Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart!  NOW! header image 2

Engage the Climate Zombies!

October 28th, 2010 · 3 Comments

As if you aren’t already aware, the vast majority of Republican candidates for Federal office are “climate zombies”: people who reject the scientific method, falsely accuse the leading scientific institutions and scientists around the world of fraud, and who embrace service to fossil-foolish interests over service to the American people (both today’s and the yet-to-be-born).

With all their talk of being “Pro-Life”, the Anti-Science Syndrome Hatred Of a Livable Environment tendencies of these leading Republicans is yet another nail in the coffin proving their utter hypocrisy. These people care about life? Fossil Foolish practices and Climate Chaos devastation has killed, are killing, and will kill people around the globe. A lot of people …

Sadly, however, far too few Democratic politicians and Democratic institutions are calling out these climate zombies for their (proud) anti-science stance.

Act BLUE for Climate Heroes Fighting Climate Zombies.

Senator Jeff “Energy Smart” Merkley (D-OR) bucked this tendency with the 2008 campaign. Every day on the campaign trail, Merkley spoke about climate and energy issues. Sadly, two years later, his words ring true today:

We have an energy policy that’s been great if you’re an oil company and terrible if you’re an American citizen. And we have to change that, end our dependence on foreign oil, and stop sending $2 billion a day overseas, and start tackling global warming.

In every Senate race and most House races, Democratic candidates are facing Republican Climate Zombies. Even as, in many races, energy and climate issues are a significant difference between the D and R candidates, too many Democratic politicians seem scared of the issue — fearing that it is a loser. Yes, it is a loser issue — for an inept politician, for an inarticulate candidate. But for an articulate and confident candidate, these are winning issues:

  • Create jobs for Americans via sound clean energy investments in our homes, schools, and business.
  • Make Americans wealthier by ending our oil imports.
  • Clean transport jobs can prevent another Deepwater Horizon disaster.
  • Green our schools using money from ending dirty energy subsidies!
  • Scientists merit respect.

And, so on … those aren’t the slogans or bumper stickers, but these are points that can resonate with voters … even at this late a date.

About that last one, about those geeky scientists …

This is, although most Americans remain clueless about it, fundamentally an election about science. Even as Most Americans continue to hold science and scientists in high regard, an increasingly large share of the Republican Party’s elite, office holders, candidates, and mouth pieces are taking seriously anti-science positions. As Nature magazine‘s editors summarized it in Science Scorned,

The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.

Yet, their arrogant anti-science diatribes are going, far too often, unchallenged by their Democratic opponents.

The exceptions are rare enough to merit notice. Representative David Wu directly called out his opponent as a Climate Zombie. Michael Bennet’s campaign has called out Ken Buck:

“Ken Buck’s extreme stance on climate change is a threat to Colorado’s economy and could prove cataclysmic for our national security,” said Bennet spokesman Trevor Kincaid in a statement. Kincaid noted the Pentagon’s view that climate change is a security issue.

“Michael Bennet believes that climate change is real, and that we need to grow our economy by embracing clean energy alternatives, like solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy. Michael believes that Colorado is uniquely positioned to lead the world in the new energy economy,” Bennet’s campaign said.

Bennet’s attack put Buck’s campaign somewhat on their heels, with Buck clarify his climate change stance (he believes in global warming, just isn’t sure humanity has a role) and shifting the discussion toward economics.

Senator Russ Feingold called out Ron Johnson’s idiocy.

“I’m not going to take a course in Ron Johnson science any time soon,” Feingold said … calling it one of several “bizarre ideas” that Johnson has.

“This notion that he knows better than most of the scientists in the world is a little preview of what you might get if he was your senator,”

As with Buch, the Johnson campaign was forced into damage control mode.

Their anti-science positions are not just at odds with reality, they are at odds with the voters’ beliefs. This is a vulnerability … a vulnerability that far too few Democratic politicians seem willing to attack.

Ask yourself this question:

How many Democratic politicians have so directly challenged reporters to pay attention to the anti-science credentials of their opponents?

My answer: too few.

Our future depends on forcing this issue to the forefront of public discussion — and the election of many Democratic Party candidates might as well.

Act BLUE for Climate Heroes Fighting Climate Zombies.

Very simply: Climate Hawks should make mincemeat of Climate Zombies — humanity’s future, literally, might well rest on this.

Tags: climate change · climate delayers · climate zombies

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 dirk // Oct 28, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    If a congressman votes to not fund the war on terror, does that make the congressman pro-terror?

    There is an issue here as to wording and framing. The “War on Terror” … what is the “war on terror”? Some would assert that the invasion of Iraq fit that bill while it is hard, with the knowledge we had then and certainly have now, to come to the conclusion that invading Iraq did anything but worsen the situation in terms of the threat from terror. (It diverted attention and resources from Afghanistan and other efforts, it fostered the creation of Al Qaeda in Iraq and other elements which have killed how many Americans, the operations help create further resentment/anger at Americans fostering eased terrorist recruitment/funding, etc …) Now, a far better term would be “The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism” — Global SAVE — which a number of people in the Bush Administration tried to have adopted as the language. This highlights the real threat and moves it from a war against a tactic (“terrorism”) to the domain of a discussion/effort for the long term to reduce the conditions/take on the ideologies that foster terrorism while hopefully draining the swamp in which the terrorists thrive to make it that much easier to but a bullet in the head of those for which peaceful solutions truly are not a viable option (bin Laden being a prominent example.

    Similarly, isn’t unfair to label people as anti-science simply because question the government’s role in funding action against climate change?

    There is a difference, serious difference, between attacking the science (untruthfully, by the way) with truthiness and falsehoods and arguing about / debating / trying to determine what the right policy options are to deal with and respond to the challenges & opportunities that climate change creates.

  • 2 Stupid Goes Viral: The Last Stand of the Climate Zombies? // Oct 31, 2010 at 10:47 am

    […] Engage the Climate Zombies! […]

  • 3 Janet // Oct 2, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    In the sense of knowing enuogh that failure to act on emissions and climate is clearly folly the science is settled. To want to discuss policy implies it’s settled enuogh. I’m not at all surprised or particularly outraged that people who want uncertainty and disagreement to be percieved as flaws in the foundations of climate science would interpret and paraphrase Gavin’s response that way.Arguing uncertainties in MWP temperatures with people who want perceptions of uncertainties about that to be overblown into a widespread view that the whole body of knowledge on climate is in doubt looks like a counterproductive exercise. I hope Gavin has the sense to have his say and move on (even if the blogoshpere keeps on about it); surely he has better things to do.Have any of the genuine climate scientists involved had anything to say about their experience at the conference? I hadn’t pegged James Risbey for example, as one of the Doubt, Deny, Delay crowd. (I tend to think of them as 3D’ers; similar to ID’ers but less scientifically literate and the disinformation they spread is far more dangerous).