Like splitting hairs with bald people

Sarah Palin, George Will, and Potemkin debates 21

While I was away on vacation (it was wonderful, thanks for asking), the Washington Post editorial page featured opinion pieces from Sarah Palin and George Will, two of conservatism’s leading, um, thinkers, revealing a great deal about the WaPo editorial page and the quality of conservative thinking.

Rebuttal has been ably carried out by many others, including Joe Romm (whose bald pate is belied by his youthful energy!). He demolishes Palin here and Will here.

Rather, a somewhat meta point. The debate over climate/energy legislation, at least as carried out between conservatives and everyone else, has taken on a surreal tinge. One might expect the media to respond, or notice, or react in some way, but outlets like the WaPo just keep carrying on as if the debate is perfectly normal.

The surreality comes from a simple fact: institutionally, as a movement and as a party, conservatives do not believe anthropogenic climate change exists. They don’t think the problem the legislation is designed to solve is actually a problem.

You might think this would make for short debates. Conservatives could collectively sign on to a one-line op-ed:

“We do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, thus we do not support legislation to address it.”

Period. Done. Right? But that doesn’t happen. Instead you get peculiarities like Palin, droning on for 700 words about how the legislation is flawed because it doesn’t promote domestic fossil fuel without once mentioning carbon emissions or climate change. You get Will analyzing the challenges of international climate negotiations and then mentioning, almost casually, at the end of his piece, “by the way, climate change isn’t real.”

But if climate change isn’t real, of course we shouldn’t be going through the wrenching process of trying to get off fossil fuels in a few short decades. Of course we shouldn’t be beating our heads against a wall trying to get China and India to agree to constrain their growth. It’s pointless even discussing those things.

If I simply refused to acknowledge the federal deficit, would Fred Hiatt have me on the WaPo editorial page analyzing the merits of deficit reduction proposals? Of course not. I don’t believe the $%*# thing exists! Of course I don’t support policies to reduce it.

By greenlighting Potemkin arguments about this or that climate policy from the likes of Palin and Will, the WaPo is giving conservatives a pass. Rejection of settled science is treated as a footnote. But without a shared set of facts, there are no rules, no constraints. Republicans can cavalierly demagogue anything Democrats offer, because hell, it’s all just funny talk, a game of make believe.

There will never be a policy proposal sensible enough to gain support from people who do not acknowledge the problem the proposal is meant to address. You’d think that fact would merit notice!

So here’s my modest proposal for Fred Hiatt and his ilk: Any conservative who writes about climate/energy legislation should be required to begin by stating clearly whether he or she believes the scientific consensus on warming. That fundamental fact colors everything else, so put it up front.

If they do not accept the science, then fine, let them tell us their preferred carbon-insensitive energy policy. Their fellow non-believers can debate the merits.

If they do accept the science, they can’t simply reject the moderate (and inadequate) Democratic proposals for addressing the problem contained in ACES. They have to tell us how they would solve the problem. That’s the benchmark.

That simple proposal won’t make the climate debate sensible—let’s be realistic about our ambitions—but it would move beyond the pretense that people like Palin and Will are involved in a good-faith debate.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. veritone Posted 1:30 pm
    24 Jul 2009

    Welcome back! You've penned yet another excellent piece.

    Permalink

  2. Osha Gray Davidson's avatar

    Osha Gray Davidson Posted 1:47 pm
    24 Jul 2009

    Well, Buddy, I couldn't have said it better myself. Although I did try. http://bit.ly/2uUEGU:>)

    Permalink

  3. Des Emery Posted 1:56 pm
    24 Jul 2009

    I'd like to write something offensive, profane, or otherwise inappropriate, but you'd have to delete it. 
    Simply laughing at the obtuseness shown by global warming deniers will therefore have to suffice.  Even if that action will result in no noticeable change in the attitude of people like Palin and Will.  Reality is not a word in their vocabulary.  But rest assured, the day is not far off when reality will jump up and bite them in the ass (is that offensive, profane, or inappropriate?   Or perhaps are they the ones who are offensive, profane, and inappropriate?).

    Permalink

  4. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 4:49 pm
    24 Jul 2009

     http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
    CLOUD at CERN is the underpinning a NGW anticoncensual dialetic that will surplant the current paradigms.
    Palin is the only world leader who will not have egg on her face for supporting a debunked Gore. <!--Session data-->

    Permalink

  5. Des Emery Posted 7:06 pm
    24 Jul 2009

    Delay and Deny - are you serious?  Palin, a world leader?  In what?  Helicopter hunting? 
    I didn't study all the CLOUD info in your link, though I have seen other details on the theory itself.  But the influence of cosmic ray activity on cloud formation is much, much less than the influence of El Nino and La Nina on North American weather, or of the Gulf Stream on European weather.   And Anthropogenic Global Warming easily overrides those ancient forces.  Al Gore may have lost the Vice-Presidency (though not to Sarah Palin) and you can debunk him all you want, but he still tells "an inconvenient truth."

    Permalink

    1. Delay And Deny's avatar

      Delay And Deny Posted 9:23 pm
      24 Jul 2009

      You should read the documents includinghttp://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576What I'm describing is the beginning of a new 21st Century movement to counter the current archaic, 20th century anti-humanist ideology.The intellectual framework of this movement, with Sarah Palin at its mainstream core, is
      NGW: Naturalgenenic warming.   A focus on man and nature versus man and man.Hydrogen: Building on the Bush initiatives, the movement takes a pro-techonology stance.   A stance that we can generate pollution free, renewable energy and also rebuild our economy with a loosely coupled HydroNet (like the Internet) of energy producer-consumersPalin: Who is the only candidate who fought for the middle class against big oil and energy and spoke for the individual getting control over our energy future is the potential center of this new movement which will sweep aside the bankrupt Gores, Obamas and Hansen detritus.

      Permalink

      1. Tyler Durden Posted 11:21 pm
        24 Jul 2009

        What "current archaic, 20th century anti-humanist ideology" would that be, DD?  There are some of us who realize how much harm and destruction humans have done and are still doing to the planet, and even some who wish an end to the human race.  But these people are a very small minority.  The vast majority of humans are not anti-human at all.  This is made perfectly clear by the fact that the human race, though grossly overpopulated for centuries if not millennia, is still increasing in size.  If most people were anti-human, they would not be breeding and the size of the human race would be falling.

        Permalink

  6. Tyler Durden Posted 11:16 pm
    24 Jul 2009

    "But if climate change isn’t real, of course we shouldn’t be going through the wrenching process of trying to get off fossil fuels in a few short decades. Of course we shouldn’t be beating our heads against a wall trying to get China and India to agree to constrain their growth."WRONG!!!  Drilling, refining, transporting, and burning fossil fuel causes many serious environmental harms.  Global warming is only one of them, and really only a symptom at that.  And constant growth is what a cancer does, which is what the human race has become to the planet, so there are certainly many other good reasons to get all countries, including China and India, to reverse their growth.  While I agree with the post's point about deniers and their enablers in the corporate media, these statements are not the reasons to deny the deniers a voice.

    Permalink

    1. Teuthis Posted 2:09 pm
      26 Jul 2009

      I don't believe Palin and Will care any more about the other impacts of fossil fuels than about global warming, but correct me if I'm wrong.  David's (presumably sarcastic) remark well sums up their position.  Unfortunately, it seems prevalent, as demonstrated by greenwashers successfully convincing customers that their projects/products are "low carbon" and therefore "green."

      Permalink

  7. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 6:37 am
    25 Jul 2009

    I think you're right rhetorically, but I wouldn't categorically say that all conservatives don't believe in AGW.  My sense is that their rhetoric (which you quite ably and accurately expose) is based on the politics of opposition - make the other guy look bad.  The fact that they can't put anything better than Will, Palin and Gingrich forward says more to me about the intellectual malaise of the party, not a fundamental conviction about AGW.  Hell, everything any politician on either side ever says is to some degree logically incompatible ("I will lower taxes and grow the economy", "I will increase entitlements and grow the economy", etc.)  The problem the Rs have is that there own incompatibilities don't even seem to be trying to appeal to some fundamental logical framework.  Recall that Reagan had Laffer to justify his logic.  The current Rs have no intellectual framework that is accepted outside of their own camp.  It is a party on self-destruct - but that's not the same as a party that denies AGW, however mutually compatible the ends may be.

    Permalink

  8. Blogger92672 Posted 8:50 am
    25 Jul 2009

    David: While its easy to dismiss Palin and even Will, please comment on the following reports, which underline their arguments:* Dr. Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth," which exmines the evidence of man-made global warming.* April 2009 Polish Academy of Sciences report challenging man-made global warming.* Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, who expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.* Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Japanese environmental physical chemist) who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history."* Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion."* The group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)I could go on, but you get the point: the science is far from settled... now, pick on people your own size!

    Permalink

  9. Blogger92672 Posted 9:02 am
    25 Jul 2009

    Better yet David, please comment on the following scientists -- listed below -- who back-up Palin's and Will's arguments:July 1, 2009 Open Letter to Congress by a team of prominent scientists.TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMINGYou have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.The facts are:The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in factTHERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.SCIENCE IS GUIDED BY PROOF, NOT CONSENSUSFinally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.Robert H. Austin
    Professor of Physics
    Princeton University
    Fellow APS, AAAS
    American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of SciencesWilliam Happer
    Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
    Princeton University
    Fellow APS, AAAS
    Member National Academy of SciencesS. Fred Singer
    Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
    First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
    Fellow APS, AAAS, AGURoger W. Cohen
    Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
    Fellow APSHarold W. Lewis
    Professor of Physics Emeritus
    University of California at Santa Barbara
    Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety StudyLaurence I. Gould
    Professor of Physics
    University of Hartford
    Chairman (2004), New England Section of APSRichard Lindzen
    Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
    Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
    Member National Academy of Sciences

    Permalink

    1. veritone Posted 5:59 am
      26 Jul 2009

      In the letter you quote they say:"The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them."That's flat out not true. the best of the models did predict this. As noted by The Credibility Project:"Deniers of global warming often cite the occurence of a temporary cool period since 2005 (cool only in relation to the extremely hot years before) as reason to doubt the science of global warming. Far from defying scientists' expectations, this cool period was predicted by the best climate models before it occurred. This shows that climate models have passed a critical test of physical theories -- namely, that they have demonstrable predictive power. Worryingly, these same models predict that another very sharp temperature rise will occur in a few more years."Asserting that the "Alarmists" seek only to enrich themselves is classic right-wing manufactured tripe. Indeed the CBO estimates that legislation like ACES will actually reduce the deficit, not increase it.Citing any meteorologist's views on global warming is more than a bit ridiculous. The NOAA and NWS, which regulate their curriculum, require no training in climate science whatsoever and so most institutions training them don't offer it."Knowledge will forever govern ignorance," President Madison observed. Let me recommend you keep your ingnorance and hysteria to yourself.

      Permalink

  10. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 10:48 am
    25 Jul 2009

    While Romm suppresses, Brazil basks!!http://gas2.org/2009/07/24/brazil-unveils-hydrogen-bus/#comment-95005Brazil Unveils Hydrogen BusHydrogen may just be making its come back in America, but its definitely gaining some momentum in Brazil. Earlier
    this week, Brazil announced plants to buy, operate and maintain up to
    five hydrogen-cell-fueled buses as well as install the station to produce the hydrogen to supply
    the fuel for the buses. The first vehicle will serve the ABD
    Metropolitan Corridor (Sao Mateus / Jabaquara), located in the Greater
    Sao Paulo area.     

    Permalink

  11. silkinchina Posted 5:01 pm
    25 Jul 2009

    The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time. china silk wholesale
    china essential bottle, china digital printing sell,wholesale,curtain,cushion,quilt,chair pad,table cloth,placemat

    Permalink

  12. jubatus Posted 6:43 pm
    25 Jul 2009

    "* Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in
    meteorology, who expressed relief upon her retirement last year that
    she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief."
    Don't be so quick with your interpretations of such a notable scientist.  In her letter where she gives her opinion on the science of global warming (found here), nowhere does she actually state that she does not believe in AGW.  Rather she is hesitant about the models that everyone seems to be following as gospel about the future of our climate.  Models are estimates of upcoming events, not accurate predictors.  I believe she is waiting to compare observed data with predictions made with models from 10 years ago to guage their accuracy and to better form her opinion. If I were her, I would be insulted to be lumped in with all the supposed 'experts' who don't believe in global climate change from the very fact that she hasn't fully formed her opinion.

    Permalink

  13. Blogger92672 Posted 10:35 pm
    25 Jul 2009

    Jubatus: Re Joanne Simpson, perhaps she would not want to be lumped in with the supposed "experts" (although, given the list provided above, the "supposted" experts would indeed make for good company!). You do however credit her with a good point: she has little faith in the models that are the basis for predicating climate change. Hello!! Are not these the very models that provide the basis asking the American people to spend billions upon billions of dollars in an attempt to change something that may not even exist, and even if true, will have little or no effect at all?   Again, Palin and Will are easy targets... don't be so quick to dismiss the leading experts who are the basis for their positions. Or better yet, argue the science with these experts instead of taking shots at the easy politcial targets.

    Permalink

  14. PeterWinters Posted 4:56 am
    27 Jul 2009

    Very good piece. It crystalises a thought I had in my mind when I read Sarah Palin's article a while back where I searched for a discussion about climate change in her article.I suppose a benefit of reading Sarah Palin is that one probably get's an accurate mind map of associations and emotions that she has with a topic. If you voted for her you would know what she would focus on without being fobbed off with something like 'of course, climate change is an issue but we would look into that and find alternative solutions' - and then do nothing effective.

    Permalink

  15. factsfactsfacts Posted 5:32 am
    27 Jul 2009

    Not entirely sure why you're bothering to take Palin on here. She's clearly not an information-gatherer. She has the 'God-gene' badly and simply swallows whatever party/religious line she's given by her current affiliation. In Afghanistan she'd be a Taliban-supporter; in Russia a communist.However, in attacking Palin, your piece does muddy the waters rather than making things clearer. There are two parts to the argument. (1) Is the earth warming and is it (a)long-term or (b)just a brief cycle? and (2) Is it OUR fault? Unfortunately the evidence is only sound as far as 1a is concerned. Beyond that is still speculation. It may be a brief cycle, we will have to wait to find out the answer to that.As for the anthropogenic part, I am a scientist and have yet to find a definitive argument for the case which outweighs any other explanations. In your own pages of 'How to talk to a skeptik' there are high-school errors such as mixing up radiation (energy, or heat) for temperature (hotness). The Sun's radiation increased until the 1940s. It has not gone back to earlier levels since. Therefore it is continuing to heat the planet in the way that the gas on your cooker will continue to heat the food and the temperature will continue to rise. Coby Beck states that the sun is 'bright, but not getting brighter' and wrongly goes on to deduce that the temperature of the Earth should have stayed the same since the 1940s.Anthropogenic Climate Change has become a 'religion' in its own right and the followers display many of the weaknesses of argument normally associated with people like Palin. It even has self-flaggelation (denial of comforts) and persecution of non-believers. Right up there with Opus Dei!

    Permalink

  16. amazingdrx's avatar

    amazingdrx Posted 7:56 am
    27 Jul 2009

    Wow! Lots of comments.  all it takes is a picture of palin?  Hehey.  Summer internet doldrums.Deny this palinophiles:  who ever manufactures the new energy economy will hold the financial purse strings.  That is looking like it will be China right now.  Do you all want to have chinese state corporations to hold the mortgage on your children's future?  Hehehey.The chance to save US capitalism is here once again.  Will delayers&deniers prevent that?  It looks like it.

    Permalink

  17. Baby Boomer Posted 10:38 am
    27 Jul 2009

    Dave always comes through.  Welcome back.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement