MA Senate candidate Scott Brown pushes anti-science nonsense, flip-flops on clean energy action

Posted on  

"MA Senate candidate Scott Brown pushes anti-science nonsense, flip-flops on clean energy action"

Fivethirtyeight.com claims, “Scott Brown is a Liberal Republican.”  Maybe the same way Mitt Romney is or is that “was”?

Back in mid-December, The Boston Globe had a piece on the “Environmental differences” between the two candidates to fill the seat that Ted Kennedy held.  It contained this anti-science gem from the “liberal” Brown:

Just last week, Brown visited the home of a voter in Harvard, Jack Farren, who asked him, “Do you think that whole global warming thing is a big fraud?”

Brown’s answer was illustrative, in that he did not reject the fraud theory.

“It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling,” he said. “It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information.”

Brown continued, saying: “I just want to make sure if in fact . . . the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and it’s unbiased by scientists with no agenda. Once that’s done, then I think we can really move forward with a good plan.”

Coakley, in an interview yesterday in Boston after addressing a breakfast meeting of commercial real estate developers, said she believes that the climate is changing, that human activity is to blame for much of the change, and that the time for action is now.

Yeah, that fickle globe — it just can’t make up its mind what it wants to do.  It’s always heating and cooling.  It’s nature’s way.  How “interesting.”

Memo to Brown:  The warming is unequivocal, and humans are the main cause.  And nature isn’t close to being as fickle as human beings like, say, you.  Why exactly did you support New England’s regional cap-and-trade initiative, only to attack it now along with the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill?

The Globe offers Brown’s standard explanation, but then fails to point out how illogical it is:

Brown defended himself by saying the plan he voted for nearly two years ago did not work so he had changed his mind.

Uhh, why would you support a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if you don’t even now if the world is warming, let alone that the warming is due to greenhouse gases?

Actually Brown’s flip-flopping is even lamer than that, as a recent Globe story, “Brown showcases his conservative leanings,” makes clear:

Last week he embraced waterboarding. Last month he expressed skepticism that climate change is being caused by humans. He has even denounced two national proposals that he supported in Massachusetts as a lawmaker – mandatory health care coverage and a cap-and-trade system to cut global warming gases. “I think he is moving to the right,” said Marion Just, a political science professor at Wellesley College.

He seems to be looking more to the Tea Party protesters than to the traditional Republican base here in the state, Just said.

Yes, we really needed a political scientist to tell us that!

Brown also backed away from his support for a cap-and-trade system for trying to contain greenhouse gases. In 2008, he voted with the Legislature for Massachusetts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a pact among Northeastern states requiring power plants to reduce emissions or to buy credits from cleaner industries.

Reducing carbon dioxide emission in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine,” Brown said in a news release at the time. “Passing this legislation is an important step . . . towards improving our environment.”

The vote was viewed as a legislative rebuke because former governor Mitt Romney – as he prepared for a run for the Republican nomination for president – had backed out of the regional pact in 2005. Romney agreed with business leaders that the plan would drive up costs, though environmentalists said it would cut costs by directing money to energy-efficiency programs.

“I voted for it, we passed it, but we were told that the rates would go down,” Brown said in an interview on WEEI’s “Dennis & Callahan” in October. “We were sold a bill of goods.”

One environmental advocate who pushed for the greenhouse gas initiative, Conservation Law Foundation attorney Seth Kaplan, said the initiative could not possibly be blamed for cost increases at this early stage because the cap is still so high.

“I’m a little offended at the idea that we pulled a fast one on them,” Kaplan said.

Well, it’s worse than that.  Brown was not “told that the rates would go down.”  That’s an outrageous falsehood.  Everybody knew that rates would go up.  But bills would stay flat or go down because of the energy efficiency initiatives.

But again, why would Brown long have a priority of reducing carbon dioxide emissions if he didn’t know that carbon dioxide emissions caused global warming?

Brown makes Romney seem like a model of consistency.

Unsurprisingly, the League of Conservation Voters just launched a $350,000 TV Ad blitz against Brown highlighting his opposition to “to building a clean energy economy that creates new jobs and cuts our dangerous dependence on foreign oil”:

“Martha Coakley understands that by investing in clean American power we can turnaround the economy and make America more energy independent,” LCV President Gene Karpinski said. “But instead of transitioning to a clean energy economy, Scott Brown would take us back to the failed Bush-Cheney energy policies – siding with the big oil companies who oppose energy reform over new clean energy jobs for Massachusetts workers.”

Scott Brown has stated his opposition to critical clean energy and climate legislation in Congress, even though two years ago as a state Senator he voted in favor of a bill that would reduce carbon pollution, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). He has even expressed skepticism that climate change is caused by humans, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus.

The Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters also recently endorsed Martha Coakley, stating:

“The Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters is proud to endorse Martha Coakley, a public servant who has fought polluters and the Bush Administration to protect our health and environment,” said MLEV Executive Director Lora Wondolowski in the endorsement announcement.  “We are at a critical juncture and need leaders in the U.S. Senate who will prioritize investments in green energy and take the steps necessary to combat global warming.  Martha Coakley is one of those leaders.”

As Attorney General, Martha Coakley and her office led the charge petitioning the EPA that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. In 2007, the Supreme Court sided with her position, paving the way for EPA action under the Clean Air Act to control these harmful pollutants. She also promoted regional efforts to invest in clean energy technologies and expand energy efficiency programs in her state.  Now, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in a special election, Martha Coakley proudly supports the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act that Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced in 2009.

View the ad here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wld2ei2T1swAd back up available here: http://www.lcv.org/backupenergyjobs.pdf

They definitely do not make liberal Republicans like they used to.

« »

21 Responses to MA Senate candidate Scott Brown pushes anti-science nonsense, flip-flops on clean energy action

  1. Nancy says:

    If any of you have relatives in Massachusetts, call them and tell them to VOTE on Tuesday for Coakley. This election is crucial. We need two Democratic senators from Massachusetts. A vote for Brown is a vote against our children’s futures.

  2. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    When people realise just how much they have been decieved there will be such a crisis of faith in the conservative movement that the Republican Party might never recover.

  3. mike roddy says:

    Brown is just nodding to his campaign funders, and RNC. If any Republican even tiptoes away from the party line on global warming, it’s only if he insists on giveways to coal, gas, and nuclear. The bigger problem is campaign financing, resulting in bought and sold “leaders” in both parties.

    Rabid Doomsdayer: I’ve felt that before. After Goldwater was humiliated as a nutcase nuker. After Nixon was more beaten down than a rabid dog, talking drunkenly to portraits in the White House. After Reagan kept grinning incoherently after Iran Contra, when half his Cabinet was under investigation. After GW Bush, whose term was best summarized in a Texas truck stop stall: “Nice going, Texas. You f’d up the whole world”.

    The Republican Party keeps coming back, like zombie nightmares who’d been dead and buried and then show up again, jabbering away and lurching toward us. Here they are again, gaining momentum for 2010. Maybe this dark side is something that dwells in all of us- and something we all have to address.

  4. Mossy says:

    Ditto Nancy. I called Scott Brown’s office after the debate last week when he spewed out his disinformation, and asked the aide to have a look at the climate studies, authorized under the Bush administration and costing billions of taxpayer dollars, available at http://www.globalchange.gov, verifying both the cause and effects of climate change. The aide hung up on me, even though I was nice and non-confrontational. I felt miserable, realizing that he was not only hanging up on me, but on his own future, and on the future of humanity.
    If Scott Brown wins, it’s game over. However, I’m hanging onto a thread of hope in that I feel that the media is now trying to stir up some excitement by manipulating the statistics to claim a “dead heat” in the race. And I really don’t think us MA residents are so stupid as to elect a flipflopper!

  5. Raleigh Latham says:

    live in Oregon, but donated $50 to Coakley’s campaign, anyone in MA who wants to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and prevent the senate from becoming paralyzed needs to vote for Coakley. *shakes fist*

  6. Zan says:

    Joe, This is terrible. For the primary, Coakley’s campaign had a very bare-bones phone-banking system.
    They have only recently gotten it up to snuff almost with Obama’s system in 2008, but I fear it may be too late.

  7. rcasewst says:

    We have to do whatever it take to defeat Brown. His has been put in here by the extreem right wing Rush fanatics! Even if he gets elected (god forbid!)we have to use every tactic to ensure passage of the health care bill. Martha should immediately demand a recount. GW stole the election in 2k and dragged out for months through the supreme court. the same should be done with Brown. This way Kirk can cast the deciding vote and we can have nationalized medicine. just think, no more copays or forms!

  8. mauri pelto says:

    We received 14 phone calls yesterday for this vote. Arizona, New Mexico among other states as the origin. One noted that Coakley allegedly was heard to say she was a Yankee fan. Climate change has not been an issue emphasized in any of the adds on tv or in flyers.

  9. WeatherRusty says:

    The Republican base here in Massachusetts is highly motivated and energized. They are like wolves in sheep’s clothing, appealing to a disgruntled electorate. The only why to beat them is to get out the numbers. Voter participation is crucial, especially amongst true Democrats. The independent vote is favoring Brown but we still have strong Democratic support in this state. They must vote. Get out the vote!

  10. Lee says:

    Scott Brown is trying to ‘nuance’ his way around the climate/energy issue. In the last debate when he was asked about his previous statements ‘denying’ global warming he came out with an even more obtuse restatement of the climates always changes canard followed by a both side of the mouth statement on clean energy. I have never been a fan of Martha Coakley but in this race, if for no other reason than the issue of global warming, I will vote for Martha Coakley. I hope no one concerned about our future climate is fooled by Scott Brown’s ‘nuanced’ statements about energy and I thank the League of Conservation Voters for making the TV ad the Coakley campaign should have.

  11. Brown must not be elected!! How are we going to get a climate bill through the senate if he is there as the 41st Republican denier?

  12. David B. Benson says:

    Flip-flopped?

    Then just another Repug I fear.

    [Fourth attempt to post this comment.]

  13. BobSmith says:

    Hey Joe,
    This probably isn’t the right venue, but I thought you’d appreciate this study and video produced by the University of Colorado. Couldn’t find a way to e-mail you, so here it is: http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/fff17f8947aba3f5e502f0ed30adb9ee.html

    It shows time lapsed video of the erosion of Alaskan coasts.

  14. dhogaza says:

    One noted that Coakley allegedly was heard to say she was a Yankee fan.

    No, she joked that Curtis Schilling was a Yankees fan, which pissed him off, and apparently caused some sort of flap in MA.

  15. John says:

    I said last night if I get 1 more phone call from either canadates and I will not vote for either one (10 Total)!!!!!!!! Three more calls today leave me alone……I will write in Curt Schilling …….

  16. Nancy says:

    John,

    Why do you read CP? If you care about the climate issue and want to see a Senate climate bill succeed this year, you should vote tomorrow for Coakley. The political phone calls are annoying, but use caller ID and just don’t answer! Every vote counts tomorrow.

  17. Randy says:

    Dhogaza,

    How can you claim that Coakley joked that Schilling was a Yankee’s fan. How disingenuous can you be? Did you actually listen to the audio of Coakley’s comment? I find it amazing that anyone would think it was a joke. She was confused and stammered around for a second or two.

    The truth is that Coakley did not joke that Schilling was a Yankee’s fan. I don’t think she knows the difference (and neither did Schilling). She should have just admitted she was wrong immediately and the whole thing would have blown over.

    Trying to defend her comment as a joke is indefensible! You may not agree with opposing ideas on where America needs to be headed, but don’t dismiss us as stupid.

  18. MarkB says:

    “You may not agree with opposing ideas on where America needs to be headed, but don’t dismiss us as stupid.”

    If certain MA residents are truly going to vote for someone because the opposing candidate said something about a sports figure, you shouldn’t be surprised.

  19. jon bell says:

    In case you were wondering why the unusual and historic cold weather as of late? For you ignorant fools and believers in “man-made” global warming, or “man-made”climate change, its God letting you know who really is in charge of the weather!!

  20. espiritwater says:

    Yep, you have one thing right, jon bell: God IS in charge- of the weather and everything else. He made certain laws– there are spiritual laws and physical laws and laws regarding health, etc. If mankind IGNORES the laws God put into place, (for example, if he decides to jump off a bridge, ignoring the law of inertia, he will end up dead). Likewise, if manking ignores God’s laws concerning the ozone layer or the climate, mankind will have to reap what he’s sown. We have free will to obey the laws or disobey. In the case of Global Warming, mankind has disobeyed the physical laws of the universe and therefore will have to reap what he’s sown: hell and high water. God’s in charge; you can’t just do whatever you want and think everything will be OK. No! We have to obey the laws of the Universe or reap hell!

  21. espiritwater says:

    In other words, jon bell (#19), don’t screw around with Mother Nature, or you’ll end up flat on your back. In the end, Mother Nature takes all. We have to submit to HER! Anyone who thinks he can rape the earth and get away with it for long– THAT person is the fool! NOT the posters here on Climate Progress! Think about it!