Rush Limbaugh Seizes–and Freezes?–on "ClimateGate"

authordefault
on

For some time, it has been clear that โ€œClimateGateโ€ has a dramatic meaning for the political right in the U.S. Somehow, โ€œClimateGateโ€ gave those conservatives who had long been resistant to dealing with global warming a new license to dismiss the problem entirely. As a non-conservative, itโ€™s hard to wrap your mind around how this could have occurredโ€”after all, โ€œClimateGateโ€ wasnโ€™t a real scandalโ€“but recently, Iโ€™ve come up with what may be a betterย understanding.

The inspiration came from checking in on Rush Limbaugh and noting, in more detail than I usually do, the particular flavor of his dismissiveness. Limbaugh took a call recently from one Michael Hillinger, a New Hampshire resident who had made news by asking GOP candidate Mitt Romney a question about whether he accepts the science of climate change (Romney said yes). Based on these statements, Limbaugh bade โ€œBye By Nominationโ€ to Romney; he also had this โ€œexchangeโ€ with Hillinger:

CALLER: โ€ฆFirst of all, I wanted to specify the difference between policy and scienceโ€ฆ And I specifically quoted from a 2010 National Academy of Sciences report, and two quotes here. The first is, they concluded โ€” and, by the way, the National Academy of Sciences, as you know, is considered the Supreme Court of science in this country. It was founded in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, and itโ€™s charged with giving the Congress unbiased scientific information. Now, their conclusion was, quote, โ€œA strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and naturalย systems.โ€

RUSH: Then theyโ€™ve lost all credibility. Itโ€™s a bogusย claim.

CALLER: Let me go on. They then went on to say, โ€œSome scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found wrong is vanishingly small. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. And then I asked my question, so thatโ€™s the context of the question. Your response was that there was evidence even in the last year that established this whole premise of manmade global warming is aย hoax.

RUSH:ย Right.

CALLER: I donโ€™t know where youโ€™re getting the hoax from, sir. I mean Iโ€™m looking atย โ€“

RUSH: Itโ€™s called the University of East Anglia in England and the Hadley Climate Center where they basically made it all up, pure and simple. Itโ€™s a hoax. Thereโ€™s nothing true aboutย it.

END TRANSCRIPT

Itโ€™s a truly extraordinary and revealing exchangeโ€“and youโ€™ll notice that Limbaugh is nothing if not sure heโ€™s right. โ€œBogus claim,โ€ โ€œhoax,โ€ โ€œthereโ€™s nothing true about itโ€โ€”these are categorical statements, not admitting of shades of gray. And thus no wonder Limbaughโ€™s exchange with Hillinger went no furtherโ€“if youโ€™re absolutely sure youโ€™re right about something, then you donโ€™t want to be contradicted or have a big debate aboutย it.

Based on this exchange and, indeed, his own words, it would appear that Limbaughโ€™s mind is made upโ€“he canโ€™t really consider the possibility of global warming being real and human caused. And how did he (and others who share his mindset) get that way? I sounds like the answer may well beย โ€œClimateGate.โ€

Remember what things were like before it happened. We were coming off 2007, when Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. Weโ€™d just elected President Obama, who was backing cap-and-trade legislation and a Copenhagen deal. The scienceโ€”and the policyโ€”of global warming had all the momentum behind them. If you didnโ€™t believe that the problem was real and needed to be addressed, you were in a pretty difficultย position.

ClimateGate was a true blessing in this regard for climate skeptics and deniers. It furnished a brand new excuse to dismiss it all. It was all a scam! Now of course, I am well aware that the evidence about what happened in โ€œClimateGateโ€ doesnโ€™t actually support thisโ€”that the scientists involved were vindicated, and so forthโ€“but thatโ€™s still how ClimateGate was interpreted by manyโ€ฆincluding, it seems,ย Limbaugh.

So โ€œClimateGateโ€ was seized uponโ€”and then, to borrow a term from psychology, after โ€œseizingโ€ โ€œfreezingโ€ may have occurred for some. Minds were made up, and no new evidence was admissibleโ€”because โ€œClimateGateโ€ proved it was all a hoax. Thus, whenever global warming comes up, we now hear โ€œClimateGateโ€ cited endlessly, as a way of shutting down further considerationโ€“as a vindication, even. And itโ€™s completely baffling, if you know (as we all do) that the science of climate is as strong as it ever was, the issue didnโ€™t go away, and โ€œClimateGateโ€ doesnโ€™t really have any substantiveย significance.

If Iโ€™m right, what it all suggests is that at least until there is some dramatic new event that upends the climate discussion, โ€œClimateGateโ€ will continue to be cited as the reason that thereโ€™s no reason to think further about globalย warming.

Related Posts

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.
on

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.
on

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.
on

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.