Words have consequences. Words mean things. And words have a way of following you…
If it’s true, that even the most staunch purveyors of climate denial are now in full retreat (see below) – that makes for some pretty interesting campaign contortions for candidates who have wedded themselves to science denial, and who still have to face a rabidly crazy, self selected slice of the Republican electorate in upcoming Presidential primaries next year.
Tom Steyer’s climate-focused political group is already gearing up for the 2016 presidential race, announcing on Monday a new effort that will focus on putting Republican candidates on the defense when it comes to global warming.
NextGen Climate’s chief strategist, Chris Lehane, said in a call with reporters that the group’s mission heading into 2016 is to “disqualify” candidates who deny that climate change is real or caused by human activity by proving that “they don’t have what it takes to be president.” The effort will be called Hot Seat, and NextGen Climate says it will involve media and on-the-ground campaigns in key electoral states aimed at linking Republican deniers to the Koch brothers and other interests that seek to undermine climate science.
The idea, NextGen says, is to force Republican candidates who are skeptical of climate change to defend their views right out of the gate.
“If you’re in a position that is different from 97 percent of scientists, that does raise basic competency questions in terms of whether people are going to want to give you the keys to the White House,” said Lehane.
Their first target, Lehane said, is Rand Paul, who is expected to announce his candidacy Tuesday in Louisville, Kentucky. The group is planning to hit Paul with a stunt involving a “lie detector test” to force him to go on the record about his views on climate change, and will also follow the candidate to Iowa. Paul has previously questioned the consensus view among scientists that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate, but has also tried to moderate his stance somewhat in recent months.
The group intends to portray Republican candidates who deny climate change as being subservient to the will of major donors like the Koch brothers, the conservative fossil-fuel billionaires. “[The Kochs] have acquired the Republican Party and purposed it,” said Lehane. “Now they have these various Republican candidates saying they don’t believe in the science.”
Below, the New Republic explores case in point, Presidential contender Rand Paul:
Rand Paul has already taken a half-dozen different positions on climate change, all before he marked his first day officially campaigning for president.
In January, he voted yes on a Republican-sponsored resolution that “human activity contributes to climate change.” But he doesn’t want to say human activity significantly contributes, since he voted no on a Democratic resolution that same day. A year ago, the Kentucky senator was less sure of climate change science. “Anybody who’s ever studied any geology knows that over periods of time, long periods of time, that the climate changes, mmkay?” he said in April 2014. “I’m not sure anybody exactly knows why.” He seemed to dispute that scientists who spend their lives studying this know what they’re doing. “We have real data [for] about 100 years,” he said. “So somebody tell me what 100 years data is in an Earth that is 4.6 billion years old? My guess is that the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive.”
It’s possible he has brushed up on his fifth-grade science since last year, which would suggest Paul’s ideas of how to respond likewise could have matured. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
–
He suggested in a November interview with HBO’s Bill Maher that he was open, in some form, to limited regulation. “All I ask for is that the solution has to be a balanced solution and that you have to account for jobs and jobs lost by regulation,” he said, adding the caveat that he doesn’t think “shutting down dramatically one form of energy is a good idea for an economy.” He then likened climate change science to a “religiosity.”
He may have been confused about greenhouse gas pollution that causes climate change with the air pollution that harms lungs. “I’m not against regulation,” Paul said. “I think the environment has been cleaned up dramatically through regulations on emissions as well as clean water over the last 40 or 50 years. But I don’t want to shut down all forms of energy such that thousands and thousands of people lose jobs.”
Paul is certain of one thing: Climate change is too silly an issue to warrant a chief executive’s attention. “I don’t think we really want a commander-in-chief who’s battling climate change instead of terrorism,” he said in response to comments made by Hillary Clinton in September.
For now, the candidate’s views remain a muddle; his staff did not return a request to clarify his position. But his position is already better than many of his GOP opponents, which points more to the sad state of the Republican party than it does to Paul’s presidential credentials.
You only need one question for these clowns: “What about California”? Do they think what’s happening there is trivial? And the disaster will only be worse in 2016.
Republicans depend heavily on public ignorance. Problem is when events become so big that they hammer the clueless public over the head.
There’s a line from Ambrose Bierce that war is God’s way of teaching Americans geography. Maybe environmental disasters are God’s way of teaching Americans science.
One of the best lines in a long time:
“Maybe environmental disasters are God’s way of teaching Americans science”.
Are the GOP going to implement their Cruz Control?
He’s Cruzin for a Bruzin… 🙂
I’m actually more worried about this period we’re entering After the GOP does its ‘about face’ on climate change (which is currently underway). Why worry? Because it has become clear that fossil money is pulling the strings, and that money doesn’t actually need the GOP to deny climate change, it just needs the GOP to keep anything from being done about it. So, to get votes, I think we’re going to see a lot of politicians talking up action on CC, and a whole lotta nothing being done about it.
Go back and reread John Eric’s comment. Another great line there is:
“Problem is when events become so big that they hammer the clueless public over the head”.
If the drought and water crisis in CA continues into 2015 and 2016, the “clueless public” will see that the Repugnants want to drive the country into the ditch and likely be unwilling to put the country on “Cruz Control”.
(And isn’t “keeping anything from being done about it” really the same thing as “denying” climate change?)
Paul Krugman had a sobering article recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/paul-krugman-economics-and-elections.html?_r=0
a quote: “Voters have fairly short memories, and they judge economic policy not by long-term results but by recent growth. Over five years, the [British] coalition’s record looks terrible. But over the past couple of quarters it looks pretty good, and that’s what matters politically.”
The drought is mostly a natural cycle. The rains will return and with them the denial. Actually, and speculatively: if the drought IS being caused by loss of Arctic sea ice, as seems possible since that was the central prediction of a climate model run a decade ago, then possibly the drought will never lift. In that case the sea ice is the tipping point to massive, unalterable Western drought conditions. But assuming we aren’t quite there yet, the political realities are troubling. People worry about what is right in front of their noses, and forget the rest.
Krugman gets it! He is talking about economics and voter behavior in elections here, but the same principle applies in many areas of human behavior, particularly in things that happen slowly like climate change.
It’s called “availability bias”, and Krugman’s saying “Voters have fairly short memories, and they judge economic policy not by long-term results but by recent growth” could easily be reworded to talk about attitudes towards climate change, i.e., “The public have fairly short memories, and they react to climate change only as it directly effects them in the local and short term sense”.
I came across the term “availability bias”in a book about Superstorm Sandy titled “Storm Surge”—-a great read on many levels.
We can’t as yet say with certainty one way or the other that “The drought is mostly a natural cycle”. If it is, it may last for decades as other droughts have in the west and southwest. If, as you say, it’s a direct result of AGW, “…. the sea ice is the tipping point to massive, unalterable Western drought conditions”. If so, the deniers’ goose will likely be cooked and we’ll not hear from them again.
“People worry about what is right in front of their noses, and forget the rest” indeed..
You have just described the situation in Australia which should be a case study for everyone in the US before the next election.
Wait! Rand Paul says the earth is 4.5 B years old? He is toast with the base…
They need to go after those whose history is that of denialism. If they give a pass to those entering the race who have suddenly “seen the light” you just know that once the election is over they’ll go back to cozying up to big carbon and denying climate change