‘Science!’: Beyond the Pose, Mr. Huntsman, What Would you DO?

“Science!”: Beyond the Pose, Mr. Huntsman, What Would You DO?

When that silver-haired Republican candidate weighs in on the ‘climate’ debate I want to stick around until the end of the video. I love that line, “Good heavens, Miss Nakamoto, you’re beautiful!”

Wait, that’s not Magnus Pyke?

Seriously. Mr. Huntsman, beyond the pose: what would you do? “Science!” is a talking point. More of a pose, really, of being the thoughtful man while its success depends on no more than Pavlovian nodding and clucking in response. Anything else ultimately arrives at the question Hunstman’s pose begs:

What. Would. You. Do.?

What’s your point? You’re down with the kidz on campus and your media base can rest easy because you’re not, you know, ‘crazy’ as you say? Or you’re going somewhere with this? Is it cap-and-trade? Kyoto? Kyoto II? Carbon (dioxide…meaning ‘energy’) taxes?

What? And after you answer that, well, without using the word “science(!)”, please then state why?

Here’s the problem for today’s stylish poseur: Nothing ever proposed would, according to anyone or any computer model on which the entire argument is premised, detectably impact temperature or climate.

The schemes are all pain, no gain. According to all. Is that not the kind of consensus you can get behind? There is no disagreement about this, and it is surely too-little discussed. These models also belie ^[1] a fallback notion that well, every little bit helps. It’s doing ’something’. Not according to them ^[2].

I debated a UN IPCC lead author ^[3], a computer modeler, in June and he readily admitted it — he had little choice, really, the event was being videotaped. He even volunteered that what is required is total and complete elimination of human greenhouse gas emissions.

I wonder if politicians know what that means. Anyway, I’m told by the conference organizers that he does not agree to release the video, but possibly you could look into this. It seems quite relevant.

Another idea is that you’re remaining silent as to what lies behind the sneering hauteur because you actually share Rick Perry’s policy stance, but don’t want to admit it? Could it be that you really do protest too much?

The problem with the silence is that the public deserve to hear your vision, even at risk of alienating that media base. Got your pose. Check. How about what you would do? John McCain, whose campaign manager you swooped up, was clear about his intentions, being lead co-sponsor of the cap-and-trade legislation for years. Until he backed out and got vague when he began his campaign for the White House.

2008 deprived the public of a debate. And this led to the ugly House cram-down of cap-n-trade, abandoned by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

So, now, you tweet and reply in debate against “comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said”. Yes. That’s the response the self-selecting universe who says such things were hoping for.

For what it’s worth, I’m partial to this post-ClimateGate ^[4] ‘open letter’ ^[5] from a former luminary in the climate movement now exiled as a ‘heretic’ for putting the agenda and gravy train at risk:

No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.

Ouch. Ah, but who is the head of Georgia Tech’s School of Atmospheric Sciences compared to the IPCC’s “chief climate scientist”, who turns out to be a railway engineer? I bet she doesn’t even read the New York Times.

Because you see, these scientists who never tire of saying no one ought dare opine about their field who is not a ‘climate scientist’ (broadly defined ^[6], on a case-by-case basis ultimately determined by whether you give the desired answer), they have no problem spending most of their time playing policy expert, demanding laws. Climactically meaningless ones (begging another question — whether this can really be about the climate). And as Dr. Curry notes these demanders of policies are activists with science degrees.

Adopting any of these futile, all-pain no gain schemes claiming to be ‘responsible’ by ‘doing something’, despite that the basis for your action, climate models, all claim otherwise would not only be reckless. It would be, well, anti-scientific. Again, ouch.

Finally, if that whole climatically meaningless thing doesn’t bother you, can you then tell us who is your model for policies to follow? As candidate, Obama had the courtesy to acknowledge he wanted to impose an EU-style cap-and-trade scheme that would cause “electricity rates [to] necessarily skyrocket”, “bankrupt[ing]” anyone who tried to build a coal-fired power plant, and that “this would also raise billions of dollars.” To no climatic effect, recall.

And he told us eight times to look at his model, Spain. He no longer gives those speeches. Politics abhors a vacuum. Would you please step up? What policies do you seek?

Running for the presidency is not a Thomas Dolby video, let alone governing. We’re now bearing the costs of buying empty phrases, leaving more than a few unpleasant details to be revealed too late. Mr. Huntsman, please move beyond the “Science!” pose and tell us: On ‘climate’, what would you do?