November 18, 2014 1:19 pm -

[su_right_ad]The soon-to-be Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, would often say he’s not a scientist, but now that he wants to pass the Keystone Pipeline he has become one.

In remarks on the Senate floor, hours before a vote on a bill that fast-tracks construction of the pipeline, McConnell pointed to the “science” supporting the legislation.

“Those who took a serious look at the science and the potential benefits reached the conclusion long ago,” he said Tuesday. “They understand that the whole drama over Keystone has been as protracted as it is unnecessary. We hope to turn the page on all of that today.”

The same thing can be said of Republican obstinacy on climate change: It’s been protracted and unnecessary. Too bad Congress is nowhere near turning that particular page.[su_csky_ad]

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

20 responses to McConnell Suddenly Believes In Science

  1. tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    50 jobs and guarteed pollution, destruction of the land and all to help canada to ship their oil out. Why did Canada vote against the pollution pipeline in their own country?

    • M D Reese November 18th, 2014 at 1:54 pm

      50 jobs vs the food and water supply of the whole country. Canada is not our friend. They are pushing huge open pit mines that will leak toxins into the Misty Fjord National Monument in Southeast Alaska, and they want to run a pipeline of filthy tar sands oil to Kitimat, BC and run Chinese and Russian oil tankers in and out of the inland waters right near Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands) in an area that relies on fishing and tourism. What could possibly go wrong…

      • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 18th, 2014 at 2:09 pm

        I would say it’s the Conservatives and their oil shill Prime Minister who are the enemy, rather than all Canadians. There are plenty who are ashamed of the toxic tar sands. I agree with your point though.

        • M D Reese November 18th, 2014 at 2:20 pm

          I live near Haida Gwaii–just one oil spill from disaster. About a month ago a large Russian container ship lost power near shore in high seas and snotty weather and it took a couple of days to get it under tow before it ended up beached or sunk. They are not at all ready to rescue a fully loaded oil tanker. Neither are we. We were able to send one buoy tender and a helicopter. I live on the beach. It scares the crap out of me.

          • ChrisVosburg November 18th, 2014 at 6:24 pm

            Don’t know why there’s no sun up in the sky/
            Snotty weather/
            Since my man and I ain’t together/
            Keeps rainin’ all of the time…

          • M D Reese November 18th, 2014 at 6:31 pm

            Yeah? Uh, OK…

          • ChrisVosburg November 18th, 2014 at 7:36 pm

            Sorry, when I came across the phrase “snotty weather” in your comment, I smiled because I’d never heard the adjective “snotty” employed to describe weather. And because I am a silly person, I began singing to myself the old jazz standard “Stormy Weather”, with “snotty” substituted in the appropriate places.

            Here’s the incomparable Lena Horne doing the tune in the magnificent 1943 movie of the same name:


          • M D Reese November 18th, 2014 at 8:35 pm

            OK–now it makes sense. I forget sometimes that not everybody lives in a rain forest…Where I live, we measure our rainfall in feet–and we get about 13 feet per year. Just as the Eskimos have many words for snow, we have many words to describe our rain. I have actually seen it rain UP here…
            By the way, I love that song and her version is probably the best. I often sing it in the shower–oops–TMI!

        • Jaz November 18th, 2014 at 4:37 pm

          Its’ predominantly Albertan who are for this crap-shoot. Alberta is the Canadian version of Texas. And we can certainly give thanks to Conservative Harper for trying to push this through. 🙁

          • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 18th, 2014 at 6:35 pm

            Agreed. Alberta has been far right for many decades and (the bought & paid for oil shill) PM Harper comes from Calgary.

  2. R.J. Carter November 18th, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    If the scientists are right about global warming, are they right about the pipeline?

    • Kick Frenzy November 18th, 2014 at 4:09 pm

      I don’t know what scientists say about the pipeline.
      McConnell seems to have simply stated that when you look at the “potential benefits”, the choice is clear… which tells us absolutely bupkiss.

      Plus, what benefits?!?!?!?
      We get a pipeline hefted through our country, so Canada can get oil to the world market via the Gulf of Mexico.
      We get about 50 permanent jobs.
      We get none of the oil (directly).
      We get unaffected oil prices.
      We get eminent domain for a foreign country/company taking away land from Americans.

      I’m not sure if there are any benefits besides the thousands of jobs it creates for 2 years and the permanent 50 jobs after that.
      Beyond that, there’s worse than nothing… we get stuff taken away.
      And then there’s the looking likelihood that somewhere down the line there will be at least one oil leak costing millions of dollars in clean up.
      Of course, there’s also the fun fact that oil extraction from tar sands emit the most greenhouse gasses of all methods of extraction.

    • Glen November 18th, 2014 at 9:34 pm

      I don’t know if the “scientists” he refers to are legitimate (as in, independent), or if he’s actually referring to the internal scientists and engineers of the companies with a stake in the pipeline…

      But what I wonder is whether it is possible/a good idea to try to utilise McConnell’s sudden support of scientific information to broker a deal – democrats will support the pipeline, if republicans support meaningful action on climate change. Turn it into a single bill if necessary.

  3. M D Reese November 18th, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    Bottom line, Mitch–the science has shown us that being able to set your tap water on fire is not good for your health. The science has shown us that pipelines leak. And as for the benefits of fossil fuels–

  4. StoneyCurtisll November 18th, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    We need this pipeline like we need a hole in the head..

  5. Abby Normal November 18th, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    President Obama needs to veto this legislation if it passes and take to the airwaves to tell the American people just why it’s a lousy, rotten, stinking deal for America.

  6. Suzanne McFly November 18th, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    From what I have heard/read, if we don’t build the pipeline, it will be trucked in or brought in on a train and many more accidents are probable by transporting it that way. The company in charge of transportation, Trans-Canada, had 12 accidents in one year (2010 I believe). We need a lot of oversight if this is going to happen and we need to weigh the pro’s and con’s of transporting it because it seems like it will be transported one way or another.

    • searambler November 18th, 2014 at 7:38 pm

      “TransCanada, frustrated by the controversy over Keystone, is already pushing to convert and expand existing pipelines and construct an alternate 2,860-mile route across six provinces and four time zones to New Brunswick. The company sought approval for the project from the Canadian authorities last month.”

      • Suzanne McFly November 19th, 2014 at 5:36 pm

        I fully support that, if they want that filthy oil sold on the open market so bad, then they need to do it in their own country. I don’t know why they insist on transporting it through America. We need to focus on clean, renewable energy.

  7. searambler November 18th, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Suck it, McConnell. You lost. Get used to it.