Why denial of Manmade Climate Change is a marker for a bad political leader.

The job of president is a job in which you make large decisions on subjects where you are not an expert.

It requires intellectual rigor. It requires the ability to assess what experts in a field are saying.  To decide what the essential facts are from those experts.

If, in the face of an overwhelming consensus from experts in the field,  you decide that a tiny non-expert minority are correct, you do not own the most basic requirement for being President.

The ability to make a decision based on information from experts is a  PRIMARY JOB REQUIREMENT and they show they can’t do it when they deny manmade climate change.

Some of the climate change deniers may actually believe the climate change science, but are willing to take the denier stance because its politically in their best interest.

The second great indicator of a leader is the ability to do the right thing even when this might not work in their personal interest.   In other words integrity.  This one is where probably the entire field for 2016 fails, but its hard to pick out unless they deny climate change.

So if the Presidential Candidate is a climate change denier he/she is either unable to make good decisions based on evidence from experts – ie their entire prospective job, or they have integrity problems, which means nothing they say can be relied on.

Its a red flag for me.  Climate Change Denier = NOPE.

10 thoughts on “Why denial of Manmade Climate Change is a marker for a bad political leader.

  1. Well said. The nation and planet can not afford a President who denies climate change is man-influenced. But, it is more than just climate change. Per the World Economic Forum in their 2015 Global Risks Report the two greatest risks facing our planet are a global water crisis and not responding to climate change. The latter will make the former worse on top of other things. Shifting faster to renewable energy will help on both as renewables need not use water as does powering with or obtaining fossil fuels.

    I have not heard any candidate speak to our water crisis and our GOP candidates are too influenced by fossil fuel money to agree with the rest of the world on climate change. We have about a ten year window to act. Fortunately, we have reached a tipping point with renewable energy. Sorry for the soapbox, but I wanted you to know how pertinent your post is. Many thanks, Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The water thing is rarely discussed in politics. In America its hard for us to fathom a water crisis. Well except the folks on the West Coast. They are getting a small taste.


      1. You are so right. What did not get much press is for several summers in a row, farmers and frackers were fighting over water in Kansas, California and Texas. Here in North Carolina, Duke Energy says they lose 1-2% of water a day due to dissipated steam from their fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, plus they project an additional 11% of reservoir water to evaporate due to climate change. If climate change is not happening per the GOP, why would Duke Energy factor that into its model? Please keep up the good work. Keith

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Very well said! If they really believe the science is wrong, then they know so little about how science actually works that they should be disqualified from any position that requires using critical thinking. If they do believe it and are doing it to garner votes or money from the fossil fuel industry, then they also should be disqualified because they’re so callous that they are willing to put their own welfare ahead of the entire planet’s.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I think that climate change will always occur. Aren’t we still warming from the Younger Dryas period? The question is if human activity is accelerating it. The problem with finding out the truth is that it’s become a political debate, and if you disagree with the facts, you’re a denier, and it’s levied against you in a dismissive way, insulting ones intelligence. Both sides can provide ‘facts’ for it. The worst part about the debate is that if you challenge the science based on some perceived corruption, like the East Anglia email scandal, then you wonder if there is an ulterior motive. Unfortunately, cash is king, and it has corrupted academia before. Just my two cents, adjusted for inflation.


    1. The overwhelming (98%)consensus of unrelated scientists based on evidence is that is it manmade.

      I’m not sure there is ANY evidence that there is a corruption by cash in climate change. There are a lot of political suggestions that there is though. Science isn’t like politics. The process of science lies in having your work scrutinized and picked apart by other scientists. Evidence and method are king. A bias bought with cash will be eventually be revealed.

      Eight committees investigated the allegations in the email scandal, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

      But in any case – Climate Change is happening and is and will continue to cause massive, costly and deadly problems. It needs to be addressed.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Unfortunately, there is plenty of corruption. There is always corruption when money is involved, i.e., carbon credits..
        I agree, a bias bought with case will be revealed, so time will tell.
        There’s no doubt that there is climate change, and that will always occur, with humans or not. Here’s an interesting speech by var Giaever,the Nobel Laureate, on global warming/climate change:

        Thanks for posting this! It’s always an excellent exercise to view each others positions on these matters.


      2. Ivar Giaever is NOT a climate scientist. And has never done any climate science and seems to basing his claims on half a day researching on google (his words – not an exaggeration on my part.), which he then expressed and has been quoted ever since.

        The Homewood Blog and Booker have been proven false as well. But more importantly – the science isn’t about one place. Its about lots of different measurements of different evidence. The whole picture continues to show manmade.

        The point is that if you aren’t an expert, and 97% all of the experts agree, you have to conclude that the experts are correct.

        People continue to think its money corrupting the science, but don’t look at the money funding all of the climate skeptic information.

        There is a great deal of power and money pushing the climate skeptic view point. People like Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Koch brothers.

        They have a great deal to lose if legislation to adjust for climate change is put through. Relative to how much they will lose, it doesn’t cost that much to put doubt in the air and delay legislation.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. And neither is Al Gore a scientist, and he has a lot of financial assets at stake as well. That’s why I believe that there has and will be corruption. I also think that it’s sensible to always do what’s good for the environment. But, I think that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this topic. Thank you for being very civil in this discourse. Sometimes it gets quite nasty on the web when there are disagreements.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s