Climate Boomerang Hits Republicans
In Saturday’s Washington Post, Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado professor and the author of The Climate Fix, was quoted as saying:
Climate change has become a wedge issue. It’s today’s flag-burning or today’s partial-birth-abortion issue.
I’m not sure how Roger intended this to be construed–as a commentary on the larger, endlessly politicized climate debate or in the context of the current 2012 Presidential campaign. (I say this because we media types sometimes insert quotes in text that doesn’t reflect the specific context of the interview or question that elicited the quote.) Regardless, I do think Joe Romm is correct in this assessment:
Pielke cites two well-known wedge issues that split Democrats, issues that Republicans have used to their advantage to drive a wedge between liberal Democrats and more moderate or conservative ones (as well as independents).
But the article actually makes the case that climate change is an issue splitting Republicans, and thus “” intentionally or otherwise “” it makes the case that global warming potentially can be used to the advantage of progressives.
(If you’re unclear on the meaning of “wedge issue,” here’s the Post’s definition of it.)
How quickly the tables have turned. When the failed U.S. Congressional cap & trade climate bill was being debated in 2009 and 2010, opponents of the legislation skillfully used it as a wedge issue to divide Democrats and moderates.
Recently, however, the terms of the national climate debate have changed and are taking place in a different political landscape. The shift has been a year in the making. Last week, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s statements on climate change–which made national headlines–crystallized the new terms of the climate dialogue. What was, not that long ago, mostly a debate about the economic cost of climate legislation, has now morphed into a politicized referendum on the legitimacy of climate science.
Naturally, this delights the Tea Party faithful and a certain wily Republican PR operator who is quoted in that Post story:
Climate change, said Marc Morano, publisher and editor of the skeptical Web site Climate Depot, is “a litmus test, pure and simple, for the presidential race.
GOP leaders, watching mutely from the sidelines, probably never considered the unintended consequences: Like the possibility of climate change becoming a wedge issue used against them–and by one of their own!
I know. What’s one tweet? Well, Jon Huntsman seems more than happy to build on it. Here’s an excerpt from an interview of him airing today on ABC News:
The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science – Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.
Looks like somebody’s name and reputation is about to be regularly pilloried at a well known climate skeptic barnyard. Unlike Newt Gingrich and other GOP presidential hopefuls, who have found themselves muddied over there, Huntsman will work to get the place condemned.
They don’t know it yet, but Huntsman just may save the Republican party from itself.
Hi Keith-
The context of the quote was a specific question to me about Rick Perry’s comments on climate change last week. And yes, Perry is using the issue of climate to divide Republicans in classic wedge fashion and, I would add, to his advantage.
I’m not sure what Romm means by this giving an advantage to progressives, but if he means that the climate wedge will likely lead to a more extreme Republican being nominated, then I agree.
That said, I am less confident that in the general election the climate wedge issue would help Obama at all. Given the response to cap and trade, I can make the case that it would work better for a Perry candidacy, in terms of public opinion.
It is important to realize that we are talking about a political horse race. One can use flag burning or abortion or climate to get people excited, but winning elections is not the same thing as implementing effective policies (we should know that from 2008!). So while Joe is right that talking about climate change can be used to political advantage, it is still the case that effective policy implementation will depend upon pragmatic policies (as we have described) and this is independent of who or what party wins the horse race (which of course is a strength of such approaches.)
Morano’s really reaching on this one. Climate change is not a litmus test for Republicans with the voters. At all. It’s a second-tier issue used to highlight Republican concerns about spending, energy consumption and generation, etc.
And Morano flatly declaring this is really drawing an imaginary and unnecessary line in the sand.
Wishin’ don’t make it so, Marc.
I should add that the more that climate is used for political advantage as a wedge issue, the more toxic it becomes as an issue of common interest, reinforcing the need for pragmatic policies. So progressives who thing they can gain a political advantage by politicizing the issue should not be disappointed when they want to talk policy and find the issue deeply … politicized.
Roger (1),
My argument is that Perry is using the climate issue (not cap and trade, but the fundamental science) as a wedge to his advantage–and to the (general election) detriment of his electability (Huntman’s argument). See my previous post for an expansion of this.
I agree with you (3) that this is to the long-term detriment of any pragmatic climate policies.
Keith,
I don’t think that it is possible to cleanly separate climate science from climate politics in the public debate, note how Perry transitions from one to the other:
“I don’t think from my perspective I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question”
I don’t think Perry’s views on climate change matter much at all in terms of his electability, or at least no more than his views on abortion, flag burning or creationism. Perry’s views on such issues could even contribute to his electability (so I guess I disagree with your argument!;-) I can’t see Huntsman going very far, despite the excitement generated among liberals by his tweet.
If we are to talk about politics, let’s forget the mickey mouse stuff, such as climate change, and talk about the real issues, such as this one raised in the previous thread:
According to a whistleblower in Texas, Perry has been up to all kinds of weird and kinky sex practices, and even derives money from investments in a string of dirty bookstores and emporiums. Youy can’t make this kind of thing up. This may be ad hominem, but hey the man is a hypocrite. A phoney who preaches Christian values, while secretly indulging in disgusting orgies”¦. allegedly.
Climate Change policy will have vast more impact on a candidates electability than the Science. Which helps to explain why Tapper did not ask what policies Huntsman would pursue based on the Science and surely why Huntsman did not offer any. Huntsman did say we should create Energy independence and invest in Nat Gas but that is not what the Science is telling us or the NAoS for that matter to do wrt CC.
Overall I get the feeling that Media is chanting FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT mostly at the Republican candidates but also between the President and his base.
What’s interesting about Perry and his unwittingly casting of a spotlight on the rest of the GOP pack of contenders is a tacit consensus emerging in the press, including some unlikely opinion journalism: After all the shouting, noise and confusion, it’s crazy not to follow the lead of the scientific community. When forced to a choice by the need to categorize Perry’s remarks, it turns out there’s no actually no choice.
Perhaps Governor Perry is owed some kind of twisted “Thank You.”
Yr boy Roger sure has a a way with political science. Remember when he said
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/08/rp-jr-says-strength-of-climate.html
——————————–
I would say the evidence suggests pretty strongly that public opinion is not a limiting factor in taking effective action on climate change.
——————————–
this, of course being perfectly consistent with his stand on tobacco
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/04/effective-tobacco-advertising.html
——————————-
In the battle over smoking efforts to deny a link between smoking and health risks seems to have been completely a lost effort.
——————————-
the choices are not pretty but Eli would not recommend taking his word on anything political. OTOH, you knew that
Morano has Norquist envy
Because of Huntsman and Kerry, climate change is clearly a dividing issue in the GOP. But I don’t understand how it could become a bad thing for the GOP. The Republicans will choose what attitude they prefer – if they find this question important enough, they will choose the presidential nominee only from the group that shares the preferred opinion.
And let me also guess that the winning side will be the skeptical side. And most likely, it will be Perry. But independently of this prediction, Republicans are offering more genuinely different choices which can’t be bad.
I meant Huntsmann and Romney. Sorry for that. Obviously, there had to be some similarity between Romney and Kerry that made me make this mistake haha.
Dream on Keith (and Joe Romm).
Huntsman is the Dem’s choice (a Trojan Horse) and everybody knows it. What he thinks or says is irrelevant. He’s a non-issue.
This ‘wedge issue’ dream might have some credibility if the public actually took AGW seriously anymore but they don’t. If they did Obama would still dare to say it out loud.
The scientific case for AGW is not a hot button issue for most voters. It is an part of a trend shifting the Republican party further and further toward the extreme right. The moderate wing of the Republican party, is getting more disgusted with the extremist takeover.
The denial of the science behind AGW, supported by 97% of climate scientists is not the only thing that upsets the Republicans who uphold science and reason. The Perry wing of the party also opposes government intervention in the economy to smooth out the business cycle by fiscal and monetary measures, and even opposes Darwin’s theory of evolution, the foundation of modern biological science.
If Perry or Bachmann, or some other of their ilk, are nominated for the presidency, it is likely to cause some number of moderate Republicans and independent voters to turn away from the Republican party and vote for Obama. It is way too soon to know whether this will be sufficient to allow Obama to retain the presidency despite the poor economic numbers that are expected at election time.
#13
I totally agree. Heck, you could elect Keith and Romm and it still would not matter. The key is not the presidency, it is the Senate. With the Justice backing out of the “climate disruption” and Congress shifting majority (2010), it is natural that the senate will gain more that 8 seats in 2012.
So, we will have a Republican Congress, Senate and on “climate disruption” a Republican Justice. Obama and Biden (or Kloor and Romm) will take 2012-2016 then Biden (or Romm) are candidate for President. Yeah, that is quite the doomday scenario for left liberals. That is the “check-mate”.
#14 Eric Adler says:
“The denial of the science behind AGW, supported by 97% of climate scientists is not the only thing that upsets the Republicans who uphold science and reason.”
Funny Are you the LAST person on the planet who doesn’t know that that 97% statistic is a cherry picked fraud?
Yes, 75 of 77 is 97%.
Thought there were more scientists than that?
Well, first you EXCLUDE “the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.”
That left 10,257 deemed ‘worthy’ for this on-line survey.
But only 3146 bothered to answer it, and only 83% of that selected (for their bias) group agreed on AGW. So they narrowed that down to a cherry picked sample of 77, and voila, 97% of them agreed. Most astonishing that it wasn’t 100%.
Here’s a link to the original paper:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf
Here’s Solomon’s article about it:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
And here it is again, complete with lots of interesting comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/lawrence-solomon-on-consensus-statistics/
EdG says:
“Funny Are you the LAST person on the planet who doesn’t know that that 97% statistic is a cherry picked fraud?”
Clearly I am not. Clearly it is not a cherry picked fraud. The article you linked to at the AGW denier think tank, SPPI, tries to cast doubt on the definition of climate scientist and the validity of the sample. It is an opinion piece. A reply of 36% on a survey is not really that bad, and no real evidence is presented to show the sample is distorted.
The other point that needs to be made is that there are actually two independent polls taken around the same time, that get a figure of 97% support for AGW among climate scientists. One by Doran et. al. and one by Pielke Sr and Annan, who are both climate scientists themeselves:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184
Perry is certainly questioning something about the science behind Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. But what he is really questioning is the CERTAINTY behind the predictions based on that science. It is the CERTAINTY that drives the Precautionary Principle that drives the cap-n-tax and other economically devastating policies.
The actual economic harm done to the individual under the CAGW-driven political changes is becoming very clear to the citizens of Britain, Germany, Spain and Australia. America has its harm mostly in the future, but near-future, and anyone who sees voter rebellion in those countries will be aware of the personal political ramifications of countering the CAGW threat. All Perry has to do is state categorically – as he has done – that the threat is PROBABLY exaggerated and that the true costs to the taxpayer at this time of economic difficulty are severe. All he has to do is convince the public to `hang tough`and see what develops. Four years in office will be enough time for the CAGW exaggeration to become clear. Then watch the World Government promoters like Gore.
Perry is saying that CAGW is bogus. It will polarize the green- and not-green Republicans, for certain. But a slight twist to `Allow us 4 more years to see that CAGW is real before the Greens take your money and give away your freedoms – which I believe will not be necessary because CAGW is bogus. A little more time is all this President will ask, a request any prudent father who is putting his child through school would ask for.`
In a political war you don`t have to be strong or upstanding, but only show that your opponents are weak and MAY BE immoral.
Well, I see that I’ve warranted a sizable column over at Climate Depot today. Here is one snippet:
“Warmist Keith Kloor’s moment of clarity: Rick Perry is having a referendum on legitimacy of climate science–BINGO!” Morano obviously thinks this is a winning strategy for him in his larger aim to delegitimize climate science. He’s wrong.
Not long ago, over at The American Thinker, Walter Russell Mead wrote a series of disparaging but to my mind, fairly accurate analyses of Al Gore’s climate strategy (and that of the larger green movement’s), which included this:
“Whatever one thinks of the scientific evidence for climate change, [Al] Gore is on much stronger ground when he argues that the earth is warming than when he argues that a great green global treaty on the lines he proposes can ever be either adopted or enforced. There are a great many scientists and scientific journals who agree with Mr. Gore about climate change. Perhaps they are all frauds and mountebanks “” but that is a tough case to make in the court of public opinion.”
Indeed. Morano’s fatal miscalculation is in thinking otherwise.
Perry’s comments as to the comparability of AD 1975-2000/1850-200 warming to episodes of similar or greater amplitude events/periods of the Middle to Late Holocene climate oscillations are roughly correct. This is seen broadly in the palaeobiology record (flora-fauna histories), glacial geomorphology, O18 isotope records esp. in calcareous tufas of lowlwnd regions (short-residence aquifers), densitometrics of late season growth of Alpine conifers, lake-level evidence, and a host of other proxy data. This does not mean that Perry understands these, but he is as reasonably accurate as one can get in a 2 minute sound bite..
bruce,
Which sound bites are you referring to? The ones I’ve been writing about, the ones he has gotten all the attention for (and which Huntsman has been seizing on) this past week are those where global warming is said to be a hoax and climate scientists a bunch of fabricators.
#17 – Eric Adler – Either way you spin it the bottom line is that your statement – a frequently repeated mantra appealing to authority – that “the science behind AGW, supported by 97% of climate scientists” is false.
In your best case scenario, that statistic only covers a small percentage of “climate scientists,” not all of them.
And then there’s those annoyi ng details like who or what qualified as a “climate scientist” and in the case I noted, the miraculous and convenient reduction of the total sample to only 77.
So, 75 “climate scientists” agreed. How many “climate scientists” are there? What percentage of them does 75 represent.
So, if 97% of Perry campaign workers agree that he’s the best man for the job, so what?
Bringing up global warming/climate change is a winning proposition for the Pubs. Look at Canada, which got rid of its “green” PM and chose a conservative who is pushing tar sands oil. Look at Australia. Look at Britain, where the renewable energy/windpower mandate is starting to get hit hard due to existing and pending price increases, and stories about who is getting rich off of the siting of wind farms. Look at what Germany is doing for future power needs. Perry’s position is the wave of the future, and fits well with a “government is the problem (especially the federal government), not the solution” campaign approach.
As for Huntsman, the only people who seem interested in him at all are the liberal media types. He’ll soon sink into the sea, without even having caused a ripple among Republicans (the only ones who will notice will be the liberal media, who will be aghast at the inability of this “reasonable, moderate Republican” to get more than 1% of the votes (he got all of 69 votes in the Iowa straw poll)).
What is you are a scientist with degrees from Berkeley and Stanford who is a lifelong democrat who believes that the global warming scare is a hoax? Where does this put me in the scheme of things? I have researched the subject for decades, when it first appeared as “we are going into an ice age,” by the same people who are now screaming we are all going to die from global warming.
Where does this put someone like me with both a science background, who has done a lot of research, yet is a democrat? I’ll tell you where it puts me…for the first time in my life, I might vote for a republican who denounces it. Because I believe that climate scientists have debased science and convinced people like the writer of this article to be believe in a hoax. To believe in a science that is corrupted by money and politics. That is where it leaves me.
So when this whole hoax is unmasked, because the warming won’t happen, will you then say global warming leads to global cooling??? We will see how far that argument gets you.
The most significant aspect of the Perry candidacy is that we now have a serious candidate for the White House who is committed to pulling the plug on the global warming hoax. That means all the economy-killing regulations, billions wasted on grants to scientists, subsidies for “alternate energy” – all go poof! The websites dedicated to the hoax will disappear. By the time Perry’s term(s) are over both the continued advance and dissemination of scientific knowledge and the upcoming solar and ocean current driven temperature drop will kill off the hoax for good.
I predict that under a Perry administration when scientists can no longer get grant money for “studying” global warming support for the theory among the scientific community will wane dramatically.
Keith, for Christ sakes, the noise ratio is off the charts. Help!
There is a big difference between saying “On balance if we add Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere we should expect some warming, but we need to monitor the situation because the atmosphere is so complex a simple model that says more CO2 equals more warming is not particularly valid” and “If we don’t stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere we are all going to die”. Both of these statements would be considered by the warmers to be scientists who believe in Climate Change. The 97% statistic is one the Climate Change movements greatest mistake because it’s clearly an advertisement. 97% of Real Men prefer Pepsi(TM) to Coke(TM). How about 97% of morons believe that because a study showed that 97% of Climate Scientists (TM) believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (TM) that makes it real.
Keith,
Followed that link to Climate Depot to verify that you are indeed “climate hoax promoter.”
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/08/climate-hoax-promoter-keith-kloor-calls.html
It is written so it must be true.
They also had this:
“About Keith Kloor
Fred got it right. People care about the policies to allegedly cure the disease of AGW. Maybe, as a result of Perry’s comments, we may actually see our first true public debate on national television. The “believers” should want that if they are true to their convictions, or do they fear a debate finally putting the issue to rest once and for all? My opinion is a real debate would kill the “CO2 pollution” claim forever…..
Keith, it is the specific reference to fact of the amplitude of historical (and prehistoric) climate changes as being of similar magnitude to recent events, he does not specify of course as to just when the “Earth is formed”, for obvious reasons of the sensitivities of his voter base. Some will not like the idea of a pre-Middle Holocene Earth. I was speaking mostly of the secular time-scale (century-level, although decadal trends are important where resolved) oscillations since the Middle Holocene (beyond the matter of longer-term changes forced by changes in the earth’s orbital parameters, the secular changes may be modulated by a wide range of factors from mechanics of the major synoptic systems like NAO-ENSO when in persistent mode particularly, see for example:
Trouet, V., Esper, J., Graham, N.E., Baker, A., Scourse, J.D., Frank, D.C. (2009) Persistent Positive North Atlantic Oscillation Mode Dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science. vol. 324: 78-82
also aspects of solar variation including irradiance, solar-induced variation in geomagnetics as these influence jet-stream activity as studied by Vaclav Bucha, the recent CERN experiments [CLOUD] on upper atmosphere cloud formation, just to name some solar forcings, in addition to geological factors like volcanism). Obviously, I am not suggesting that Perry is well-read onthese things. One could list 1000’s of references re. the nature of Holocene climate change. If you care, I could try to search the net for the address ofthe exact segment of which I am thinking…
Judith Curry has a post touching on “boomerangs” and in her thread observes that
“Perry seems to combine young earth creationism with anti-AGW, which gives the anti-AGW sentiments an anti-sciece tinge, which probably won’t play well in a general election. That is my take on the boomerang factor for the Republicans.”
Hello, people: that was my take in this post.