Can the party of Reagan accept the science of climate change?
Interestingly, it's written by Republican Sherwood Boehlert who served as a Congressman from 1983 to 2007.
Look at the following:
But will the new Congress listen? Probably not. Probably not given the Tea Party members coming on board and the rampant anti-intellectualism currently afoot.I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.
...
There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem's existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.
The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry - the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity - are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it's also bad politics.
~~~
I find it impressive and surprising that a Republican has the "balls" to write an opinion on this subject...something which is clearly unpopular within his own party.
ReplyDeleteannie c