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.
John Brookes says:
February 9, 2011 at 2:30 am
“Having people argue that the greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an example. This argument is obviously wrong, …”
Please state precisely how and why the argument is “obviously wrong”.
Mike
February 9, 2011 at 9:12 am
Maue: “…the policy prescriptions are indistinguishable from the economic platform/goals of the left,…”
When did the left support the expansion of nuclear power? The cap and trade concept came from free market economists not the left. The political left had nothing against carbon dioxide until scientists became persuaded of its dangers and initially some conservative politicians agreed on the need to reduce emissions. The latter flip flopped after being by threatened by well financed primary challenges from the Koch-Tea Party.
########
Every time I read one of your comments, I feel as if I was just transported into the “Twilight Zone”.
Read between the lines –
Prof. EMANUEL: Well, I don’t know if you – you know, if you polled them today, I don’t think it would be any different. I think what’s happening here is just the early phase of an attempt by special interests in their sort of larger-scale campaign to disinform the American public about climate. One of the things they’re trying to do is discredit scientists by claiming that scientists are driven by their politics.
‘Special interests’ like the IPCC, WFF, Greenpeace, US Government, Club of Rome ….
But what was it about climate change or global warming that created the divide?
Prof. EMANUEL: Oh, I think money did. I mean, there’s not a whole lot of money riding on the outcome of a debate about evolution, but there certainly is about the debate about climate change. And you have lots and lots of organizations and people that perhaps stand to lose a lot of money or think they stand to lose a lot of money if people start getting serious about doing something about the climate.
Losing money, like study grants, cap-trade/CO2 taxes, raises in our power bills?
Prof. EMANUEL: Yeah, that’s true. I mean, the whole thing has become very fractured, and we live in an age in which information has become very fractured. You know, we used to be, even 20 years ago, most of us in a major city read a common newspaper, or maybe one or two common newspapers. We watched the nightly news. Now people can go and get reinforced in the opinions they already have, and they’re not necessarily being exposed to other opinions, and I think that makes it easier for people to circle the wagons.
Really means “We want our control of the media back!”
Prof. EMANUEL: Well, you know, I think it’s perfectly justified to change one’s opinion if it’s what the evidence warrants. I myself changed my opinion. I mean, back 20 years ago. I said, you know, the evidence really isn’t there yet. We really need a lot more before we can say that. But 20 years have gone by. A lot more evidence exists now, and I changed my mind about it. I think that’s fine. I don’t know why anybody in this particular issue would change their mind in the opposite direction.
In 1972, Pauline Kael’s infamous quote “I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon.” became a rallying cry for those who wish to paint liberals as out-of-touch northeastern elites.
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.
Dear Professor, can you honestly say, instead of ‘any’, catastrophic or meaningful human influence.
Prof. EMANUEL: Absolutely. And so we have several lines of evidence. We have the actual temperature records. We have computational models and we have theory, and they all point in the same direction. And that gives us confidence that we’re seeing signal. Where most of the uncertainty lies is going forward. And there is a lot of uncertainty. And everybody in the field, I think, that I know of is completely open and honest about that. So you have a spectrum of possible outcomes…
So you have temp records (GISS/Hanson adjusted, by his own published papers) and models (which do not include many significant drivers) to prove a hypothesis (not a theory). Uncertainty?? Please show data that ‘Everybody’ is open and honest about this.
As for his claim of being a Republican, I think Robert Heinlein wrote a pretty good quote about this.
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Joe said about Obama’s by quoting Pooley:
Anyway, I assume Joe agrees with Pooley. Does this mean that Joe is upset that Obama realized (along with everybody else apparently) that there is no need for overreaction vis climate? I think so.
For once Obama showed some sense if only because he recognized the political impossibility of the whole thing. Maybe he’s not so inept after all.
Having seen the liberal agenda, including climate change, clobbered in the last election liberals still think the country is behind them when in fact it is they the country has put behind.
Climate change has always been political with politicians using willing scientists with the lure of government grants. Maybe the new congress will use their power to put a check on that kind of behavior and abuse of power.
Ken Hall says: February 9, 2011 at 1:31 am
“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.–
The challenge therefore is to get the support for the other fringe parties to increase.— the obvious choice is UKIP. With Viscount Monckton as their climate spokesperson, then they are the choice for me too.–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.]
—————————————————————————–
I agree with Ken Hall.
The mess that the UK and Europe is currently in (caused by their incompetence in the financial sector coupled with their intransigence over carbon based energy supply) is leading towards desperate poverty in that part of the world. One can see by the recent dissatisfaction in Tunisia and Egypt uprisings that this can lead to the swift overthrow of seemingly stable governments. Remember the recent uprisings in Greece (one of the so called PIGGS). That was getting close to home as far as Europe is concerned and that links straight back to the Euro economic and energy policies that are together crippling these people.
So what I am saying is that if you make the masses desperate enough – they can and will show where the real power lies. In the UK you have the potential leadership in UKIP that could take it out of Europe and away from the insane unelected bureaucracy that dictates policy in that part of the world. To me, the lunacy over AGW is leading towards economic ruin in the ‘west’ for absolutely no good reason. Therein lies madness.
Douglas
Every time he opens his mouth about global warming, “professor” Emanuel confirms he’s a fool and a charlatan. Apparently, it’s going to take the advent of another mini-ice age to silence him and other cockamamie Warmists. In the meantime, they’re doing every thing possible to keep the global warming gravy train rolling. The AGW Cassandras realize they’ve tapped into a research Motherlode. They want to grab as many tax dollars as they can before falling global temperatures unmask their scam.
The statement is hesitant and unconvincing. He’s not being honest with himself let alone his constituents. I couldn’t vote for someone with such muddled thinking. He stands out as being rather immature.
In my opinion, climate science has been mixed with politics since Al Gore declared that the “debate was over”.
————–
CAGW “climate sciences” was birthed by politics and continues to be sustained by politics. Al Gore jumped on the environmental movement feed trough long before he became vice president in charge of environmental activities. That’s about when NOAA, NASA, EPA, and other agencies started doing subjective research.
DD More says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:42 am
Read between the lines –
As for his claim of being a Republican, I think Robert Heinlein wrote a pretty good quote about this.
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
###
Thanks for reminding me of this statement. Knowing that there are people who can still reason, has restored my faith in humanity, which was pretty low after reading the insanity spewed forth from the fingers of mike the troll.
“”””” _Jim says:
February 9, 2011 at 7:22 am
Grant Hillemeyer February 9, 2011 at 6:33 am
Re: Jim & MTBE,
MTBE was a disaster for …
Surprisinly, the problems with MTBE and groundwater are mentioned at the eia.doe.gov link above …
I also need to pause and give credit to the source where where I first heard about MTBE – Ed Wallace and his Sat. morning program “Wheels” on KLIF 570 here in the DFW area … he was all over this issue years ago. “””””
The anti-MTBE movement got really under way as a result of the Mornign Show (mostly) at KSFO readio 560 in San Francisco.
I have to fess up, that I twice joined in a concerted civil protest action on the steps of the Capitol building in Sacramento; to tell those pencil brains to get that muck out of our water.
Adding Oxygen to a fuel, is the equivalent of adding water (or CO2 if you prefer). The loss of stored chemical energy is pretty much the heat of combustion of H2, when you add oxygen to the fuel. That is not the same thing as providing oxygen to be used in combustion of hydrocarbons in an environment devoid of Oxygen, such as happens with hydrogen fuelled space rockets; that have to also carry an oxidizer with them.
The reduction in mileage with MTBE fuels, is about equal to the percent of MTBE added, so you have to burn even more hydrocarbon fuel to obtain the same thermal energy. But it did allow the petrochemicals industry to charge us money for burning up their toxic waste products, as if it was automobile fuel.
Chevron says they can meet ALL California, and federal clean air standards, with ordinary gasoline blends containing no oxygenate of any kind; including no alcohols either.
Douglas:
You are right. The consequences of these policies have killed millions already with starvation and cold, due to high food and energy costs.
One question to pose to the good professor: “Do you think it is a good idea to convert coal to ethanol?” His answer, I fear, would tell all, and reveal his elitist attitude. After all, the developing world is just mostly the untouchable caste, who may regrettably have to be sacrificed to Gaia for her continued support.
Ken Hall wrote
“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.
Before last year’s UK General Election, it was widely put about by various sources in the Tory party that the vast majority of their new election candidates held “climate sceptic” views. Many of these candidates were subsequently elected, but not a single one of them has yet spoken out against the suicidal energy policies of Chris Huhne who seeks singlehandedly to “save the world from meltdown”.
It is now apparent that Tory Head Office deliberately spread this misinformation in order to mislead the millions of the Tory faithful who were threatening to vote for UKIP.
I have question whether Dr. Emanuel has an informed opinion on climate science, it is a broad multi-disciplinary field, and the crux of the issue is NOT in his specialty of hurricanes. He would have had to have gone out of his way to study the issue of whether the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing are positive or negative, and he doesn’t appear to discuss evidence relevant to that issue at all.
Emanuel is disturbed by those who suspect that climate scientists are guided by the political agendas. But if such suspicions aren’t well founded, how does he explain repeated model based peer review articles on increased risks of drought, that don’t discuss the model diagnostic literature showing how weak the models are with respect to precipitation.
I must also doubt Emanuel’s conservative credentials, since he dismisses climate denial as due to moneyed interests. Even if a conservative accepted that the climate science was conclusive, he wouldn’t assume that large expenditures of money are needed. Emanuel seems to assume that command and control measures would be the only solution. Any conservative would question using climate science as an excuse for tax increases, at the very least carbon, gasoline or heating oil taxes could be combined with other measures that make them revenue neutral, assume one also concluded that global warming was a negative thing.
The majority of political parties support man made global warming. There is to much money at stake, whether your in power or likely to be in power.
I am more liberal than Obama and have been a democrat for the last 50 years! I voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Mondale and Johnson!
But I voted for McCain in the last election because I cannot vote for a conservative democrat!
Anyone can make up BS, and then claim anything they want. I defy anyone to prove that what I have written is not true. And not being able to do so, it must be gospel!
but alas I am not an alarmist, so the media just does not report my lies, like the did Kerry Emmanuel’s.
Iren says:
February 9, 2011 at 3:39 am
[Brookes, 2:30 am.] I don’t see any problem for anyone, be they scientist or other, to come out and say that they won’t support climate skeptics as they currently exist.
If at some time in the future, climate skeptics get organised and work out exactly where they stand on the science, and weed out the obvious deceivers in their midst, then they will deserve to be taken seriously. But if skeptics abandon their current tactics, will they lose relevance?
“I’ve never read such drivel in my life…”
———————————————–
Right, there seems to be a never-ending contest going on among the “annointed ones” to see just who is the most “annointed” – of course, as judged by the wildest self-congratulatory confabulation possible compared to reality, while also denigrating the ‘correct’ faux enemy.
However, a humble word to all of the above contestants, Satchel Paige’s admonition still applies: “Don’t look back, because
someoneGreg Craven might be gaining on you!”Let’s all gather together and chant, in unison, “we are all individuals.”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a look of misery and dejection on the face of my daughter as I just did a moment ago. She just couldn’t understand why the Distinguished MIT Professor Dr. Kerry Emanuel would undermine the efforts of fellow conservatives. “Even my Grandpa?” she asked pitifully.
I sat down with her on the sofa and (as calmly as I could) tried to explain to her why Dr. Emanuel has rushed to judgment and besmirched the good name of every conservative, past and present. “And yes honey, even Grandpa”, I was forced to say.
I tried to keep my voice steady, but it became increasingly difficult – the rage and feelings of helplessness were just too much. I think my daughter could tell something was wrong. I found myself at such a loss for words – nothing made any sense; nothing makes sense anymore. I finally had to admit, “Honey, I just don’t know – I don’t know what’s going on in this country anymore…”
When I finished her lower lip started to tremble and her eyes began to fill with tears, “Daddy” she said, “why are these faux conservatives doing this to the country?” Well, that was it for me: I finally fell apart. She just fell into my arms and we both began sobbing for several minutes.
For once she had to comfort me and get me back on my feet. Sometimes I just think it’s too much, but seeing the strength in my young daughter’s voice helped me to get through.
The beauty of the blogging era, is that we can postulate ideas, realizing that if they don’t have merit, they will be picked apart with logic. This seems to happen only on the skeptics’ side. That is always true with despots—truth or dissent cannot be tolerated. Remember what happened to Casey, a pro-life Democrat? Lieberman, a hawk—he was thrown out. Casey was thrown out. Anyone who does not tow the party line is thrown out.
But they are thrown out, not for the force of their arguments, but for their impudence at questioning the dogma, or even listening to the opponents’ side.
Back to topic, why did the Piltdown Man hoax survive 30 years? No blogs then! The soft scientists in the field of anthropology could draw imaginative faux pictures, and their graduate students and the rest of society had to go along with their expert proclamations to get along. It was a closed classroom. The science of “imaginative bone reassembly” (aka Anthropology) took years to recover.
The science of “imaginative computerized climate divination” (aka Climatology) may suffer the same setback.
I’m going to start a new organization:
“Liberals Who Know that AGW is a Lot of Rot.”
I know from reading a lot of comments here that many WUWT regulars won’t bless the “liberal” part of that sentence, but the fact is — and I hope *everyone* will welcome *this* — there are some of us of a traditional left-liberal persuasion like myself who have *seen through the con game* of the warmistas and can appreciate real science (hint: think falsifiability, always questioning one’s own assumptions, not forming politico-scientific clans where ideology trumps science, irregardless of the political persuasion of the scientists involved, and above all understanding the intrinsic limitations of particular methodologies and knowing what GIGO means).
I’m willing to bet there are a lot more who will follow shortly. Thanks to Anthony and everyone else at WUWT who has defended the values of critical scientific thinking, which belongs to no political party or ideology.
psi, PhD
At least the voters can boot him out at the next election. We have Prince Big Ears, I mean Charles, pontificating about climate change this week. But then again having such a dope on your side probably isn’t pleasing to all the warmistas. Come the revolution…..
So Professor Emanuel is basically cutting off his nose to spite his face. The kicker is his face isn’t doing anything to deserve the spite because climate change (at least warmer climate with more CO2) is a GOOD thing. The earth turns green from pole to pole when there’s no ice and exceedingly high levels of CO2. It’s those times of great fecundity that laid down the fossil fuel beds in the first place. What a
dumbassgreat mistake the professor makes.No, it’s a thinly disguised right-wind rant.
The lies start in the title:
“MIT Professor Emanuel won’t vote for climate change deniers”
let’s check what he actually said:
So, first off, he’s not calling anyone “deniers”, that’s Ryan Maue misleading the reader by putting works into his mouth. Neither is he expecting anyone to buy the whole AGW fantasy.
I don’t go along with AGW hysteria but I wouldn’t say there is NO human influence on the climate, it’s just been grossly exaggerated. So I too would question the judgment of anyone who “simply denies that there’s any human influence in the climate”.
Prof Emmanual’s stance seems fairly reasonable.
This is not an “analysis of the politics”, it’s a blattant party political hit piece based on lies and distortion. It is not uncommon to see this sort of ranting in comments but it’s a shame that this blog is now stooping to allowing this sort of thing as a featured article.
Note: I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat supporter since I believe in supporting democratic republics!
My vote for WUWT as best science blog failed to register. I won’t be trying to resubmit. Let me know when you get nominated as a political blog.
[ryanm: …if a politician simply denies… to you that doesn’t mean denier in short. that’s quite the contortionist act required to pull that off.]
It is so hard to be civil when such moonbats are out in publikka.