Over the weekend, the United Nations published a synthesis report of its "most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever." As Jane C. Timm noted
, "The 40-page report sums up 800 scientists' thousands of pages of research from over 13 months, using an enormous amount of science to argue that carbon emissions must be dramatically reduced."
The findings can fairly be described as terrifying. The New York Times
noted, "Failure to reduce emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year."
The U.N. report pointed to the "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."
And though the document was specifically intended to help provide guidance to policymakers, Republican officials just don't care
The chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee said on Sunday that a United Nations report that said the earth is heading toward "severe, pervasive, and irreversible" climate change impacts is "nothing new." Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in a statement that he appreciates efforts "to better understand the complex science of our ever-changing planet," but adds that the new report "says nothing new." "Similar to previous reports, the latest findings appear more political than scientific," he said. "People are tired of the re-packaged rhetoric. It's time to stop fear mongering and focus on an honest dialogue about real options."
Smith may not fully appreciate what the word "scientific" means.
For elected U.S. officials, who are ostensibly interested in Americans' well being, to casually dismiss terrifying warnings is alarming. It is not, however, surprising -- contemporary Republican politics is dominated by a fairly aggressive strain of climate denial.
Indeed, it's about to get considerably worse.
Ron Brownstein took a closer look
at the 14 most competitive U.S. Senate candidates in the Republican Party this year, most of whom are favored to win.
[W]hile all 14 GOP contenders promise to fight the proposed Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations limiting power-plant carbon emissions, Ernst would eliminate the EPA itself -- a position rarely heard. [...] Other than Terri Lynn Land in Michigan, who is the least likely to win, none of the 14 has endorsed the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are driving global climate change.
Of the U.S. House members poised to get a promotion to the U.S. Senate, all of them are such fierce climate deniers that they voted to prohibit
the Pentagon from even considering the national-security implications of global warming.
The more serious the crisis becomes, the more forceful the GOP becomes in rejecting the science. History will not be kind.