On Breitbart: Quist Urges Climate Change Deniers To Kill Themselves

Montana’s special election to replace Ryan Zinke has made national headlines, including this amusing piece from Breitbart yesterday.

Enjoy the juxtaposition; on one hand, the analytical, nuts-and-bolts Greg Gianforte, and on the other, well, Rob Quist:

The Republican nominee answered a question about climate change and the Clean Power Plan saying, “Everyone believes that the climate is changing.” However, he added, “Using EPA’s data calculated by the Cato Institute; they said if we shut down every coal-fired plant in North America our environment would be two-hundredths of a degree cooler a hundred years from now…for that we are willing to give up 7,000 jobs in Montana and $1.5 billion in annual revenue? That’s not a smart business decision.”

Quist responded to Gianforte. Rather than refuting the Republican nominee’s argument, he encouraged climate skeptics to consider ending their lives. He said, “To me this a cumulative thing, you cannot just say closing one plant or not is going to make a difference. This is something that the entire world needs to address and you know what, if any of you that feel like this is not a problem, I challenge you to go into your car in your garage, start your car and see what happens there.”

Say what you will about Gianforte (and we have), but the idea of Quist making laws for our nation does not exactly inspire confidence.

Mercifully, there is only twenty-three more days until Election Day.

Reader interactions

9 Replies to “On Breitbart: Quist Urges Climate Change Deniers To Kill Themselves”

  1. Lt. Colonel (Retired, Army) Richard Liebert May 2, 2017 at 11:44 PM

    Quist was trying – and should have been articulated better – that a garage is the ‘confined atmosphere of Earth’ and that an automobile (industry) puts emissions into that confined space and eventually it becomes toxic, a metaphor for air pollution, GHG emissions. The Industrial Revolution has accelerated climate chaos and impacted high and low cycles of climate alterations and even if climate issue was benign, developing new energy sources that don’t pollute the air, water and land drives innovation and new economies, jobs and conservation.


  2. Breitbart? Really? What’s next, Stormfront? The KKK?


    1. The reference to Breitbart is kind of a dodge, given that this is a direct quote from Quist. Who cares where it comes from–unless you are suggesting Breitbart fabricated it?


      1. You know you’re in a hole when your best defense is to shoot the messenger or take a full paragraph to rewrite a one sentence grade school level analogy.


  3. Greg, Would you use the KKK or Stormfront to make a point? Breitbart is a racist rag. Not the type of organization I would be involved with or use. Clearly if this site wants to use it that is your call but don’t think for a minute it doesn’t reflect poorly on this site/you.

    In fact, I would respectfully suggest it takes away from the point you were trying to make.


    1. I wasn’t trying to make a point. I didn’t write the piece.

      And I don’t think the author is using Breitbart to make a point either. If someone quoted Breitbart to make a point, you might have a point. These are Quists words, not Breitbart’s.

      I have to agree with Haffner, above, that this is pretty weak sauce. It is analogous to my sending you a VHS tape with Quist saying something stupid, and rather than responding to what Quist says, you argue that VHS is an outdated and unreliable medium, and everyone uses DVD’s now.

      I’m not really concerned about it reflecting poorly on me. I didn’t say it. If everyone here is to be considered less valid because one writer quoted from Breitbart, then I would suggest the person who is judging us has the problem, not us.


  4. Good grief Greg, I made NO comment on the Quist quote. I simply questioned why you would use Breitbart or the like for anything. You know the old saying, “lay down with dogs, end up with fleas”.

    Try to follow along here would you and respond to what I actually type and not what you “think” I’m saying. FFS.


    1. Call me a lawyer, but I tend to think in evidentiary terms. To me, the fact that the quote appeared on Breitbart is completely irrelevant, unless you are alleging the quote itself was false.

      By the way, I do not typically read Breitbart, although I do not automatically discount everything they publish. I think it is qualitatively different from Stormfront or the Conservative Treehouse.

      And, as noted, I am not laying down with dogs; I didn’t write the piece.

      And with that, I give.


  5. Bill Furdell May 5, 2017 at 6:25 AM

    Context and interpretation of evidence can be twisted to lead to a false conclusion. I have heard it said that even jawyers do that ftom ime to time. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *