Joe Henderson
U.S. Rep. Ross Spano apparently understands as much about global climate change as he does U.S. campaign finance law.
In other words, not much.
During an interview on WFLA’s “Politics on Your Side” with host Evan Donovan over the weekend, Spano, a Republican, went all-in as a denier. He said he needs proof that humans have had a major role in creating the increasingly dangerous climate swings we see.
But here’s the thing about people like Spano. There will never be enough proof to convince him and fellow disbelievers that they are wrong. You could have the good Lord split the heavens and announce, “Uh, Ross? Humans caused this,” and even that wouldn’t be good enough.
He’d accuse God of being a liberal Democrat.
Why is that?
Because it’s not about science and taking action to mitigate a catastrophe, it’s about money.
It always has been.
At one point during the interview, Spano said, “… what is the cost of addressing it? What is the cost? Are we willing to accept the cost?”
That was the same argument opponents made in the 1960s and ‘70s when smog caked cities across the country and pollution choked rivers and lakes. They said new stringent environmental laws would have a catastrophic effect on the economy.
Fortunately, they lost. There were major changes to laws governing the amount of lead in auto fuel and pollutants spewed from factory smokestacks.
Before the Clean Air Act passed in 1970, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 88 percent of U.S. children had elevated levels of lead in their blood. By 1995, that was down to 4 percent.
That’s called science.
But Spano countered with fake news to prove his pointless point. Don’t you hate it when that happens?
He mentioned a Time magazine cover from 1977 that warned readers they needed to prepare for the coming Ice Age. The only problem is that Time never published that cover or wrote that story. It was one of those Internet things that someone made up so people like Spano would quote it as fact.
Meanwhile, the Greenland ice sheet is melting at an alarming rate. It dumped 197 billion gallons of water into the North Atlantic in July. That water has to go somewhere. Scientists say Florida coastal cities need to prepare for the worst.
Spano is in his first, and possibly last, term in Congress, representing Florida’s 15th congressional district that covers parts of Hillsborough, Polk, and Lake counties. Challengers for his seat are already lining up.
He was in trouble before he even took his seat in Congress over loans he used to help finance his campaign. He admitted in filings that $180,000 in personal loans he took out from two major supporters “may have been in violation” of Federal Election Commission regulations.
Spano’s excuse was that he didn’t know it was against the rules.
How are the issues of the loans and Spano’s climate stance related? Well, the loans helped put him in Congress, where he gets to vote on issues related to the environment.
And that’s why this exchange between Donovan and Spano merits special consideration.
When Donovan noted that 98 percent of experts believe humans are responsible for climate change, Spano said, “Let’s get into a detailed conversation about it, right? Rather than to say 98 percent of the experts believe it, well you must be stupid.”
First off, sir, there have been plenty of detailed studies. But proceed.
Donovan answered that if 98 percent of doctors tell him he has cancer, he’s not going to listen to the remaining 2 percent that might be skeptical.
Spano replied, “There was one time in the medical field where bloodletting was an accepted form of treatment.”
That statement is an accepted form of sticking your head in the sand. Now that is a subject on which Spano is an expert.
2 comments
Ray Blacklidge
August 6, 2019 at 9:03 pm
Joe, yes we have climate changes on Earth, if we didn’t we’d still be sitting in the Ice Age. However many so called environmental laws were passed not to scientifically address problems but rather to capitalize on the environmental movement to make a few politicians and liberal businesses $billions of dollars. Like Al Gore and carbon credits. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/amp/
Henderson misses the mark again when he talks about lead levels in children while arguing that the Clean Air Act fixed that problem. Henderson is wrong, two efforts lowered lead in children, first removing lead water supply pipes and replacing them and removing lead paint from residential homes.
Henderson has really gone wacky attacking Spanos, 70’s Ice Age Quotes. Again the author is wrong Mainstream Media
What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article “The Cooling World” that suggested cooling “may portend a drastic decline for food production.”
“Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”
A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:
“When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”
This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: “…there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities… The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.
In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus…
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
So Henderson when you do a hit piece on a Republican for the Democrats you perhaps should FACT Check first because you missed on many levels.
Ron Ogden
August 7, 2019 at 8:05 am
Mr. Henderson, scientists have found evidence of human habitation on land now well under water many miles west of our coastline. Climate change is constant, and it cycles. There may be a short term uptick in the rate of change. Human activity may have something to do with it. But rather than engage in the over-dramatization that columnists like you so love to do, good political leaders rightly discharge their duties when they consider the costs of action, not only in terms of dollars but in terms of good work balance across the range of government options and political desires. Congressman Spano is doing his job. And, I guess, so are you–if, as it appears to be, your job is to help elect Democrats.
Comments are closed.