GOP Faces Schism Over Climate Change
It turns out that some leading moderate Republicans are chafing at the “anti-science” label being affixed to their party. The National Journal has the story:
Between 2005 and 2010, prominent moderate Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and John Warner of Virginia (now retired) were among Washington’s leading voices in the call to fight climate change, and authored cap-and-trade bills aimed at addressing the problem.
And they did so as leaders of their party: while running for president, chairing Senate committees, and working within the congressional leadership.
Now, moderate Republicans like McCain and Graham have quieted their voices on the issue, in part because acknowledging climate change puts them out of sync with the tea party base that has so energized their party, and because climate-change legislation stands no chance of passing Congress in the current political environment.
But quietly, many acknowledge a deepening GOP schism over the issue, as many moderates grow increasingly disturbed by their party’s denial of proven science. A number of influential Republicans who have left the battlefield of electoral politics are now taking action in an effort to change the GOP’s stance.
Some of that action described in the story is old news, but the larger concern about being tagged an anti-science party is growing in some corners of the GOP. And the response isn’t to blow smoke at it, but to actually face up to it.
==============
many moderates grow increasingly disturbed by their party’s denial of proven science
==============
As a real question, I would like to ask just what can be taken as “proven science” in the field of AGW. How can this be related to specific policy goals?
My own impression was that this was the era of “no regrets” policies. The science of global warming is not yet mature enough to create reliable predictions of the effects of any proposed policy. Therefore it acts as a guide in the selection of policies for which there will be “no regrets”
Take the example of extreme weather events in which there is political controversy over attribution. If policies are taken with the justification of countering extreme events and then later the science used is shown to be inadequate then this risks the discrediting of all AGW research.
Tom you’re conflating policy and science.
Dismissing the science because you don’t like the policy mechanism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And citing the controversy over attribution is selective.
The fact is, moderate Republicans, worried over the direction the Republican establishment is going on climate change, would like a course correction–one that doesn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Ahh yes, a thinly vieled Tea Party smear. (Writing about internal strife over anti-science imbeds anti-science as a premise – a trick not atypical in climate science, BTW).
Of course, the Tea Party doesn’t oppose climate science (or science of any kind). They want fiscal responsibility, low taxes, limited government, free markets. They most definately oppose decarbonization or similar policies, but that’s different.
Some in the Tea Party aren’t too keen on the climate science establishment – largely justified, IMO.
Of course, for political reasons, republicans want to dodge the anti-science label, the most recent political play by the left. But this is just political name calling.
Anyway, nice try.
@3
You play twister with the best of em. 🙂
And developing a healthy vicim pathology, too, with your vigilant concerns about Tea Party slights. Just because some of your fellow Republicans aren’t seeing things the way you do is not my fault.
I warned over a year ago that Republicans were digging a grave with their attitudes on this. Of course I also wrote that this would be seen as Obama’s Iraq.
I was right twice. Both major parties are intent on behaving idiotically.
As a Democrat
, Republican mistakes should gladdene. They don’t. As an American it all saddens me.’
The fact that this is coming from “retired Republicans”, who have no re-election or wrath from constituents to worry about, indicates that maybe some active Republicans privately accept the science, but are not indicating so publicly, since their base is so strongly anti-science. It’s broadly similar to a preacher who will not speak publicly any opinions that contradict tenets of the church. So these efforts will be unlikely to move active leaders. Start with the base.
Active politicians do face a problem, though. While anti-science views are strongly encouraged among the base, it’s likely to be a moderate liability after the primary season, so one might expect the eventual nominees to soften their anti-science stance. The reason why it’s not more than a moderate problem is that immediate economic concerns are likely to trump any other (foreign policy, environmental, social).
One strategy from Democratic leaders is to make it an economic issue, where addressing global warming will bring in new industries and jobs. They’ve gained some traction on this, which is why there’s a massive desperate effort from Republicans to take political advantage of the Solyndra bankruptcy.
Keith,
kdk33 is resisting the redefining of the tea party into something that it isn’t. The tea party (which is something you attend like a birthday party) was – and it may be a one time phenomenom – a semi spontaneous reaction to uncontrolled borrowing, spending and Obamacare that led to the election of forty or more Congressmen and two Senators. They were elected repeal Obamacare and to say no to new spending and no to new taxes, but to favor tax reform.
@7
and the Koch brothers are wealthy patriots who are doing their best to raise up the common man… 🙄
PK (#7),
Same partisan logic: Democrats were elected in 2006 and 2008 to enact ObamaCare, increase domestic spending, stop all wars we are engaged in, stop all new domestic oil production, prevent the privatization of Social Security, repeal the Patriot Act, legalize gay marriage, etc.
Republicans won in 2010 primarily because of economic conditions (with other factors playing a smaller role), enough to swing the political pendulum, but partisans on both sides always attach their preferred policy positions as the primary reasons why they won.
They are politicans, Keith. McCain et al were just going with the flow, which was backed by ‘establishment’ science, and then largely unquestioned… back in the pre-Climategate Era.
Their opinions were based on just accepting that, like most people did back then, and of course the vested interests in the AGW business were supporting that full tilt.
Now the world has turned and so have politicians. Even Obama can barely utter the words ‘climate change’ outside of California.
You can try to blame this on the Tea Party – sheesh! – or the Denial machine or whatever but the true ‘blame’ goes to the over-the-top wolf cryers and all their false claims and failed predictions. To the degree that this is a scientific debate at all, it all comes down to the evidence, or lack of it.
IMHO Lindsay Graham backed away from Cap & Trade because the financial viabiity of VC Summer #2 and VC Summer #3 was no longer predicated on a ‘Carbon Price’.
The cost of electricity in Galena, Alaska is 70 cents/KWh. Senator Murkowski needs the ‘climate change’ issue in order to get DOE funding for a Small Modular Nuclear reactor for the city of Galena, Alaska and potentially other Alaskan rural communities where the ONLY energy choices are Diesel or Coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Sometimes policies designed to solve one problem solve another problem at the same time. Assuming which problem the politician thinks is ‘most important’ can lead someone to falsely believe that a ‘marriage of ideas’ exists when it is only a temporary marriage of convenience.
Tom Gray,
@2
Once again the point made by psychologists about “motivated reasoning” is validated. The reason for denying the climate science is not based on the science itself, but rather on the unpalatability of the policy implications.
The fact is that two polls and the published literature shows 97% of climate scientists accept that human activity is driving climate change. A poll by Annan and Pielke shows that about 80% of climate science researchers accept the IPCC’s assessment of the consequences, or believe that things are worse than the IPCC report states. On top of that the kind of extremely damaging drought and flood events have set records world wide for 2010 and 2011.
History shows that the scientific objections to global warming originate from scientists and laymen funded by right wing think tanks, i.e. the denial machine. Just run down the list of attendees at the Heartland Institute conferences, and this becomes evident.
In spite of this, the leading candidate, Perry says that scientists are deceiving the public and predicting problems just to keep the grant money rolling in. Polls show that the Republican base largely accepts this.
Once again the point made by psychologists about “motivated reasoning” is validated. Two polls [in] the published literature shows 97% of climate scientists accept that human activity is driving climate change.
(fixed it)
History shows that the scientific consensus emanates scientists largely beholden to government research funding,
(this too)
@11
Speaking of Galena…
“The Galena government spent $60,000 on federal lobbying efforts in 2010, representing $127.66 per capita — the highest rate of any state, county or municipal government in the United States, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of federal lobbying and U.S. Census data. In 2009, Galena spent $40,000. The city’s annual budget is about $5 million, according to a municipal document from 2007.
This means that for every dollar spent on federal lobbying efforts in 2010, Galena scored $25 in return. “
Marlowe @15.
I don’t understand your math.
You seem to imply that every dollar of Galena’s budget is the result of its federal lobbying?
How much of its budget was federal money gained from its lobbying efforts?
oops this part was left out….
“For doling out about one percent of its budget on lobbying, Galena reaped around $1.5 million in capital projects grants “which are being used to repair antiquated utilities when the Air Force abandoned Galena and left us high and dry,” Corrigan said.”