Post by Dr. Ryan Maue
Distinguished MIT Professor Dr. Kerry Emanuel, who has waded gradually — but head-first into the politics of climate change, showed up on NPR’s Talk of the Nation last Friday to expound upon his previous LA Times interview/opinion editorial. As a refresher on January 6, Emanuel uniquely declared his particular political allegiance in the article, something very few scientists in any field dare do (see John Tierney’s piece on Social Psychologist liberal bias). As a lifelong Republican, Emanuel admired Reagan, opposes gay marriage, backs a strong military, yet voted for President Obama. [See WUWT Cambridge Conservative…] Why do we need to know any of this quite personal information? Simple: using his self-ascribed conservative credentials and the helpfully crafted straw-man argument encapsulated in the headline “Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren’t incompatible”, Emanuel could position himself as a unique entity in the field — a Republican that supports doing something about climate change. In the follow up interview on NPR entitled “Take the Science Politics out of Climate Change”, Emanuel accomplishes the exact opposite: he applies a “litmus test” to political candidates based upon their “belief” in climate change:
Prof. EMANUEL: My feeling is that at this point in history, if a politician simply denies that there’s any human influence in the climate, in face of all the evidence, it so much casts doubt on that person’s ability to weigh evidence and come to a rational conclusion that I can’t see myself voting for such a person, no matter what they say about other issues.
Aside from Dr. Michael Mann who launched a preemptive broadside attack [October 8 Washington Post editorial] on the incoming GOP Congress prior to the November election tsunami, which has subpoena power, it is unusual for an internationally renowned and well-respected scientist in any field to publicly declare their political ideology AND then turn around and ask that we delicately separate politics and science when we consider policy prescriptions on global warming action. If you indeed do that with this interview, one can find much scientific agreement between Emanuel and another outspoken scientist Dr. Judith Curry.
Read the NPR transcript or listen to the interview with Dr. Kerry Emanuel.
—————–
In my opinion, climate science has been mixed with politics since Al Gore declared that the “debate was over”. Furthermore, when the policy prescriptions are indistinguishable from the economic platform/goals of the left, it is very difficult to gather much in the way of bipartisan energy to legislate — especially from a recession-weary populace that wants to see government shrink. Did anyone in the media or on the left ever figure out the Tea Party. No.
Prior to the election of number 41, fellow Massachusetts conservative Scott Brown, President Obama and the Democrats completely controlled the Senate with a filibuster proof 60-votes, had a supermajority in the House, and could literally pass anything they wanted — assuming they stuck together. The problem was that so-called moderate or blue-dog Democrats from coal producing states looked at the economic destruction on the horizon from the “necessary bankruptcy” of that industry, and balked at passing Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman’s House bill. Currently, other Senators are looking towards 2012 and in no way want the burden of a climate change vote around their neck. Alas, Obama and the EPA are trying to implement new rules in spite of bipartisan opposition.
The November 2010 elections ended the dream of (federal, not state) cap-and-trade — and what did liberals get out of the last two years for their faithful and America: a failed stimulus bill, 9%+ unemployment, exploding deficits as far as the eye can see, and a health care law that is on life support without a Supreme Court ruling. But don’t take it from me, Joe Romm at the ClimateProgress does an excellent job summarizing: “The Failed Presidency of Barack Obama Part 1 and Part 1.5 and Part 2. Odds are in November 2012, part 3, 4, or 9 will be forthcoming.
Joe Romm laments, “The country can only contemplate serious environmental legislation when we have the unique constellation of a Democratic president and [large] Democratic majorities in both houses, an occurrence far rarer than a total eclipse of the sun.”
Note: this post is an analysis of the politics of climate change which has been inextricably linked with the actual science. No personal attacks will be tolerated!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“And let me say that I think that there is a campaign of disinformation going on about this, and there has been before. We saw it before with the attempts by the tobacco industry…”
What an idiot.When you are prepared to write off a minority of the population as deluded and not worth paying attention to, that’s bad enough. But when you graduate to doing that to the majority, you’re deep in elitist tyranny territory.
I wouldn’t presume to comment much on US politics. But you are SO much better placed than we are in the UK, where every political party represented in the House of Commons, and the Assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are monolithically warmist (cheered on by the BBC, naturally).
I doubt if there are enough sceptic individual legislators to make up a soccer team.
“. . . in face of all the evidence,. . .”
I give up. What evidence? This:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-goes-negative/
The good professor hasn’t a clue. To quote President Obama, “WTF?”
In my opinion, climate science has been mixed with politics since Al Gore declared that the “debate was over”.
————–
I’d say you’ve come late to the game then.
and what did liberals get out of the last two years for their faithful and America: a failed stimulus bill, 9% unemployment, exploding deficits as far as the eye can see,
——-
Well as far as I can tell from here Obama continued Bush’s policies as far as stimulus packages are concerned. The consequences such as unemployment are a direct consequence of the mess you got yourselves into and it was going to be painful no matter which party came up with the policies. At this stage unemployment is easing si the very least you can say is that the policies did not make things to bad.
Few now deny “any” influence, so his remark is empty.
I started out as a warmist believer.
I sought evidence to convince others.
I found none.
Over the last few years, and as WUWT has been around, I still look for evidence. There is none. Only models, conjecture, data manipulation, exaggeration, outright lies, denigration of unbelievers, scare stories, etc. etc.
I know that people who “see” enough evidence to convince themselves that AGW is a problem are the same kind that “see” things in the Constitution that aren’t there.
That’s political. And also delusional. But it sure ain’t conservative.
“if a politician simply denies that there’s any human influence in the climate….”
Denying that there is any influence excludes all those who do think that building urban centers, changing land use, etc. does have influence. About whom is he talking?
I would be considered left-of-centre politically by US standards, but I am as climate skeptic as the next reader here… and that proves? Yes, absolutely nothing.
By Aussie standards I am leaning a tad to the right*currently … mostly because Labor (the lefties) are gung ho to destroy two key industries in this country, mining through a mining super-tax, and the energy industries through a “price on carbon.”
* Trust me … slightly right by Aussie standards is still liberal by US standards. Ironically our right wing party is called the Liberals… confusing I know.
Isn’t politics about what we want, and hence make the wanted possible to some extent?
Isn’t science about what we find, discuss that finding and draw scientific conclusions?
But the real question is, as important, worthy and insightful as he may consider his own opinions, does anybody else actually know or care?
Remember Henry Ford, who was quite good at building motor cars you know, but thought this qualified him to pontificate and lecture people on World war 1, with his wealth he even chartered a ship to help him spread the word.
Most of us probably believe our opinions are far better, our insight more incisive, our intellect greater than others. Perhaps so, perhaps not.
But combine that with the delusion that one should be a performer upon the stage at which one usually lacks talent and/or experience then one either makes a complete fools of oneself: or becomes merely a passing comet that flashes to be forgotten.
Although one might get a book out of it.
As one famous entertainer said ‘it took me twenty seven years to achieve overnight success.’
Succinct.
Although I have never succumbed to it I can well understand how people are seduced
by the tawdry tinsel and the apparently easy money without ever considering the price to be paid. Dame Fortune is very fickle.
As for the odd grandstanding scientist, well forget them , the world will and in pretty short order too.
Kindest Regards.
lets face it there protecting there grants if they don,t they will be working at Mcdonalds saying any fries.
Hi Anthony,
When are you going to post this update on the Ocean Heat Content trends from Pielke Sr’s blog?
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/where-is-the-missing-argo-upper-ocean-heat-data/
It seems you’ve posted all other updates on the Ocean Heat Content debate, so I’m a little surprised to see this one missing.
Best regards,
Alex
“…And let me say that I think that there is a campaign of disinformation going on about this, and there has been before. We saw it before with the attempts by the tobacco industry…”
And, according to some, the disinformation/misinformation campaign is from BOTH sides.
The tobacco industry was trying to protect their product by not giving the public all the information, and the AGW crowd is trying to protect their “product” by not giving the public all the information.
And trying to tie the climate’s “good guys/bad guys” to a particular political party is insane.
It’s telling when a climate “good guy” (Hansen) actually gets arrested protesting the actions of another “good guy” (his boss, Obama).
Politicians are allowed to talk rubbish like that. That’s why we have politicians … it’s so that we can insist scientists don’t talk this kind of rubbish.
Problem is when you have both politicians and scientists talking this rubbish, with an effective one party state in science, no opposition allowed, anyone daring to question the supreme authority of the state denied access to information and then castigated as a holocaust denier.
The most annoying thing about the comments on this blog is the routine conflation of the climate issue with partisan politics. As with alarmists, most “deniers” are in denial because of their partisanship. It’s just by chance that many “deniers” have fallen on the correct side of the debate; there’s nothing rational about it. So please keep the snarky “liberal” crap out of it.
[ryanm: sigh, but there is no extricating the two when the practitioners of the science and policy become one in the same. blog police have been alerted, nevertheless]
I think that climate ‘science’ is more appropriately compared to the pharmaceutical industry. Respected publication printing information, peer-reviewed studies, mass media coverage, settled science, hundreds of researchers, thousands of physician agreeing in consensus, millions of people accepting and trusting the authority.
The only problem with all of the above is that I am talking about Vioxx.
“And let me say that I think that there is a campaign of disinformation going on about this, and there has been before. We saw it before with the success of the pharmaceutical industry in killing people with Vioxx…”
Politicians (of both genders) tend to be alpha types who beat their chests while roaring their personal mantras, few of which make a lot of sense when examined by quieter and more rational people. This guy is right up there with the English Conservative peer who declared that ‘bus drivers and waitresses don’t matter’ as they can’t possibly know anything pertinent to his level of success in the world.
What happenned to ‘by the people, for the people’ in the Western democratic process?
Mike Haseler says:
February 9, 2011 at 12:34 am
Problem is when you have both politicians and scientists talking this rubbish, with an effective one party state in science, no opposition allowed, anyone daring to question the supreme authority of the state denied access to information and then castigated as a holocaust denier.
=====================================================
i.e. An Orwellian Climate Society
The term denier is being changed from those who disagree with the made up consensus, to made up people who believe man has no influence on the climate.
Create an imaginary enemy or threat , coerce, by fear, the people to believe.
Fascism at its best? (or worse)
One can only feel sorry for sheep who blindly follow an illusion and have no independent thought. If the lead sheep in a running herd leaps in the air, all those that follow, be it thousands of them leap the same imaginary object. Is this perhaps the illusion followed or an analogy of AGW. Similar bleats from different sheep seem to echo around the world very quickly?
“I doubt if there are enough sceptic individual legislators [in the UK] to make up a soccer team.”
Then it is about time that the electorate made it known how we feel by electing some.
This does create somewhat of a challenge though, as the only sign of climate realism comes from parties with single digit support, well those except the Liberal Democrats obviously.
The challenge therefore is to get the support for the other fringe parties to increase. If you are politically of the right, then the obvious choice is UKIP. With Viscount Monckton as their climate spokeperson, then they are the choice for me too.
If you are of the left, then you are left with the BNP as they are the only socialist party in the UK who also have a climate realist agenda.
The “top three” parties are all basically the same when it comes to large government, computer-based climate fantasies, politically correctness in all things and giving away the people’s sovereignty to the EU so that almost all of our laws will be dictated to us from unelected quangocrats from overseas in a few years time.
It would not take many tories to switch, for UKIP to become the third party in British Politics. UKIP are not too far behind the Lib Dems now.
Are there many who say that humans have ‘no influence on climate’?
I’m as sceptical as they come, but wouldn’t agree with that statement.
But not agreeing that there is ‘no influence’ is a heck of along way from signing up to Jim Hansen’s wacko ideas.
I don’t see what the fuss is about. So in future, if you want to get anywhere in public office, you will not only lie about your religious believes, but also about your opinion on climate. Works like a charm.