CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): “Well, the president’s case may seem a bit hard to make when the eastern half of the country is in the grips of a brutal winter!”
GEORGE WILL: “When a politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things. The debate is raging and he’s losing it.”
CHARLES LANE: “If we had a better economy, I think people would have more of a luxury to worry about climate change.”
KIM STRASSEL: “It became climate change when you couldn’t prove that there was much global warming anymore.”
It’s as predictable as it is astonishingly ignorant- First, nasty winter weather envelops the country in an icy vice grip. Then the talking heads at Fox News Channel bleat at length about how “global warming” has been proven to be a hollow threat [insert Al Gore joke here]. It’s an argument fueled primarily by smug arrogance and willful intellectual vacancy, because there’s no credible data available to support their argument. Yet the company/party line is that an ugly winter equals no global warming. Fox News said it…so it must be true, amiright??
How about laying things out in a manner everyone should be able to understand? If 97% of engineers told you the bridge you’re about to cross will collapse if you attempt to traverse it, who would you believe? The 3% who’d tell you the bridge is perfectly safe, as solid as the day it was built? Or the 97% who have solid, empirical data on their side and remain unwavering in their conviction the bridge is likely to collapse?
The answer to that question should be self-evident, but the talking points state that “global warming” is a hoax amply disproven by this winter’s nasty weather. “Global warming” is a (scientifically inaccurate) misnomer clung to by Right-wing deniers heavily invested in ensuring that government does nothing to address the real problem- global climate change created by the increased warming of the Earth.
By 2003, GOP word guru Frank Luntz urged conservatives to stay away from the term “global warming” and only use “climate change.” “‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming,’” he wrote in one memo. As one focus group participant noted, climate change ‘sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.’ While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”
It’s sad that Fox News Channel, which trumpets itself as “fair and balanced,” is so heavily invested in protecting the interests of industrialists who write checks to support Right-wing candidates and causes. It’s not about what’s best for the Earth and those of us who populate it. It’s about having the backs of the Koch brothers and the 1%. It’s about painting those who believe global climate change to be real as looney Liberals and alarmists who see a crisis where none exists. That study after study after study confirms global climate change to be a clear and present danger matters not to the deniers. What matters is being able to ensure that polluters face no additional regulation, even though doing so might help to reign in the problem before it’s too late.
These are the same people who laugh at Al Gore when a blizzard hits the US. They ignore the increase in frequency and severity of catastrophic weather events that back up his warnings. If you can ridicule a former Vice President enough, the American Sheeple, too many of whom are already prone to believe whatever Fox News tells them, will begin to doubt the veracity of empirical scientific data. It’s difficult to take action when so many are laughing at the messenger. And we all know that science is just another theory with a proven Liberal bias, no?
How long will we sit on our hands denying what’s been repeatedly demonstrated before it’s too late? Conservatives (and their propaganda/”news” channel) have been working overtime to ensure that nothing is done to mitigate the damage we continue to do. If nothing changes, and there’s every chance nothing will, we’ll eventually reach (and pass) the point of no return. The damage done will have become so extensive and pervasive that it simply can’t be undone. We may reach that point sooner than anyone realizes.
I’d ask Conservatives a very simple question about their continued denial of global climate change: Even if, highly unlikely though it may be, it turns out that we’ve been worrying for nothing, what’s wrong with being a better steward of the only planet we have? It shouldn’t be first, foremost, and only about making money. Global climate change isn’t an abstract concept, though Conservatives and captains of industry treat it like a Bolshevik plot designed to put them out of business. Doing the right thing by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy sources is simply being mindful of the truth that no resource is infinite.
Or is the Earth merely something to be exploited for commercial purposes to whatever degree possible, consequences be damned? As if I need to answer that.
