Isakson, Perdue Deny Human-Induced Climate Change

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that shows humans are contributing to climate change on Earth, both of Georgia’s United States Senators refused to vote for an amendment that acknowledged humans’ role in changing atmospheric conditions.

The largely symbolic amendment narrowly failed 59-40, just short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate. However, just prior to the vote, a similar proposal acknowledging climate change existed at all – though not necessarily because of human activity – passed overwhelmingly in a 98-1 vote, with only Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) voting against the amendment.

Democrats had originally planned a climate change amendment to the Keystone Pipeline legislation as a way of forcing Republicans to take a clear stand on the evidence of climate change. But Republicans scuttled those plans at the last minute by dividing the question into the two votes mentioned above.

Even incoming Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), who previously called climate change a “hoax,” voted for the first proposal acknowledging climate change’s existence. But only 15 Republican Senators joined Democrats in voting for the second vote, including Presidential hopeful Rand Paul (R-KY).

It’s worth pointing out that 97% of scientists disagree with Isakson and Perdue’s stance and that the carbon dioxide levels are already at a dangerous 400 parts per million that is acidifying our oceans, causing extreme weather, and contributing to rising sea levels.

So even if human-induced climate change is something that doesn’t worry Isakson (age 70) and Perdue (age 65), it’s certainly something that worries my generation, who will have to bear the costs of their denial.


  1. therightdirection says:

    At least an amendment vote was allowed. The Senate in 2015 has already allowed more votes on amendments than the entire year of 2014. Harry Reid is a disgrace to his (former) position.

    In regards to climate change, yes the climate is changing and has been since the beginning of time.

    No, I’m not convinced the main driver of that is human activity. A portion, sure. CO2 causes warming, there’s no doubt. But do I think that its impact is very large, let alone large enough to merit the passage of the plans Democrats propose? No way. Especially considering other large emitters like India and China won’t be on board with the plan for decades, if ever.

    I feel comfortable in this position because for decades the climate scientists and their models have been proven wrong over and over. Not to mention the scandals–emails show some climate scientists admitting to fudging numbers so they fit the “narrative.”

  2. ryanhawk says:

    Hey Tyler, 100% of scientists agree 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000 years. Should we be concerned about global cooling? And what about rogue asteroids? Let’s have the Senate spend some time debating those as well!

    • atldawgs14 says:

      This isn’t even a debate. This is just a bunch of unqualified politicians ignoring what qualified scientists tell them for political purposes.

      It’s funny because doctors are scientists too, but somehow we listen to everything they tell us.
      If your doctor told your pregnant wife to stop drinking alcohol or it would harm the child, would you agree? Even though that recommendation is based on science? And even though you can’t necessarily “see” the child to assess his/her health during the pregnancy?

      You would trust the doctor because he is qualified to make that recommendation, and you are not.

  3. blakeage80 says:

    Has PP been hacked? This article seems uncharacteristically slanted and backed up with dubious facts.

  4. saltycracker says:

    Always wonder in votes like this if there might be “unintended consequences” for passing a law that the population explosion and worldwide industrialization cause global warming.

    Example: Obama’s idea of equal pay for women, we might agree, but it is really a trial lawyers dream as no where, in any combo, do pay variances make complete sense.

    Sue you neighbor for having 5 kids, a wood burning fireplace and a methane producing pet pig ?
    Limit folks to one kid, electric fireplaces and no pets ?

    Best idea, throw the sponsors of this bill into the volcano to calm the gods and the gases it is spewing.

    Enjoy, some GA laws

  5. TheEiger says:

    “So even if human-induced climate change is something that doesn’t worry Isakson (age 70) and Perdue (age 65), it’s certainly something that worries my generation, who will have to bear the costs of their denial.”

    I’m probably very close to your age. Climate change doesn’t bother me. It’s not an age thing. It’s more of a common sense thing.

  6. Noway says:

    “Climate Change” or “Global Warming” as that doofus, Gore called it, was the natural landing spot of the communists/socialist following them getting there a$$es kicked after the Soviet Union fell. That has been admitted by the socialists themselves. THAT’S the only settled science dealing with these people. Any policy changes/implementations proposed by the hucksters is an effort to get into the pockets of the West. Period. I’d love to see Atlas begin to Shrug and have those with wealth and means just drop out.

    • benevolus says:

      Hey, how can I get on the gravy train? How can I make some money by advocating for global warming? I don’t care if it’s true or not, I am a liberal capitalist and I want to profit from it.

  7. Bobloblaw says:

    I deny it also.

    I especaily deny the absurd notion that we can alter the climate by passing a bill and spending a lot of taxpayer money.

  8. benevolus says:

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are producing many times more CO2 by burning fossil fuels than at any time in history that we can measure. What is disputable about that?

    • therightdirection says:

      It almost feels like a cliche to say, but correlation doesn’t equal causation. There are other hard to measure variables that affect climate. Putting it all on CO2 makes no sense.

  9. Three Jack says:

    If the amendment passed, would anything have resulted that reduced human influence on climate? No. Waste of time, but I guess it’s good political theatre for dummies.

  10. Raleigh says:

    Climate Change, indeed the climate has been changing. If you create a 12 month calendar from the time the first living creature appeared on the planet until now we have been through many cycles of “climate change.” We had many ice ages and times when tropical plants grew north of the Arctic Circle according to fossil records. Use that same calendar and we have been recording weather data during the last second of the last day, Dec 31st, at 11:59:59 PM. We do not have enough detailed data to even create an accurate computer model that can predict the weather for the next 7 days. To do so for 1, 10, 20 years from now you might as well use a dart board. They can’t even get the hurricane season right.

    If you want to know what the true indicator is for climate change its directly proportional to the amount of the grant money issued Vs. the desired output by the agency funding the grant. That is what causes “global warming”.

    Repubs, don’t get caught in a trap. Answer the question this way. Sure climate change is real but I’m waiting for someone to give us better data than a bunch of scientist that can’t even predict the weather right for the next 7 days.

    They will start foaming at the mouth BUT that will shut them up.

Comments are closed.