Democratic Senators have come to the limits of their forbearance of the false claims made by some of the Republicans. Their dismissing the findings of climate science out of hand, and impugning the motives of top climate scientists for joining the scientific consensus that human caused climate change is occurring, and accelerating. Leading the charge were Senators Whitehouse and Boxer.
Senate panel Democrats bash climate change deniersHere's Senator Inhofe bragging about the Senate Republicans despicable tactics blocking any progress on mitigating Climate Change:
By DARREN GOODE
“There is a new normal of new extremes and we have to be prepared for it,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said. “And the reason we have this new normal of new extremes is because global climate change is happening and is real. And we’ve tolerated the deniers for far too long in this body.”
Whitehouse criticized “a rear-guard action in this building led by polluters” against taking action on climate change.
“But we have to face the fact that the deniers are wrong. They are just plain dead wrong,” he said. “And we have to deal with that, and I think some of the courtesies that we have given to one another collegially really have to yield to the fact that some of the things that are being said in the Senate, and occasionally regrettably in this committee chamber, are just plain wrong.”
No-drama Doha? - Inhofe on climate negotiationsOne has to wonder about the moral vacuum in which such a cynical strategy could have been conceived. More on that below the fold.
By ALEX GUILLEN
CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS NEVER GO ANYWHERE, INHOFE SAYS: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters yesterday that he has low expectations for Doha. "Why go down there and waste a lot of time?" he said. "None of them accomplish anything. I said the same thing about Copenhagen. I was right, wasn’t I?" Asked what the message was to the international community that no U.S. senators were going this year, Inhofe replied, “It’s a message of reality. We’ve been telling you for years nothing is going to pass over here. Now maybe you’ll believe it since no one’s going.”
Exposing the logic of climate change denialBeing dangerously immoral, and exacerbating the prospects for increasing misery and suffering by untold numbers of generations over a period measured in geologic time is possibly the most monstrous act in human history.
By Michael P. Nelson and Kathleen Dean Moore
If deniers want to reject the conclusion of a valid argument -- which is exactly what they want to do -- they have only two strategies. They could, of course, shrug off the moral principles. "Violating basic human rights of billions of people, present and future? Fine with me." But no one would use this strategy; that would reveal a moral monstrosity or sociopathology of cosmic proportions.
What's left? The only alternative is to deny the facts of the matter, undermining or profoundly misunderstanding the science. To endlessly, mindlessly quibble over the reality of melting sea ice only makes one, at worst, stubborn or stupid; to quibble over whether we should or should not massively violate human rights makes one dangerously immoral.
But those who launch the attacks are not deceiving themselves; they know better. For them, climate change denial is not a matter of ignorance or mistake or delusion, but a strategic decision. What they really must believe, but cannot say, is that greed and limitless profit trump the human rights of all future generations.Its high time the morality of our addiction to dirty energy takes center stage. We shouldn't fool ourselves though. Moving into a new moral paradigm will be a titanic struggle.
These are the beliefs requiring a full-blown public debate. Do we have obligations to future generations? Do we have obligations to rescue children in danger? Do we have an obligation to respect human rights? And above all, what are the limits to the values we would sacrifice and the moral principles we would violate in order to make a killing on investments in gas and oil?
But what other choice do we have?
From the National Academy of Sciences: