As we noted last night, the global warming deniers were sure to start firing on all carbon-emitting pistons this week in response to the Obama EPA’s landmark announcement today of proposed new rules to decrease harmful, climate-destabilizing CO2 pollution from existing dirty power plants, as per the U.S. Supreme Court-mandated enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
The deniers haven’t disappointed.
The following quotes come from a press release sent out this morning from the fossil fuel industry-funded “Heartland Institute,” which pretends to offer science-based arguments in support of their “mission…to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”
In fact, the group serves as little more than a mouthpiece for Big Carbon and the modern Republican Party which, largely thanks to Citizens United in 2010, now eschews the use of actual science in the public sphere.
Despite their ironic “non-profit” status — enjoying government subsidies for promoting “free-market solutions” — the Heartland Institute is also little more than an arm of the Republican Party. In one of the responses to today’s announcement, the Heartland Institute President argues that “Republicans in the House and Senate are right to oppose EPA’s new global warming rules,” and “Voters will do well to remember who was on their side during the coming political battles.”
In another response, the “non-partisan” group says that challenging the Obama EPA’s proposed policy could be great for the GOP. “If done intelligently,” Heartland’s Science Director(!) Jay Lehr writes, the challenge “could cost [Obama’s] party the Senate in the November elections and dramatically increase the Republican majority in the House of Representatives – which will enable the Republicans to stymie any further legislative action by the president for the remainder of his term.”
Now that’s some good Science Directing! And some good non-partisanship! Of course, this is also the same group that purchased billboards comparing those who believe in science to “The Unabomber” and Charles Manson, so it’s not as though anybody would take these folks seriously, right? Wrong. They are consistently featured and quoted by theoretically legitimate mainstream media outlets in coverage of the pretend “global warming debate”.
Here then, in no particular order, are the top 7 most amusing responses from the Heartland Institute’s “experts”, as released this morning in response to today’s EPA announcement…
Well, Republicans were completely wrong about the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), and now, wisely, are quickly abandoning their attacks on it in advance of the 2014 election, so why not double-down and call conservative, flexible, market-based, state-controlled regulations to curb emissions “Obamacare for the environment”?! Sure. That should work!
As to “Americans freezing in the dark”, thanks to the EPA, we’ll keep that in mind next time we hear how climate scientists are “alarmists” for producing peer-reviewed, independently verifiable science.
Who knew “Science Directing” was so similar to Political Consulting?! Oh, that’s right. The folks who claim that climate science is “junk science” and that is has been “politicized” do so all the time. For profit.
Karnick must have a different idea of “research” than most folks. In any event, water is also “essential,” particularly for the “benefit” of human beings. So the more of it the better, right? Therefore, Karnick may want to drink several gallons of it within the next 15 minutes, just to be safe, and then “research” what happens to him! What could possibly go wrong?!
Right. As we noted last week, it’s about the politics of “the handful of folks who profit off of the oil, coal and gas extraction industries, and the personal pain they would like to avoid in cutting into a single cent of the most profitable industry the world has ever known.”
Other than that, the only “bad science” seems to be the laughable, easily-debunked pretend “science” that the Heartland Institute publishes on behalf of the sociopathic fossil fuel industry and the Republican Party they now own.
Apparently, Mr. Rust’s alarmism about “lives lost” due to a pretend lack of heating and A/C is fine. The actual evidence of lives lost due to the already occurring direct and indirect effects of global warming should be completely ignored.
The “no basis in science or truth” charge seems to be straight out of the Obi-Wan Kenobi “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for” Jedi Mind Trick school of politics. If you say there is “no basis in science or truth” often enough — despite all the decades and decades of independently verifiable climate science and truth available out there on this issue — perhaps someone will believe you…at least if they are under a Jedi Master’s use of The Force.
And, finally, our favorite…
This response is very helpful. What she seems to be saying here is that everyone should always pee in the swimming pool unless and until it can be proven that everyone else has also stopped doing so. In the meantime, it’s best for everyone to keep peeing in the swimming pool as much as possible.
Smart stuff. No wonder the vast majority of Americans reject the alternate reality being presented by the desperate dead-enders and fossil-fueled clowns like the folks at the Heartland Institute.
How about the left starts making similarly outrageous claims as the right, like:
Moving to renewable energy sources will lower the price of gas at the pump and lower heating costs.
There is a thread of truth in that statement but it is assuming the CO2 industries will keep producing the earth heating energy sources at the same pace, the speculators will get tired of jacking up the price for commodities that are less popular and we don’t find more creative ways into taxing the CO2 companies because they have lost their political clout.
Well then maybe we should just stick to the truth.
Brad, that was brilliant. Thank you!
“No wonder the vast majority of Americans reject the alternate reality being presented by the desperate dead-enders and fossil-fueled clowns like the folks at the Heartland Institute.” – Brad
Indeed.
And their daddy org, the Marshal Institute, whose famous last words were “smoking cigarettes doesn’t have anything to do with lung cancer.”
If the administration was as much in under the green thumb of environmentalists as the conservatives claim he would have asked for a 30% reduction based on current levels (lower CO2 emitting, natural gas dominated power generation levels) than the (coal-fired, CO2 heavy) levels of 2005. He could have even gone back to the 1980s or 1990s levels, back when much of the global warming claims were first being ignored.
The example of Germany suggests that heavily decreasing fossil fuel use in favor of renewables, does not necessarily damage the economy.