Why US Congress Doesn’t Care About Climate Change

by Richard on March 13, 2011

Koch brothers + US Chamber of Commerce

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }


Mark Byron 03.14.11 at 12:02 pm

+ the industrial unions that would be hurt by tough CO2 standards, like the UAW and the Mine-workers union. That latter part pries loose enough blue-collar liberals to give the climate-change skeptics a bipartisan look.

The Kochs probably help a bit, but not to the level that their de-facto status as the new chairmen of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy would indicate.


Earl 03.14.11 at 3:12 pm

Climate change gets little attention simply because it merits little attention. The idea that the United States will pay the cost of others boutique concern of the day is a non-starter.


Kim 03.14.11 at 3:37 pm

Earl, are you speaking as a scientist, or just as an asshole?


Earl 03.14.11 at 5:19 pm

“Are you…” etc. My, my, my… someone is having a problem with Mondaymorningitus. Their using their keyboard for a toilet.


Kim 03.14.11 at 5:29 pm

Earl, denying climate change and its anthropogenic factors is one thing. It’s a crackpot and obviously ideologically driven thing, but we’re all used to the thrid-rate scripts of the Doug and Earl Show, so that’s okay. No, it was your reference to climate change as a “boutique concern”. Only an asshole could say that.


Earl 03.14.11 at 6:20 pm

Those who perform in the climate change circus must work very hard to hold the attention of the audience who eat popcorn and drink Cokes and enjoy being entertained. In the end they realize what they already knew… that it was just an act. They recognize that the sideshows have changed some, but that the main even has remained unrelentingly predictable. The faded sign of the marquee shows that nothing much has changed in a long time. They grow restless. Someone sends in the clowns.


Doug 03.14.11 at 6:52 pm


Kim and others, I desire no one ever to point out my: 1) misspellings 2) bad grammer 3) bad syntax or anything else that maybe an “issue” to people on this blog. If a person on the surface can clearly understand a post then one truly needs to overlook it and if not just ask for clarification and I will be more than happy to restate.

Onto the thread point itself:
Kim, how about the emails of incorrect data on climate change analysis. Aren’t they more of the “accusation” than what you are calling Earl and I?

Earl, can we say that they have already sent in the “clowns” by falsifying climate change data as it was done last year to match their own preconceived ideas?


Doug 03.14.11 at 7:10 pm


I only bring this up because Kim and others are so quick to bring it up on me. What goes around comes around and if one is going to be quick to “correct” then one needs to make sure they are correct themselves.

Kim, all is fun. Not being harsh just “balanced”.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>