| | Advanced Search

 

Side of the Rhode: Who’s Hot and Who’s Not in RI Politics?—Side of the Rhode: Who’s Hot and Who’s…

Finneran: The Rockets’ Red Glare—Finneran: The Rockets' Red Glare

5 Live Music Musts - July 25, 2014—The Newport Folk Festival is the hottest ticket…

From RI to Worcester to Lithuania, Baron Faces Uphill Battle to NBA Dream—From RI to Worcester to Lithuania, Baron Faces…

The Cellar: For the Love of Cabernet (Franc)—One of my favorite grape varietals is Cabernet…

Why URI Providence?—The University of Rhode Island Feinstein Providence Campus…

Gracie’s Executive Chef Matthew Varga Featured in Art Culinaire—Executive Chef Matthew Varga of Gracie’s was featured…

Providence College Ranked RI’s Biggest Party School—NEW: Providence College Ranked RI's Biggest Party School

See Rhode Island in “50 States of Legos”—NEW: See Rhode Island in "50 States of…

NEW: Whole Foods Recall—Whole Foods Market has recalled made-in-store items prepared…

 
 

Arthur Schaper: Whitehouse’s GOP Forecast: Sunny Skies

Friday, February 21, 2014

 

Arthur Schaper asks: Why can't Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse let the climate change movement die a natural death?

Climate change is real: it’s called spring, summer, fall, winter.

Seriously, the world has gotten a little warmer the past few years. In Southern California, one skittish beach resident dipped in the ocean four times last year, even though for years she had avoided the water, and walking on the sand burned a little more than expected.

Then again, you New Englanders may have noticed, with all those polar vortexes and the rest. Don’t feel so bad, though. Here in California, we could use the rain, snow, sleet, hail, as the Central Valley dries (er, dies) of thirst. But that’s not climate change, that’s political change, and not the one I was hoping for. After supermajority Dems played water politics in Sacramento, a Republican cherry farmer from Hanford won a state senate seat in two-to-one Dem territory last year. Now that’s climate change I can believe in, a change in the political climate, that is. By the way, I just gotta rain on the liberal-progressive-statist-crypto-fascist parade with this one. A GOP took the mayor’s seat (San Diego!) in a lean-Democrat city, too. Cheer up, Rhode Island GOP, demographics are helping Democrats less and less these days.

Now, back to climate change.

Well, there actually are a few Rhode Islanders who may not have noticed. There’s US Senator Jack Reed, up for reelection in 2014. He visited Afghanistan fourteen times during his tenuyre, but as for Rhode Island, one only wonders (or wanders). Get out of Afghanistan, and get back to Rhode Island, Reed!

And then there’s US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Oh brother (sun, moon, and stars). This guy will not let the climate change, er alarmism movement die a natural death.

Last week, he announced the following:

"Republicans have to produce a presidential candidate and I think if he's a denier, he's finished," Whitehouse said Wednesday. "Which means they will have to trek a little bit towards the middle to cover their presidential candidate."

All Rhode Island (and national) Republicans (yes, I know you’re out there), raise your hand if you give a shell what Whitehouse thinks about anything.

. . .*cricket*. . .

But let’s have some fun, shell, er shall we?

Republicans have to produce

Mommies and Daddies (and snails and puppies) produce. Political parties nominate, select, (or quietly stab in the back) their candidates. 2012 was how not to nominate, and in 2016 the GOP will vet a reformed primary process: short, sweet, and send ‘em to the White House (not to you, Sheldon!).

I think if he's a denier, he's finished

As I wrote above, climate change is real, both the seasonal and the not-so-reasonable. Am I worried about it? Two recent phenomena dispute the gravity of climate change: polar vortexes in New England 2014 and an unprecedented, freezing point in Southern California 2013, along with older records dating back to the 1800s. The United States endured a mini-ice age in the Los Angeles area them, and New Englanders are experiencing one now. Climate change in terms of higher or lower upswings takes place over decades, and they are nothing to get chilly or burned up about.

See what went on there? I resorted to something called “science”, which in and of itself proves nothing, but reasoned inferences suggest that climate alarmism is just that: an “ism”, and for those addicted to it, they should seek a sponsor and work a Twelve Step Program.

Besides, the rest of the industrial world, from China to Australia (the recently installed conservative majority Down Under pledged to scrap the carbon tax), have quit drinking the climate-change kool-aid, with economic growth to follow.

Furthermore, for a confirmed progressive like Whitehouse to say “he” without including a possible “she” is very disconcerting. Then again, one should not be surprised by such gender-biased language from a wealthy politician who demonizes other wealthy people, i.e. the ones who actually earned it by working for others and providing them a worthwhile good or service.

Which means they will have to trek a little bit towards the middle to cover their presidential candidate."

“A trek?” Beam me up, Sheldon. “Make it so, Number One!” The second phrase comes from Star Trek, The Next Generation, (no climate problems in Warp Nine).

Trek: to go on a long arduous journey, typically on foot.

Now, even if one implies that there is a vast difference between the center and the right in the Republican Party (there isn’t), to suggest that the 2016 GOP candidate will have to trek “a little bit” suggests that Whitehouse has lost track of proper diction, or the dictionary.

The 2016 Republican primary will be much shorter (and decisive), a June convention, and more time to shake hands, kiss babies, and raise money..

As for Democrats, Whitehouse just called out embattled Senate colleague Mary Landrieu as a climate change buddy, but she’s running (not trekking) a red-as-possible campaign this year, with strong support for coal and oil. With Democrats like Whitehouse, Republicans won’t have to fight for the Senate this year.

Whitehouse’s climate alarmism is real: sunny skies for Republicans in 2014 and 2016.

 

Arthur Christopher Schaper is a teacher-turned-writer on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance. Follow him on Twitter @ArthurCSchaper, reach him at [email protected], and read more at Schaper's Corner and As He Is, So Are We Ministries.

 

Related Slideshow: Is Clay Pell the Next Lincoln Chafee?

Privileged bloodlines, prestigious prep schools, lofty political ambitions.  Is Clay Pell the next Lincoln Chafee?  

Below is a look at the similarities -- and differences -- between Governor Lincoln Chafee  and likely gubernatorial aspirant Clay Pell.  

Prev Next

Family Legacy - Chafee

Lincoln Chafee is the son of John Chafee, the former Governor of Rhode Island, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of the Navy, who was a decorated WWII and Korean War Veteran, and posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  

Named in his honor include the USS Chafee (DDG-90), the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor and the John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge.

Prev Next

Family Legacy - Pell

Grandfather Claiborne Pell was Rhode Island's longest serving Senator, having served six terms from 1961 to 1997, whose legacy includes the Pell Grant, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.  

A decorated coast guard lieutenant in WWII and foreign service officer, Pell's Rhode Island legacy includes the Newport Bridge being renamed the Claiborne Pell Bridge, as well as the Pell Center of International Relations and Public Policy established at Salve Regina University.

Prev Next

Money - Chafee

Both Chafees and Senator Pell had to disclose as members of the U.S. Senate personal financial information -- and both a considerable net worth.  

The U.S. Senate is known as the U.S. Millionaires Club -- in 2005, while Chafee was still in the Senate, Open Secrets pegged Chafee's wealth at between $40 and $63 million dollars.  

Prev Next

Money - Pell

In a Time piece entitled "The New Limousine Liberals", the magazine pegged grandfather Pell's net worth at $12.7 million -- in 1992.  

The website Celebrity Net Worth puts wife Michelle Kwan's personal wealth at $8 million. 

While Pell's first campaign finance report has yet to be made public, records show Pell gave Democratic challenger Gina Raimondo $250 during her bid for General Treasurer in 2010.  

Prev Next

Education - Chafee

Chafee was educated public schools in Warwick, and attended private schools Providence Country Day, and Phillips Academy before graduating from Brown University.  

Chafee then attended the Montana State University in the horseshoeing school.

Prev Next

Education - Pell

Pell attended the private boarding Thacher School in California for high school, graduating in 2000.  The school's noted equestrian and outdoor programs require that students ride and care for a horse during their first year.  Current tuition is over $50,000
 
Pell, a JAG who graduated first in his class from Coast Guard Direct Commission Officer School, has a JD from Georgetown University and graduated from Harvard University with high honors in Social Studies and a Citation in Modern Standard Arabic. 
Prev Next

Early Career -- Chafee

Chafee served as a delegate to the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention in 1985, and was elected to the Warwick City Council the following year.  

He was Warwick's mayor in 1992 until 1999, when he was appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1999 when his father passed away while in office.

Prev Next

Early Career -- Pell

Named to the 2011-2012 class of White House Fellows, Pell served as Director for Strategic Planning on the National Security Staff prior to his appointment by President Obama as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education last April.

Prev Next

Wife - Chafee

Chafee's wife, Stephanie Danforth Chafee, holds a B.S. in Nursing from Boston University, an MBA from the University of Connecticut, and an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from the University of Rhode Island, helped found the Rhode Island Free Clinic in South Providence, and was featured as one of the ‘25 Models of Promise’ in Shirley Sagawa’s The American Way to Change. 
 
Mrs. Chafee was a co-founder of Women Ending Hunger and has served on advisory boards for Miriam Hospital, Rhode Island Hospital, the Rhode Island Zoological Society and the Rhode Island Foundation.  Last April, she was recognized as one of the YWCA Rhode Island's Women of Achievement.
Prev Next

Wife - Pell

A decorated Olympic figure skater and world champion, Michelle Kwan went on to pursue a career in public service, serving as an American Public Diplomacy Envoy as well as on the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports -- and was recently inducted into the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame.

 
 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Comments:

I have absolutely no patience with people who believe that Ayn Rand is a prophet, that dinosaurs and humans walked side by side, and don't understand (and don't bother to try to understand) the difference between climate and weather.

Talk about drinking the Kool Aid: "Contrarian scientists, fossil fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades. The blows have been struck by a well funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated "denial machine." It consists of the above actors, as well as a bevy of amateur climate bloggers and self-designated experts, public relations firms, conservative media and pundits and conservative politicians." (From Climate Change and Society, p. 144).

Climate change has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA. The decision forced the George W. Bush-era EPA to recognize and enforce carbon dioxide and GHGs as pollutants. In 2009, the EPA released the report, "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." Climate Change is now US policy.

Sadly, before organized climate change deniers seized the agenda, there was bipartisan recognition of climate change as fact.

Comment #1 by John Onamas on 2014 02 21

John,

You're going to have to either kill yourself right now, or stop breathing. You are exhaling CO2.

I'm as adamant about halting industrial pollution (chemical poisons, particulate matter and all the rest) as anyone, but calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is, well, please read the solution in my first paragraph.

In the 1970s, climate scientists were proclaiming global cooling (with an impending ice-age); in the 80s they proclaimed global warming. Which is it? Hint: It can't be both.

Comment #2 by Art West on 2014 02 21

Yes John, the Global Climate has had warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. 15,000 years ago, the glaciers were just receding from New England. All this without human intervention....

Climate change is a fact. Humans causing it is a THEORY...not a fact. A theory without a model to back it up. Please stop trying to confuse the two.

Comment #3 by Jimmy LaRouche on 2014 02 21

Art:

"You're going to have to either kill yourself right now, or stop breathing. You are exhaling CO2."

Exactly. There's no fraud worse than pseudo-science. None!

I missed your comments. Where have you been? People who claim climate alarmism are not relying on science, but bias and advocacy. They have lost sight of the distinction between historial and empiral science, too. The only thing left from many who push "climate change" is shame and reproach, none of which are working any more, if people are not afraid to punch back with the truth, twice as hard!

Comment #4 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 02 21

Art, the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a compound that the EPA is required to regulate under the Clean Air Act. It is not toxic to humans or even to plants, but in large amounts it does increase what is commonly called the Greenhouse Effect. In Massachusetts vs. EPA, seven states brought suit against the EPA for failing to protect them from damage caused by rising oceans as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument. Global cooling was a theory espoused by a small number of climate scientists in the 1970. The majority of climatologists predicted a warming cycle.

Jimmy, in fact 97% of the scientific community, and the Supreme Court, believe there is sufficient data to conclude that climate change is impacted by human activities. Yes, there have been many cooling and warming cycles, but this is the first with a human cause. Climate change models are proven effective using a method called "hindcasting." The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions about the future would be wrong.

Look, I can do this all day, but so can you. Look beyond the perpetrators of climate change denial at the real, non partisan, scientifically vetted evidence. It's easy, and it doesn't take much time.

Comment #5 by John Onamas on 2014 02 21

Art Schaper, there is NO SUCH THING as historical science, at least the way that you use it. Science is based on observable data, no matter when the data was produced. This is a term that has been butchered and misused by people who believe that dinosaurs and man walked side by side. Are you one of them?

Comment #6 by John Onamas on 2014 02 21

John,

Ah yes, the consensus argument vice proof in the form of a model that actually works. Need I mention the consensus in the past that the earth was flat? That the sun circled the earth? Lemmings often follow the "group consensus" over the cliff. Note--stop and think.

As for "hindsight modeling"--seriously? LOL!!!! You call constantly changing one's data and assumptions to make a model mirror the past means it can predict the future? If you really believe that, I have a model that can predict the stock market! It is 100% accurate as of yesterday. Want to buy it? LOL!!!! Thanks for the laugh.....

Comment #7 by Jimmy LaRouche on 2014 02 21

Jimmy, you beat me to the "consensus science" point, but here goes anyway:

Science does not operate by consensus. It operates by inquiry, observation, and most of all, skepticism.

I recall some leading proponents stating that by 2015 the effects of global warming would be irreversible. If that's so, we're doomed no matter what we do. However, I don't expect to be picking tomatoes in the Yukon anytime soon. I do expect those scientists will move their deadline up, though.

Comment #8 by Art West on 2014 02 21

"I have absolutely no patience with people who believe that Ayn Rand is a prophet, that dinosaurs and humans walked side by side, and don't understand (and don't bother to try to understand) the difference between climate and weather. "

Where does all this raging rhetoric about Ayn Rand come from? As for me, I do not support Rand's Objectivistic --- solipsistic, atheistic, egoist. Not grounded in reality, no recognition of the fallen, fallible world which we live in.

Regarding dinosaurs and humans, archeological evidence has affirmed the likelihood of a such a correlation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-humans-and-dinosaurs-coexisted-2013-4

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2416

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-10/16/c_131194282.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvHII6Vv06s

Left-leaning arguments always attack and demean people, never resort to presentations of evidence, and fail every time.

Time to change the political climate in Rhode Island -- away from down-pour progressivism and uplifting, sunny free markets, free enterprise, free people.

Comment #9 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 02 21

John wrote:

Art, the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a compound that the EPA is required to regulate under the Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter on truth and consensus. At one time, the US Supreme Court rules that African-Americans have no rights that white men were bound to respect. The Supreme Court also upheld segregation, the internment of the Japanese, and the unjust, unconstitutional overreach of eminent domain (Kelo v. New London)

The Supreme Court does not stand as a final scientific authority.

Comment #10 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 02 21

John also wrote:

"there is NO SUCH THING as historical science, at least the way that you use it. Science is based on observable data, no matter when the data was produced."

Here's one discussion of the two terms (granted, the site disputes the value of historical science, but the discussion exists)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science

Drawing conclusions from extant evidence about extinct life is a slippery set of arguments which climate alarmists rely on. Yet present evidence record prior patterns affirms that "climate change" is not something to be scared by or take seriously.

Now, if science is based on observable, testable data, then discussions issues regarding the origin of life falls out of the domain of science, since the discussion/discovery of origins cannot be tested, verified, proved, disproved.

Climate change alarmism starts from a false premise, then advances an agenda with diverse yet inconsistent data.

Comment #11 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 02 21

John then wrote:

""This is a term that has been butchered and misused by people who believe that dinosaurs and man walked side by side. Are you one of them?"

Are you one of those people that believe simple organisms over time evolved into complex creatures, or that human beings are somehow descendants of chimps and apes? Yikes! Just writing out such a view is very disconcerting, especially when the evidence for such a theory of origins has little evidence to support any part of it.

Comment #12 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 02 21

More evidence which suggests that dinosaurs and human beings coexisted. Evidence, not just opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=evidence for dinosaurs and men&sm=3

John and anyone else are more than welcome to dispute claims and views, but must provide something more than shame, blame, and reproach -- all of which expose that left-leaning, or establishment arguments have no basis in truth.

Comment #13 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 02 21

Good stuff. I enjoy knowing what other people are thinking. Here are some of my favorite arguments. Jimmy says (paraphrasing) that climate change is untrue because too many scientists believe in it. Arthur does believe that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time. He also believes that historical science is a valid point of view. Sorry, but that idea was made up by non-scientists to defeat science.

"Are you one of those people that believe simple organisms over time evolved into complex creatures, or that human beings are somehow descendants of chimps and apes? Yikes! Just writing out such a view is very disconcerting, especially when the evidence for such a theory of origins has little evidence to support any part of it."

Um, yes, you roughly described evolution. I'm sorry if it makes you feel icky. However, it's a common misconception that humans evolved from apes. Actually, both species likely evolved from a common, more primitive, ancestor. Chimps and humans share roughly 99.3% of their DNA. I'm not ruling out the intervention of a divinity. It seems to me that .07% of our DNA is not sufficient to explain the vast differences in intellect and creativity between chimps and apes, and that "spark" may have come from a higher source.

Fact is, I've read most of the arguments from both sides, which is something I doubt that anyone else on this board can claim, at least truthfully.

I have no problem with anyone's faith, but when faith poses as science and interjects itself into policy-making decisions, it's a real problem. It's holding back this country's ability to be scientifically literate and to compete with scientifically literate societies.

Comment #14 by John Onamas on 2014 02 21

WE NEED A POLITICAL CLIMATE CHANGE!

Comment #15 by LENNY BRUCE on 2014 02 22

John states "Jimmy says (paraphrasing) that climate change is untrue because too many scientists believe in it."

Garbage, John. That's your biased, faulty interpretation--which is common in your posts. Still laughing about your hindsight modeling though--you go too far for the comedy....

Comment #16 by Jimmy LaRouche on 2014 02 24

I'll be playing here all week...

Comment #17 by John Onamas on 2014 02 24

Climate change happens, the Earth isn't exactly the same distance from the Sun year to year. The Sun doesn't act the same year to year. The Earth to Moon distance also changes on a regular basis. Volcanos explode, earthquakes happen and massive flooding and receding of water occurs. The Continents were at one time combined. The Earthquake in Chile shifted the Earth's axis. All these affect the weather patterns and climate of the planet.

Some of us are not so egomaniacal to believe we have anything to do with it.

The whole climate change thing is just another "never let a good crisis go to waste".

As the dictator Adam Sutler said in V for Vendetta, "We have to remind them(the citizens) how much they need us(the government)".

Comment #18 by Wuggly Ump on 2014 02 25

Wuggly Ump wrotes:

"The whole climate change thing is just another "never let a good crisis go to waste".

As the dictator Adam Sutler said in V for Vendetta, "We have to remind them(the citizens) how much they need us(the government)".

Exactly! Climate change is a hyped up political agenda with government encroachment and overreach at its core.

The only reason environmental bullies have gotten away with pushing this agenda is that critics in the science community were afraid of being castigated as "flat earthers".

Scorn the shame and tell people the truth. Climate change is not a serious issue. Shame on our leaders for trying to fool all the people all the time!

Thanks again for reading, everyone!

Comment #19 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 02 25

Wuggly Ump and Arthur, that sounds like an admission that you believe climate change is occurring. That's progress, I guess.

It's correct that climate change has occurred in the past. Through field research (ice core samples and tree rings, for instance), laboratory study, mathematical models, and a growing body of knowledge about the earth's systems, the causes of those warming cycles have been identified as increased solar activity, volcanic eruptions, or other identifiable natural causes.

Here's the difference with the current warming trend. Those natural factors can now be identified and their effect measured, and scientists have determined they are not the cause of the current warming cycle. On the other hand, over the last 150 years or so (roughly coinciding with industrialization and the burning of large amounts of fossil fuels)greenhouse gases have increased by 40%.

The is measurable and the effects are provable through many of the same methods (and others) used to study past climate change events.

If you believe that "Climate change is a hyped up political agenda with government encroachment and overreach at its core," then you must also believe that thousands of legitimate scientists from all over the world are falsifying their peer reviewed data as part of the most massive conspiracy in human history. To what end?

As for the belief that "Climate change is not a serious issue," the United States Navy and Army Corps of Engineers disagree.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/11/study-storms-would-submerge-norfolk-naval-station

Comment #20 by John Onamas on 2014 02 26




Write your comment...

You must be logged in to post comments.