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.
Skeptics are not climate change deniers. It is the AGW crowd that predicted rapid sea level rise, global drought, sweltering heat and no more snow. The climate did change, only it did not change the way they predicted it. It went thataway.
Now they say they predicted it all along, when they did no such thing.
3 increasingly bad winters in a row plus cooling summers found them with cold egg on thier faces.
It is the AGWarmers who are in a state of denial, attempting to deny what they predicted, and got terribly wrong.
Oh, and how wrong they got it.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Predictions proved no more unstoppable than the Titanic was unsinkable.
February 9, 2011 at 2:29 pm
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
Totally agree. Thinking that one’s left/right political position has a bearing on your opinion about AGW just shows a lack of ability to think.
Sadly it seems many people can’t form their own opinion and so decide they are in one camp and go along with what they imagine is the party line. They make a black or white choice and stick loyally to it.
However, there are many on the left who don’t accept the global warming scam and even some on the right who do believe it. But then everyone is entitled to their opinion, however stupid and ill-informed it may be. 😉
He has a right to vote for whom he pleases, but he is a jerk, Ph.D not withstanding.
I’m sorry that people like him influence the young and credulous!
I noticed that the bookstores in Harvard Square do not in general, have any books by
deniers or skeptics, so I mentioned the fact, while visiting Harvard Books, that they don’t have The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker and said I was aghast that they seemed like they were trying to stack the deck of the argument. The woman was cornered and she ordered the book while I stood there! A small victory for truth!
I don’t care what Emanuel thinks or says. I doubt he is a Republican anymore (if he ever was), he obviously does not vote Republican. Maybe he is a RINO. Also don’t care what NPR says, though I’m very interested in defunding it at the Fed and state level.
The key to climate science politics is the IPCC, created by 2 UN orgs in 1988. Maurice Strong was the brains behind the IPCC creation. The mission of the IPCC was (and is) to find human causes for global warming. The IPCC is controlled by the governments of the world, who almost all have a vested interest in finding that man is causing global warming and that the advanced economies of the world need to pay for their carbon emissions.
The first step for the USA is for the EPA to stop outsourcing climate science to the IPCC. The second step is to dramatically cut funding to climate science true alarmists (particularly those who are most political) while increasing funding to climate science skeptics.
P. Solar:
“Thinking that one’s left/right political position has a bearing on your opinion about AGW just shows a lack of ability to think.”
Climate alarmism has been a lefty issue from the beginning. In the USA, the Dems overwhelmingly support the alarmists, while the Republicans have finally started resisting climate alarmism. Abstractions aside, in the USA a vote for a Dem most likely is a vote for alarmism while a vote for a Republican is most likely a vote against alarmism.
Thanks for the input George.
I really want to get back and emphasize to that first poster I responded to that ethanol was not placed in the fuel-supply chain as a biofuel per se, but, was the substitute the EPA accepted as an oxygenate (for better or for worse, and some say for worse, but let’s debate that later) over MTBE and probably promoted by them (the EPA) as well … as did the farm lobby. Since the farm lobby means votes (certainly in the farm belt!) – and money – they are a political force unto themselves to reckon with.
.
Neo
February 9, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Let’s all gather together and chant, in unison, “we are all individuals.”
###
I’m not!
I have a simpler test. I don’t vote for anyone who has a combover or fake tan.
In relation to my statement:
“Having people argue that the greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an example. This argument is obviously wrong, …”
mkelly asked:
Please state precisely how and why the argument is “obviously wrong”.
So here is a test for the skeptics. There are plenty of you who know why this argument is wrong. How about one of you take the time to educate mkelly? Go on, prove me wrong, show me that skeptics will correct each other.
@P.Solar 3:59 pm
As one hard-core conservative engineer, I applaud you. (But just this once. ;-))
John Brookes says:
February 9, 2011 at 8:01 pm
In relation to my statement:
“Having people argue that the greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an example. This argument is obviously wrong, …”
mkelly asked:
Please state precisely how and why the argument is “obviously wrong”.
So here is a test for the skeptics. There are plenty of you who know why this argument is wrong. How about one of you take the time to educate mkelly? Go on, prove me wrong, show me that skeptics will correct each other.
—————————————————————————–
Come on John Brookes. Don’t try Tremberth’s trick of shifting the burden onto the sceptics to answer mkelly’s question to you. . Mkelly asked YOU.
YOU answer mkelly. Enlighten us.
Douglas
P. Solar says:
“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.”
P. Solar, I am in complete agreement with that statement. We may be somewhat apart in our political views, but regarding the science, I think we are on the same page.
There is simply too much public money available, and alarming the populace funnels tax money into the pockets of self-serving charlatans. I suspect that even far right conservative scientists zip their lips when plenty of public grant money is on offer.☺
Anthony: Daniel Frank’s comment (February 9, 2011 at 3:55 am) is blatant commercial advertising.
More importantly it totally distorts the WUWT philosophy in its first line (which is wholly cynical in intent): I’ve just come across Watts Up With That and I was impressed by your advocacy for combating climate change and other green issues.
You may have approved it after thought; or it may have just slipped by. Will you have another look at it?
[Thanx, deleted.]
My note to Anthony above jumped the shark, or tab… it was meant for Tipsy Notes and has been re-posted there. Sorry.
On the political side, one has to note that the push for a “price for carbon” isn’t solely coming from alarmists greens on the political left abusing the precautionary principle – a principal lobby for carbon taxes are the actual energy companies and especially the nuclear power industry. Without a “price for carbon” to distort the economic realities of natural gas and coal power generation vice nuclear, the industry cannot get the regulatory side to approve rate increases for working capital to fund plant construction.
Being a conservative myself, I’m pretty much prepared to read Kerry Emmanuel out of the conservative movement if he thinks that “politics” should be taken out of the issue. The fact is that scientists such as James Hansen and others have called for very specific and draconian measures based upon this hoked-up science, and their fellow-traveling Chicken Littles caterwaul along with them in an effort to recreate the world in their own image. This gambit is NOT conservative; rather, it is an attempt to seize power – a kind of power to dictate over people’s lives and economies in extensive ways. If Prof. Emanuel wants to fellow-travel with these individuals, I think he grossly misunderstands who Reagan was and what conservatism is about.
mkelly & Douglas, why doesn’t the 2nd law of thermodynamics forbid the greenhouse effect? Have a look at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
Don’t trust that link? Try this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/
I [fill in the name] hereby unequivocally declare that humanshave a negligible effect on the climate.
===================
There that pledge should get Dr. E’s vote.
As far as I can see, no one is. However man has as much impact on the climate as A flea has on a dog’s movement. The scale is somewhat off, as the flea is actually bigger in relation to the size of a dog than man is to the earth. But the analogy is apt. And Emmanuel is a buffoon.
But doncha know, it’s a “living” Constitution, and similarly “living” science (aka PNS). It’s science by
mobmajority rule. What could go wrong?If Prof. Emanuel still supports Obama, he is not a conservative. If he supports the government intrusive, massive socialist programs signed into law by Obama, he is not a conservative. If he says he is, he is not telling the truth.
Please don’t enable this charade by ever referring to him as ‘a conservative’ again.
John Brookes
“So here is a test for the skeptics. There are plenty of you who know why this argument is wrong. How about one of you take the time to educate mkelly?”
I can’t find what post you’re talking about. Please copy it out or reference the time if you want a serious response.
Here’s an example of the second law of thermodynamics.
A small portion of the Sun’s energy is reflected back toward the Sun from the Earth. So heat is flowing from the Earth to the Sun (much like the back-radiation from the CO2 in the cold atmosphere flows back toward the warm Earth surface and warms it even further). We are talking about photons of light here which can obviously move from a cold body to a warm body.
But.
But the Sun is 5778K and puts out 63,200,000 watts/m2 at its surface (an amazing number if you ask me). By the time, the Earth’s reflected energy gets back to the Sun, it is a measly 0.0003 watts/m2.
Is that going to make any difference to the Sun? Photons are flowing from the cold Earth to the hot Sun but the Sun needs to increase its energy level by 45,000 watts/m2 to raise its surface temperature by 1°C.
Its a pretty good law (even though measly amounts of photons of energy violate it very slightly – as a general principle, it is about as valid as it gets – cold bodies do not warm warmer bodies).
“if a politician simply denies that there’s any human influence in the climate, in face of all the evidence”
Ah, the classic illogic strawman. Either you must believe in catastrophic man-made climate change or you must either a) deny any human influence on the climate, or b) deny that climate changes. Okay, I guess there probably are some US politicians dumb enough to believe either or both of these, but I must confess to getting increasingly irritated by continued use of this argument by the warmists as I’m guessing most people here believe neither? (You’re allowed to believe natural influences massively outweigh man-made ones provided you don’t deny the latter exist!)
There is more than one “Phil” posting under that handle.