think there is no effect).

When people are asked to decide between protecting the environment and improving the economy, 62 percent of Americans said that they think it is more important to protect the environment while only 38 percent thought economic growth is more important.

The study indicates that when it comes to support for the green economy the gap between Republicans and Democrats is getting smaller. More than 9 out of 10 Democrats and 7 in 10 Republicans said that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs, or has no effect.

According to the poll, Americans want to see more clean energy with 92 percent indicating that developing clean energy sources should be a priority for the President and the Congress. Even Republicans share this view as indicated by the fact that 84 percent of Republicans agreed that this should be a medium to high priority.

The survey suggests that Americans want to address global warming. More than two-thirds of respondents (68 percent) said they think that the US should make either a large-scale or medium-scale effort to reduce global warming. What is most interesting is the fact that Americans want action on global warming "even if it would have large or moderate economic costs."

To help develop renewable sources of energy, almost 80 percent of respondents indicated they also support R&D for developing renewable energy sources, (including 74 percent of Republicans). However, Solyndra debacle may have cast a shadow over some Americans perception of renewable energy. According to this poll opposition to renewable energy research more than doubled from eight percent in 2008 to 21 percent in 2012.

A total of 63 percent of Americans support a renewable portfolio standard requiring utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, even if household costs increase by $100 a year. However when it comes to strong support for a renewable portfolio standard the difference between Republicans and Democrats becomes apparent. A total of 65 percent of Democrats support this policy, but only 47 percent of Republicans support it.

This study also addressed American attitudes on the fossil fuel industry with more than half of respondents (61 percent) indicating they support holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for “all the hidden costs we pay for citizens who get sick from polluted air and water, military costs to maintain our access to foreign oil, and the environmental costs of spills and accidents.” Here too we see the difference between Republicans and Democrats with 68 percent of Democrats favoring it, but only 54 of Republicans in favor of the policy.

When it comes to the environment Republicans may not be as enlightened as Democrats but increasingly we are seeing a trend that pits Republican voters against the platform of their presidential hopeful.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts 
The US is More Accepting of the Science of Climate Change
Earth Day Poll: Environment is Important
US Wants Government Action on the Environment
US Environmental Attitudes 2007 - 2012
The World “Connects the Dots” Between Extreme Weather and Climate Change
2011 Study on US Environmental Attitudes and Beliefs
A 2011 Survey Shows that Americans Believe that Addressing Global Warming Should be a Priority
MIT Survey Shows More Businesses are Embracing Sustainability and Turning a Profit
Global Survey on Sustainability
Businesses are Combating Climate Change
2011 Survey of America's Greenest Brands Shows that Redemption is Possible
Environmental Gap Narrowing Between Dems and GOP
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Americans are Less Green this Earth Day
Belief in Global Warming is Tied to the Economy
Why Green Remains Viable Even in an Economic Downturn
Green Bubble?
The GfK MRI Survey of the American Consumer™
Consumers Skeptical of Environmental Claims
2010 Survey Reveals Consumers Embracing Greener Products and Services
People Want Fuel Efficient Vehicles
Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: Changing Perceptions
Americans Want Cars to get 60 MPG
2011 Survey Shows China More Receptive to EVs than Americans
Corporate Sustainability Experts Want a Tax on Carbon
CSR Standards Reduce Risk
AASHE Survey of Sustainability Positions
Women are More Environmentally Friendly
Veterans Support Clean Energy

GOP Fights Removal of Oil Subsidies

Republicans have rejected a bill that would have killed tax breaks for big oil companies. Despite the President's plea to end oil subsidies, on Thursday March 29 the Senate voted 51-47 against a Democratic bill that would remove billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks. President Obama has been a champion of ending big oil's subsidies since taking office. "It's like hitting the American people twice," Obama said. "You're already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress...has thought it was a good idea to send billions of dollars more in tax dollars to the oil industry."

To justify their resistance to the bill Republicans are using the flawed logic of higher gas prices. In February the average price of gasoline in the US was $3.58 a gallon, an 11.5 percent increase over February 2010.

According to a panel of experts testifying before members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources the US has reduced demand and increased supply.

The President has said, "American oil is booming. The oil industry is doing just fine. With record profits and rising production, I'm not worried about the big oil companies."

According to the panel of experts there is not much the US can do domestically to reduce increasing gas prices. High gas prices are largely due to the looming showdown with Iran and geopolitical instability in major oil exporting countries like Sudan, Nigeria and Iraq.

"We are held captive by global markets that we have no control over," said Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va.

Although Republicans are trying to suggest that eradicating oil subsidies would increase the price of gas, Frank Verrastro, senior vice president of the Energy and National Security Program, explains this is simply not the case.

Verrastro said the elimination of tax breaks for oil companies would not change the price at the pump which is due to the global nature of the oil market.

International events beyond American control are driving oil's price volatility. New projects like the Keystone XL pipeline will not have much of an effect on the retail price of gas either so there is little chance of any immediate cost relief.

The only way to gain control over the costs of energy is to reduce dependence on foreign oil and the only way to do this is to develop alternative sources of power.

"With the ability to access these new, unconventional resources, we may very well be on the verge of an American energy renaissance," Verrastro said.

However $20 billion in federal subsidies to the largest oil and gas companies make it more difficult for these alternatives, particularly renewable sources, to grow to a size where they can make a difference in America's energy picture. Subsidies make even less sense when you consider that The five largest oil companies reported a combined $140 billion in profit in 2011.

"They can either vote to spend billions of dollars on oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past," said President Obama, "or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren't needed to boost oil production."

"Members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people," Mr Obama said before Thursday's vote in the Senate. It would appear the GOP would rather wallow in the past and stand with big oil.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
Republican Opposition to Obama's Clean Energy
Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Climate Change
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Republican Assault on the Environment
Republican Obstructionism
The Kochs' Tea Party Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the GOP

Video: Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi Ad to Combat Climate Change



Before Newt Gingrich was running for the GOP presidential nomination he was a leading advocate to combat climate change. This ad is part of the "We Can Solve It" global warming ad campaign sponsored by former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Video: Newt Gingrich on Climate Change "The Evidence is Sufficient"
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change

Video: Newt Gingrich on Climate Change "The Evidence is Sufficient"



Before running for President, Newt Gingrich was an advocate supporting efforts to combat climate change. In this video he is seen saying, "the evidence is sufficient...to move towards most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading." He even talked about the need for "green conservatives." He also addressed Republican concerns about big government but he went on to say that we need to discuss "whats the most effective way to solve it rather than get into a fight about whether or not to solve it."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Video: Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi Ad to Combat Climate Change
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change

Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Utah governor Jon Huntsman's Presidential campaign came to an end when he said, ‘I respect science.’ This is political suicide for anyone seeking the GOP presidential nomination.

Huntsman told Time Magazine in May of 2011: “All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, we’d listen to them. I respect science.”

Huntsman is the only Republican candidate who professed his belief in anthropogenic climate change and he even aspired to create policy solutions to address it.

“In order to get to the heart and soul of carbon emission, which is a problem, because it leads to polluted skies and air quality problems and climate change, we must put a value on carbon,” Huntsman said Until we put a value on carbon we’re never going to be able to get serious about dealing with climate change longer term,” Huntsman said. “Putting a value on carbon either suggests that you go to a carbon tax or you get a cap-and-trade system underway.”

The Republican Party has no time for science and it is deeply offended by the suggestion that humans have contributed to climate change.

Huntsman once tweeted: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Huntsman was anything but crazy, he was by far the most reasonable candidate in a field full of ignorant Luddites. Sadly, Huntsman was forced to drop out of the race because Republicans involved in the primary process want no part of reason.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change

Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change

Republican's confusion on climate change is well known, but this ignorance is not only a defining feature of those left in the GOP presidential race, it also applies to those who dropped out. Here are the views of three Republican candidates who are not longer in the 2012 race. At one time these candidates were viewed as the most promising contenders for the Republican nomination for President. The list of failed popular contenders includes Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain.

Rick Perry

Governor Perry dismissed climate change as a ‘contrived, phony mess.’ Perry said that the “theory” of climate change is a hoax concocted by data-manipulating scientists to keep research money coming in to their projects. On August 17th, 2011, Perry said: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects...Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into, that a group of scientists, who in some cases were found to be manipulating this data.” In 2007 after Rick Perry parted ways with his former boss Al Gore, he said: “I’ve heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I’m starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide.” As an amusing side note Perry's nick-name used to be "crotch" because he wore tight fitting pants.

Michelle Bachmann

As the Chair of the Tea Party Caucus Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota knew that she could not even consider climate change science. She has made statements like “It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum…” In 2009, Bachmann said there’s no reason to worry about carbon dioxide because “Carbon dioxide is natural...It is not harmful. It is a part of earth’s life cycle. And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction that is naturally occurring." As a side note Bachman paid $30 each for 6OOO voting tickets in Iowa, she won with around 4000 votes, meaning that a third of those votes she paid for did not vote for her.

Herman Cain

Cain considers climate change to be "a scam." Cain derided Democrats for falling for the “scientifically manufactured results” that support the science of climate change. This is no longer a controversy. This is conclusive," he said. Cain also calls green energy a joke, declaring to a group of Iowans this spring, “I have studied it!” Cain claimed that solar and wind could provide at best “5 percent of our energy needs.” As a side note Cain was eventually forced to withdraw due to numerous allegations of sexual harrassment. He also was seriously challenged on economic and foreign policy issues, he once referred to Uzbekistan as "Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan."

In addition to their peccadilloes, these three failed GOP candidates for president share a common disdain for the facts on climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2

As revealed in a Treehugger article titled Rick Santorum Has Absolutely No Idea What He is Talking About, Santorum has some convoluted ideas. Here is his response to a man in New Hampshire who questioned him about climate change:

"The question is on how do I get my policies with climate change science. I get asked this question a lot, and you look at the data and you can see some change in the climate. But then again, pick a point in history where you haven’t seen a change in the climate. The climate does change. The question is, what is causing the climate to change?

And I think most scientists, in fact, I assume all scientists would agree there are a variety of factors that cause the climate change. I don’t think any scientist in the world would suggest there isn’t a variety of factors, and I think the vast majority of scientists would say there’s probably a hundred factors that cause the climate to change.

And so why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog. Why from a scientific point of view do we make the assertion that this is in fact what is the case when there is a whole lot of other factors out there that could be affecting it? So, that’s the question.

Some people have very strong feelings that it is that. There are a lot of other people who don’t. Here’s the question. Let’s even assume, for purposes of argument, not that I agree with it, but for purposes of argument, that they are right. Then what would be a rational response?

Well, if you have a problem and you want to craft something, what should that thing that you’re crafting do? Solve the problem. Do any of the proposed solutions put forward by Al Gore and his friends do anything to solve the problem? Even the scientists who support the theory will admit to you that it doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. So query, why support the solution, other than you may have some other agenda that may be in place here."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has made a slew of absurd statements about climate change. Not only does he believe that climate change is a hoax, he refers to the large body of scientific evidence as "bogus" or "junk." Rather than rail against Santorum for his lack of understanding, here are a few examples that effectively illustrate his ignorance:

"The left is always looking for a way to control you. They’re always trying to make you feel guilty, so you’ll give them power so they can lord it over you. They do it on the environment all the time."

"The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is."

"[Climate change is] an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life."

"We have to have all sorts of government regulations now because of the threats of hydrofracking. It’s the new bogeyman. It’s the new way to try to scare you … And they’re preying on the Northeast, saying, “Look what’s going to happen. Ooh, all this bad stuff’s gonna happen, we don’t know all these chemicals and all this stuff, what’s gonna happen?” Let me tell you what’s going to happen: Nothing’s going to happen, except they will use this to raise money for the radical environmental groups so they can go out and continue to try to purvey their reign of environmental terror on the United States of America."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science

Santorum has criticized President Obama for embracing climate science, but he has also offered similar criticisms to fellow Republicans. Santorum is unique amongst those vying for the Republican nomination in that, unlike his rivals, he has not had to change his views on climate change.

GOP presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have been accused of subscribing to a scientific view on climate change.

Santorum accurately portrays himself as the only candidate who has never believed in global warming. Santorum has said:
"I for one never bought the hoax… And yet we have politicians running to the ramparts — unfortunately politicians who happen to be running for the Republican nomination for president — who bought into man-made global warming and bought into cap-and-trade."
This position appeals to the so called values driven conservatives. Santorum may not understand economics or geopolitics but he does seem to enjoy strong support from uneducated rural conservative men. Part of that support comes from his tacit dismissal of the science of climate change.

The far right that dominates the Republican primary process demands that aspiring presidential nominees abandon climate change. While others have had to change their positions on climate, Santorum has been consistent. Unlike his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, Rick has not had to dumb down his campaign. If nothing else Santorum's ignorance on climate change is authentic.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s

Republicans seeking the presidential nomination have been forced to abandon their scientific assessments of Climate change. Republican flip flops on climate change are evidenced by the positions of the GOP presidential contenders. Here is a brief summary of the changing views of Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.
\
Newt Gingrich

In 2008, Newt Gingrich did a PSA with then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) calling for action on climate change. He once said that “the evidence is sufficient,” but now that he is seeking the GOP presidential nomination Gingrich has asked for public hearings on climate change and a review of the National Academy of Science findings. Gingrich recently said, “Environmentalists, have been infiltrated over the last 40 years by people on the left who are against business and against local control and they use the environment as an excuse.”

Ron Paul

On the campaign trail in 2007, Ron Paul said that big emitters of CO2 should not be allowed to freely pollute the air because it is a violation of others’ property rights. Paul argued that big polluters should be taxed and he has even admitted to believing that human activity is at least partly responsible for global warming. More recently he has changed his position saying, “the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming.”

Like Mitt Romney, both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have to manufacture strong views against climate science to even be considered for the GOP nomination.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change


This video is about the changing views of Republicans. On the one hand you have the GOP presidential candidates on the other hand there are thinking Republicans. At the moment they appear to be moving in opposite directions. It is widely recognized that running for the GOP presidential nomination also involves running from climate change. However there is a group of Republicans who want to change the anti-scientific stance of the party. One such group is New Hampshire Republicans for Climate. They want their party leaders to adopt responsible policy positions that acknowledge the facts and respond to climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Video: The Republican War on Climate Science



Republicans and their corporate masters for years have been trying to keep the truth about climate change from reaching the American public. They work tirelessly to tell us that the earth isn't getting hotter; or that there is no scientific consensus that global climate change is real; or even that climate change is a good thing because its going to open up shipping routes in the arctic. Their latest efforts, however, go far beyond their usual tactics, as they're now trying to get their anti-science agenda taught in public schools. Mike Papantonio discusses this issue with Chris Mooney author of Republican War on Science.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change



Newt Gingrich, once believed in climate change, but like others seeking the GOP presidential nomination, he has found religion on climate change and now dismisses it at every opportunity. The 2012 Republican presidential candidate claimed he was qualified to deny climate change science because he is an "amateur paleontologist". In this video, the Young Turks host Cenk Uygur makes fun of Gingrich's laughable justification for his denial of climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming

Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance



Here is an interview with Adam Lee in which he reviews how Republican presidential hopefuls all seem to have at least one thing in common -- they hate science. Although there are only four remaining GOP nominees vying for the nomination, the full slate of 2012 Republican presidential contenders shared a common disbelief in science. Being anti-science is de reiguer because this is what those participating in the GOP primary process are demanding from their presidential nominees. For an article by Adam Lee titled "Why the Anti-Science Creationist Movement Is So Dangerous," click here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science