While still repeating a number of easily disprovable climate denial whoppers (e.g., that the earth hasn't warmed in the last 18 years, even though it has, and the usual cheap attempts to downplay the overwhelming scientific consensus), the author seemed to be striving to reposition conservative opinion to accept the reality of climate change -- this, even though he is a member of the Heartland Institute, notorious for (among other travesties) its repugnant Unabomber billboard campaign.
Others have noted the curious phrase that is now ubiquitous among Republican politicians – "I'm not a scientist" -- and like Jonathan Chait, have speculated on whether this phrase represents a kind of tactical retreat:
“I am not a scientist” makes sense as a way to resolve a tension within Republican politics. It may be a political liability for Republicans to openly associate themselves with the kook conspiracy theories popular among conservative ideologues. One solution might be for Republicans to concede that anthropogenic global warming is indeed real, but that any solution is simply too costly. That might allow Republicans to minimize their kook exposure while still hewing to the bottom line party doctrine that individuals and firms ought to be able to dump carbon into the atmosphere for free.
[kindler: "The Impending GOP Retreat on Climate: From Denial to Do-Nothing-ism" (2015/01/09) on DailyKos]
3月にも...
Ed Rogers’s piece last week on global warming is timely in a number of respects and worth reading to see how the Republicans, having lost their argument that global warming is not real and man-made, have shifted to a new argument: Global warming may be real, but the solutions cost too much and won’t work anyway. The new Republican argument against doing anything to combat global warming has moved from denial of its existence to despair of its mitigation. This is what passes for progress today in the Republican Party.とはいえ、気候変動研究予算削減など、今のところ、温暖化否定の立場で行動しているように見える。
[Carter Eskew: "The Insiders: Republicans move from denial to despair on climate change" (2015/03/09) on WashingtonPost]
Living down to our worst expectations, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology voted Thursday to cut deeply into NASA's budget for Earth science, in a clear swipe at the study of climate change.ただ、共和党大統領候補の座を狙っている人々の気候変動に対する立場は様々：
The committee's markup of the NASA authorization bill for fiscal 2016 and 2017 passed on a party-line vote, Republicans in the majority. The action followed what appears to be a deliberate attempt to keep Democrats out of the loop. According to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee's ranking Democrat, her caucus "did not even know [the markup] existed before last Friday. ... After we saw the bill, we understood why."
As outlined by Marcia Smith at SpacePolicyOnline, the measure would cut NASA's Earth science budget to at most $1.45 billion in fiscal 2016, from $1.77 billion currently -- a cut of $323 million, or nearly 20%. Under some circumstances, the budget could shrink even further to $1.2 billion, a cut of nearly one-third. Compared with President Obama's request for fiscal 2016, which is $1.95 billion, the proposal would amount to a cut of at least 26%.
The budget plan perfectly reflects the House GOP's glorification of space exploration, which masks its disdain for research on climate change
[Michael Hiltzik: ""The GOP attack on climate change science takes a big step forward" (2015/05/01) on LA Times]
Is human activity contributing to climate change? Should we do anything about climate change? Marco Rubio Unclear Unclear Ted Cruz No Unclear Rand Paul Yes Yes Jeb Bush Unclear Unclear Chris Christie Yes Yes Scott Walker Unclear Unclear Mike Huckabee Unclear Unclear Rick Santorum Unclear No Rick Perry Unclear Unclear Bobby Jjndal Yes Yes Carly Fiorina Yes Unclear Lindsey Graham Yes Yes Ben Carson Unclear Unclear Sarah Palin No No John Kasich Unclear Unclear Mitt Romney Yes Yes John Boehner Unclear Unclear Mitch Mcconnel Unclear Unclear Jim Inhofe No No
[THE GUIDE TO REPUBLICANS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2015/02/08) on National Journal]
【Sound Scienceの最新記事】
