If you're a Republican presidential candidate, chances are that a few years ago you supported cap-and-trade as a market-based means of reducing carbon emissions to deal with climate change, but today you have to say that that approach was misconceived. But just how far do you have to go on this? One approach is to say that, sure, climate change is happening, but we just shouldn't bother to do anything about it. That's what Mitt Romney has done, to much criticism from conservatives (particularly Rush Limbaugh, who assures his millions of devoted listeners that climate change is a "hoax" ginned up by elitist liberals to oppress ordinary people). Among his colleagues, this stands out as a remarkably reasonable and reality-based position.
But if you don't want to say it's actually a hoax, there's another option: You can pretend you are actually, yourself, something of an expert. That's where Tim Pawlenty has come down. Despite his previous support of cap and trade, after a period of deep immersion in scientific journals and hundreds of hours spent poring over temperature data and complex climate models, the former Minnesota governor has come to a different conclusion. Here's a rather remarkable interview he did with the Miami Herald (via Jon Chait) that's worth quoting at length:
Q: You also no longer favor a cap-and-trade global-warming solution, right?
Pawlenty: "Like most of the major candidates on the Republican side to varying degrees, everybody studied it, looked at it. We did the same. But I concluded, in the end some years ago, that it was a bad idea… We never actually implemented it. I concluded ultimately it was a bad idea. It would be harmful to the economy. The science was I think based on unreliable conclusions."
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."
I'm going to make a bold assertion here: Tim Pawlenty has never, not once in his life, actually read any of the science on climate change. At best, he's glanced at a Heritage Foundation briefing on the topic. But he's never read an article in a climate journal, or discussed it with a real-live climate scientist. Yet he talks as if he just completed a doctoral program in climatology. First you get his weird claim that most of the presidential candidates have "studied it." Then he uses the word "science," "scientific," or "scientist" nine times and talks with absolute assurance about the nature of the evidence and the conclusions drawn by actual scientists.
That he's just plainly lying about these things is almost beside the point. What's more interesting is the time he devotes to presenting himself as someone with scientific knowledge and understanding. Sure, if you ask him, he'll tell you that cap-and-trade is a job-killing socialist anti-American policy, but he wants you to know that his views don't just come from an assessment of economics or government budgets. He arrived here because of his deep scientific knowledge.
The fact that Pawlenty is utterly full of shit on this doesn't mean that there isn't a market for this kind of appeal. In fact, a number of studies have shown that among conservatives, higher degrees of education and sophistication are correlated with greater levels of climate denialism (Prospect alum Chris Mooney explains here). If you're ideologically inclined to oppose efforts to address climate change, then it feels good to put a veneer of "science" on your belief, even if it's an invention. That allows you to assure yourself, and others, that your position is a product of cool reason, and not, say, a desire to punch hippies in the face.
