Conservative Pushback on Republican Fanaticism
Jon Huntsman’s callout of Texas Governor Rick Perry’s controversial statements on evolution and climate change has garnered much attention and highlighted what Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth calls “the fundamental Republican science problem.”
Meanwhile, in a similar vein, but flying under the radar of the national media, another Republican governor has recently said Huntsman-like things about climate change that have been met with disapproval by conservatives. Jonathan Adler, a popular conservative blogger, has taken note of this episode and offers an incisive critique that speaks to the litmus test pathology afflicting the Republican party:
Until last week, many conservatives considered New Jersey Governor Chris Christie a hero. Some were even clamoring for him to enter the presidential race. Now, however, some of the same conservatives are branding him a heretic, even as he embraces policy decisions they support. What’s going on?
Last week, Christie vetoed legislation that would have required New Jersey to remain in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multi-state agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions through a regional cap-and-trade program. The bill was an effort to overturn Christie’s decision earlier this year to withdraw from the program. Given conservative opposition to greenhouse gas emission controls, the veto should have been something to cheer, right? Nope.
The problem, according to some conservatives, is that Christie accompanied his veto with a statement acknowledging that human activity is contributing to global climate change. Specifically, Christie explained that his original decision to withdraw from RGGI was not based upon any “quarrel” with the science:
“While I acknowledge that the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing, that climate change is real, that human activity plays a role in these changes and that these changes are impacting our state, I simply disagree that RGGI is an effective mechanism for addressing global warming.”
As Christie explained, RGGI is based upon faulty economic assumptions and “does nothing more than impose a tax on electricity” for no real environmental benefit. As he noted, “To be effective, greenhouse gas emissions must be addressed on a national and international scale.”
Although Christie adopted the desired policy “” withdrawing from RGGI “” some conservatives are aghast that he would acknowledge a human contribution to global warming. According to one, this makes Christie “Part RINO. Part man. Only more RINO than man.” [“RINO” as in “Republican in Name Only.”]
Those attacking Christie are suggesting there is only one politically acceptable position on climate science “” that one’s ideological bona fides are to be determined by one’s scientific beliefs, and not simply one’s policy preferences. This is a problem on multiple levels. Among other things, it leads conservatives to embrace an anti-scientific know-nothingism whereby scientific claims are to be evaluated not by scientific evidence but their political implications. Thus climate science must be attacked because it provides a too ready justification for government regulation. This is the same reason some conservatives attack evolution “” they fear it undermines religious belief “” and it is just as wrong.
If enough conservatives speak up like this, they just might be able to lance the boil before it makes their party grotesque to the general electorate.
UPDATE: From libertarian Ronald Bailey:
Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler has a sharp analysis over at the Volokh Conspiracy of what might be called Republican “Climate Change Derangement Syndrome.”
Where the syndrome is most acute.
Keith writes:
“If enough conservatives speak up like this, they just might be able to lance the boil before it makes their party grotesque to the general electorate.”
As if you are concerned about Republicans electoral prospects! Give me a break. Obama’s pro-AGW policies are economically disastrous and a founded on mistaken science (got any proof CO2 can cause harmful warming?).
You are scared that people will catch on that the left is wrong about economics (job growth) and global warming. Opposing global warming is great science and great politics.
AGW climate science should be attacked because it is wrong AND because it leads to economically suicidal policies.
Fred,
You certainly are a model example of the pathology that is dismaying some of your fellow conservatives.
Keith:
It is transparently obvious that you are afraid the Democrats will lose in 2012 and you are frantically trying to nudge the Republicans away from putting up a candidate who will bring down the curtain on the AGW hoax.
Sorry, but fixing the economy will necessitate “lancing the boil” of AGW-inspired policies. The “science” behind AGW has long been dead. Go read Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, and Svensmark.
Fred,
The window you provide into this fantasy world you’ve concocted for yourself is fascinating,but let me clue you in to something: Democrats would love nothing more than for Perry or Bachmann or Palin to be the GOP presidential nominee.
Thus climate science must be attacked because it provides a too ready justification for government regulation.
No it doesn’t.
This is the same reason some conservatives attack evolution “” they fear it undermines religious belief “” and it is just as wrong.
Is this supposed to mean that one can be a Christian and accept the evolution? How’s that possible?
If enough conservatives speak up like this, they just might be able to lance the boil before it makes their party grotesque to the general electorate.
The general electorate is just as clueless. It is impossible to look grotesque to them.
Keith,
Do you think you have a better understanding of the average voter in swing states in America than the political pros who advise GOP candidates? Or is “expert” consensus something to be revered in one context and ignored in an another?
I know this may come as a shock to you, but the NY Times is not middle of the road in terms of political attitudes in the US. Even Obama himself used it as an example of the left wing choir.
It is conventional wisdom among folks like you that people who are attracted to the tea party ideology are extreme. Go ahead and fool yourselves. It makes you feel better. The same kind of CW held that Kerry’s Vietnam service was a plus, that Obama was smart, that Al Gore was smart, that it was a good idea to pass Obamacare without knowing what was in it, that the “stimulus” boondoggle would create jobs, that subsidized green jobs would create economic growth, that the people in Wisconsin were appalled with Gov. Walker, that high speed rail is a great idea and that Scott Brown had no chance in Mass.
It also appears to be conventional wisdom in your set that Republicans are either stupid or evil (or both). Keep on believing it. That kind of CW has been so mind-numblingly at odds with reality for so long, one has to wonder about the mental health of the people who continue to mainline it.
Keith –
I posted my own version about how conservative / libertarian candidates could talk about climate change here: http://blog.american.com/2011/08/candidacy-and-climate-change/
I did this for two reasons, first, I think the various positions are either overly dismissive, or overly submissive to climate science, and second, I wanted to demonstrate just how little weight conservative / libertarian candidates are likely to give my suggestion.
Never interrupt your enemy while he is in the middle of making a mistake.
Michelle Malkin is the arbiter of GOP positioning on climate science? Oh, yes, please, more…
Here is a pretty good analysis of the situation:
As is often said about climate change, people don’t hate the science — they hate the solution. American conservatives have never liked cap and trade, since every effort designed to address greenhouse gas emissions on a large scale impacts or regulates the companies that emit them. And, of course, conservative politicians typically represent states whose industries emit heavily. So until a couple years ago, the science was acknowledged, if obliquely, and it was merely the solutions that were rejected.
What landed us in our current situation probably had to do with a combination of the rise of the Tea Party, opportunistic and well-funded lobbies, and a specific major media outlet or two dominating the conservative voice at a particular point in time. It’s just a hunch, but here goes:
As the Democrats worked to pass the climate bill in the House, industry think tanks and politicians from oil and coal-dependent states started taking a harder line against climate science itself to bolster their political arguments against cap and trade. Meanwhile, a more general anti-regulatory, anti-government sentiment began rising up in the form of the Tea Party, which was covered exhaustively (and perhaps prodded on) by the dominant conservative media. Outlets like Fox News and media icons like Rush Limbaugh may have then (or already had) adopted a hard denial of climate change to conform to the standards borne by the anti-regulatory movement, and touted the studies from the anti-climate think tanks and remarks from anti-climate politicians.
All this seems to have created a closed circuit where climate change denial came to be a fundamental belief, one which sat alongside Second Amendment rights, a hatred of government spending, and regulation of all kinds. The science became perilously synonymous with the solution, and it became a sort of Tea Party core value to disavow the science of climate change. The so-called ‘Climate Gate’ debacle, taken far less seriously around the rest of the world, provided some icing on the cake, some talking points to validate the denial.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/why-republicans-become-worlds-only-major-political-party-denying-climate-change.php
Keith:
One fantasy is your thinking that you can convince Republicans not to nominate a candidate because he or she is opposed to global warming.
Too many people can read Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, and Svensmark and know that opposing global warming theory is vastly different than opposing evolutionary theory. AGW theory is not only scientifically wrong, it is associated with disastrous economic policies and regulations. AGW is one fantasy society can no longer afford.
Hot damn Keith! What prompted you to pump out all these catnip-for-wingnuts posts while I was on vacation? I feel like I slept in through Christmas…
Ken (7),
I think you ought to have spent a little more time on that post, particularly addressing the criticisms leveled by Adler and Megan McArdle over at the Atlantic.
Again, sorry to say, you’re partial to false equivalencies. I hardly think Christie’s view and Greenpeace’s are compatible.
You’re making me very cynical of your political analysis of climate issues with posts like that.
I have just updated my post to include this gem from libertarian writer Ronald Bailey:
Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler has a sharp analysis over at the Volokh Conspiracy of what might be called Republican “Climate Change Derangement Syndrome.”
Jonathan Adler isn’t a conservative. He is a libertarian. Even Skeptical Science has noticed that.
I have to ask myself why Keith would want to speculate about the GOP lancing such a horrific boil. Either Keith is actually a closet conservative doing his best to highlight a problem and improve the GOP’s election chances, or he is worried that boil might actually be a good talking point that will resonate well with the electorate.
Hmm. Tough to decide. 😉
Keith (12) –
Civil discourse can’t exist where one side simply presumes the other to be insincere, or where every comment is met with dismissive comments about false equivalencies, straw men, etc. This recent thread is a good example: As we discussed a month ago, I wrote an article condemning republican science dismissal before the electoral politics came into it. In the recent blog post (intentionally short and light-hearted) I once again declare the Republican positions as simplistic and inelegant, yet, you’re “cynical” of my political analysis. I’ve acknowledged the reality of anthropogenic climate change since the first thing I ever wrote about it in 1997 (that’s going on 15 years now), and I’m still getting this crap about being insincere.
I think this makes three or more visits in a row where the blog host has responded to my contributions with dismissive statements about fallacious thinking, or implications of insincerity. I have a thick skin, and don’t really mind if other commenters get snotty (as I’ve shown), but as the saying goes, “a fish rots from the head.” Once the moderator sets the tone as dismissive, there’s little value in the discussion.
I’ll remind you that I first came to your blog at your invitation, because you claimed you wanted diversity of views. You didn’t say you wanted them so you could use them as a posturing platform to imply that anyone who differs with you is either insincere or fallacious.
Best of luck, Keith.
Ken,
I am surprised it took you that long to figure out Keith’s game of BS.
Ken,
It seems criticism is a one-way street with you. In my recent comment, I merely challenged you to go further and respond to the critiques leveled by Adler et al. Additionally, I challenged this statement from your post (my emphasis):
“The candidates seem to be taking one of two views: either they’re going for Greenpeace supporters with the “climate change is real and urgent” view (Huntsman, Christie) or they’re going for Tea Party supporters with the “climate change is a giant hoax” view (Perry, Bachmann, etc.).”
I contend that the “urgent” characterization of Huntsman and Christie’s positions is inaccurate and the Greenpeace association a simplistic caricature.
Instead of responding, you walk away in a huff. This only reinforces why I am cynical of your analyses. You don’t seem capable of calling a spade a spade.
#14
I wonder about the same thing: What’s so bad about Republicans becoming grotesque to the electorate if they themselves feel it’s the right thing to do? Or is their right thing also popular?
I recall that Obama failed to pass climate change legislation even though he had supermajority.
Ken, you hit the nail on the (fish’s?) head. Keith will do his best to chase away any skeptic/moderate, using one of the two-hundred names he picked up at school to label them. Its as if he is the Richard Hammond of the Climate Debate – caught forever between the alleigances he feels to his party (of environmentalism) and their embarrassments.
More importantly, of course, is the knee-jerk response to denigrate anyone who wishes to play *outside* the prestige press pre-determined boundaries. GW Bush, for example, was a Solitaire-playing fool, but a fool nevertheless whose meanderings remained within the cordons drawn out previously. Perry’s ‘anti-science’ disturbs the New York journalists bleeding hearts about the sanctity of the institution of science? Hardly.
Surgeon General Keith Kloor rushing in to amputate Tea Party gangrenous limbs and lance boils to save the American body science-politic! Nurse…Hand me the scalpel!
Jon P (16)
And I’m surprised you’re still hanging around. Isn’t there an echo chamber somewhere that would be more to your liking?
Shub,
Your ramblings always provide me the comic relief I’m seeking at moments like this.
@18
wrong. a supermajority would include at least 60 votes in the senate.
Slightly at a tangent, all of USA politics is not in isolation, it goes on with the public hearing about realities in China…
ie… IT’s booming car industry, millions more Chinese to have cars..
and where Toyotat sold ONE prius last year ! One !!!
via a tweet by Leo Hickman in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/aug/23/billion-cars-global-traffic-jam
First, the number of cars on the planet has just passed the billion mark. Second, almost half of the new growth is in China. Third, Toyota managed to sell only one Prius in China last year. That’s right. The world’s most commercially successful hybrid car has found only one buyer in the fastest growing market. SUV sales, by contrast, are surging. – Guardian
I’ve been having a good debate with Leo via Twitter (and privately) for the last few months. All very civilised and we have a tentative arrangement to have a few sceptics, Leo and other meet up for a pint/lunch one day, in principle when logistics/geography allow.
https://twitter.com/#!/Realclim8gate
The debate does seem nastier in the USA would that be able to happen?
Keith:
I appreciate your concern that the Republican candidate not be hurt by his position on AGW. What you are missing is concern for Obama and the effect on him (and the country) regarding his position on AGW.
Because of his position on AGW, Obama has followed numerous policies that harm the economy. It is part of why he now has an approval rating of 27% on economic issues. At the beginning of the Obama administration I e-mailed Goolsbee twice about the disastrous impact support of global warming initiatives would have on economic growth.
Democratic candidates need to understand that global warming is bad science and leads to disastrous economic policies.
Fred, you really need to read this recent Kurt Anderson op-ed, which has a passage related to your condition. Pay special attention to the part I’ve bolded:
“Yet the most troubling thing about Perry (and Michele Bachmann and so many more), what’s new and strange and epidemic in mainstream politics, is the degree to which people inhabit their own Manichaean make-believe worlds. They totally believe their vivid fictions.”
fred can you pass the tinfoil when you’re done with it? and while you’re at it, maybe some links to economic assessments showing the “disastrous impact support of global warming initiatives would have on economic growth”
Keith: “.. the degree to which people inhabit their own Manichaean make-believe worlds. They totally believe their vivid fictions.”
Hit the nail on the head on this one. You were talking about the Greens were you not?
#22
wrong. a supermajority would include at least 60 votes in the senate.
And Obama had it for a year 2009-2010:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/with_their_super-majority_gone.html
Ed (27),
I do when the shoe fits (as I’ve pointed out plenty of times on this blog when it does).
The problem with you and your ilk is that you don’t like (nor accept) when the shoe fits you, as well.
Of course, the fierce “who me?!” objections from both sides is what fills up these comment threads.
@28
I should have added that in practice you’d probably need 65 dems or so in the senate as a number of them from coal states wouldn’t ever vote for any legislation that harmed the coal industry’s interests…
One of the things that distinguishes the dems and the GOP is the latter’s ability to enforce party discipline; so even though the dems had 60 for a while (as you correctly note), as a practical matter they didn’t have a functional supermajority…
Keith:
When you are unable to respond rationally you accuse opponents of a “condition” – the retreat of a fool and a loser.
Can we have the nice Keith back please…
‘The problem with you and your ilk?
I’m sure we could all point to people that believe their own fictions, especially amongst politicians, it does tend to alienate people though..
I know some greens that live in a little world bubble, and many other types as well. All quite nice people, just with some strange thoughts about other peoples realities…
Of course doesn’t everyone (including Keith and me) always think that they are the most rational person in the room 😉 such is human nature…
#30
I should have added that in practice you’d probably need 65 dems or so in the senate as a number of them from coal states wouldn’t ever vote for any legislation that harmed the coal industry’s interests”¦even though the dems had 60 for a while (as you correctly note), as a practical matter they didn’t have a functional supermajority”¦
Correct. Which leads me to my point: There are many Democrats who, while willing to talk the talk of climate change, are not ready to walk the walk.
Republicans opposing emission cuts question the AGW science behind it and Keith calls them grotesque. Then what are the Democrats who accept science as valid but oppose emission cuts ? Pragmatic?
It seems to me that science or acceptance of science is of secondary importance.
“what are the Democrats who accept science as valid but oppose emission cuts ? Pragmatic?”
No. They’re spineless cowards. Republicans who question the science because they don’t like the policy implications are disingenuous spineless cowards 😉
Jarmo (33),
You write:
“Republicans opposing emission cuts question the AGW science behind it and Keith calls them grotesque.”
That’s not what’s going on here or in the other related threads. That’s–to put it charitably–also a gross simplification of my criticism, which is made in the context of outlandish statements by Perry that I’ve highlighted and various commenters have either defended or wink, winked at.
Andy Revkin reflects my frustration in one of his own responses to a Dot Earth commenter:
“Over-generalizations of the quality of something as sprawling as “climate science” really get me riled.
There’s a vast body of work that is powerful, well-grounded and not in serious dispute.”
This is not to say that there aren’t disputes about various aspects of the science, which Revkin in that same comment discusses. But, getting back to the point of all this, Revkin says to his commenter:
“But casting the whole enterprise as suspect, as you do here and Rick Perry and others do frequently, is way off base and demeans the work of a lot of devoted and agenda-free researchers.”
That’s what we’re talking about here: a top-tier candidate for the U.S. presidency dismissing climate science as one big hoax. And accusing a “substantial” number of climate scientists as fabricators.
It’s one thing to see that charge trotted out daily at Climate Depot and other skeptic outlets, but that stuff rises to a whole other level when someone like Perry (in his new status) brashly says it.
And that’s why his statements are getting such a high level of attention.
That’s why I think this is a moment of truth for so-called science-based climate skeptics, some who claim their criticisms of climate science are about the science and not the politics.
Keith:
You quote Andy Revkin “Casting the whole enterprise (global warming ‘science’) as suspect… is way off.”
Here Perry is right on. It is exactly the point of scientists such as Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, and Svensmark. Global warming theory is “way off.”
Please show me your evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming.
@ 35
There’s a vast body of work that is powerful, well-grounded and not in serious dispute.”
No, that’s not quite true. There is vast body of well-grounded work indeed. But most of this work is unimportant and inconsequential. Truly powerful work is very rare.
agenda-free researchers
Not entirely. You (and Andy) must have heard about “publish or perish” paradigm. That’s why so much well-grounded and undisputed quasi-science (notice a difference with pseudo-science) is being published. That is a body of work that was constructed using legitimate scientific methods but has little or no bearing for anything real except for advancement of the author’s careers.
That’s why I think this is a moment of truth for so-called science-based climate skeptics, some who claim their criticisms of climate science are about the science and not the politics.
If you are talking about guilt by association then I have to tell you that not everyone cares about it.
Mr. Kloor –
Look, this is just a rhetorical/political strategy that is practiced by all sides and most people can see through it. Don’t like our war – you are not patriotic; don’t support affirmative action – you must be racist; don’t support teachers unions demands – you don’t care about kids. This is just a variant “don’t buy into AGW alarm – you are anti-science”. Ho-hum.
Well, it seems that Fred will not likely be going for a beer with Marlowe, NYJ or grypo anytime soon…
Keith, I gotta say, you should probably not even post political topics. You are so far, far left when you do it’s a slap in the face to moderates. I get that you are liberal elite writer living in your isolated Manhattan world. I grew up nearby you, with college professors for parents, journalism no less.
I went towards engineering, did a short stint in the Air Force. I have been to 40 states and 30 countries working for various US manufacturers. Having actually worked in, traveled around, and competed with people from all over the world I can tell you very quickly that your political views are so painfully narrow minded as to be laughable.
Climate Change is not the huge topic you seem to think it is for voters, it pales in comparison to the economy, unemployment, big vs. small government, entitlement programs, the national debt, evolution, abortion and probably below tastes great vs. less filling too. Poll after poll points out where it lies in our voters priorities.
Ok, duly noted, another liberal leaning writer living in NY city (and working in academia right?) is offended by the vile, dirty disgusting republican candidates from the south and mid-west. Can you take an existential look at yourself and realize how cliched that is?
@39
The issue is not climate change per se. it’s about the role of reason and the scientific enterprise (i.e. the Enlightment) in our governing institutions vs a world view based on ignorance, fear, and selfishness.
Agree with Tom above. I certainly don’t feel it’s particularly my problem or concern what conservative American politicians think about AGW, and even less so what they think about the unrelated issue of creationism. As someone who is known on this blog as a skeptic, I’m having difficulty trying to work out what it is Keith would like us to say in defence. Perhaps he is speaking primarily to his US audience. I can only mention I’ve never embraced creationism as an explanation for life on Earth and I disagree with Perry’s broad brush denouncement of all climate science. Is that enough? I feel as though I’ve just wasted my own time. Keith routinely posts against this kind of guilt by association thing so I’m surprised to see him pursuing this over the last few posts.
Sorry if I’m being slow over the real intent of your prodding, Keith.
Hey, Keith, Marlowe, and grypo:
Earlier I asked where your evidence was that CO2 could cause harmful warming. Where is the evidence?
Yes, Marlowe this is more than about science. It is about those who push a “scientific” scare story to manipulate and control others.
D. Robinson,
And I’m “far, far left” because…I’ve written several posts taking issue with some demonstrably false and outlandish statements by the newest Republican entrant into the 2012 Presidential race?
The interesting thing about this thread is that none of the usual objectors have bothered to address or respond to the dissenting conservative and libertarian pundits I’ve highlighted or mentioned. Instead, it’s the usual knee jerk reactions and projections of what people think I’m doing. But not a peep about the actual criticism/posts by Adler and Bailey that I’ve cited.
@42
google is your friend. try ‘climate change’ AND ‘national academy of science’.
now if you don’t know what the internets or google are, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood librarian (assuming of course that your local council haven’t laid her off to pay for tax cuts)…
Keith:
You rue that no one has said a peep about the criticism/post of Adler. Earlier I followed the link to Jonathon Adler’s article and read it. My response, posted in his comments section was:
Jonathon:
I once believed in global warming and in what scientists said on this issue. Then I became aware of scientific arguments such as those presented by Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke, etc. For a sampling of such points of view visit:
An integrative presentation on the mistakes in the global warming position:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html?gclid=CJXqt9XNjKUCFQG6KgodhGnbNA
A marvelous interview with Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon:
http://www.itsrainmakingtime.com/_recent/climate_part2.html
A presentation by Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv on solar influences on climate:
http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun
I hope you also have time to read the recent excellent book Blunder by Roy Spencer.
I realize that you are a distinguished spokesman for conservative ideas and I hope that you will re-consider this issue.
Keith, it has been your tone in the last few posts and your comments that’s pushing me over the edge. What is it exactly that you are trying to do here? Why are you so incensed by this guy?
Perry: “I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”
Now I don’t really give a rats’ ass about Perry but this is hardly wingnut or tinfoil hat material. Either Perry is just playing to his base, or he actually believes that AGW is a grand hoax. Either way take Adler’s advice –
“In the end, politicians should be evaluated on their policy proposals “” and commended for the courage to acknowledge politically inconvenient truths.”
Commend Christie, demerit Perry and move on to their policies.
Keith @20
No it’s fun enough watching you scream in your own echo chamber.
Your position on the far left is rather obvious for all to see,why you cannot admit to it is rather entertaining!
As science writer David Brin has written (which I agree with),
D. Robinson,(45) since you’re quoting from Adler, and suggesting that we take his advice, then I suppose you (and others?) won’t mind this passage preceding what you quoted:
“As I’ve written before, it would be convenient if human activity did not contribute to global warming or otherwise create problems that are difficult to reconcile with libertarian preferences. But that’s not the world we live in, and politicians should not be criticized for recognizing that fact. Further, even if one accepts the “skeptic” perspective on climate change, there are still reasons to believe climate change is a problem, as I explain here.”
Huntsman is the Democrat favorite and will probably fall for the Democrat rouse. Huntsman garnered one vote, one in an Iowa poll. He does not have a chance at the nomination, he never did. The Democrats are not saying nice things about Huntsman, because they have a sudden empathy for a “moderate”. They have two reasons, 1) Divide the Republicans a divided opponent is a weak one. 2) If by some chance a miracle occurs and Huntsman gets the nomination, the Democrats will turn on him and easily defeat him. Seen it over and over again.
Huntsman really has as much chance on getting the nomination as the “The rent is too damn high” candidate had at becoming governor.
Keith is just a participating in the game the Democrats are playing, just like Eli is over at Rabbet Run with several similar themed articles, coincidence? You decide and be fair and balanced! Ha could not resist.
Keith 29: The problem with you and your ilk is that you don’t like (nor accept) when the shoe fits you, as well.
I think that I have been quite clear that I consider this a political fight, not a scientific fight.
Because I see AGW as unproven, you and your “ilk” brand be as “anti-science”.
I do find it amusing to be labeled “anti-science” because I support Lamb over the “team”.
If Lamb is correct, the “team” is wrong. And if the “team” is wrong, the entire justification for AGW policy goes right out the window.
All I can say is that this thread is as bizzaro and revealing as the other recent ones that covered similar ground.
The entrenched positions, the speculation of ulterior motives, the fist-shaking–it’s all a mirror image of what I get when–heaven forbid–I’ve questioned aspects of climate policy orthodoxy and posted critiques of scare-mongering and thuggish tactics by pro-AGW bloggers.
So sadly predictable at this point that I don’t even know why I bother engaging in the comment threads as much as I do. My colleagues must think I’m nuts.
Keith is dumfounded that saying things like:
“If enough conservatives speak up like this, they just might be able to lance the boil before it makes their party grotesque to the general electorate.”
Would elicit reactions from people, especially people who can see such assumptions in the above statement that make it false in so many ways.
You need some cheese with that whine Keith. If you would stop making general, broad, deragatory statements that are just your opinion perhaps you will not get challeneged so much.
Keith:
To your credit, you actually posted without editing or censure, all of my disbelieving (I’m beyond a skeptic) posts on this topic. I have never seen this before from a blog that professes belief in AGW. You are a rarity. Thank you.
Keith, @47 – no I don’t mind the passage you quoted and agree that “politicians should not be criticized for” acknowledging AGW. I like Chris Christie (who won’t run), and have no problem with his statement.
You are saying that Christie should not be criticized for acknowledging AGW by Morano while you simultaneously criticize Perry for his statements questioning it.
What you need to realize is that climate change is one topic out of many and it won’t be a deciding, or even significant factor for moderates.
Keith
You want Repubs to throw Perry under the bus for:
Perry: “I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”
Why?…Sounds pretty sane to me. I know it does not match your politics, but each of his statements can be supported.
Now if you want a real “tin-foil cap” subject, we can talk about how windmills will save the US with “green jobs”
KK- I think the problem from my end is the tunnel vision required to declare “Republican climate derangement” while linking to a post that applauds Chris Christie for vetoing left-wingnuttery on climate change albeit for the politically correct reason. It exposes a frustration many of us on the non-leftwing side of things feel with this issue:
Anytime you (the climate concerned) want to get busy building the necessary nuclear plants, have at it. We aren’t stopping you- hell, we’re standing around with the capital, engineers and construction crews. You’ve been acknowledging that they’re needed for this “urgent crisis” for 20 years yet you’ve been blocking them the whole time- which tells me that you don’t think this is all that urgent or all that critical. So, one mo’ time- if you don’t think this is a big enough deal to wiggle on lefty faux “principles” such as being anti-nuke, tell me again why I’m supposed to feel an “urgent” need to abandon capitalism?
Fred,
While I may find your opinions incredulous, and despite the somewhat adversarial tone I have taken with some commenters in recent threads–and despite my mounting frustration–I still view my blog more as a forum for all views (as opposed to just a perch for me to spout off).
So long as we can keep the dialogue reasonably civil, on topic, and free of personal name-calling and nasty insults, everybody can freely participate.
Ok – I’ll bite Keith – 48#
What exactly is ‘skeptic perspective’ of climate change….
Please be specific, so I have an understanding how close/far apart we are.
I’ve stayed out of this one as USA politics are bizarro to me, but is it possible for Democrats and Republican to be friends yet disagree on politics? as by the blog comments they seem to be bitter enemies.
As for your comment about engaging in the comments? If you don’t engage your readers, what else is a blog for, it just becomes a vehicle to preach not discuss. ?
Keith – we obviously hit submit comment at identical times… 😉
Keith Kloor links to an essay by Jonathan Adler in his comment @48, and I think it’s one well worth reading. It’s a good essay, in a hand-wavey sort of way. There are a lot of “ifs” involved in the sort of analysis Adler suggests, and he doesn’t even try to cover many confounding issues, but it’s still a decent starting point. Personally, I find the sort of actions he describes far more practical and palatable than global initiatives to combat global warming.
On the other hand, I think he’s wrong to claim people have ignored the issues he raises. I think a fairer explanation is there is nowhere near enough precision in the understanding of global warming to make such initiatives possible. I imagine a good portion of conservatives would support his approach so long as it remained based upon sound science. That wouldn’t be possible now, but if in the future it did become possible, I think it would see plenty of support.
Also, I’d like to highlight Stu’s comment @41. Apparently this is the sort of comment Keith Kloor has been wanting to receive and bothered he didn’t, so I think it deserves more attention.
#35
There’s a vast body of work that is powerful, well-grounded and not in serious dispute.”
Yes, I agree. Does it matter? You have yourself pointed out how some Greens persistently oppose nuclear power, vaccinations and GM foods and choose to ignore all the science about them. Simultaneously the embrace climate science and attack anyone who dares to question the science behind it. The lesson: I believe in science as long as it does not contradict truths that I hold to be self-evident or clash with my view of the world.
That’s what we’re talking about here: a top-tier candidate for the U.S. presidency dismissing climate science as one big hoax. And accusing a “substantial” number of climate scientists as fabricators.
Perry is not crazy. He does this because he can do it without causing damage to himself. After Climategate, after hockey stick controversies, IPCC mistakes and failed predictions about weather events, the credibility of AGW is not what it used to be.
Watching US courtroom dramas on TV, I have learned about term “reasonable doubt”. Remember, this is politics. Perry does not have to write a paper and have it peer-reviewed.
Also, if you look at climate science from the other side of the fence it looks like an article of faith. Roger Pielke Jr put it well:
A fundamental problem with climate science in the public realm, as conventionally practiced by the IPCC, is the essential ink blot nature of its presentation. By “ink blot” I mean that there is literally nothing that could occur in the real world that would allow those who are skeptical of scientific claims to revise their views due to unfolding experience. That is to say, anything that occurs with respect to the climate on planet earth is “consistent with” projections made by the climate science community. Some scientists go further and argue that climate science cannot be shown to be incorrect based on experience because its projections are probabilistic. The result is that people tend to see in climate science other things than those that can be resolved empirically — which fosters politicization and tribal behavior.
Brandon says:
“Also, I’d like to highlight Stu’s comment @41.”
I’m not a conservative though so it may be easier for me to say this (?). I’m still not sure if Kieth is directing himself to conservatives or skeptics, or conservative skeptics.
“If enough conservatives speak up like this, they just might be able to lance the boil before it makes their party grotesque to the general electorate.”
Stu, I’ve seen Keith Kloor make comments suggesting both skeptics and conservatives should denounce Perry’s views. My understanding is he thinks skeptics will be associated with Perry, and thus their credibility will be harmed (and they’ll be conflated with “deniers”). He also thinks conservatives will be viewed as anti-science because of Perry. He thinks both groups should denounce Perry’s comments because of these associations.
Personally, I think Kloor exaggerates the significance of Perry on how skeptics will be viewed, and I suspect the same is true of conservatives. It seems like trumping up an issue to me.
I would probably argue that skeptics are already viewed by the majority as lining up with creationism and ‘anti-science’. It’s just in this case it’s a high profile Republican who is apparently doing the damage here. But there is very little damage left to be done to the skeptic image. That’s why I say you can’t do anything about it. Even if you say you’re not a birther, creationist, anti-science, oil shill, whatever, etc- people do not believe it. This is an image which has been fostered by the AGW side and promoted through liberal channels.
Perry’s very late to this party. He may help reinforce the stereotype, but there’s nothing anyone can do on the skeptic side to make the stereotype go away.