Fox Business snubbed wealthy climate activist Tom Steyer in its selection of questions for the Republican presidential debate Jan. 14.
Steyer, a former hedge fund manager who runs the advocacy group NextGen Climate, issued a statement and bought advertisements before the debate calling on Fox moderators to “facilitate a robust discussion of climate change solutions.”
The journalists indeed facilitated a robust discussion—but not about climate change.
This is regrettable.
A discussion free of the insipid moralizing that short-circuits most discussions about climate change would be refreshing and possibly enlightening.
It also would reveal much about candidates.
Most political figures in and out of office readily declare what they believe about climate change. But they’re seldom pressed to demonstrate they actually know anything about the subject.
Debate thus wallows in intellectual muck about “settled science,” “tipping points,” and “Neanderthal deniers” unworthy of attention.
And an administration enthralled by extremism pushes the country toward remedies focused on economic immolation and destined to fail.
Without doubt, Democratic candidates for the presidency would sustain this agenda.
Republicans counterparts who have addressed the issue express vague opposition. But can any of them advance an effective argument?
Can any of the Republican candidates convincingly rebuke the unwarranted urgency that propels climate activism? Can any of them describe why uncertainty over climate sensitivity is important? Can someone outline ramifications for policy of the growing divergence between computer-model predictions and temperature measurements?
Are any of the Republican candidates prepared to address these subjects while being called names and having their characters disparaged by dogmatists hoping to deflect attention from countervailing inquiry?
“Climate change is a massive change our next president cannot avoid, and voters deserve to hear how these candidates would address it,” declared Steyer.
He’s right. Because no president should ignore climate change, no candidate should, either.
Candidates for the office should be able to expose the activist program’s damaging futility and counter with achievable, affordable substitutes based on level-headed assessment of the climatological challenge.
(From the subscription area of www.ogj.com, posted Jan. 15, 2016; author’s e-mail: [email protected])