Posted on 11/16/2014 12:40:42 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Senate Republicans appear likely to use their majority status in the next Congress to attack the science behind climate change in an attempt to undercut environmental policies.
But some GOP strategists wonder whether such an offensive might backfire.
Questioning — and attempting to delegitimize — climate scientists them has been an oft-used tactic of Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is poised to reprise his role as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
It was a hallmark of his 2003 to 2007 chairmanship of the panel — and the following six years, when he was its ranking member.
As one of the most outspoken skeptics of the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from humans cause climate change, Inhofe is still a frequent critic of climate scientists.
“A lot of us, way back in 2001, in that timeframe, they thought there was actually some truth to the global warming thing, and a lot of people are trying to resurrect that now,” Inhofe said on the Senate floor Wednesday in a speech about President Obama’s deal with China to limit greenhouse gases in both countries.
Inhofe dove deeper into his scientific arguments in July, while Senate Democrats took to the floor for hours to call for legislative action to mitigate climate change.
“While some Democrats may be convinced that global warming is continuing to occur, the scientific record does not agree,” he said.
“In fact, for the past 15 years, temperatures have not increased,” he continued, citing data from the University of East Anglia.
As many Republicans have declared this year that “I am not a scientist” to explain why they are skeptical of climate change conclusions, Inhofe has only gotten louder in his declarations that the people who are scientists are wrong.
And while environmentalists and Democrats often say 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, Inhofe and many other Republicans say otherwise and highlight the dissenters.
Tony Leiserowitz, director of Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication, said that skepticism of science is likely to continue as an argument in the GOP-led Senate, especially with Inhofe controlling the environmental agenda.
“He has clearly, very publicly positioned himself as saying that it’s the greatest hoax in American history,” Leiserowitz said. “I doubt anything has happened to convince him otherwise.”
Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), a member of the House Science Committee, is looking forward to Inhofe’s chairmanship and Republican control of the Senate.
The House Science Committee, under leadership of Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), has held multiple hearing to promote climate change skepticism and undermine scientists who disagree with them.
For example, Smith called a hearing in May to question the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has called in recent reports for dramatic measures to reduce carbon emissions quickly. Three of the four witnesses argued that the report had major flaws.
“Right now in the country, in the media particularly and on Capitol Hill, it’s been a one-sided discussion,” Bucshon said. “I’m hopeful that we’ll have a balanced discussion about the facts, and let’s determine what the facts are.”
Bucshon doubts that humans play much of a role in the climate, and he believes there are many scientists who agree with him.
“There’s thousands of scientists that have a different view. We should be hearing everybody’s voice on both sides,” he said.
But focusing too much on attacking climate change could end up hurting Republicans, a GOP strategist said.
Ford O’Connell, who advised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on his 2008 presidential bid, said that it’d be difficult for Republicans to win arguments on climate change by only criticizing science.
“Inhofe has to really walk a tight-rope here, in the sense that if he can frame this as about the need for American energy security and a war on jobs, he could be successful,” O’Connell said. “But if he uses this pedestal to throw out heaps of red meat, it could backfire.”
Climate change repeatedly ranks low in Americans’ top concerns in major surveys. But O’Connell fears that if Republicans stray from economic and energy security arguments, it could highlight the issue more and open the door to criticisms that they do not care about the environment.
“When you start talking about the need for energy security, the instability around the world and the need for jobs, [Inhofe]’s got a winner,” O’Connell said. “But he’s got to keep the car between these two lines.”
I agree, we attack the non-science of the hoax, because the real "science" is that big yellow spot in the daytime sky.
Climate junk science
Isn’t science always on trial?
Need to be more specific. Are we putting on trial:
Science hoke us, or
Science poke us?
Inquiring minds want to know...
If the GOP can put ‘climate science’ on trial, why not also take a good look at the disaster called Islam before it will destroy the country?
Or would such a discussion be politically too unpleasant?
Climate change will not kill us but Islam certainly will.
Just ask the Syrian and Iraqi Christians who have inhabited that land since the first century long before there were any Muslims.
“Getting answers that you want to believe is ideology or religion.”
Amen, brother.
The very first sentence of this screed betrays the fact that the primary purpose behind “climate science” is stricter environmental policy.
That was my exact thought when I read this. There's no way to discuss the issue rationally anymore, so don't even bring it up.
I agree too, but I do not really see Boehner or McConnell wanting to cut anything.
“Don’t Gruber Me, Bro!”
Good question. The Feds getting involved in matters that should not concern them, as usual.
I think the primary purpose behind “Crimate Science” is “Crony Capitalism” and the redistribution of OPM (Other People’s Money).
GE, for example, will make Trillions of dollars off scaring Democrats that their cities will flood if we don’t “Do Something!!!!!!”. GE will give tax exempt Billions to media outlets to spread the phony fear and in turn will provide Government sponsored solutions to a world crying out for them.
“back on trial”? Hll, kids, it’s never been an accepted religion to anyone but the liberal Luddites.
Absolutely. We need the truth of the matter exposed just like the implementation of Affordable Care Act has been lately. Just how gullible are the American people?
Agreed.
Will Michael Mann and Phil Jones allow peer-reviewed journals to publish papers that contradict AGW?
“But some GOP strategists wonder whether such an offensive might backfire.”
What GOP strategists? Give us some names. Any GOP strategist who suggests this should be urine tested for smoking drugs.
The Church of Settled Science. They are so eager to sacrifice life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (along with mankind itself) on the altar of global warming.
Since when does exposing lies hurt the cause of freedom?
Begin with cutting the head off the snake.
Evict the traitør maggøt @ 1600 first, then isolate/eliminate the other bureacratic usurpations in their turn.
No need to attack man made global warming “scientists”. Just cut off their funding, the matter will go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.