Hilarious empty threats on ACB confirmation from ‘ClimatePower2020’

From the “press releases I couldn’t finish reading because I was laughing so hard” department. The fear is palpable, the humor, divine, the organization- just another dark money “act blue” beneficiary, IMHO.

For Immediate Release: October 22, 2020
Contact: press@climatepower2020.org 

America Can’t Afford Another Climate Denier on the Supreme Court, Barrett Backers Will Pay a Price with Voters Washington, D.C. – Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-0 to advance the nomination of Supreme Court nominee and climate denier Amy Coney Barrett during a sham vote that was boycotted by the Democratic members of the committee.

On Tuesday, in her written responses to Questions for the Record, Barrett quadrupled down on her climate denial, refusing once again to answer questions about climate change and other key environmental issues, including the landmark 5-4 Massachusetts v. EPA climate decision, the Waters of the United States Rule, auto emissions, coal emissions, and the National Climate Assessment. She responded that climate change is a “political controversy” and her views are “not relevant to my job as a judge.” 

These disturbing answers follow last week’s disqualifying responses to similar questions at her confirmation hearings, during which she called climate change a “contentious matter” despite universal-acknowledgment from scientists and experts that human action is fueling the crisis. In response to a question from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Barrett said she does not “have views that are informed enough.” Later, under questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris, Barrett refused to agree that climate change is threatening clean air and water, referring to climate change as too “contentious” and “controversial” to weigh in on. “I’m not a scientist” and similar refrains echoed by Barrett are long-used diversion tactics employed by Republicans to dodge questions on climate change and their anti-science records. 

“The Republican senators who voted to move Barrett forward today are about to find out that voters will hold them accountable for rushing a climate denier onto the Supreme Court,” said Climate Power 2020 Executive Director Lori Lodes. “This sham process has been an affront to the voters, who deserve a voice when it comes to the future of the Supreme Court and climate action. The last thing our country can afford is a climate denier who will use her lifetime seat on the Supreme Court to block climate action and roll back our environmental laws for decades to come. Make no mistake, this illegitimate push to install Barrett will only further energize tens of millions of Americans who are already rushing to the polls to vote for climate.”

In addition to her outright climate denial and refusal to answer important questions on key climate and environmental issues, Barrett also refused to commit to recusing herself from cases involving Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), where her father has served in leadership roles for decades. API is Big Oil’s lobby shop in Washington and is expected to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat clean energy and climate legislation under a Biden administration. Polluter front groups like API regularly challenge clean air and clean water regulations and it’s highly likely that Barrett could be a deciding vote in those cases.

Barrett’s climate denial is politically harmful for a number of Republican senators running for re-election in tight races this November. Sens. Lindsey Graham, Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, and John Cornyn – all members of the Judiciary Committee —  will have to account to voters for their decision to elevate a climate denier despite increasing support by voters in their respective states for climate action.

Sens. Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Susan Collins, and Kelly Loeffler are running behind their challenges and have faced heavy criticism over their climate denial throughout the election. Barrett’s decision to deny climate change multiple times over the course of the hearing will force these senators to further justify their support of her nomination to their climate-conscious voters.

###

92 thoughts on “Hilarious empty threats on ACB confirmation from ‘ClimatePower2020’

    • The Climate Cabal has long passed the concept of Logical Thought. (If they ever even possessed any thoughts resembling logic in the first place)

      • Logical thought has never been part of the Cabal’s repertoire and hurling abuse like ‘denier’ was there from pretty much the get go because deep down even they know its a flimsy flamsy proposition at best but hey its not about the science, its about ‘the science’ being a vector to funding, influence and ultimately power.

      • Please try to recognise that “logical thought” is just yet another manifestation of the white colonial patriarchy, sadly part of your birth defects which you can never change. You’re damned, get used to it. My critical lesbian-dance theory professor explained it all to me years ago.

        If you think that 2+4=4 , think again. Check your privilege ! Don’t you realise what “the science” means? It means that there is no longer any plurality , discussion, investigation and descent. That is what used to be called science. Don’t confuse that with “the science”. “The Science” is a monolithic dogma with only one view and one outcome, which is thus beyond question. You eiher accept it in its entirety or you are a science denyyyyer. That is why we now say “the science” instead of science. Whenever someone says “the science” it means you are not allowed to question what they say. Don’t bother to search for data, any data which does not fit “the science” is wrong data. Period.

        Your quaint notions of science, logical deduction and proof are soooo 20th century.

        Fortunately all of you old white farts are dying off now, so soon the world will be able to fall apart quite happily without any of that annoying, complicated STEM rubbish to get in the way.

    • For Climate McCarthyists, “climate denier” means “independent thinker” or equivalently “someone so broken that our indoctrination and intimidation was unsuccessful.”

      • McCarthy was right about left-wing infiltration. Climate denier is modeled on the left’s Pro-Choice quasi-religion (“ethics”) that denies life deemed unworthy of life, diversity of color, sociopolitical consensus, democratic gerrymandering, and corporate collusion. The second, in particular, is part of a social racket that forces businesses, organization, and people to kneel for a home, a job, a life, etc.

    • Somebody please tell me, in 15 words or less, using simple kindergarten language, how we humans can control “climate” when we can’t even control our own G.I. tracts?

      All those propaganda “trigger” words and phrases are wearing thin.

  1. From the “press releases I couldn’t finish reading because I was laughing so hard”

    I didn’t find it funny at all. If these people get their way, my grandchildren will live under a failed economy and the brainwashing will continue. Re-education centers are probably not out of the question.

    • I agree – I NEVER found any humor in any of this, because I saw we were heading right where we are.

      It was the only POSSIBLE destination.

    • Unless you’re really young, it’s yourself, not your grandchildren to be worried about. Winter is coming. (and right soon)

    • It will be interesting to see how they handle the reality of the coming cooling.

      I have been waiting to see reports on the cold weather they have been having all week in Montana and the Dakotas – snow and temperatures below freezing. I pity the poor farmers there.

      • It’s cold and raining in NE Illinois and I expect snow at night early next week. That’s the NWS weather forecast and they’re fairly accurate.

    • It reminds me of the video of Pelosi, when salons were still shut down in San Francisco, after getting her shampooed (dyed?), walking MASKLESS walking through a hair salon to the next station.
      And then, after she got caught and the video was released, claiming she was “set up” and salon owed HER and apology. Absurd.
      I found that last to be hilarious. Sad. But hilarious.
      This press release is along those lines.
      That group’s claims are Absurd.
      I have a book of absurd “Warning Labels”. Most are … stupid … but required. (“Don’t use this hair dryer in the shower!” kind of stuff.) Humorous, but not individually hilarious.
      But read enough of them in a row and you hit one that you really do “LOL”. Not that it stands out on it’s own, it’s the one that “broke the damn”.
      Sometimes you just have to laugh.

  2. Those four senators have faced heavy criticism over their climate denial during the election. Who from? In what way has it been expressed?

    Tonyb

    • Loeffler’s only trouble is her connection to Governor Kemp. He is considered a bit of an idiot by both parties, he was however the lessor of two idiots in the governor election last time (opponent was the odious Stacey Abrams). When he appointed Loeffler to the senate, she became immediately suspect, especially since the president and many others had suggested Congressman Collins to be appointed. Georgia really isn’t a CAGW state, though the colleges are all-in for it. She also suffers from her connection to the WNBA, as the league keeps churning out left-wing idiocy and as a team owner, it splashes back on her.

  3. Anthony, you began your post with, “From the ‘press releases I couldn’t finish reading because I was laughing so hard’ department.”

    Agreed!

    Regards,
    Bob

    PS: Stay safe and healthy, all.

  4. The actual state of the climate should be irrelevant to a judge as their role is strictly to assess the constitutional legality of laws and regulations. I am not supportive of the ACA, but Robert’s interpretation of the individual mandate “penalty” which is not a constitutional authority as actually a “tax” which congress is explicitly authorized to levy was in fact reasonable logic. Yes, it allowed the legislative branch to secure enough seats to pass it using semantic camouflage, but most all politicians (DJT being a notable exception I think) lie to the electorate and they are accountable to the people in future elections when they do so. Not so a judge who serves for life.

    So if the progressive movement wants to end fossil fuels there is a constitutional mechanism to do so. It is called winning elections and crafting law that passes constitutional muster to do so. And if they do that, then ACB will be no impediment at all.

    • “So if the progressive movement wants to end fossil fuels there is a constitutional mechanism to do so. It is called winning elections and crafting law that passes constitutional muster to do so. And if they do that, then ACB will be no impediment at all.”

      +10

      • That’s more along the lines of what The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent.
        The Constitution formed a Government powerful enough to defend or to usurp individual rights.
        (The previous attempt at forming a Government to realize the ideals expressed in The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, was designed to be to weak to usurp rights but it was also to weak to defend them.)
        The Bill of Rights put limits on that new attempt at a Government that would realize the ideals expressed in The Declaration of Independence.
        We’ve drifted far from that.
        ACB as part of SCOTUS will be a big step in the intended direction.

      • “Where in the Constitution does it say that the rights of the individual can be legislated away?”

        I’m pretty sure it’s the commerce clause.
        The one that says that the government can regulate everything and there is no limits to government power.

        • Commerce requires two. Individual rights, most notably the right to life, freedom from diversity (i.e. color judgment) and exclusion, are denied under the Twilight Amendment (i.e. penumbras and emanation).

        • Yeah, the insanely broad “interpretaion” of that clause has caused no end of painful overregulation.

        • Yep. Few know of the Wickard v Filburn 1938 Supreme Court ruling.

          The logic of the decision goes like this: If you grow food for your family, then you won’t be buying that product at retail outlets. That means there will be less demand for the product. Less demand means lower prices. All food is involved in interstate commerce. Government can regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, including what may impact its value.

          Therefore, the government has the power to tell you what you can or cannot grow on your land to feed your family.

          I kid you not. Look it up.

    • “The actual state of the climate should be irrelevant to a judge as their role is strictly to assess the constitutional legality of laws and regulations.”

      Exactly!

      The alarmists are complaining because Judge Barrett is not a judicial activist.

    • The ACA is inherently UNCONSTITUTIONAL since the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7) requires that “tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not.” See: Obamacare’s Unconstitutional Origins Andrew McCarthy, National Review
      The Senate’s slight of hand and Robert’s transformation of “penalty” to “tax” do not correct that severe illegality.
      https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/10/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy/
      Similarly “Climate Change” cannot be an “existential threat”, compared to a massive asteroid impact or nuclear war by Russia or China.

  5. Headline- “Democrat activists argue that Republicans should vote against R senators who kept promise to Republican voters- persuade nobody.” That’s your Climate Communications dollars at work.

    • Essentially they are convincing people who hate everything Trump promised to do that Trump is bad and they think it’s a “strategy”.

  6. That her views are “not relevant to [her] job as a judge” is “disturbing”, is telling — apparently someone doesn’t understand separation-of-powers. Popular press coverage of SCOTUS proceedings often doesn’t explain the narrow scope of the “question posed” that is typical of cert grants, and instead reports on the practical effect of the ruling, which is actually (and should be) a result of the underlying law.

  7. … refusing once again to answer questions …

    She is supposed to judge cases based on the facts and arguments presented in court, not on any preconceived notions she may bring with her. The Democrats’ reaction to her stance tells you all you need to know about them.

  8. That her views are “not relevant to [her] job as a judge” is “disturbing”, is telling — apparently someone doesn’t understand separation-of-powers.

    Excellent point !

    But it works both ways, for example, the supreme court liberals didn’t understand, well they probably did but ignored, the eminent domain for public use clause in the 2005 Kelo decision.

  9. Climate : the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place.

    (Cambridge Dictionary).

    So what is a “climate denier” ? How can one be so dumb to call someone “climate denier” ?

    • Petit_Barde,

      The problem is the definition of climate, which will never be resolved btw.

      “Climate : the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place.”

      What’s not a general weather condition in a particular place? Ice storm in the Sahara? Doesn’t “general” allow for exceptions? Climate can be whatever you want it to be. It’s not science.

      Andrew

    • There are an awful lot of dumb people around these days. They are mostly the product of a dumbed-down education system.

    • Realize that “climate” these days is held as dogma whose equivalents in past times were such cult followings as spiritualism, phrenology, resurrection, infallibility.

      Oh wait, that last one is still going strong. These days called “climate models”

      • Over a period of 10, 30, 100, 1000 years or more. On the other hand, changes in the sociopolitical environment occur over shorter periods and are first-order forcings of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (e.g. Great Leap, one/selective-child, redistributive/retributive change, immigration reform).

    • With cold weather causing a rainfall of iguanas et al, I foresee lizard tails as climate dinner. Yum. Tastes like chicken!

  10. The Guardian (“Facts are sacred”, so we ration them) has a big panic about late ice formation in the Arctic, specifically the Laptev Sea. I can help them out. There is no ice there because it has spent large parts of the last month with a jetstream over it dragging up warm air from the South.

  11. The ignorance displayed by the press release is amazing: Calling the vote a “sham,” referring to the API as a “lobby shop,” failure to grasp the concept of separation of powers, and the use of “denier,” all reveal unwillingness or inability to get informed regarding the real world.

  12. She handled the CC questions very well, refusing to let herself be drawn into a politically charged debate topic, in fact defusing the whole plot line of the questioning. The fact that her statements susequently are used to declare her a “CC denier” just shows some people are completely koo-koo….

    • The actual question from Kamala Harris to Amy Barrett was “And you believe climate change is happening and threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?“. I doubt that there is a single scientist – climate or other – that thinks climate change threatens the air we breathe or the water we drink. Did any mainstream media outlet pick up this absurdity of this part of Kamala Harris’s question?

  13. Well it makes perfect sense since these radical environmentalists view the Supreme Court as just another legislative body obligated to rubber stamp their socialist dreams.

  14. Is Lori Lodes the one that worked for the Service Employees International Union, friend of Hillary, and other notorious characters?

    Anyway, this one doesn’t know much about climate or the process of replacing judicial appointees.
    All hat and no cattle </em"
    Other idioms might fit better.

  15. Various job descriptions as defined by @climatepower, whatever that means:
    Brain Surgeon:
    1. Ensure surgery is carried out in a carbon neutral way with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved
    2. Ensure your team is inclusive and diverse across racial and gender lines with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved
    3. Demonstrate some knowledge of brain surgery and show how oppressed members of your team will have equal say in all surgical decisions.

    Food Producer:
    1. Ensure farming is carried out in a carbon neutral way with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved
    2. Ensure your farming team is inclusive and diverse across racial and gender lines with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved
    3. Demonstrate some knowledge of farming and show how oppressed members of your team will have equal say in all farming decisions.

    Army General:
    1. Ensure the army is carried out in a carbon neutral way with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved
    2. Ensure your fighting force is inclusive and diverse across racial and gender lines with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved
    3. Demonstrate some knowledge of warfare and show how oppressed members of your team will have equal say in all military decisions.

    Bio Chemist:
    1. Ensure your laboratory work is carried out in a carbon neutral way with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved
    2. Ensure your lab team is inclusive and diverse across racial and gender lines with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved
    3. Demonstrate some knowledge of Bio Chemistry and show how oppressed members of your team will have equal say in all scientific decisions.

    Applies to all jobs?

    • Huh. Well, I suppose they can just stop eating then. Problem will take care of itself in about a month, I’m guessing.

    • Diversity (i.e. color judgment) and exclusion under the ostensibly “secular” Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic, politically congruent (“=”) quasi-religion (“ethics”) of the Progressive Church. Diversity dogma denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, normalizes color blocs, color quotas, and affirmative discrimination, not limited to ageism, racism, and sexism, masculinism and feminism, respectively.

    • “1. Ensure farming is carried out in a carbon neutral way with a detailed plan of how this will be achieved” this has to be one of the more stupider/stupidest statements ever, but given it was from a greenie not surprised, they tear down forest to put up windmills, farmers are probably the most carbon neutral professions there is, matter of fact they probably produce more o2 then they put out in co2

  16. Sounds like ACB is aware climate has been hijacked by socialists and climate shysterz are peeing on our feet telling us it’s raining

  17. The Democrats, knowing they had no chance of shooting down the Barrett nomination, so instead engaged in political theater and moral grandstanding. I guess they may have hoped beyond hope that Judge Barrett would slip up and actually step on one of the many landmines they set for her, but alas, she did not. She is one smart cookie.

    • Everybody wants to change the climate like world peace and fluffy kittens. Just don’t ask them to dip into their pocket for it as they’re not that stupid. Some free light bulbs draught stoppers pink batts rooftop solar subsidies and the like that’s OK but never ever make waves with the stupid tax.

  18. So, to mitigate [sociopolitical] climate change, the advice is to vote for the incumbent. Four more years to hold people accountable for past, present, and future transgressions, and mitigate their progress. We can further flatten the curve of social contagion by pinning the tail on the Donkey and unwind the tales spun by the JournoListic axis. Baby steps.

  19. To climatepower2020.org,
    Your press release above has this most incredibly stupid assertion: “. . .despite universal-acknowledgment from scientists and experts that human action is fueling the crisis.”

    I am a scientist and engineer and I, for one, DO NOT acknowledge that human action is fueling the (climate) crises.

    There goes your “universal-acknowledgement” claim. Sic transit gloria.

    • These types do not care to know, and read nothing.
      So like a small child with an invisible friend,
      they just make stuff up.

    • “I am a scientist and engineer and I, for one, DO NOT acknowledge that human action is fueling the (climate) crises.”

      Radical Leftists assume they speak for everyone. It’s another one of their many delusions.

      I too do not agree that human action is fueling the climate “crisis”. What climate crisis?

  20. The game is up. It has been up for many years, we know climate change is a thin front for post-modernist policy. And quite frankly, you can shove that BS where the sun doesnt shine.

  21. This amusing, overwrought ploy is also somewhat educational. We have long understood that climate-scarism is pushed as a way for the statists to gain more power; that it is politically motivated. But this letter further clarifies that linkage which has rarely been so thinly disguised. It makes me wonder how convincing the scientific case against “CO2 will kill billions” would have to be before the scare purveyors would be seen as kooks rather than “science” proponents.

  22. Climate Power 2020 is an independently run project created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club.

    We are a team of political strategists determined to change the politics of climate in 2020 in order to build the momentum necessary for bold action in 2021.
    https://www.climatepower2020.org/about/

    Yet more Big Geen funded climate crazies.

Comments are closed.