On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Senate voted 98-1 to pass an amendment to S. 1, its Keystone XL Pipeline bill, stating that "climate change is real and not a hoax." A further amendment, stating that "it is the sense of the Congress that--(1) climate change is real; and (2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change" and citing the scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Research Council, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), failed by a vote of 50-49.
It is worth noting a few points regarding these votes. First, it is historic that a Republican controlled Senate would agree that "climate change is real and is not a hoax." This is a far cry from the rhetoric many Republican senators employed during the election cycle, where many of them either flatly denied climate change is occurring or made statements such as "I'm not a scientist" as if to suggest they shouldn't be asked such questions. That said, this vote shows the evolving position of congressional Republicans on the issue.
Second, this amendment was clearly a political calculation aimed at securing the necessary Democratic support for the Keystone XL Pipeline bill to pass a vote. As Republicans do not currently benefit from a supermajority in the Senate, getting any legislation through a vote requires at least some bipartisan support.
Third, the language of the amendment that passed is the minimum language required to secure Democratic support.
Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, in rejecting the second proposed amendment, nearly half the members of the U.S. Senate voted to reject a statement consistent with overwhelming empirical observation and that reflects the prevailing opinions of experts across multiple scientific disciplines.
In the first place, it is curious that the Senate would take any position on a matter of empirical observation. It is not as if, simply by voting, the Senate can change reality, creating a world where humans are not "extremely likely" (borrowing a phrase from the IPCC) to be significantly responsible for observed changes in our climate since the industrial revolution.
What would it hurt the Senate to agree with the overwhelming consensus of observation? As the Senator (Brian Schatz, D-HI) who proposed the rejected amendment pointed out in his testimony on the floor of the Senate, "The purpose of this amendment is simply to acknowledge and restate a set of observable facts. It is not intended to place a value judgment on those facts or to suggest a specific course of action in response to those facts. It is just a set of facts derived from decades of careful study of our land, air, and water."
The Senate's rejection of Senator Schatz's amendment provides cause for concern with our political system: if our elected officials aren't basing decisions affecting our nation and our planet on empirical observation, on what are they basing their decisions?