Conservative ideologues have increasingly made opposition to bipartisan action on global warming a litmus test for Republicans seeking national office (see “Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 1: Conservatives vow to purge all members who support clean energy or science-based policy” and”Part 3: RNC Chair Steele withdraws support for Rep. Kirk over his vote on climate and clean energy bill“). Apparently this litmus test doesn’t just include embracing ideological positions on policy, but also on science. The best example of that is Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), who is widely seen as a top-tier candidate for the 2012 presidential nomination. Pawlenty already earned a “Full Flop” from PolitiFact because of his complete reversal of position on cap and trade policy — from strong support to strong opponent. As Think Progress reports, he clearly deserves another for his politically motivated questioning of basic climate science.
Speaking to the Economist recently, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) told reporters that he questions the science underpinning climate change. Pawlenty explained that while the earth might be warming, it is unclear “to what extent that is the result of natural causes.” As ThinkProgress has noted, Pawlenty has veered sharply to the right to appease a right-wing, tea party base. Although the tea party movement demands strict adherence to far right positions, as a Democracy Corps study shows, much of the movement sees political issues through a prism that is simply divorced from reality.
In appeasing the tea party base, Pawlenty not only dismisses the stark reality that human-caused carbon emissions are the largest contributor to climate change, but he also sacrifices his own credibility. Over the course of the last three years, Pawlenty has gone from an outspoken proponent of clean energy to a Glenn Beck pandering climate change denier:
Dec. 2006: Pawlenty lays out an ambitious clean energy program for Minnesotans to reduce their use of fossil fuels 15 percent by 2015. Cutting greenhouse gases, Pawlenty said, would “be good for the environment, good for rural economies, good for national security and good for consumers.” He also calls for a regional cap and trade program.
May 2007: Pawlenty signs the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, requiring the state to reduce its emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent in 2050. At the signing ceremony, Pawlenty said Minnesota was “kicking-starting the future” by “tackling greenhouse gas emissions.”
Oct. 2007: Pawlenty declares that the climate change issue is “one of the most important of our time.” He also brushes off “some flak” from right-wingers who doubt climate change science.
Sept. 2008: During the election, Pawlenty backs away from his own cap and trade program, says such a system would “wreck the economy.” He then tells hate radio personality Glenn Beck (a climate change denier) that human activity only contributes “half a percent” to climate change.
Nov. 2009: Pawlenty backs away from acknowledging that any human activity is the cause of climate change.
JR: How far has Pawlenty fallen from bipartisan supporter of climate action to right-wing ideologue? Click here to listen to radio ad that he made with Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), two years ago, for Environmental Defense (!) urging Congress to take immediate action on global warming.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Tim is a text book flip-flopper. He bucked the Bush administration by trying to secure prescription drugs from Canada. He used ‘fees’ and accounting gimmicks for eight years and now that the budget is a shambles, he ‘pulls a Palin’ and runs away from his mess.
I don’t see how Beck and Limbaugh could support a RINO like Tim. MN liberals are drooling at the chance to expose him at the national level.
Just another Republican joke, but we’ve underestimated them before. Remember 1964 and 1976, anybody? They were far more humilated than post George Bush, and somehow came back to haunt us anyway.
The right wing radicals and deniers are stronger political than we liberals like to believe. We know there are powerful media forces propagandizing the public, but I think we underestimate the effect such propaganda has on the electorate. Most Americans get a miserable science education; when I was on our local school board I used to bewail the fact that the only science and math courses most people will ever take in their lives were the high school courses. Statistics and Earth Science are the usual college requirements (if they have science and math requirements at all). Our country is illiterate in math and science (and fearful of math especially) so our electorate cannot be expected to think clearly on issues with a strong science and math content. Preventing global warming is presented to much of the electorate as an economic injury to our country and that, of course, makes doing nothing about global warming seem like the “logical” course of action to take.
Joe Romm does an amazing job every day to counter the malicious propaganda. Is there more we each can do to help? Are there new tactics being considered?
Esselam