The Republican Book on $cience [cartoon]

Since taking over the House, the Republicans have utilized their sway to continue their attack on the environment.

Any time you fight to weaken clean air and water standards, carbon (etc.) emissions standards, and make every effort to make the world a less healthy place to live, one has to wonder (though apparently few do) “Why are you doing this?”.

Possible reasons:
Hatred of hippies– Good for rallying support, but not a reason to poison the earth.
Trying to “weaken BIG government”– Same response as above (but I’ll come back to this one).
Looking out for your constituents who hate clean drinking water, and love asthma, cancer, and extreme weather– I’d imagine that’s too small of a base to really fight for.
Doing the bidding of BIG business– That is the only real reason these attacks are taking place. The noise from the right is a constant call to take power away from “BIG government”. In attempting to do so they are knowingly giving power to big business. Rest assured that these businesses are making themselves rich while poisoning the rest of us.

We can be on either side of the political spectrum, but we cannot give any politician (Democrat or Republican) our blind faith. Politics is not religion, nor is it a sport. There are way too many examples of politicians (individually AND collectively) doing what’s best for their careers or their bank account, as opposed to what’s best for all people that we have to be critical supporters. We cannot be blind followers. Politicians and polluting industries are taking advantage of the extreme polarization of our great country to push personal agendas.

Pay attention. Read the links below (in regards to the current Republican vs. the Environment offensive). Read more. Inform yourself with fact and avoid the bias and opinion that perpetuates dishonest and corrupt agendas.

From Grist: Politifact finds Republican claim to be false; Republicans don’t give a sh*t
From Ecopolitology: Republicans Attempt to Stifle Action on Climate Change
From PlanetSave: GOP Only Political Party in World to Reject Climate Science?
From Discover Magazine (Chris Mooney): Liberals, Conservatives, and Science
Chris Mooney’s book: The Republican War on Science
Grist again: Fred Upton’s EPA-blocking bill will put more of your money in oil industry pockets

Joe’s cartoon archive and twitter ramblings

4 thoughts on “The Republican Book on $cience [cartoon]

  1. There may or may not be global warming CAUSED BY THE HUMAN INDUCED INCREASE OF CO2 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE, but there is no actual PROOF.

    If there was proof surely the scientists Doug and Denise during my conversation at would have been able to explain it to me.

    What is very certain though are the consequences if we follow the IPCC demands for CO2 emission reductions. This is what is set to happen.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices. (Ironically this scenario is exactly what OPEC have been attempting to establish for the last 30 years)

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

    You may also notice that I have not even included the IPCC proposed wealth transfers from western economies to less developed nations in this comment.

    Without scientific proof AGW is baloney anyway! Maybe we should get some decent proof before we proceed to commiting hari kari.



    1. Regarding “may or may not”—given all of the other ill-effects that come with carbon pollution (the myriad of harmful toxins), I’m totally fine with leaning towards “may”. If we attack climate change head on we address a whole bunch of other problems as well.
      Basically, I’m tired of the people who claim it may not be happening. Because even if it weren’t (it is) we still need to take immediate action to drastically reduce the level of toxicity of our air, water, and soil…

  2. PS Joe, I posted this before. Somehow it disappeared.
    Looking forward to your answer.



  3. Joe,
    I have taken all the links out of my comment and reposted it below.Hopefully it will publish now.
    I am very interested in your reply as are my readers at should I decide to publish this interchange there.
    Looking forward to your reply.


    “Given all the other ill effects that come with carbon pollution (the myriad of harmful toxins)” ” Reduce the level of toxicity of our air, water and soils”
    Joe, which toxins are you talking about exactly?
    I assume you are talking about something other than the life giving gas, carbon dioxide, with out which, all life on earth would perish.
    Just in case you are, you might benefit from reading a few facts which I have compiled for you.
    A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer. (Link provided)

    Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv (Link provided)

    Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
    Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)”
    Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.
    (Link provided)
    (Link provided)

    Currently our atmosphere has about 380 ppmv in it.
    So once again, please explain your meaning of “toxicity” in your comment.


Comments are closed.