Huntsman Surrenders High Ground, Joins the Crazy
Reading Jon Huntsman’s new-found equivocation on climate change reminded me of Bill Clinton’s flexible definition of the word “is.” There’s just no way you can be a politician and keep your soul from rotting. But hey, at that level of the game, how much soul can they have left?
So why has Huntsman suddenly become squishy on climate science? I think James Fallows pretty much gets it here:
And remember back when Jon Huntsman bragged about his “call me crazy” status for believing scientists about climate change? Ah, those were the days — before he apparently sensed that his chance for the Bachmann->Perry->Cain->Newt->??? conservative vote might be at hand.
Yes, it appears that Huntsman thinks his turn in the very fluid Republican contest will come after the inevitable Newt flameout. So instead of positioning himself as the sane Republican in 2016, he’s gambling what’s left of his soul on the fickleness of conservative primary voters in 2012. What a shame, if not a surprise.
The only thing that’s missing is a tweet from Rick Perry to Huntsman, saying: “Welcome to crazyville. What took you so long?”
Perhaps Huntsman has been reading about Durban and has concluded that AGW interest will decline and he would not get Joe Romm’s vote anyway 😉
I don’t know about politicians and their souls but I do know that hell = not getting elected
Maybe he still believes this –
“To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”
But he’s switched the Team of scientists he trusts…
It’s true that Republicans have written off global warming.
Due to the complexity of the issues and the binary nature of politics, they don’t have time for the uncertainties of some amount of warming due to some amount of carbon emissions.
Republicans know that the people pushing global warming are their usual opponents: Democrats, liberals and environmentalists, who have been pushing similar scare campaigns since the 1950s and mostly been wrong. T
Republicans realize — correctly — that the global warming agenda means higher taxes, more government spending, more regulations and more entanglement with the UN. Republicans are dead set in 2012 to do battle against all of these.
Furthermore, a decade of flat temperatures and all the climate scandals have solidified Republican opinion that there is plenty of “crazy” on the orthodox side. Global warming has become a joke to Republicans, thus Huntsman shifting position.
And that’s the story so far.
The tough thing for the orthodox is that they must persuade some Republicans to come to the global warming side. I’m sure that calling Republicans crazy and anti-science will work.
Keith, since I recall you hoping for Huntsman way back when, this must be rather disappointing. But he’s just a politician adapting to political reality. Even Obama doesn’t dare mention AGW these days and look at what the US delegation in Durban is doing.
I have never thought for a moment that Huntsman had a chance this round, if ever. Among other reasons he has the same (unspoken) problem as Romney. That is, he is a Mormon. And in this supposedly enlightened age we seem to be going back into the Dark Ages when it comes to religion, both spiritual and secular.
So this sudden ‘epiphany,’ whether real or just politically convenient, probably won’t get him too far. But, you never know.
Looks like Huntsman would win in the UK too, according to the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/07/public-support-climate-change-declines
Take a look at the photo that accompanies the story. It’s a picture taken at a climate change protest and all the protesters are holding signs calling for an end to capitalism and advocating “climate justice” – a concept of global wealth redistribution that doesn’t even pretend to address global emissions.
You insist that the Republican nominee to support what you see in that photo? Really? Good luck.
I guess this change of mind will cause a bit of a problem for those suggesting that skeptics have ‘lizard brains’ or whatever Chris Mooney’s new book is going to claim as their ‘scientificaly’ demonstrated defect.
It’s not that ‘sceptics’ have ‘lizard brains’ so much; it’s that they refuse to access information outside their comfort zone. Which is narrow.
The problem with Huntsman is not the same. He’s just being a cynical, opportunistic political animal.
Mr. Kloor –
So, Huntsman is an opportunistic politician. As Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise, Surprise!”. But I have a nagging question: how do we know that he was principled before and opportunistic now? What if he was being opportunistic before and principled now?
# 7 BBD
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/01/15/its-the-lizard-brain-stupid/
“Humanity Faces Global Climate Change, Or…Lizards On Holiday
Our neurology may prevent us from perceiving climatic threat,..”
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC22/Prescott.htm
I can’t recall the exact theory Mooney is flogging in his new book but it is something about as convenient as this. Worse, actually. He based it on partisan criteria sort of like imagining that Dems and repubs were like two separate species. Black-white thinking at its most simplistic.
I agree with you about Huntsman. That’s what professional politicians do. It is harder for the politicians masquerading as ‘scientists’ to be so adaptable.
# 8 Tom C
Yes, you’ve got it. If you want to see him as principled now or then then he is or was, or vice versa.
Sort of like how natural factors are dominant when it is cooling but CO2 dominates when it is warming.
People tend to see what they want to see.
Huntsman is denying any change in his position.
“Let me be very clear on this: there is no change,” he told reporters after his speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition. “I put my faith and trust in science. So you have 99 of 100 climate scientists who have come out and talked about climate change in certain terms, what is responsible for it. I tend to say this is a discussion that should not be in the political lane but should be in the scientific lane.”
“Is there a one percent that has a disagreement? There’s a one percent that has a disagreement,” he added. “Will those discussions continue, as they always do in the scientific community, to clear up those areas of ambiguity? I suspect so. But, as for me, I’m on the side of science on this one.”
# 11 – TB If that is his position then his chances for the Repub nomination are below zero. This is about appealing to the critical ‘independent’ vote but he went over the top by regurgitating that 99% myth. It just doesn’t fly anymore. I doubt if that crowd bought it but it does make sense for him to be cultivating them due to Obama’s weakness on Israel. Big mistake by Obama.
As for so-called ‘flip-flopping’ – also known as adapting to political reality – it is just the way professional politicians operate.
January 22, 2009
“With a few strokes of a pen, President Obama this morning reversed linchpins of the Bush administration’s war on terror.
He signed executive orders to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center within a year…”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_orders_gu.html
Even Obama doesn’t dare mention AGW these days and look at what the US delegation in Durban is doing.
EdG @4 has it right. Global warming is dead as a political issue in the US, and Europe is not far behind. The Democrats may not have signed up for “crazyville” but their sudden loss of interest is another kind of flip-flop.
Thus we see the climate orthodox frantically searching for people to blame: skeptics and Republicans mostly.
Of course, the orthodox are unlikely to consider their own mistakes.
But global warming is dead for the time being. You can take that to the bank.
I’m watching to see if the orthodox can muster any constructive response, but I’m not optimistic.
I will also say here, since this is the closest thing to a relevant thread, that the Obama administration seems to be exhibiting some anti-science tendencies of its own with the HHS overruling the FDA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-refuses-to-relax-plan-b-restrictions/2011/12/07/gIQAF5HicO_story.html
This is not something I’ve followed closely, but if things are as they seem, the Obama administration deserves condemnation for this.
On Huntsman’s twister game with himself, indeed, here is an update. He’s acting very Romney-like and ultimately will end up pleasing no one.
@ tb (14)
I disagree. I think it’s a good decision.
Huntsman’s poll numbers just went up from 0.01% to 0.010000001%
Climate change is a non-factor in this US election. Very unlikely to change in the next year. It’s the economy, stupid.
I suggest that any US politician that embraces “climate justice”, “climate debt”, or any other euphemism for global wealth distribution as a climate policy solution has ZERO chance of getting elected in either party.
The quicker the climate community kicks that bunch off their commune, the sooner it will make progress toward more mainstream support.
The double flip flop is interesting, and tends to argue against the idea that it was a planned calculated political move. I think when any politician is emersed daily in an enivironment of fervent global warming denial (which would be the case of anyone running for the Republican nomination), it’s going to have an effect, similar to someone being forced to spend all year among a whacky religious cult.
Examining the details of the UK survey behind jeffn’s link is revealing.
% who consider these “very” or “extremely” dangerous to the environment
A rise in the world’s temperatuer caused by climate change:
2000: 50%
2010: 43%
-7%
Pollution of Britain’s rivers, lakes and streams
2000: 62%
2010: 46%
-16%
Air pollution caused by cars
2000: 54%
2010: 28%
-26%
While I’m sure this goes against the spin the global warming denial crowd would like to put on it, the fact that concern for other environmental problems has declined more than global warming indicates that other factors are in play at shaping views and concerns. Economic conditions, perhaps?
#19 – NYJ
“the fact that concern for other environmental problems has declined more than global warming indicates that other factors are in play at shaping views and concerns. Economic conditions, perhaps?”
It is really quite simple. Media coverage. It is called, to be nice like Chomsky, ‘manufactured consent.’
Just compare the relentless media coverage of the AGW story with the coverage of those other concerns.
Similarly, due to media coverage, including no end of ‘crime’ dramas, the public believes there is more violent crime than stats show there actually is.
To your question, while there obviously is much more concern about economic conditions now, if that explained it then what could explain the differences in concern levels? Why would economic conditions make people so much less concerned about ‘auto pollution’ than about AGW? Last polling I saw had all environmental concerns way down relative to better economic times. That is always how it works. People and all species are primarily concerned with life in the now.
Species evolved to present, not future, conditions. Just a bonus when those adaptations turned out to be valuable in the future.
Not saying that we operate on that level now, but not far from it.
NewYorkJ @ 19
the fact that concern for other environmental problems has declined more than global warming indicates that other factors are in play at shaping views and concerns. Economic conditions, perhaps?
I’m in the UK, so I’ll venture my opinion. The economic horrors are definitely holding public attention, but there are other factors in play. EdG is right to point to media spin but I’m not sure I agree with where he is going.
Waterways: over the last 15 years or so, there has been some success in cleaning up some of Britain’s waterways and even more success in diverting public attention away from pollution by agricultural runoff and sewage outfalls. Although if you ask a surfer about coastal water quality you will typically get quite a blast of anger.
Government literature gives a flavour of the reality (quote below); compare and contrast with this oddly optimistic Guardian article (the Guardian is usually very hot on environmental issues).
In 2009, only 26 per cent of rivers, lakes and other water bodies in England met the required levels of water quality, as set out in the European Water Framework Directive. The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Agency do not expect that all English water bodies will achieve these levels by the 2027 deadline, as it may be disproportionately costly or not technically feasible. Unless the European Commission agrees a lower target accordingly, the United Kingdom could be exposed to considerable financial penalties.
The Agency has not yet sufficiently identified the extent to which failure to meet standards is due to diffuse pollution and which sources contribute most to this failure. The Agency considers the agricultural sector to be the major contributor to diffuse pollution and this sector has been the focus of its activities. But there is limited information on the impact of different farming activities on water pollution and so it is not possible to establish whether the Agency is effectively targeting its resources.
As for cars, well, the incidence of childhood asthma is steadily rising, and there’s persuasive evidence linking it to particulates from vehicle exhausts, especially diesel. Although just about everything else under the sun has been claimed to be a factor. Let me by cynical and say that I have little doubt over the central role of the diesel engine, but of course there are other triggers. Who am I to suggest that they receive more attention in the media than is justified by the epidemiology? Or that this happens because it would be rather inconvenient if attention were to focus on the rapidly growing diesel automotive sector?
Oops. Just noticed in my #20 that when I wrote “Species evolved to present, not future, conditions” I meant that “Species ADAPT to present, not future, conditions.”
For comparison, note the following recent U.S. polls.
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/
A majority of Americans (57%) now disagree with the statement, “With the economy in such bad shape, the US can’t afford to reduce global warming” ““ an 8 point increase in disagreement since May 2011.
Majority support for…
Likewise, 60 percent of Americans support a $10 per ton carbon tax if the revenue were used to reduce federal income taxes, even when told this would “slightly increase the cost of many things you buy, including food, clothing, and electricity.”
I pointed out recently how horrible messaging is when, say, Australia’s recent carbon reduction initiative is truncated into simply “carbon tax”, emphasizing only a negative.
Maybe most surprising is that only 14% have heard of the IPCC. I suspect a good number of them know about it from Fox News or some other “it’s a hoax” outlets.
Now I wonder also how much regional weather extremes affect views. For example, how much is the increase in support for taking action related to:
Majorities said that global warming made the record high temperatures in the US, the drought in Texas and Oklahoma, the Mississippi River floods, the record snowfalls in the US, and Hurricane Irene worse.