Our Congressman You-Know-Who draws ire of CREDO

CREDO Action, an arm of the national group Working Assets, is targeting our Congressman Tom McClintock for a “shockingly irresponsible” vote on climate change.

“As The New York Times reported earlier this month, climate change is literally contributing to the destabilization of our food system,” according to the group. “So it’s shocking that 238 members of the House, including McClintock, were more concerned with casting a vote to deny that climate change is affecting our planet than to implement a new, common-sense policy to help prepare for global warming, and plan for ways to prevent disastrous disruptions in our food supply.”

Agriculture experts are feeling “a rising unease about the future of the world’s food supply,” it says, adding: “It only makes sense that the Department of Agriculture would pursue a policy to protect our nation’s ability to grow food.”

The three-page policy broadly states that the “USDA will develop, prioritize, implement and evaluate actions to minimize climate risks and exploit new opportunities that climate change may bring.”

It adds: “Let’s make sure that we send a strong message to Congress that denying the reality of climate change is totally unacceptable.”

It pointed to a petition here.

Author: jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website SierraCulture.com. Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for years, was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News, and was Editor of The Union, a 145-year-old newspaper in Grass Valley. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing and trout fishing.

41 thoughts on “Our Congressman You-Know-Who draws ire of CREDO”

    1. Jeff, thank you for a well thought out article. I also noticed some wingnuts wetting themselves over this article.

      1. LOL. The “wetting” continues over there. Barry Pruett calls our Congressman “very popular.” He doesn’t get out of the south county much. On a more serious note, I think the real hot button on the hard right is the global warming issue. Prop. 23 lost, even in our county. Shows how angry and out of touch they are. Their involvement in the county’s “mainstream dialogue” really sets us back. Stubbornly backwater is the best description I can think of (from Judith Lowry).

    2. Thanks for the response Jeff. To think these people accuse us of not being open minded and look at different sources when it’s apparent that at least two of us here do.

  1. Oh, how nice it will be to have his behind out of our hair. Will be at least a twofer in 2012. 1. He no be our representative. 2. He no be chair or Water and Resources Committee. Two Assumes Dems take back house in 2012.

    He Thinks he knows it all on climate change. Wait till he finds out the Pentegon and major Insurance companies factor in climate change, in the case of Insurance, to cut their losses $$$.

    Don’t even get me started on so many wrong, boneheaded votes.

    1. PS: What is with the 20 year old picture? I know he has used it for years. False Advertising? What kinda psychobabble does using a photo so old it really looks nothing like one reveal?

      PSS: AARP has him under fire with the same gang of RETHUGLICANS for votes against legislation that would have addressed the “Donut Hole” in Medicare that can cost retired and/or Disabled THOUSANDS A YEAR for RX drugs. The drama playing out on the Water grab was wonderful to read as John G. pretty much ripped him specifically for starting a water war against his own constituents, at which time nobody else was lower to talk and hearing he chairs ended abruptly.

  2. Let’s make a deal: Since the issue of “global warming” had to be expanded to “climate change” for obvious reasons I am willing to make a fair compromise.

    I will sign the petition IF you can point to one “climate” event in the past five years that was more serious than any in the past two hundred years.


    1. One climate event? Climate is not a single event, but a long term trend. Maybe you are not ready to spin this issue.

  3. The “climate events” wrapped around a nuclear power plant in Nebraska and setting fire to Los Alamos Laboratory…modern 21st century climate involvement and outcomes….uh, duh…Kate

    1. Kate,

      Fires like these are not “climate” events: You can Google the stories and see that they are the result of a hundred years of bad forest management.

      They also do not constitute the largest fires in 200 years.


  4. Oh, I know John, and Crawford, TX. isn’t experiencing the worst drought in a century or two either. Keep blathering. Kate

      1. I said in an earlier post that I think Michele Bachman is the Casey Anthony of presidential politics. I now amend that–the excuse making, denialism, enabling and faulty logic and understanding of meaningful consequences makes the wingnut wing of the GOP the Casey Anthony Family of politics. God help ya because he’s tryin to move ya and ya’ll won’t budge from Norquist lunacy land…Kate

  5. John,
    Record floods, tornados, droughts, highs, lows, snow fall, and just plain very unpredictable weather. These are all signs of climate change that is created by global warming. Yes they are two different things. Once melts the ice and the other is a result from increased moisture in the air.

    “The eight months from October 2010 through May 2011 have been the driest eight-month period on record for Texas since 1895. Rainfall in Austin was 38 percent of normal, and Wharton rainfall was 30 percent of normal.

    Temperatures also have hit triple digits earlier than usual this year, with three 100+-degree days in Austin in May.”

    1. Ben,

      When you combine this with the serious climate change we are experiencing here in California with only one 100 degree day for all of May and June, I am almost convinced… Not.

      In fact you continue to make my case: What is going on in Texas is tragic and yet they only have to go back about a hundred years to find the same level of “change.”


      1. John,

        I have no problem reading or understanding this type of material because it takes me back to the days when I learned to read and all the material back then that convinced us that the next ice age would be upon us within ten thousand years and that we would run out of oil by the end of the 20th Century.


  6. No need to focus on individual catastrophic events. People are increasingly connecting the dots and identifying the potential for clustered events that have unintended consequences that amplify risk.

    Think: earthquake on the San Andreas fault; high water year with full reservoirs; coupled with persistent unseasonable rains; and levee failures. Instant $100 billion problem in California.

    Think: historic multi-year drought; insect infestation in forests; unusually strong Santa Ana winds; wildfire; exurban development pattern; leading to loss of life and property; and permanent change in vegetation as a result of catastrophic fires; leading to 10 year fire intervals and deforestation (ooops, that one is happening in Southern California).

    Think: catastrophic desertification in sub-Saharan Africa; mass migration into more climate adapted landscape; clash over dominant cultures and religion; coupled with famine and genocide (oops that one is already happening).

    It does not take a rocket scientist (or a Harvey Mudd educated chemist) to see that there are inherent dangers in the unintended consequences of our actions that we are just beginning to understand.

    So much so that the US Department of Defense, that well known bastion of liberal mushy headed thinking, believes climate change is one of the most serious threats we face in the 21st century.


    1. Steven,

      And it does not take a Berkeley graduate to remember the Oakland fires, the Dust Bowl that brought folks to California and the African famines of the 1960’s and 70’s: All taking place before the advent of global warming.

      Remember that they tried to put the clustering theory to work when we had so many hurricanes a couple of years ago, but alas they could not explain how the same pattern had been seen in the 1930’s and 40’s. In fact we are yet to even come close to matching those decades as yet. Perhaps global warming is REDUCING the number of hurricanes!


  7. is your next question going to be; If global warming/ climate changed caused this what caused the drought in 1895? It is the entire planet that is having these problems not just isolated incidents. I doubt a mile wide tornado ripped through Missouri that year as well.

    1. Ben,

      There have been major events throughout the world for all of my life-time. It is one of the reasons that I am pretty confident with this offer because I am always amazed when we have a major event that they say, not since XXXX have we seen as big a whatever and it is never more than a few decades.

      Even with temperatures for which we only have records going back only about 150 years, I can probably count on one hand the number of times we have set a record high or low for a particular day since I moved to Sacramento.


      1. But it is happening all in a short period of time not spanned out over decades. We used to see a big flood one year and then a decade later a huge drought but that isn’t the case any longer. Its happening everywhere all at once.

  8. Bleached out coral reefs are due to climate change, “in the last 5 years” is more serious than in the past 200 years. Wow, that was difficult.

    1. Copying from another the Casey…. thread, my response to John who thinks that the ocean’s are simply returning to their former state, and therefore don’t count:

      In other words, it doesn’t fit your preconceived notion of the the situation. Did you notice from the link that there is a direct correlation between amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean acidity? Did you absorb from the link the following quote:

      “Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5-6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[21] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded Paleocene-Eocene mass extinction. The current and projected acidification has been described as an almost unprecedented geological event.[22] A National Research Council study released in April 2010 likewise concluded that “the level of acid in the oceans is increasing at an unprecedented rate.””?

      But it is useless to talk to someone who has his mind already made up.

      1. Sharon,

        You are not talking with someone who has his mind made up about things that happen over thousands, hundreds or even thousands of years.

        You are talking with someone who has watched many of these trends or predictions come and go over the years, with most of them proving to be wrong: I.E.: The coming ice age or population explosion from the left or the return of Jesus and the downfall of the US from the right. And of course you have the lack of oil from both the right and the left at times.

        I have learned to be very cautious in that regard. Did you notice the incredible impact that some of the bad predictions that were mentioned in the article Douglas linked too? One hundred and sixty million missing women is quite a significant consequence.


    2. Red herring, John. We aren’t talking about missing women here, though it obviously is a dire event.

      You made a statement: I will sign the petition IF you can point to one “climate” event in the past five years that was more serious than any in the past two hundred years.”

      I think ocean acidification qualifies. All you can say to refute that is that you have “watched many of these trends or predictions come and go over the years, with most of them proving to be wrong” which is a False Dilemma and a Hasty Generalization, probably among other logical fallacies. In actual fact, I suspect that it is just bs.

      Again, no point arguing with someone who refuses to consider anything that doesn’t agree with their conclusions.

  9. John,
    I do not care if you sign the petition. I have no intention of wasting my time convincing you on this issue.
    My suggestion to you would be to write a letter to your grandchildren and great grandchildren for them to open in 50 years. Maybe you can explain to them your position. They may want to know why, and they will deserve an explanation.

    1. Tim,

      Before I sit down and compose my letter, could you forward any examples that the folks who lied to us in the 1950’s and 60’s about the food oil supplies. Since those wrong headed predictions have cost us untold billions of dollars by making us so dependent on foreign oil I am sure they are very sorry that they made them.


      1. John,
        As I said, I will waste no time trying convince you of this issue.
        If you choose to write your letter you can explain the whole food oil supply scenario to them. I’m sure they will understand.

    1. And don’t forget the open primary: This could be a fun election.

      We will go from a decade where NO congressional seats changed hands [except the Pombo seat which was drawn to be a democrat seat] to a single election where ten to fifteen incumbents could be at risk.


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s