The Spectacle Blog
I’ve been tough (I think) in challenging former Minnesota Gov. (and now presidential candidate) Tim Pawlenty about his past support for cap-and-trade and policies to constrain carbon dioxide emissions. In December 2009, when he first started visiting New Hampshire, he was still talking like CO2 was pollution, and still failed to remove his state from the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord:
Now he’s pretty much completed a 180-degree turnaround on the whole issue — even questioning the science of human-caused global warming, as revealed in a Miami Herald interview with him this week:
Q: Do you think there’s man-made climate change?
Pawlenty: “Well, there’s definitely climate change. The more interesting question is how much is a result of natural causes and how much, if any, is attributable to human behavior. And that’s what the scientific dispute is about.”
Q: Were do you fall on the spectrum?
Pawlenty: “It’s something we have to look to the science on. The weight of the evidence is that most of it, maybe all of it, is because of natural causes. But to the extent there is some element of human behavior causing some of it - that’s what the scientific debate is about. That’s why we’ve seen all this back and forth between some of those prominent scientists in the world arguing about that very point.”
Q: There is a strong case for man-made climate change, according to a University of Miami climate researcher I’ve spoken to. You don’t agree with him?
Pawlenty: “There’s lots of layers to it. But at least as to any potential man-made contribution to it, it’s fair to say the science is in dispute. There’s a lot of people who say the majority of the scientists think this way. And there’s a minority that way. And you count the number of scientists versus the quality of scientists and the like. But I think it’s fair to say that, as to whether and how much - if any - is attributable to human behavior, there’s dispute and controversy over it….. Cap and trade I thought is a ham-fisted, expensive, job-ruing economy-stifling approach.”
So now he doubts the mirage of “scientific consensus,” seems to understand the climate realist perspective, and challenges the stupidity of overhauling the economy to address the dubious “problem.” That’s a lot of progress, and now it seems there’s some consistency in his views.
View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/04/total-pawlenty-turnaround-on-g
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- What’s in a Name?
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Otsi| 8.4.11 @ 5:15PM
So Pawlenty is mealy mouthed and flip floppy enough for you, but Romney isn't? Give Romney a chance, he'll eventually say what you want to hear.
Rick V.| 8.4.11 @ 5:36PM
Otsi - you're right, of course. They all will, eventually. Obama has been saying things that some people want to hear for years; people like the perpetually unemployed and the perpetually aggrieved. But Obama is going to be re-elected. Because he knows his audience ... the unions, the big money people and organizations on whom he selectively bestows his favors, and especially the blacks, because he's almost one of them (in terms of appearance, and that's all that matters). The Republicans and the Tea Party folks hang their hopes on this one or that one, or maybe so-and-so who is almost totally ready to announce his or her candidacy, but you know what? There are so many I'm-not-Obama candidates right now that not a single one of them will get a majority of Americans to support them and they'll be crushed by Obama's money and his strong-arm henchmen.
I hate to say this, and I pray to God that I'm wrong, but Obama's reign has just begun. I feel only dread for the future of our country.
Otsi| 8.4.11 @ 5:54PM
In some scenarios yes, Obama gets re-elected. Palin keeps mentioning the idea of a third party candidate, for example. That would guarantee Obama's re-election.
The tea party gave us Christine Odonnell and Sharon Angle, and generally speaking put ideological purity ahead of a strategic attempt to win seats for the GOP. That not only weakens the GOP overall, it makes the GOP look like the party of fruitcakes.
Now the tea party is pushing for presidential candidates so far on the fringe that they'd basically cede the independent vote ... and the election ... to Obama. Palin? Bachmann? Paul? Give me a break.
Even if we avoid those traps, by the time the electable candidates are done trying to get the tea party vote in the primaries they'll be damaged politically by having to pay lip service to the fringe voters just to get past the primaries.
At least the birther thing seems to have gone away. If you want an example of how the fringe makes the whole party look nutsy, there it is right there.
So yes, there are forces at work that seem to want nothing more than to bring down the GOP from within. If it weren't for them, Obama would have no chance of re-election.
hondr| 8.5.11 @ 8:56AM
So it' s all about the "GOP" for you, eh RINO?
Country be damned... it's all about the "GOP".
Sorry, but it seems that you're one of the RINOs that just don't get it. Don't worry, after Boehner, Snowe, Hatch and Lugar lose their heads next year... you'll get it.
randyinrocklin| 8.6.11 @ 1:08PM
AMEN!
PattyMor| 8.4.11 @ 5:21PM
All Pawlenty is doing is reading the Tea Leaves. I don't trust him, along with Mitt, and Newt.
Jonathan Cloud | 8.4.11 @ 5:34PM
Sounds like a case of the blind leading the blind — in this case, over the cliff. How much more warming, ecological degradation, and climate catastrophe do we need for folks like you to wake up?
Charles Romer| 8.4.11 @ 6:23PM
Too little tool late. He lost my support the minute I found out that he believed - at all - in man made global warming (or climate change, if you prefer). I will not support any politician or political party that poses mankind as an agent of climate change.
Funny thing, I DO believe we ARE experiencing warming not just because of this summer's heat wave but because of the warmer winters I have have been noticing (here at least) over the last 15 years or so.
Nevertheless, the belief in man caused climate change is a real danger because it shuts off the ordinary citizen from technology to alleviate the effects by either outlawing them (i.e. oil and gas exploration) or making them prohibitively expensive (i.e. electricity regulation).
George S| 8.4.11 @ 6:25PM
People don't learn basic common sense as they get older, they instead become more adept in verbal gymnastics. Pawlenty eagerly jumped ahead of the Republican line to lead the climate change parade. Now he tells us he was mistaken. Just like Charlie Crist was with the stimulus as well as climate change. If Obama's approval rating were still in the 60's last year this time, Crist would be a Senator and Pawlenty would be Climate Change Czar.
No respect quartered here.
mememine69| 8.4.11 @ 7:52PM
It's too bad exaggerating isn't lying anymore but it certainly is a crime to condemn billions of children to a death by CO2 needlessly just to get them to turn the lights out more often and make them environmentally “aware”. Climate Change FEAR, (fortunately for all), was a criminal exaggeration turned comfortable lie. You are not the only former believer contacting prosecutors to have the leading news editors and lab coat consultants (scientists) arrested and charged with treason for leading us to another “Bush-like” false war. Climate Change was another Iraq war of lies and fake climate WMD’s and fear mongering that condemned billions of children to a CO2 death. NOW, who’s the NEOCON? The few remaining climate blame believers are a fringe portion of the progressive movement and history will see the CO2 mistake being to us what bible thumping was to the neocons. REAL planet lovers and REAL Liberals are happy a climate crisis from human CO2 was not real. Why did so many of us WANT this misery to have been true? For 25 years, climate blame was to us what the right to life movement was to the Republicans. Both were beyond reason. Let’s admit our mistake and jail these criminal scientists who I may remind you all; POISONED the planet with their pesticides in the first place. We acted like obedient domestic cattle as we bowed to these consultants studying the effects, not causes of climate variation. The “they say” shouldn’t have been good enough to look our kids in eyes and tell them to SAVE THE PLANET from CO2 or die.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.4.11 @ 8:17PM
A recent NASA study is pretty conclusive, there is no global warming, and that's straight from the federal government. Ironically, the government is ignoring its own facts.
Have you considered| 8.4.11 @ 10:36PM
BHO'S, here is a link to an article that discusses the NASA satellite study:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-dat.....34971.html
Here is another one from a former warmist that now repudiates AGW:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/ar.....se-science
I just saw T-Paw on Hannity tonight, and I like every thing he said. I am willing to take a second look. Anybody is better than Romney in my book, and I've read some things I don't like about Perry (seems he's a LaRaza panderer, and a borrow and spender)
Occam's Tool| 8.4.11 @ 8:24PM
I dunno, T-Paw was pretty much straightforward in stating that his previous views on Global Warming was "a mistake." He's better than Romney.
bubba16123| 8.4.11 @ 9:32PM
Just a note from Minnesota. he's the same as Romney.
Clint| 8.4.11 @ 10:10PM
Tool Job Got Slammed For Saying He Might For Romney. Now, Tool Job Is An Apologist For Pawlenty.
It Looks Like Tool Job's Israel Firster RINO-CINO Colors Are Showing.
AH| 8.4.11 @ 9:00PM
The Iowa Ames straw poll only matters because the media gives it so much attention. It really is meaningless, nothing more than a fundraiser for the Iowa Republican Party. Tim Pawlenty is busing people to the straw poll, paying the $30 fee for everyone, and buying everyone lunch. If he wins it’ll be a result of all the money he is spending – all of which goes to the Iowa Republican Party. It is meaningless and the media should stop pretending otherwise.
TruthSpeaker| 8.4.11 @ 9:52PM
not a chance.
Lillith| 8.4.11 @ 10:48PM
Take it from North Woods - Pawlenty HAS no principles. He started out governing as a moderate Republican and followed what ever wind was blowing. If he thought that a Rockefellow Republican would win the White House, that's what he would be. He is easily controlled by anyone he senses has power.
No principles, no independent thought.
worse than useless.
Larry| 8.5.11 @ 2:27AM
"It's something we have to look to the science on. The weight of the evidence is that most of it, maybe all of it, is because of natural causes."
And there is plenty of evidence for Pawlenty's statement, as explained by Prof. Murry Salby, a mainstream professor of climatology at McQuarrie University in Australia, at this website:
http://www.thesydneyinstitute......l-sources/
In my opinion, Salby's evidence and analysis devastates the AGW argument altogether. If I were an attorney representing parties affected by EPA's ill-considered finding of endangerment, upon which they base their god-awful CO2 regulations, Prof. Salby would be one of my key witnesses. I recommend everyone to visit the website and listen to this podcast.
Have you considered| 8.5.11 @ 5:19PM
Thanks for sharing Larry. I did listen to the podcast, which was done 8/2/2011.
You are right that it appears to devastate the IPCC report. He did say that this data was not available at AR4 (IPCC2007) He also said he was a reviewer for the IPCC, that he used to be agnostic on the topic, and that the models used did not even account for natural sources of CO2 emissions. This is a fatal flaw IMO.
I would love to see Inhofe call him to the senate for a hearing.
JimH| 8.5.11 @ 8:10AM
None of the actual or potential candidates to my knowledge save Cain and Paul have any mathematical or scientific training. I think they can be given a bit of a pass for accepting what was purported by the media to be the consensus scientific opinion on this. None of the candidates that I know of, unlike Gore stood to personally gain from this position. In light of more recent evidence and other information, any who would still maintain a uncritical belief in AGW are fools.