I’m from New Hampshire, and most of the time I’m proud of it. And then there are the other times, such as when I find out that every Republican candidate for Judd Gregg’s senate seat says that human-induced global warming has not been proven. Really?
What offends me here is not that some people might want to debate the human component of climate change – there has been quite a bit of that in the comments section of this blog. I think that intelligent, reasoned debate on this subject that is grounded in evidence is completely fair game for discussion, etc. Further, this sort of debate serves to push research forward, and refine what we know and do not know about climate change and its human impacts.
What bothers me here is that none of these candidates is grounding this stance in evidence in any way – this is pure politics, pandering to a lowest-common-denominator fear of change crowd. And New Hampshire has a hell of a lot to lose from this – climate change is increasing climate variability (hence the 100 year floods referenced in the link above) which presents challenges not only to people’s property and safety, but also to the economy of the state. New Hampshire is heavily driven by tourist dollars, and tourism is heavily driven by skiing. Skiing relies on sub-freezing weather and adequate precipitation (even I know that snowmakers do not make desirable snow), both of which are becoming less predictable. By failing to have a reasoned discussion about this issue, based on facts about what we do and do not know – and the likely outcomes for New Hampshire, all of these candidates have staked out an irresponsible position that calls into question their fitness to represent the state at the national level.
How do you know that none of them are grounding their stance in evidence?
They might not always put all their reasons for their conclusion in their campaign literature or their interviews – they can probably assume that their supporters already know the reasons – but it doesn’t necessarily have to be pure populism.
They might also be considering that tourism is heavily driven by fossil-fuelled long-distance travel, and that when we are all facing massive behaviour-changing emission taxes and regulations that luxuries like holidays in remote locations are likely to be among the first things to go. That’s a far more certain impact than any possible future change to weather variability.
It’s a matter of opinion and politics which positions are the more responsible; and as a rule, many sceptics are quite happy to have a reasoned discussion about it. (In my limited experience, it’s far more likely to be the CAGW-believers who refuse to debate, or pull out at the last minute.) But by all means, let’s debate the evidence. That’s exactly what we want our politicians to do; not take some scientist’s word for it.
Sadly, I know because I follow NH politics closely, have a lot of family there, and actually know the records of most of these candidates. This was a classic “me too” moment when they were asked the climate question. If their response was as reasonable as yours (i.e. fossil fuels drive transport, which drives tourism, which drives the NH economy) I would be willing to discuss this with them. I assure you that your few moments of commenting is far more reasoned than what they are debating/saying.
You are largely correct about the “more responsible” path – it is a matter of politics. However, it is not really opinion – it is an issue of how far into the future you want to project challenges and address them. In the short run, the economic challenge is probably greater (but also probably overstated). In the long run, the climate challenge is almost certainly greater (even if one holds the opinion that this impact is overstated by as much as 50% in reports like Stern). So, are we the grasshopper or the ant? That is not opinion, really – but it sure is politics!
Hey, at this point I think you know that I am happy to have a reasoned debate with anyone, skeptical or not – but you are right, let’s debate the evidence in a reasonable way, and see where it takes us. This is the only way to shore up the science, to identify what we really do and do not know, and build responsible policy and research going forward.