Friend of the blog and newest recipient of a “Seal of Approval” from the pyramid scheme of political groups known as “No Labels” Republican Congressional Candidate Gary Delong has distinguished himself this campaign in many ways. Despite his paper thin resume and list of accomplishments Delong has held his own in a heated congressional race for the better part of the last six months. Delong has managed to forgo articulating a single salient position on literally anything of concern to the voters in the 47th district while peddling blatant piles of bullshit towards the press, demonstrating a political prowess that usually takes Republicans at least two elections to fully master. His plucky individualist persona has more or less stuck with the local press (who have largely ignored the malevolent corporate special interest groups that are funding his campaign) and have instead referred to him as a “moderate” despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.
However in modern politics there is one achillies heel to a candidate who runs on pure unadulterated bullshit, and that is YouTube. Much like NBA legend Rasheed Wallace phrased how the “ball don’t lie” when discussing the objective standard for greatness in basketball, YouTube displays politicians to the world forever as the the truly shallow and horrible people that they really are. Delong, and the professionals behind his campaign, know this (all too well) and have done there best to define Delong’s web presence as neutral and uncommitted as possible, which makes the appearance of this video on Delong’s own YouTube channel simply hilarious.
Fast forward to the 10:00 minute mark and turn up the sound.
So what are we to take from this? Delong first tries in vein to obfuscate his actual stance on the issue by throwing out his usual word salad of nonsense about “regulations killing the private sector”. He then shifts to decrying about it being “the wrong time” to worry about global warming, and then finally he admits that he does not personally believe that humans are contributing to global climate change because “there are scientists on both sides”. Let’s address all three of those completely idiotic assertions on their face.
1) DAMN REGULATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM
Well Gary your friends at the Chamber might have given you that line to memorize for this event, but that does not make it true. In reality the economic effect of global climate change itself is pretty devastating given the added food costs, industrial losses caused by extreme weather, and its horrible effects on individual health. Meanwhile these California regulations that you decry are the thin line between our community becoming an unlivable wasteland like South Texas in terms of air and water quality. In fact the Cap and Trade legislation we just implemented is quite similar to the ideas pursued by that fellow “maverick” John McCain in 2008, so is he also job killing monster?
2) IT’S THE WRONG TIME TO WORRY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
Well Gary I don’t know if you have discovered this wonderful tool call Google, but if you do I suggest that you search for the phrase “Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change” and read what they have to say about the imminent dangers posed by global warming. Here are some really disturbing things to look forward to in the next few years if we continue to follow your path and do nothing:
- “Diverse Californian vegetation types may show substantial cover change for temperature increases greater than about 2°C, including desert and grassland expansion at the expense of shrublands, and mixed deciduous forest expansion at the expense of evergreen conifer forest”
- “On the West Coast, most of the California coast will see a six inch sea level rise by 2030 and an average rise of 3 feet by 2100, according to a study by the National Research Council.”
- “A group of researchers at UC Davis investigated the effect of potential climate-induced reductions in water supply to the agricultural sector. One of their findings is that the lack of water would result in reductions in irrigated crop area contributing to the loss of agricultural lands in the Central Valley. Under the particular climate change scenario investigated, the researchers also found that changes in yields (mostly negative) and changes in water availability could result in gross revenues losses of up to $3 billion by year 2050. “
Is that too much reading? Well here is a chart from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
So yeah this is kind of an immediate problem Mr. Delong.
3) THERE ARE SCIENTISTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE!
Well here Delong is technically true. There are in fact some scientists who believe that global warming is a myth or that humans have nothing to do with it. Unfortunately for Mr. Delong those scientists who agree with him are few in numbers and short on actual evidence to prove their assertion. A George Mason survey from 2010 found that the ratio of scientists who are believers to those who doubt the existence of climate change is something in the order of 97% to 3%. Delong’s advisers might also want to catch up on the latest Koch Brother’s funded study where the scientists (who were also admitted “climate skeptics”) concluded that:
Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.
Well shit Mr. Delong. It seems that despite calling yourself a “moderate” on the environment you just could not shake your inherent allegiance to the Glenn Beck’s of the world on this one teeny-tiny issue that could very well destroy the planet as we know it. Perhaps you had best stick to addressing subjects that you are better informed about, like destroying economic opportunities for low income families, or recklessly mismanaging the city’s coffers and then blaming public employee pension plans. Leave the scientific and policy debate to people who know what the hell they are talking about, like your opponent.