Paying no price whatsoever for climate science denialism

[n2doc]

By Greg Sargent,

You really should be paying close attention to the ongoing battle between the League of Conservation Voters and Tea Party Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. In addition to being highly entertaining, there’s a great deal at stake here — whether it’s possible to hold public officials accountable for climate science denialism.

Just to catch you up, LCV recently announced plans to launch a $2 million campaign attacking Republicans in Congress for climate change denialism, including a TV ad attacking Johnson. The Senator responded with a fundraising appeal calling for cash to fight against an “environmental jihad.”

Now LCV is back with a second ad responding to the “environmental jihad” barb and reiterating the case that Johnson is ignoring the consensus of civilian and NASA scientists on climate:

As I noted here the other day, there’s more to this than you might think. It’s not about electoral politics — after all, Johnson isn’t up for reelection until 2016. Rather, environmentalists view this as a long game designed to change something that’s frustrated them for some time: the fact that crazy climate change denialist statements just aren’t nearly as politically toxic as outsized statements about, say, abortion or immigration often prove to be.

more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/21/paying-no-price-whatsoever-for-climate-denialism/

[kristopher]

1. It is past time for ridicule and shaming.

If you don't get it by now you are either just plain stubborn or overtly corrupt. Either way, they shouldn't be holding office.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Calling a senator 'stubborn' won't get them unelected the next time

Proving them 'stubborn' won't either (many voters like 'stubborn', especially Republican voters). If we can prove them overtly corrupt, that will work. But taking campaign donations from fossil fuel industries is not 'openly corrupt' according to the law. So ridicule and shaming is a worthwhile route to take.

[kristopher]

3. Doesn't the ridicule and shaming...

...ultimately lead to the conclusion that the person is unreasonably stubborn and/or corrupt?

I know where you are coming from, but a conclusion someone reaches on their own is far different than an accusation from "the enemy".

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. I may have misunderstood what you said

I had thought you were saying "we've go beyond the time for ridicule and shaming - we've got to do something else- call them stubborn or openly corrupt". I now think you may have been saying "we should have been doing this a long time ago" - and that you hoped this would make them look, as you say, unreasonably stubborn, or corrupt. In which case I agree, and apologise for misunderstanding.

[limpyhobbler]

5. Pretty good ad. The music should have been a little creepier.

That goes a long way. Also they should have implied "bribery" more.


Overall I really like it.