U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 24, 2014 01:01 PM UTC

Rep. Cory Gardner is Anti-Science

  • 187 Comments
  • by: ClubTwitty

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Erstwhile "Area 51" Congressman Cory Gardner is anti-science and he wants to be your next Senator, whatever it takes.  There is no other explanation for two actions he took this week between his campaign stops and fund raisers, while working his tax-funded day job as a U.S. Representative.

In one bill that he sponsored he is working to tie the hands of biologists trying to recover one of the West's iconic species.  In the other he is trying to tie the hands of the U.S. military in its effort to prepare for the effects of a rapidly changing climate.  Both efforts are sure to please some of his primary funders–the fossil fuel barons and Koch Brothers.

The potential listing of the Sage Grouse under the Endangered Species Act is a hot topic across the West, the subject of both controversy and concern with hyperbolic hand-wringing  predicting calamity should it occur.  The U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated under law to designate the bird if it finds that its extinction may be  imminent, and to designate critical habitat to increase the chance of the species' survival.  The ESA was signed into law by renown leftist tree-hugger President Richard M. Nixon.

I HAVE today signed S. 1983, the Endangered Species Act of 1973. At a time when Americans are more concerned than ever with conserving our natural resources, this legislation provides the Federal Government with needed authority to protect an irreplaceable part of our national heritage–threatened wildlife.

This important measure grants the Government both the authority to make early identification of endangered species and the means to act quickly and thoroughly to save them from extinction. It also puts into effect the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora signed in Washington on March 3, 1973.

Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans. I congratulate the 93d Congress for taking this important step toward protecting a heritage which we hold in trust to countless future generations of our fellow citizens. Their lives will be richer, and America will be more beautiful in the years ahead, thanks to the measure that I have the pleasure of signing into law today.

Rep. Gardner–promptly joined by go-along congressman Scott Tipton–last week introduced legislation that would prohibit any listing of the bird for 10 years. Not based on science, or  recovery chances, or habitat protection or really anything, other than the notion that it might hamper oil and gas drilling, tar sands mining, oil shale dreaming and Craig-America's  never-dying hope for an Inland Empire where there should have been a reservoir any ways. Ten years might seem like a random number, but Rep. Tipton says it is because of 'real  science,' which presumably means findings that oil and gas companies have signed off on rather than that prepared by field biologists who have studied the matter for decades.

Also in the news, and maybe more troubling outside the windswept sage and grasslands of the West's high deserts, is the recent effort by the U.S. House of Representatives to micro-manage the Pentagon and seek to deny it funding for even studying how to adapt our 21st Century military to the 21st Century.  UPI reports:

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted mostly along party lines Thursday to approve an amendment to the $600 billion National Defense Authorization Act which prohibits the Pentagon from using any of its budget to address climate change and specifically instructs the Department of Defense to ignore the latest scientific reports on the threats posed by global warming.

Although Climate Change Denialists often couch their ignorance in silly statements like "of course the climate is changing it always has," they nonetheless, it would appear, do not want the United States to even prepare for it–regardless of what is causing it (and, yes, it is 'settled science' as to that too).  

​As an article in Think Progress notes:

Sea level rise impacting naval bases. Climate change altering natural disaster response. Drought influenced by climate change in the Middle East and Africa leading to conflicts over food and water — as in, for instance, Syria.

The military understands the realities of climate change and the negative impacts of heavy dependence on fossil fuels.

The U.S. House does not.

In addition to being anti-science, Mr. Gardner–apparently wanting to appeal to the moderate middle in our purple state–must also think Colorado is under threat from local zoning laws as the secret backdoor for the blue-helmeted 'peace-keepers' of the dreaded, fierce, and oh-so-effective United Nations.  At least that is one conclusion to be drawn from the amendment he voted for:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order.

With the economy still hurting from the Bush recession it is no wonder that Climate Change is not at the top of concerns for most Coloradans.  That does not mean, of course, that most Coloradans–particularly those Mr. Gardner needs to appeal to to win statewide–don't believe it to be true; or think that the U.S. military should be specifically banned from considering how to prepare itself for the inevitable changes coming to our planet.  Or that anyone in the state other than the far-right crazies think the United Nations is stealthily taking over the world via local government's zoning ordinances.  But that is now what Rep. Cory Gardner is on record supporting.  Maybe someone should tell him that Dan Maes called…he wants his bike back.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

187 thoughts on “Rep. Cory Gardner is Anti-Science”

    1. Club Twitty, last seen getting stuck on a boat in the Antactic due to expanding glacier flow, is back.  He claims that conservatives are anti-science.  He is a fool.

      The left often calls conservatives “anti-science.” This is simply an demonstration of the psychological phenomenon of transference when a person attributes their own feelings to another. A great example of this, also from the left, is their insistence on accusing their opponents of racism while being utterly racist themselves. It is the left that does not believe life begins at conception. The left continually harangues against GMO crops which prevent massive starvation. The left seems to think that electric cars are environmentally sound despite the fact that electricity has to be generated and the batteries used in these cars creates toxic by products.

      Again, the left shows that if any bizarre proposal is floated by a buffoon with the appropriate credentials then the left will accept uncritically whatever he says. And they will do so convinced that they are following science. They aren’t following science they are following false gods of their own making.

      http://www.redstate.com/2014/05/24/anti-science-left-keeps-keeping 

      2. So, the people who take their facts about biology from a book of historical fiction (The Bible) are the ones who are really all about science.  The same people who take their facts about global climate change from the people who stand to lose the most money by reducing fossil fuel consumption. 

         

        1. Curmie,

          I pointed Ralphie to this website…

          answersingenesis.org

          I think you will enjoy it as much as he will…

          a quote from the site…

          By embracing the false philosophies of naturalism and uniformitarianism, the unbeliever is incapable of correctly interpreting the scientific evidence pertaining to the age of the earth.

          1. I love that site, and their foaming at the mouth reactions to Cosmos. My wife and I are loving Neil DeGrasse Tyson's weekly "up yours, Creationists, this is SCIENCE" tidbits.  He's not rude, or mean, just factual. And they hate that.  

            1. Plus his delivery is always a little, "I sure am having fun" that it is totally disarming.  The episode on extinction, and wht the planet is now facing, was great.

              2. Oh sure, when dealing with stupidity 1X1, I'm all for it. But Neil has a very large audience, and it's best not to give the throwbacks anything to complain about except science. That makes them crazy enough as it is. 

      4. Re: GMO crops… I hate to break it to you and Monsanto, but there are recent reports that the pests GMO crops were designed to repel have already started working around the new genes.

        GMO isn't the be all and end all cure to the world's food shortages. Like antibacterial soap, GMO crops are most likely a short term patch job – and one that is expensive due to the patent encumberance on the seeds.

        Your other comparisons are similarly flawed.

        1. Monsanto is Capitol HIll's 'Uncle Kracker'.  You'd have to be a Hill insider to fully appreciate this diary – and for most, it's best to first listen to the song and then read it with the context that Monsanto is the pimp – and Congress is his prey.  MamaJ gets the prize for connecting the dots without instructions wink

      5. Andrew, you need to re-take Psych 101, because that is not what Transference means. 

        Transference: Unconscious redirection of feelings from one person to another. For example: You meet someone at a party who reminds you of a favorite aunt and you find yourself feeling warmly towards this new acquaintance.

        What you were thinking of is…

        Projection: The act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others. For instance: Accusing the gay guy in your office of hitting on you when, in fact, you are simply uncomfortable with the negative feelings associated with your unspoken attraction to him. 

        1. AC, this is a good example of projection:

          Louie Ghomert on the house floor:

          So it is amazing that in the name of liberality, in the name of being tolerant, this fascist intolerance has arisen. People that stand up and say, you know, I agree with the majority of Americans, I agree with Moses and Jesus that marriage was a man and a woman, now all of a sudden, people like me are considered haters, hate mongers, evil, which really is exactly what we've seen throughout our history as going back to the days of the Nazi takeover in Europe. What did they do?

          First, they would call people "haters" and "evil" and build up disdain for those people who held those opinions or religious views or religious heritage. And then the next came, well, those people are so evil and hateful, let's bring every book that they've written or has to do with them and let's start burning the books, because we can't tolerate their intolerance.

           

           

           

        2. Psych in general and these two psychological phenomena are "sciencey" stuff .You surely don't expect a hard-core wingnut like AC to understand "sciencey" stuff? I find myself amazed from time to time that they accept heavier than air flight. Space travel is too far out for them witness the staged landing on the moon conspiracy paranoia. Of course paranoia is itself a psychological  manifestation and therefore probably too "sciencey" for them to accept or understand.

      6. GMO's are a relatively new science. Udall has consistently refused to endorse legislation to label GMO's. I find this deeply disturbing, especially considering the past decade of research supporting the actions of many countries enacting "required" GMO labeling laws, and/or the refusal to sell GMO's in their respective countries.

        As long as Udall continues to refuse the promotion of labeling GMO's, and wants to keep being bedfellows with Monsanto, he will not get my vote. I understand he believes labeling GMO's limits competition for Colorado farmer's….however, our health should be the first concern and most the scientific research behind GMO's, more often than not, is linking them to increase in disease and fatal ones at that. 

        2. Can you provide anything to show that Sen. Udall has taken a stand or made a statment on labeling? What does "I understand he believes" mean?  How do you understand that?  Newspaper article? Hearsay?  Rumor? Speculation? Thanks in advance for the link you will provide.  

          1. The very same corps who sell, directly or indirectly, GMO food in Europe seem to have no problem complying with the most stringest labeling law in the world.  It's like a renewable energy mandate – they'll tell you they can't do it – until the consumer tells them they must.

            After living through a the last cycle of the Farm Bill in real time, let's just say it's hard not to make the argument that our USDA is becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monsanto, etal. otherwise known as Capitol Hill's "Uncle Kracker".

          2. ct, please check out these links. I was first made aware that Mark Udall refused to label GMO's as result of a mass posting sent out via GMO free Colorado's FB page.  I then sent Mr. Udall an email asking him directly where he stood. He sent me a reply stating, in effect, "GMO labeling limits fair market practices for our Farmers." 

             

            I cannot now locate the email, my apologies. 

             

            Again, please see these links. I'm happy to provide more information, should you require.

             

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/23/1211190/-Which-Democrats-Just-Voted-Against-GMO-Labeling

             

            http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-senators-warren

             

            http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/OCA-to-Warren-Udall-Voluntary-GMO-labeling-helps-biotech-industry-not-consumers

              2. BlueCat, I have no idea where Gardner stands on this, which is in part why I joined this site. And NO ONE I contact will answer me on this subject.  I have emailed all addresses I can find for Mr. Gardner as well as several Facebook sites on the subject. 

                1. If he won't say you can probably assume the rightie default position. He's pretty consistent. Hint; righties aren't known for supporting that kind of thing. 

            2. I am not a single issue voter–But there is no comparison between Udall and Gardner.  That said, I don't look to any politician to mirror my views 100%, am happy to approach 75%.  On GMOP labeling, like on fracking, don't look to pols for leadership, look to the grassroots.  Sometimes the people have to lead, and that is OK.  Thinking we can just vote for someone and expect them to always perform to our standard just is not very realistic, all politicians need pressure–positive when warrented (thanks! Mr. Udall for leading on carbon and climate issues and for championing Browns Canyon, Thompson Divide and the North Fork!) and negative when called for (…but was not too pysched re: your support for LNG exports) and clarifying (and can you tell me where you stand on GMP labeling?  I think the consumers have a right to know, and I hope that you do too). 

              1. And not all of us on the Dem side are equally exercised over GMOs. We all have our priorities. As it happens, I'm more concerned about a bunch of other things. I hope that doesn't mean my progressive decoder ring is going to be revoked.

                  1. Which is precisely why you should support Right-to-Know GMO labeling, so you can make sure to max out on genetically-engineered products and hunt out only patented food sources that have gone through rigourous marketing analysis.  

  2. Climate change may not be on the mind of most Coloradans, however it is on the mind of many young people, who can vote. It is their future that climate change is going to really effect, as they will be dealing with the realities on down the road. Their hopes and dreams for their future and the families they want to raise will be on their minds come November.  It is important to get the younger generation to the polls as they see how climate change is a significant impact on their lives.

    Climate change is very much a national security issue, as famine, drought and weather changes effect countries throughout the world. As the Think Progress article states, much of what has happened in Syria is the direct result of drought and lives of thousands being changed by loss of farmland. There are many other examples in the world where climate change is effecting politics.  

    Gardner's stance on this is simply wrong.  Head in the sand won't work for the problems our world faces on down the road.  Udall gets climate change and those young voters 18-30 can impact November. GOTV and register new voters = results = Udall victory.

    Well written ct.

     

     

      2. love this line…

        “This is not a political question. This Congress doesn’t get to decide whether or not to protect our atmosphere, because that’s a fundamental right belonging to the people.”

        Amen, Ms. Olson

    3. If you're one of those young people, please help get out the youth vote. Not all Dems are great on these issues but the Republicans are terrible and Republican majorities are the worst possible thing for any chance of addressing these issues in a constructive way. 

    2. Makes sense. AC seems to have same understanding of science that a 2nd grader would. Although your average 2nd grader is probably more truthful. 

    3. AC- I see that, like a lot of wingers,you've never learned the difference between short-term,short-lived meteorological phenomena andlong-term,long-lived meteorological phenomena. And I somewhat doubt you,or most wingers, have the capacity. The cartoon is almost as foolish as your first statement about increased glacial flow.

    1. I suspect there are foolish things that 97% or more "scientists" also agreed on.

      Science is not about consensus.

      I am not saying human caused climate change isn't real, nor that the sea levels are rising nor that we should not change our ways as a result.  Just that consensus is is not the point.

          1. I'm really not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious to find out what info 97% of scientists could agree on that JBJK16 would find "foolish". We're talking about the modern scientific community, right?

            1. modern scientific community

               

              As always.

              And I have no idea, not being a scientist nor up on all the consensuses out there.

              But you imply that the mistaken consensus of the past are a thing of the past, but now we have it all figured out.

               

              When Erastothenes calculated the circumfernece of earth, did 97% of hiis peers agree?

              When DaVinci proved that heaver than air human flight was not oly possible, but plausible, did97% of his peers agree?

              I'm sure if I looked I could find numerous examples.  All sort of fun, but besides the point: the scienific method is not about consensus.

               

               

              1. If you want to snark at the fact that 97% of the modern scientific community agrees on something, you should be able to back it up. That's what science is all about.

                If you just want to doubt current science, without anything except the ancient past to go on, that's your perogative. 

              2. Er, scientist here, and I can tell you JB, that if you have 5 scientists in a room, you have at least a dozen opinions, some of them contradictory and often held by the same person.  97% agreement amongst scientists is so unusual as be approaching miraculous.

              3. Actually, science is very much about consensus.

                I think you may be making the mistake of conflating argumentum ad populam, a logical fallacy along the lines of "everyone else is doing it," with the process of understanding that necessarily generates consensus in science.

                Scientific consensus is a process of logical and evidentiary understanding through which scientists, particularly those who share a common or related discipline evaluate evidence provided by others and determine whether conclusions made meet the necessary level of scientific rigor.  As more and more scientists say, yes, this is good science, consensus forms.  Does that mean that consensus is necessary for something to be "true?"  No.  But the formation of consensus around an idea marks it as our best available understanding of a topic.

                Although both Eratosthenes and Da Vinci were brilliant.  The former's measurements of the Earth's circumference are off by about 40 miles or so based on our current understanding, and the latter had interesting ideas about flight, but I think the birds may have discovered that things could fly before he did.  His machines, when made real had both successes and failures.

              4. That is a false equivalence, as you should know, and has been pointed out to you.  Your critical thinking skills seem to be in great need of development.  You and the resident librarian are quite the pair, and neither of you do no favors for true conservatives.  This getting tiresomely repetitive.     

                1. false equivalence

                  I agree.

                  But I did not make it. I don't know what or who a true conservative is, but when I meet one, I will be sure to let tem know I am doing them no favors.

                  1. A political conservative has an understanding of economic, social, and environmental realities and works to make things better in a sensible and conservative way.  If you believe in those things, then you probably are one.  Cory Gardener and Paul Ryan appear not to be.  And  there are supposed progressives who aren't all they should be, either.

                    Peace.  smiley 

                    1. Thank you, Miss Jane!

                      I've been musing about the evolution of the word "conservative" lately. (I know, I'm weird).

                      "Conservative" used to mean people who wanted to return to what was supposedly an idyllic former time in which women and minorities knew their places and were happy staying there. In this view, America was feared and respected in the world,  and resources for expansion were infinite. An extension of the old "Manifest Destiny" doctrine, which "Won the West". The Christian Bible was used to justify all manner of oppression. Any atrocity could be justified by finding the right verse in the Holy Book.

                      The problem was that this return to the "Good Old Days" always required being willfully blind to the big picture, to the sufferings of Native Peoples,  slaves, indentured servants. It required that women be viewed as the weaker (in all ways) sex. It required disregarding science, which said that resources were not infinite, and that short term profit could have long term consequences. 

                      So that meaning of "conservative" is only overtly held now by a few religious fundamentalists, be they Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or what have you. They've all got their Holy Books and justifications. 

                      I've seen posters on here define "conservative" as being for small government and limited taxation. Again, this requires some tunnel vision, refusing to see government overreach on sexual/social issues, privacy. It requires seeing an effective corporate tax rate of zero compared to a working poor tax rate of 15% as perfectly fine, and the way things should be. 

                      Is "conservative" now evolving to be a more complex and mature view of the world? Does it now include "conservation" of natural resources? Is your definition:

                      "A political conservative has an understanding of economic, social, and environmental realities and works to make things better in a sensible and conservative way"

                      going to be the way we think about conservatives now?

                       

                    2. @mama…

                       Does it now include "conservation" of natural resources?

                      An interesting side note evoked in my thinking by your question….

                      Many are unaware that the word "conservation", when used by the state of Colorado (and, presumably, others) in the context of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, does not mean anything like what you have discussed above.

                      To the state, the intent of "conservation" is to make sure that the mineral severance taxes that are due to the state treasury are maximized by making sure that none of the resource is wasted…meaning, not left in the ground.

                      All the more confusing when taken in light of the Ad Valorem tax credit given to O&G by the legislature.

                      Little wonder many in the mining industry have no love for the Oily Boys….

              5. JBJK

                You insist you are talking about the "modern scientific community," but your examples are Erastothenes (around 200 B.C.) and DaVinci (late 15th/early 16th Century). There were some examples of scientific inquiry even before Erastothenes, but the father of the modern scientific method is usually considered to be Roger Bacon (1214-1294), and our ability to share knowledge and carry out research have advanced since DaVinci. So perhaps you can come up with more relevant examples–from the modern scientific community.

                Second, you talk about "peers." We do seem to have some idea of popular thought, from DaVinci's era and even from Erastothenes' era, and they may have been out of step with popular opinon of their times. But that doesn't tell us what their scientific "peers" thought, which would be required to support your claim about the "scientific community." Was the round earth concept like today's global climate change–supported by those "scientists" who had been exposed to and studied Erastothenes's ideas but rejected by many of the populace? Do you have some research on that? (And, again, their scientific peers were not in the "modern scientific community.")

                1. "modern scientific community,"

                  Riiight. So in a few years when the comonly accpeted best current available understanding is  replaced by a better one – I'll let you know.

                  1. Not that you genuinely care, because at this point it's clear that you're only interested in spewing bullshit, but not acting on our "best current understanding" is both illogical and unwise.  The consequences of failing to act, if the science is correct (which is the most likely case), are pretty awful and acting in a way that might mitigate or reverse the effects of climate doesn't harm us to a similar extent.

                    It's a shame that people like you are so mired in their fundamentalist ideologies that they simply can't understand science or scientific thinking– relying instead on the kind of magical thinking that has us starting wars, believing that poverty is a personal and not a social issue, and thinking that healthcare is a privilege rather than a right.

                    1. JB seems a bit confused sometimes, particularly about sciency things.  

                      Peace, especially today.  yes

                    2. Of course we should act (legislate, live, decide) based upon our "best current understanding.  When did I ever say otherwise.

                      this is why the left, the pro science progressives, too often lose the political and social debate.

                      you are so intent on making the pposition look foolish and silly.

                      just present the data, in a clear, compelling way and tell the story.  But noooo. You gotta go where there is no need.

                      Glwt

                       

                  2. It takes a special kind of ignorance to use "pro science" as a derogatory term. A smug, belligerent, intentional ignorance that can look the Scientific Method in the face and say, "Nuh-uh…I know better….and I don't have to back it up." 

                    They decry science because they can't fight it. 

              6. Please. There really wasn't any scientific community, as such, in the days of Da Vinci, There was philosophy and religion and aspects of science all tangled together. 

          2. "scientists" such as there were at the time did not believe in those things, Greek mathematicians, including Erastothenes, had already calculated the circumfrence of a globular earth. Physicians, such as they were at the time, believed bleeding "cured disease" Leeches were just another method of bleeding. Treatment of tissue necrosis with leeches has come back.

            http://www.leechestherapy.com/benefits_and_effects.php

            As for the Copernican or anti-Copernican theories Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for believing and advancing the Copernican view.

          3. On the other hand, doctors are actually using leeches and maggots to consume necrotic tissue in sugical patients. Now that Flat Earth, Center of the Universe stuff… well you'll have to ask an astronomer and a geologist about those.cheeky 

            1. I was trying to make light of troll's previous bs on the issue where it actually brought up Copernicus as proof that AGW ws false; Copernicus was right ergo scientists today are wrong.  I'll spell it all out more clearly next time…

      2. Its not a vote nor is that the claim.  The stat is actually that 97% of peer-reviewed science journal aricles that attribute a cause to climate change point to human activity.  There is a significance difference.  I linked above to an article from Skeptical Science (not Red State or World Nut Daily, I admit, so troll won't be impressed) that breaks down what 'settle science' means.  

      3. Thing is, you jump straight from the possibility, slim as it might be, that 97% of scientists, armed with the technology we have now for measuring and analyzing the factors, could be wrong to a seeming conviction that they probably are wrong and just being foolish. 

        That's quite a jump, way beyond reasonable healthy skepticism, and it's hard to see how it could be based on anything other than ideology as you admit that you are not a scientist and have made no extensive study of the data on your own. Neither am I but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what 97% of  those who are agree on as probable mere foolishness while accepting a tiny minority's claims as the most probable even though it's true majorities can be wrong. 

        If you were being truly objective you'd be giving at least equal weight to the statistically stronger possibility that the minority is wrong.  The fact that you clearly don't shows a strong bias on your part to believe what you personally want to believe based not on data, or even interpretation of data, but on your desire to believe it. That's pretty much the definition "anti-science".

  6. That's so disheartening – that the Republican House is denying the Pentagon funds to adapt to climate change. Fortunately, military people are pragmatists – so they'll adapt to shrinking beachheads, unpredictable weather patterns, islands with fleeing refugee populations, drought starving people into desperate terrorism – but they won't call it climate change.

    And so, they can't do long term, big picture planning. Only react, careening blindly from one event to another.

    1. And whether you think it's man caused or not it's happening and the Pentagon, hardly a hotbed for tree huggers or liberals, wants us to prepare for it. Probably because history tells them these changes are destabilizing, regardless of their cause. Between this and consistently over the years voting down funding for the benefit of our troops and vets while showering the elite with tax breaks and subsidies, there really can't be any excuse other than stupidity when the public buys in to the black is white, up is down notion that the GOP is the party that supports our military.

    2. In particular when one understands it was the Bush DOD's 2006 Quadrennial Review that first connected the dots between climate change and our national security interests:

      Irregular, disruptive, traditional, and catastrophic challenges are surfacing as a result of global climate change and could merge into a “perfect storm” with disastrous consequences. In response, the Department of Defense (DoD) must blend the sustainability tenets of environmental security, ecological economics, and social/environmental equity with the pillars of the democratic peace theory.

      A Republcan document?  Who'd have thunk? 

        1. Climate change has a national security dimension. If rising sea levels result in significant displacement of people or impose new limits on resources, it's not at all farfetched to think that there could be more armed conflict. 

          1. Obviously why the Pentaon takes it seriously. Displacement and struggle over resources is what has always been the primary driver of mass bloody human conflict. The military knows we have to be prepared.

  7. Hopefully the Senate will strip it out and make Gardner decide to vote against the military or vote for some common sense.  

    If anyone has any doubt how bereft of any thought Speaker Boehner's GOP Party of No Brains has become one need only consider troll's response.  The diary, if I say so myself which I am, is full of links to actual information, research, data and science, each point supported.  All troll can do is spit back up an idiotic factually baseless winger cartoon that it has already posted at least twice before.  It cannot even come up with anything clever or new, but instead just has to puke up some piece of rehashed nonsense.  It is embarrassing.  I remember when there were conservatives that at least could present arguments that one had to consider, troll is a sad joke but not one anyone laughs along with, only at.  When it's not making light of addiction, brain injuries or gleefully using the death of our vets in hope to score a political point all it does is barf up some garbage and move along.  I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror if I were it, I would be so terribly ashamed of myself.  But I have some integrity at least.  

    This is what I think of the climate deniers, they are either very very very stupid or they are without integrity and so polluted with selfishness that they think their profit and political wins are worth more than our survival.  I tend to think troll is more the former than the latter but I may be wrong on that count.  

    1. I believe it's both. Very selfish, cynical political leaders who don't care about anything but the next election using very stupid underling politicians and a mix of cynical and stupid trolls to pander to the very stupid and very ignorant to get as many of their team elected as possible. And to hell with their own children's future on this planet.

        1. The movement is growing daily, it is stronger and willing to fight for what is right for our nation, our state, and our area…Fracking is wrong…AC, how much do you get paid for your stupidity???

          1. ITs not Polis' movement, and any opponent to local control that believes that has a rude awakening in their future.  This cycle, next.  Its coming.

            1. An important point, ct. The trolls' comment is aimed at turning "gay haters" into "local control haters". Just like the effort at LCR.

              Not surprising..not clever…just stupid.

                1. And yet, someone using the moniker "Andrew Carnegie" wrote a thoughtful piece about how eminent domain legislation was driving a wedge between factions in the Republican party, and actually uniting legislators across party lines. So which one is the real AC?

                  The author of the Renfroe/property rights diary, which dispassionately analyzed the political impact of property rights law in Colorado, skillfully phrased, no misspellings, without the usual snarky attacks on Dems….

                  Or the usual AC posts which rely on "ugly Obama" cartoons and Breitbart links, the "Pee Wee Herman" defense, and snarky attacks on Democratic funders and  politicians, and this week's approved Tea Party talking points?

                  I teach writing. In my opinion, these were not written by the same person. The style is similar, but the worldviews are not. Not that it matters much, but I guess I'd like to know if the dialogue on this forum is being steered by one person or two.

                  2. I think this is an excellent theory. It would explain the jarring difference in writing, the drop-a-turd-and-run tactics, and the intial glut of articles and references from another political blog, known for its courageous, Freedom of Speech loving policy of prohibiting commentary.  

                    1. Just like Soros pays us to do this…’cept we use different names and stuff….:)

                    2. You get your compensation for Soros? Lucky Dog! I have to get mine from the Mesa County Democratic Party. Not such a choice gig, really. All twelve of them divide the bill (like good little Commies), and half of them pay their share with gluten-free bread and abortion coupons. indecision

                       

                  4. More than one, for sure.

                    more than two definitely possible. But so what?

                    i prefer thoughtful posts with good use of the language, especially compared to inane cartoons and pontlessly partisan bs.

                    2. I'm sure there's only one of you, JBJK, and you are definitely not a troll.

                    3. Miss Jane – 

                      Don't know. Don't care.

                      There is only one of me, as far as I know,  and I only have the one user name.

            2. It is the usual strategy of discrediting an issue by demonizing an individual ct.  Link Polis to fracking bans and then demonize the individual and by association the issue.  It happen with Gore and Climate Change and it happened with Obama and health care reform.  You know they are truly dried up and dessicated pieces of shit when all they can do is recycle individual demons.  Thoughtful analysis by a conservative like we used to get from Laughing Boy is a thing of the past like a climate with less than 400 ppm in carbon dioxide. 

              1. I had the occasion three years ago to attend a dinner in DC where William Ruckelshaus was honored for his accomplishments as the first EPA Adminstrator.  He gave a fascinating review of what was going on at the time – in particular our flammable, poisoned rivers –  but as fascinating were the stories of what was happening in the Oval Office:  industry 'titans', one-by-one, parading themselves through the office with threats to abandon their support of party candidates; non-stop phone calls from both industry and Republican donors – non-stop hysteria from party donors and business claiming that making them clean up the rivers would bankrupt the industry, jobs would move off-shore and hundreds of thousands of people would be without 'good jobs'. 

                What's old is once again new. 

                Sound familiar? 

            3. I really do think that making Jared Polis into some sort of central figure in the anti-fracking movement is a silly notion. Since the battle is over local control and the O&G flacks are trying to depict that as a statewide ban, there are better targets for their purposes. There are definitely advocates for a ban around (though not particularly associated with any ballot initiatives), while Polis is actually pretty moderate on the issue as a local control advocate and seems to only have developed a keen interest when he experienced the downside of this sort of energy development first-hand.

              Trying to tar the movement by associating it with a rich, articulate, well-liked official who is in line with public opinion and has the ability to fight back seems like poor planning. If it's just a matter of trying to exploit a homophobic angle, that's low rent and doubly likely to backfire.

              1. They are grasping at straws because (undoubtedly) their polling shows what the RBI polling did–that local control is popular among reeasonable middle-of-the-road folks, which defines most of the Colorado electorate.  So they have to portray it in silly, bs, draconian terms (statewide BAN…110000 jobs lost…) and attach it wealthy, 'out-of-touch' Boulderites, elite Aspenites (at Thompson Divide), stealing food from babies (Mesa County nutcase commissioner), provincial NIMBYs (North Fork), and crazy 'fracktivists' (everywhere).  It is a clear sign of how worried the industry is that their out-of-state money might not be able to buy off the Colorado electorate on this one.

                1. Hey, ct. Do you have anything on the growing concern that I am picking up about some enviro groups negotiating with Hick and speaking for people they don't actually represent?

                  There is e-mail chatter on the subject. It is just like the industry to offer access and perks to one group and not others, trying to divide the opposition. Do you have any insight on that?

                    1. aye..I'll just keep following the e-mails, but I am very concerned about it. I will try to act on any info you may have.

                    4. That's how we ended up with Commanche 3 in Pueblo.  The 'great compromise' behind closed doors with a select few enviro's  ….a coal plant that was built solely to buoy Xcel's balance sheet after it lost millions in its NRG debacle – we didn't need it for the energy then and we sure as hell don't need it now – but we'll all pay for that $1 billion plus albatross for decades.

              2. Thye can't hope to hurt Polis in his completely safe district but it's a way to make a gay guy the face of the proponents of local control, a traditional Republican value, to their bigoted base.  Perhaps they hope that will spare them the trouble of having to explain why, suddenly, good righties are for big distant government and against local control. 

              3. Donate $900K and you are on the sidelines?

                One Polis group, Coloradans for Local Control, donated $1.45 million to another Polis group, Coloradans for Clean and Safe Energy, which is running the campaign to place a slew of anti-fracking measures on the Nov. 4 ballot.

                That one donation—the only contribution so far to the Polis-sponsored issue committee—exceeded the combined $900,000 raised by two energy-backed coalitions during the two-week reporting period ending May 14, although their overall fundraising tops the Polis campaign’s at $3.77 million.

                http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2014/05/20/big-money-talks-polis-single-handedly-boosts-anti-fracking-funding/

                    1. What is the point of identifying him? Is he doing something wrong? What is he doing besides exercising the same right of free speech you so staunchly defend when it is Koch money?

                      Your hypocrisy is so vivid it is blinding…

                    2. You didn't answer me, troll…What is your point in mentioning Polis' contributions to these ballot efforts? How is it different from the activities of your funders?

                2. Too stupid to use block quotes or just so used to copying and pasting other people's work you don't bother?  It is other people's work, right?

              4. Pushing POlis to the front and center is a classic move. It's also pointless. Polis, or a candidate like him, wouldn't be viable state wide.  It's like the D's trying to push Lamborn out front.

                Most of the voters in the state would shrug – they wou;dnt' vot for that candidate anyway.

        2. AC- what it really sounds like is that, as usual, you have no idea what you're blathering about but just mindlessly echo the latest wingnut blathering points,buzzwords and fear phrases.

  8. I think it is both too.  But in troll's case I think its primarily that it is dim-witted, despite its self-proclaime 98%-tile IQ. If it were smarter it would put forward better structured arguments, like the counselor.  Not necessarily better substantively, lipstick on a turd and all that, but more complex and clever-appearing.  Its inability to be at all creative demonstrates a true lack of wit IMO.  

  10. I'd say this would be more obviously idiotic if the headline were "House votes to prohibit states from planning based on global warming study estimates", but North Carolina Republicans already beat me to the punch at the state level.

    Maybe "House votes to prohibit insurance companies from using global warming studies in risk assessments" – which is, of course, exactly what the Republicans are prohibiting the Pentagon from doing. It's just that instead of reimbursement to private policy holders, it's our nation's defense they're screwing with.

  11. CT – Well done, sir.  I caught his vote on the climate issue on Twitter Friday and had planned to write a diary on Monday.  There is a really very special place in hell for these folks (if there actually is one).   Imagine the world we could have if we deployed science on behalf of freedom – if we simply applied the collective American scientific genius to solving these problems?  As we approach a most sacred day tomorrow on behalf of those who have fought for our freedoms, let's also reflect on the lives we could spare in the future if we lived in a world whose addiction was fed by our incredible solar wealth – and not a global economy powered by fossil excrement. 

    "The first step in solving a problem is admitting we have one"

  12. America at its best.  The moon shot: conquering unbelievable odds because we put the power of American exceptionalism to work.  The difference today? Unlike the Apollo mission where there we so many unknowns, we could, today, solve our worlds environmental challenges in a similar time frame.  We wouldn't have to invent one, single new technology or device.  Our problems aren't technical or scientific – our problem is political.  A caustic environment of ignorance and apathy – fueled by money from the oligarchs. 

    That said, I think places like Colorado are ready to rise up and take those politics head-on.  I beleive the Local Control ballot question, Initiative 75, is going to be a proxy vote on ending this toxic stew; breaking the unholy alliance between a government that should serve the best interests of its citizens first and foremost – the the 17th Street boardrooms. 

  13. Some endangered species aren't waiting for scientific consensus or political convenience – they're already adapting to climate change:

    From Tom McKay on PolicyMic:

    In 2009, a U.S. Forest Service study found that 40 major tree species across 30 states had moved more than 60 miles north on average in less than a century. In Colorado, the wildflower bloom season has increased by 35 days. In France, wild thyme has evolved in response to less-frequent periods of extreme cold by producing a greater quantity of herbivore-repelling pungent oil at the cost of winter survivability.

    Has anyone else noticed all of the blooming yucca this year?

    1. Which of those are endangered?  Its not a general term, it is very specific.  Many are narrowly endemic, not like trees or far-ranging specieis.

      1. We are in one the largest extinction crises ever seen on the planet, among the top few, and most did not end well for the majoirty of life on the planet.  

        1. Thanks, some species will have a better chance of that, for sure.  Certainly in the previous great extinctions were able to adapt, most were not.  Luckily for us our little rat-like ancestor made it in the last major die off that got the dinosaurs.  Its a sensitive subject for me as the anti-ESA people regularly make the case that massive extinction is OK because it will just encourage survival of the fittest.

          1. Also, if it has already been listed then the govt has already been working to recover it and protect its habitat, the idea being that listing helps a species' chance for survival, incuding its ability to repatriated or adapt its range.  The sage gruse is not yet so lucky, as western politicians are blocking it because it interferes with energy development and other schemes.

  15. Of course no one expects the Pueblo Chieftain to have any integrity, but today they publish an op-ed from Board Members of 'Vital for CO' the group that supposedly includes our former Interior Sect Ken Salazar.  It tells the lie that state voters are considering a statewide fracking ban, which is–of course–an utter falsehood.  If their industry is so great for all why must they lie?  And do our Democratic leaders really agree with this, lying to Coloradans?  I want an answer.  Do people like Ken Salazar think it is OK to lie to Coloradans to win at the polls, and if not, will he stand up for telling the truth even if he opposes local control?

    1. I am extremely disappointed in Sen. Salazar. He knows the truth and yet plays footsie with these jackals…I know his staff knows better as well. Either he is bought out, dazzled by the promises of the "New American Oil Empire" and is heavily invested, or he has had a big swig of fracking fluid and joined the Petroleum Club, believing the lies about jobs…I am honestly baffled at his complete disenguity on this.

  16. Spot on, ct.  I don't care what side of the aisle they're representing, if they are willing to lie, bald-faced, about a fact so easily refuted, do you really want any of them making decisions on complicated issues?  The bright side?  The 'Big Lie' is so easily identified that I think it's awakening many of those who would have otherwise sat out this election cycle.  This is going to get brutal – and it's going to claim victims both red and blue.

    1. Bullshit from Vital for Colorado, despite having tens of millions of dollars–much of it from out-of-state– to try and sway the vote, industry boosters find it necessary to tell bald-faced lies to Coloradans.  Are we OK with this Colorado, having our 'leaders' and industry lie to our face?

      Unfortunately, local drilling moratoriums and the threat of a statewide ban on fracking could endanger these opportunities and negatively impact Colorado’s prosperity for decades.  

    2. A lot of those people I have met in and around the Capitol have been wading around, waist deep in O&G bullshit for a long time, thinking it was a day at the pool that would never end. Many of them are Dems…many of us know their names.

      As it relates to O&G, the people of Colorado have a Public Enemy #1.. his name is John Hickenlooper…he of the winsome smile and cutesie PR proclivity… His alter-ego, Governor Frackenlooper, will, I predict, try to scuttle ANY meaningful legislation or initiative that steps on his buddies toes. I am sure beer is not the only fluid in which he is heavily invested.

      1. Ciruli weighs in … and it's all about who can most-adeptly spin the Big Lie to victory – while they assume John Q. Public is going to consume whatever shit sandwich they offer us.

        I had dinner last night with the son of a Colorado O&G guy – father and son are on opposite sides of this issue.  Last week LNG in Japan hit $19/mcf equivalent.  Apparently there isn't enough spare change in that transaction for them to assure we don't exasperate our GHG emissions profile and prevent the plundering of our state treasury in the process of powering that tiny island.

          1. “A party that cannot govern its own House is less likely to be asked to govern the state.”

            Do you suppose Ciruli is unaware of the Colorado Republican party?

  17. The willingness to tell outright lies to Coloradans, to say on one hand its good for everyone and 'fracking bans' are too extreme they would not pass statewide, then to call even local control a 'fracking ban' is such unadulteraded bullshit–puts it in perspective, the Big Lie. It is disgusting and dispicable and it makes Twitty mad. 

  18. Here's a great three minutes on Nature by Numbers.  It'll go completely over the head of the House Majority, our Congressman wannabe and our resident cracked pot because, you know, nature is to be conquered, not understood: 

      1. I thought it was an appropritate "Yin" for the House Neanderthals "Yang" that prompted this thread.  I, too, thought it was extraordinary. 

    2. It has been 110 years since the Wright brothers invented the airplane. Pause for a moment and think of all that has transpired in our world since that invention relative to technology in our every day lives. We have been living like gods for over a century and now we must learn to live like mortals. Global warming is changing our environment at a pace that far exceeds anything mankind has ever known. How can one rationally argue that fact? Increase in temperatures move northward across the U.S., drought begins to impact crop outputs, nature trys to adapt and the dominos fall faster. Not sure how this story ends….

       

      1. We went from the sands of Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquility in just over six decades, yet the thought of an 'Apollo-like' energy transition makes the Fox News Business contributors shit bricks as if it couldn't possibly happen.  If we unleashed the totality of our American scientific genius and our Yankee ingenuity – we'd have this problem solved in a decade.

      1. In the event you missed my earlier post Davie, there is an interesting factoid on Denver International Airport.  Although we are the sixth-busies airport in the US, our DIA footprint exceeds that of Atlanta Hartsfield, the nation's busiest airport.  Why? The JetA used at DIA is made from Canadian tar sands, piped in from Canada to the SunCor facility just north of downtown.  I served on the Mayor's 'Greeening the DNC' committee in 2008 and we found the Achille's Heel in trying to reduce the city's green house gas emissions is practically impossible when you include the DIA emissions. 

        I'm thrilled the Navy is leading on this 'new fuels' initiative.  If I remember correctly, Lamborn tried to defund the Navy's work on biofuels last year.  The US Navy has always been on the cutting edge of US energy transitions:  from sail-power, to coal-power, to nuclear-powered subs, and now the Great Green Fleet. Lamborn, Gardner and their toadies can stuff it – the real patriots are embracing the new world.

        1. Thank you, Michael!  That article recounting the Navy's century-plus history of innovation and proving the Luddites wrong was fascinating and highly informative.

          The Navy has another technology breakthrough with all-electric drive (which could potentially use the seawater to fuel process to drive the turbine generators — giving it nuclear-style decades-long range at sea):

          DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class – Multimission Destroyer

          http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/

          1. Fascinating, indeed.  Science scares the shit out of these cretins.  We could rid the world of anthroporgenic emissions in short order, and give us an infinite supply of cheap, clean power – all it takes is political will.  We will get there, and sooner than we think – their days of holding the firewall are numbered.   Sadly, if the climate were a bank Congress would have saved it already.

    2. Meanwhile there remains real reason to be skeptical about shale, oil or gas.  Take the recent 'write down' of 96% of the Monterrey, by US EIA after it made a mistake–whoops!  Wonder how many deals were inked and sweated over on that one, huh?  And yet it was really only a story if you have your Google News Alert set.  Can you imagine if the govt came out and said there was really 96% less sunshine?  The K-street and Koch boys would be going bonkers.

      And all the cable talking heads would be jabbering away about how

      wonderful and strong Putin is….blah blah bah…and how the idea of getting energy from the sun…the sun! ha, rather than converting rock into gasoline or digging up the boreal wilderness in Alberta, washing it with solvents, and shoving it in a 2,000 mile long pipeline to ship it overseas so they can make crap to ship back overseas to us, which we will be able to afford because we are all getting rich as an oil and gas fracker in the 100,000 of jobs that will soon be ours.  If only we believe.  What? Do you want to live in a cave and power your world with butterfly farts?  …

      But instead what was a month ago being touted as this wonderfully large resource evaporated into the whim it always was.  Shale.

       

       

      1. EIA played the same goal with coal not that long ago (the original study originated under Bush.  Remember the "We have 300 YEARS of coal!!!".  Well, technically speaking, it was a true statement.  Practically speaking, the overburden of soil above those veins is so deep it's not economical to mine it.  It was all bullshit – but meant to stave off the over-hyped 'War on Coal".  Ultimately it was physics (and by default, economics), not politics, that was the death knell of the industry. 

  20. The organization whose board members penned the Chieftain op-ep do not list Ken Salazar as a supporter.  Mr. Salazar is named as a supporter of 'Coloradans for Responsible Reform' (no suggestion on what the 'reform' might be) in the Denver Business Journal.  Both groups exist (in their current form for the latter) to oppose the local control measures, and there is some over-lapping membership on their boards.  

    But I regret connecting Mr. Salazar to the more odious of the two–although I would still request that he clarify his position, whether he's ok with what some of his current associates are saying.  

    There is (at least) one more blog diary in the works on this.  I remain upset that these groups, with so many more resources than the citizen efforts–even the ones 'backed' by Mr. Polis–would find it fit to lie to Coloradans.  I do acknowledge that Mr. Salazar is at least arms' length from this, from what I can tell.  Sincely apologize for stating otherwise, I continue to look into the matter.  

      1. I, too, would love to hear a comment on this from the former Secretary. Even though he is not currently an office holder, he owes the public an explanation.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

168 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!