Will Republicans Attack Climate Preparedness Measures Even at the Cost of National Security?

By Chris Mooney | June 6, 2011 11:32 am

My latest DeSmogBlog post is about recent GOP attempts to prevent the CIA and Department of Homeland Security from studying climate change risks. Clearly, this is not very smart politics for the GOP:

I cannot believe that Republicans will continue to be successful if they go down this road. For in doing so, they are putting two of their core values into opposition to one another.

Republicans believe strongly in “national security,” and thus are chief supporters of the military and intelligence agencies, and their big federal budgets. At the same time, the party also supports “individualism”—keeping the government from interfering with the free market, which is the lens through which Republicans generally justify their resistance to climate action.

On the national security implications of climate change, however, these values are in obvious conflict–and not in a way that will look good to average Americans who are wondering about the role of global warming in various weather-related disasters.

You can read the full post here.

Comments (14)

  1. Jessie Desmond

    national security implications of climate change Ooooh! What happened to “Global Warming?” One sure sign of social advocacy is mission creep. If Japan and Germany together abandon some 80 GW-electrical of nuclear generating capacity, what will fill the hole? Nothing. Area need to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum, mi^2,

    1000.0 biomass
    0300.0 wind
    0060.0 solar
    0000.3 nuclear

    Replacing nuclear with wind generation increases the minimum footprint from ~24 mi^2 to 24,000 mi^2. That will cause drastic “climate change,” including energy sucked out of the wind, plus birds and bats slaughtered by the millions.

    How many thousands of windy square miles does Japan have in excess? Germany? How will hundreds of tonnes of lanthanoids neodymium and dysprosium (needed to harden the magnetic lattice) for windmill generators be supplied?

    prevent the CIA and Department of Homeland Security from studying climate change risks Are you an idiot? They certainly are.

  2. vel

    I find that the GOP don’t believe at all in national security nor individualism or a free market. All they seem to care about is their personal financial security and forcing their beliefs on others and everything else be damned. We have many examples of how the GOP forces the military to accept more and more contracts from the corporations, no matter what the military actually wants and needs. There is no concern for a “free market” there at all.

    If one takes what the GOP have actually demonstrated as their “core values”: greed, a delusion that they are the special snowflakes of a god that will take care of them and only them no matter what happens, etc, their actions make all the sense in the world in that context. Actions speak quite a bit louder than piously prated claims.

  3. Santorum 2012!

    It’s really quite astounding how these doctrinaire leftists blogging on this site absolutely refuse to document a single thing they claim repecting their politically-motivated claims about anthropocentric global warming. Apparently, their idea of “scientific” proof is to label all who question their preposterous assertions as right wing deniers and Neanderthals. Even the word “deniers” smacks of a cultish, slavish set of belief on a par with witchcraft. Certainly their crusade is taking on the tones of religious fanatacism, and these folks are far more dangerous than any Christian fundies I have ever met.

    Respectfully, Mr. Mooney, there are over 31,000 highly respected scientists in every field imaginable that have gone on record as opposing man made global warming, scientists far more qualified than you leftwing political hacks blogging on this Discover site.

    And for those of you who question this, I refer you to the following website: http://www.petitionproject.org/

    And if you don’t like these harsh responses, sir, then please refrain from gratuitously painting your opposition as ill-educated, unscientific Neanderthals every single chance you get. Global warming is viewed by millions of Americans as a transparent attempt by the global ruling classes to regulate just about every aspect of our existence, and this monstrous fraud about man made global warming is their chosen vehicle to do just that.

    Anyone with more than three neurons firing up there can see that the green crowd took up where the old, discredited Commies left off 30 years ago. Same crowd, same agenda, different tactics.

  4. -- Anon --

    @ #3 –
    Science isn’t based on votes, science is based on evidence. No one cares how many people sign a petition about science. Here is some evidence provided by experts at NOAA – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ . If you have some contradictory evidence then perhaps a scientific debate can occur.

  5. kirk

    These guys keep burning their Tombstone pizzas because they don’t accept the evidence that the oven is turned on. Those lights on the front panel? A conniving liberal trick perpetrated by the LSM. Enter the pizza-ers; wake up sheeple.

  6. TTT

    there are over 31,000 highly respected scientists in every field imaginable that have gone on record as opposing man made global warming – http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Good to see that the Spice Girls and Doogie Howser can still command a loyal online fan club after all these years. Though their fans seem to have grown younger….

  7. Nullius in Verba

    Go on then, TTT, point to where either of those names appear in the list.

  8. Santorum 2012!

    Um, Mr Mooney, the real “deniers” are scientifically illiterate people like yourself who are seemingly unaware of the the incontrovertible fact that periods of global warming and global cooling have occurred throughout the history of the planet, and long before humankind was burning fossil fuels or otherwise possessed the technology to increase CO2 levels. And I would further remind you that these periods of global warming and cooling were far more sudden and dramatic than anything we are experiencing now.

    How did the earth warm up then, sir? Fossil fuels? High COs levels? From what? From whom? Aside from ice core samples dating back 250,000 years documenting these meteorological anomalies, we also have historical and anthropological records documenting wild climatic shifts in just the last five Milena. If it’s of any interest, Mr Mooney, the single biggest force driving the earth’s weather is the sun. Nothing else even comes close. Oops, I forgot, you can’t regulate that!

    As for Rick Santorum’s views on science, Mr. Rooney, how are they relevant here? Anyway, while you’re at it, I would strongly advise you and your crowd to “investigate” the scientific literacy of total dimwits such as Al Gore, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and our current “prebmint,” Barak Hussein Obama. The only difference between your guys and our guys is that the state-controlled media covers for them at every conceivable opportunity.

  9. Republicans were willing to risk national security by firing Arabic translators because they were gay even though the military desperately needed such translators. With all the entrenched interests threatened by climate change, I’m not surprised they’re taking a similar approach.

  10. Brian Too

    To answer the original question: Yes. Although they will lose a few Repubs who aren’t wholly into self-immolation.

    This is all about sacrificing the long-term in favour of the short-term politics. It has become an article of faith among the right that climate change is Not Happening. Or if it is, Goddidit.

  11. Bill D.

    Santorum 2012!:

    “Respectfully, Mr. Mooney, there are over 31,000 highly respected scientists in every field imaginable that have gone on record as opposing man made global warming, scientists far more qualified than you leftwing political hacks blogging on this Discover site.”

    To qualify to sign the petition, all one needs is a bachelor’s degree in one of various scientific or engineering fields. It says so right at your link. Having a bachelor’s in science or engineering does not make one a “scientist”, much less a scientist qualified to weigh in on climate science as an expert rather than a layperson.

    “Um, Mr Mooney, the real “deniers” are scientifically illiterate people like yourself”

    Given that you apparently think that a bachelor’s degree is all it takes to be a “highly respected scientist”, you have absolutely no idea what a scientist is or what science itself is, nor do you have any business whatsoever accusing others of being “scientifically illiterate”.

    “It’s really quite astounding how these doctrinaire leftists blogging on this site…”

    Nor do you have any concept of what a leftist is, much less a ” doctrinaire leftist”.

  12. TTT

    TTT, point to where either of those names appear in the list.

    They used to be there and you full well know it. Their presence is just as automatically and permanently disqualifying as those 30-year-old Paul Ehrlich fortune cookies you still love to chew.

    And hey, as long as we’re sticking to our principle of even correcting people we agree with if we think they used the wrong reasoning, why don’t you join me in pointing out to Santorum2012 that his precious Petition Project does NOT “oppose man-made global warming”?

    Again as you full well know, the text does not say AGW does not exist. It says AGW will not be a serious problem and doesn’t deserve great expenditure and government intrusion. Exactly like Lomborg, it’s just a slower and cheaper Al Gore, and exactly like Lomborg, 95+% of people citing it have no idea what it says and transpose their own wishes onto it. And exactly like Lomborg, you are totally undisturbed by the clumsy errors of its acolytes.

  13. Nullius in Verba

    #13,

    “They used to be there and you full well know it.”

    Do I?

    “Their presence is just as automatically and permanently disqualifying…”

    Why?

    “those 30-year-old Paul Ehrlich fortune cookies”

    I don’t use them to discredit current claims. I simply point out that the same sort of claims have been made before by theEnvironmentalists, demanding the same sort of responses, and that whatever method you use for setting policy in the face of predictions of doom has to be generally applicable – as much to Ehrlich as Gore.

    “why don’t you join me in pointing out to Santorum2012 that his precious Petition Project does NOT “oppose man-made global warming”?”

    Sure. But first, what exactly does he mean by “man-made global warming”? It has many different meanings and usages.

    Of course, as you know – since I have pointed it out many times – I don’t oppose man-made global warming either (when interpreted in a particular sense). And neither do most climate sceptics. So we’re all on the side of science and all is happy and bright with the world now, right?

    If you don’t think the petition statement opposes your position, then what’s the problem? And if you do, then why bring it up?

    “And exactly like Lomborg, you are totally undisturbed by the clumsy errors of its acolytes.”

    I’ve already said on many occasions that both sides include the full spectrum of expertise, and that I find it annoying when my side does it. But I’ve only limited time/effort to expend, so I concentrate on the biggest problems (and the most entertaining for me) first. It’s a matter of priorities.

    Normally I don’t bother with petitions – it’s obviously argument ad populam. Their only value is as an answer to the argument ad populam regularly trotted out by your side. Had you simply said “ad populam” I’d have let it go. But instead you tried to use a stock ad hominem fallacy you picked up from somewhere – and what’s worse, you hadn’t even checked that it was true! It was so totally wrong on so many levels I just thought it was funny. No big deal.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »