The Chorus

I suppose I'm part of "the chorus". But before we get into that, let's just highlight this quote:

On the very hot-button issues of climate change and the teaching of evolution, Republican political agendas require confronting current scientific consensus.

Pielke Jr is addressing Jonathan Chait's piece Sunday on conservatives' partisanship when it comes to the issue of global warming. The above quote is gold: climate change and evolution. Both are quite an uphill struggle for Republicans I'd say.

Pielke Jr goes to on address the "who's to blame" question by saying both George W Bush and Al Gore are. Sounds OK. Then there's the part about "the chorus" of blogs, etc.:

3. The Chorus. Given the dynamics described above, it is entirely natural that the climate debate attracts participants ranging from experts to the lay public, who together I call the chorus. And people are attracted to the issue because of its partisan nature, and the nature of blogs and media coverage amplify the voice of the chorus. And in turn the chorus reinforces the partisan nature of the debate through several forms of dynamics.

First, climate change is a perfect issue for the scientization of politics. ...

Second, self-segregation is not unique to experts. ...

Third, forced segregation. For those who do not fit easily into the partisan nature of the climate debate, partisans go to great effort to force these perspectives into a partisan framework.

True. I'm fine with that characterization.

The bottom line is that climate change is a partisan issue. It will likely remain so in the United States for a long time. Political action will happen nonetheless simply because the Democrats have succeeded in making it a political issue during a time of their ascendancy. ...

He's got a point, but it's not just the Democrats. Republicans, by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the possibility of a problem and blocking any Congressional discussion on the topic for years are also quite guilty of politicizing the issue. Moreover, though a few climate-change "skeptics" representing Democrats from Michigan exist in Congress, Republicans have elevated irrational skepticism almost to the level of party platform.

If Al Gore runs for president, as I suspect he will, it will further increase the partisan nature of the debate. To the extent that Democrats continue to raise expectations that climate change is central to their agenda, action will inevitably occur. Republicans will eventually accept that action will occur and will do the best to use it as a vehicle to advance their own interests, as typically occurs in all political situations. For those interested in effective policy action, as opposed to scoring political points real or symbolic, there will be a continuing need to keep a focus on policy options and their likely consequences. Die hard partisans will do there [sic] best to make that task difficult as discussion of options requires the sort of nuance not present in political horse races.

Soon climate politics in the United States will come to resemble the current dynamics in the EU, in which the issues will be messier and more complicated. When that occurs, like old Cold Warriors the climate partisans will long for the days of good guys and bad guys, and will likely hang on too long to the past.

I'm thinking that will be a good thing: Once Republicans finally embrace the concept of action, I hope that they will bring some valid ideas to the table. I could imagine them focussing on nuclear power, methane-to-markets, and adaptation; all of which are issues that will need to be considered carefully. I honestly can't wait for the day in which there will be a lack of outright stupidity to snark about on this blog when it comes to this issue....Stupidity in Washington will always exist of course, but the irrational fearmongering against any sort of action is really the major problem these days and if we can just get rid of that it'll be a huge step forward.