For some time, it has been clear that โClimateGateโ has a dramatic meaning for the political right in the U.S. Somehow, โClimateGateโ 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, itโs hard to wrap your mind around how this could have occurredโafter all, โClimateGateโ wasnโt a real scandalโbut recently, Iโve 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 โBye By Nominationโ to Romney; he also had this โexchangeโ with Hillinger:
CALLER: โฆFirst of all, I wanted to specify the difference between policy and scienceโฆ 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 itโs charged with giving the Congress unbiased scientific information. Now, their conclusion was, quote, โA 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 theyโve lost all credibility. Itโs a bogusย claim.
CALLER: Let me go on. They then went on to say, โSome 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 thatโs 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 donโt know where youโre getting the hoax from, sir. I mean Iโm looking atย โ
RUSH: Itโs called the University of East Anglia in England and the Hadley Climate Center where they basically made it all up, pure and simple. Itโs a hoax. Thereโs nothing true aboutย it.
END TRANSCRIPT
Itโs a truly extraordinary and revealing exchangeโand youโll notice that Limbaugh is nothing if not sure heโs right. โBogus claim,โ โhoax,โ โthereโs nothing true about itโโthese are categorical statements, not admitting of shades of gray. And thus no wonder Limbaughโs exchange with Hillinger went no furtherโif youโre absolutely sure youโre right about something, then you donโt want to be contradicted or have a big debate aboutย it.
Based on this exchange and, indeed, his own words, it would appear that Limbaughโs mind is made upโhe canโt 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 โClimateGate.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. Weโd just elected President Obama, who was backing cap-and-trade legislation and a Copenhagen deal. The scienceโand the policyโof global warming had all the momentum behind them. If you didnโt 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 โClimateGateโ doesnโt actually support thisโthat the scientists involved were vindicated, and so forthโbut thatโs still how ClimateGate was interpreted by manyโฆincluding, it seems,ย Limbaugh.
So โClimateGateโ was seized uponโand then, to borrow a term from psychology, after โseizingโ โfreezingโ may have occurred for some. Minds were made up, and no new evidence was admissibleโbecause โClimateGateโ proved it was all a hoax. Thus, whenever global warming comes up, we now hear โClimateGateโ cited endlessly, as a way of shutting down further considerationโas a vindication, even. And itโs completely baffling, if you know (as we all do) that the science of climate is as strong as it ever was, the issue didnโt go away, and โClimateGateโ doesnโt really have any substantiveย significance.
If Iโm right, what it all suggests is that at least until there is some dramatic new event that upends the climate discussion, โClimateGateโ will continue to be cited as the reason that thereโs no reason to think further about globalย warming.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts