Republican Dissension on Climate Change
And extreme discomfort with the issue, judging by this story:
In an effort to survey Republicans on climate change, National Journal reporters reached out to every GOP senator and representative. Over the course of several weeks, reporters either attempted to interview lawmakers in person, or called or e-mailed their offices.
Most of them “rebuffed repeated inquiries,” according to the piece:
Some flatly refused to answer questions when approached in person, and their offices declined to respond to repeated phone calls and e-mail requests. “It’s not a conversation senators feel comfortable having,” a Republican staffer said.
Several aides initially said that their bosses would be happy to take part in interviews or answer written questions””only to follow up later with clipped refusals.
Meanwhile, there’s this nugget, which suggests the Tea Party stranglehold is loosening, just a little:
Despite the rhetoric on the campaign trail, a quiet but significant number of prominent Republican politicians and strategists accept the science of climate change and fear that rejecting it could not only tar the party as “antiscience” but also drive away the independent voters who are key to winning general elections. “There’s a pretty good-sized chunk of the Republican caucus that believes that global warming is happening, and it’s caused at least in part by mankind,” said Mike McKenna, a strategist with close ties to the GOP’s leadership. “You can tell these guys are uncomfortable when you start to talk about science.”
Would that be science in general, or just climate science?
Anyway:
Here are the questions NJ asked the Republican members of Congress: Do you think climate change is causing the Earth to become warmer? How much, if any, of global climate change do you think is attributable to human activity? What is the government’s most appropriate response to the issue of climate change?
In the end, 65 GOP lawmakers””40 House members and 25 senators across the ideological spectrum agreed to respond.
So what do numbers like that tell you?
@Keith – be grateful that your pols have a range of opinions on this subject instead of pretending to all agree like they do in the UK and NZ.
PS: science doesn’t involve Q&A sessions like “when did you stop beating your wife”.
Just what the article says about an August poll conducted by researchers at Stanford University
Perhaps most notably for the many Republicans who are desperately trying to avoid being pinned down on climate change, 65 percent said they would vote for a candidate who was silent on the issue.
Caught between tea partiers and independents. They made their bed, puffing skeptic nonsense for years’n’years, inviting the clown to Rome.
What drivel!
Curiously, we’re told nothing about the democrat response to these questions.
Shale gas… Soylendra… jobs… cronyism… big oil… political donors… what to do… what to do… what to do…
This seems to be one of those threads about the polarised strangeness of American politics that is outside of my comprehension, but I’ve noticed something that [for me..] seems quite important. I think I can see that ‘sceptic/skeptic’ is generally used to mean something quite different across the Atlantic.
From what I gather, there really are people in the U.S who don’t believe in the greenhouse concept or the radiative properties of Co2, or that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide would have some effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. Maybe now the over-use of the term ‘denier’ makes more sense…
I know this doesn’t apply to everybody, but I think sceptics in Europe are sceptical about the predictions of catastrophic rises, consequences, or the cost-effectiveness of mitigation. I.e. they are extremely sensible people 😉
It seems I should remember that in the States ‘skeptic’ might be used to point to a completely different kind of mammalian biped.
“From what I gather, there really are people in the U.S who don’t believe in the greenhouse concept or the radiative properties of Co2, or that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide would have some effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. Maybe now the over-use of the term “˜denier’ makes more sense”¦”
Not true. This is a strawman created by the alarmists.
With an embittered politician (Al Gore) turned CAGW into an anti-Bush propaganda campaign (Hurricane Katrina? AIT? Anyone?) why is the political-bias so surprising?
The Tea Party’s primary issue is how much they are taxed and how that money is being spent. The Left assumes Obama is their issue. The Stimulus was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Wall Street and Bank Bailouts were milestones on the journey before Obama won the election.
That’s ok! Bad republicans for not supporting Gore’s Ponzi scheme
Well, I found the musing of Anteros interesting and broke it out in a separate post here.
Tom C @ 7
“This is a strawman created by the alarmists.”
I agree that this is sometimes used as a strawman argument by alarmed people. But to give an example that contradicts my generalisation, in the UK we have James Delingpole who declares that –
“AGW is the greatest lie ever told”
My understanding is that he is denying something that I’m happy to accept as true or believable or well-founded. Yet I still think of myself as a sceptic….which is how Delingpole describes himself. Evidently we are ‘sceptical’ about profoundly different things.
Where does Sen’ Inhofe fit in?
Anteros –
Look, AGW is often sloppily used in place of CAGW, as I think Delingpole did here. The objection of us skeptics is overwhelmingly to CAGW but the alarmists conveniently twist it to AGW in order to make skeptics look unreasonable.
Mr. Kloor, who has been treading dangerously close to not helping “the cause” lately is tacking back by joining in the libel and throwing in some profanity to boot.
“Look, AGW is often sloppily used in place of CAGW, as I think Delingpole did here. The objection of us skeptics is overwhelmingly to CAGW but the alarmists conveniently twist it to AGW in order to make skeptics look unreasonable.”
Er so you define away Delingpole’s position and then criticise the problem as one of “alarmist” imagination.
CO2 is good for you
“Imagine a world where CO2 was not a deadly poison in need of urgent regulation by the European Union and the Environmental Protection Agency but a hugely beneficial trace gas which helped plants to thrive”¦”
What side of the “reasonable” fence do you want to put the “C02 is a trace gas that’s good for you” argument?
It tells me climate change is as toxic a subject as abortion now. Way to go climate campaigners! Believing independent voters are going to change their vote to Democrat because they desire punitive taxation to handle climate change is very wishful thinking.
I think running around and forcing people to take positions will only further extend the current trench warfare. Anti-science smearing, as in attempting to shame an opponent into agreeing with your position is not likely to be very successful.
A smart politician would agree with the “minimal” warming over the past 150 years, and respond science has not answered the question on human attribution. He would further conclude climate predictions are too unreliable to base any significant policy action on at this time.
With democrats excluded it looks to me like just more useless political drivel.
Do you think climate change is causing the Earth to become warmer?
I would also refuse to answer this. Why would anyone want to talk to such idiots?