Support NeoGAF

[AstroNut325]

So this video came across my YouTube recommendations today and I found it quite interesting.

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Q8Nm4ksVU

Brief summary:
Video is simply a concatenation of various USA politicians expressing their stance on Climate Change/Global Warming since the year 2006. The video also shows the global average temperate rise and the decline of arctic sea ice that corresponds to each time frame of the politician speaking through the entire length the video. It starts with Al Gore, but then quickly shifts to predominantly Republican politicians.

Up until 2008, there was agreement from the Republicans that Global Warming and Climate Change were serious issues caused by mankind requiring direct action from governments. After 2008, in the blink of an eye, Republicans take a hard line, anti-science stance on Climate Change.

There are no statements or any kind of analysis provided by anyone from Vox within the video. Just speeches and comments directly from politicians.

My take:
How did this happen? We have direct footage of many hard right conservatives such as SARAH PALIN recognizing global warming. Then, after 2008, every single right wing politician in the USA started denying Climate Change and also started taking very anti-science positions. WTF? Gingrich, Romney, McCain, Boehner, Lieberman, and others... all were embracing scientific data and were willing to tackle the issue of climate change.

WHAT HAPPENED? Why is it that Obama shows up on the scene and EVERY right wing politician decides to lose all means of grounded reality.

Is it race? Is it bitterness? Is it sudden realization that their fossil fuel industries would suffer? Or the FF lobbies just went into ultra-overdrive?

I'm trying to comprehend this, and it pains me to see this.

 

[markofhavoc]

Obama was for it

 

[alr1ght]

WHAT HAPPENED? Why is it that Obama shows up on the scene and EVERY right wing politician decides to lose all means of grounded reality.

Is it race? Is it bitterness? Is it sudden realization that their fossil fuel industries would suffer? Or the FF lobbies just went into ultra-overdrive?

He's black + the money from fossil fuel industries "sponsors" the politicians and the "news" programs their constituents watch.

 

[nel e nel]

Is it race?

Yes.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Obama was for it

This is your answer.

 

[sans_pants]

I think Obama was a damn good president all things considered but do you think wed have been better off with mccain?

not from a policy standpoint, just the insane backlash being taken out of the equation

 

[Ottaro]

I think Obama was a damn good president all things considered but do you think wed have been better off with mccain?

not from a policy standpoint, just the insane backlash being taken out of the equation

If it hadn't happened now it would have happened eventually.

 

[Lautaro]

Holy shit, that was depressing.

 

[TestOfTide]

When I was working for the democratic campaign, I got to meet Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who made a really great point about this:

Basically, before the Citizen's United ruling, lots of republican congressmen and senators were very open supporting clean energy bills. He even mentioned 6 examples of current republican senators who had previously supported clean energy bills.

Then, when the CU ruling happened, that all changed because suddenly you had companies who were willing to tell Republican Senators and Congressmen "Hey if you don't vote against this clean energy bill I'm gonna spend $5 million on SuperPAC to get you primaried".

As you saw, the threat worked.

So if you guys want to see more republicans supporting clean energy, well that's all the more reason we need Citizen's United overturned.

 

[Marvie_3]

If it hadn't happened now it would have happened eventually.

This. It had been bubbling under the surface for awhile.

 

[NetMapel]

I have to say, that was a bit hard to watch. Look at how these people's attitude all changed throughout the years.

 

[Vimes]

Maybe four years ago I said to my (supposedly educated, and gay) republican friend "at least we still agree on climate change." He got really quiet all of a sudden.

I stopped talking to him sometime last year, fuck that guy.

 

[AstroNut325]

When I was working for the democratic campaign, I got to meet Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who made a really great point about this:

Basically, before the Citizen's United ruling, lots of republican congressmen and senators were very open supporting clean energy bills. He even mentioned 6 examples of current republican senators who had previously supported clean energy bills.

Then, when the CU ruling happened, that all changed because suddenly you had companies who were willing to tell Republican Senators and Congressmen "Hey if you don't vote against this clean energy bill I'm gonna spend $5 million on SuperPAC to get you primaried".

As you saw, the threat worked.

So if you guys want to see more republicans supporting clean energy, well that's all the more reason we need Citizen's United overturned.

How does that happen? Wouldn't the first amendment need to be made restrictive?

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

The Bush admin was doctoring climate science research in the early/mid 2000s.

 

[EdibleKnife]

So many flip-flopping Republican worms. McCain, Romney, Newt. All just seeking to obstruct Obama and dems. No doubt even local republicans who are now giving Trump a hard time for backing out of the Paris Accord were not even a few years ago calling climate change a falsity.

 

[DietRob]

I think it is more likely that the sources behind the money their campaigns receive took a hard line stance after Obama was elected and real progression on climate change became a priority. Which now that I think about it more is right around the time Citizens United was ruled on.

The Koch brothers and other donors who were now given a very loud voice by Citizens United probably issued talking points which immediately changed the conversation. If they weren't so god damned evil the GOP could be downright impressive on how they are able to so quickly get nearly everyone in the party to change the message, stay on it, and defend it with such vigor.

I sometimes wish Dems could take those lessons of staying on message.

 

[Lunar15]

I think that had An Inconvenient Truth not been hosted by Al Gore after the extremely bitter Bush/Gore fallout, the issue would have been slightly less politicized.

Every Republican I knew back then hated the whole concept of global warming almost entirely just because it was "sore loser" Al Gore just trying to claw his way back into the limelight. That said, I think it always would have been politicized to some degree, given that back in the day it was so associated with hurting business.

 

[TestOfTide]

How does that happen? Wouldn't the first amendment need to be made restrictive?

Not really. You just need a Supreme Court make up that would overturn the idea that Corporations are people.

 

[A Serious Man]

George H.W. Bush was the last major Republican leader who was actually concerned about the issue. The fossil fuel industry was paying for fake research and creating a "debate" long before Obama showed up. Al Gore becoming the face of the issue made it easy for the right to take that fossil fuel money and look the other way, it's been a partisan issue ever since.