Paul Douglas, Republican Weatherman

The first time I ever saw TV-weatherman Paul Douglas in person was back in the late 1990's.  He was standing in line in front of me at the (original) "pork-chop-on-a-stick" concession at the Minnesota State Fair.

It turns out that we share something else in common, besides a love for porcine Fair fare.  We are both Republicans.  At least, "moderate Republican" is how Mr. Douglas describes his political leanings in a widely flogged opinion piece appearing, among many venues, at The Huffington Post.

It is part of trend that I've noticed lately:  the appeal to tribalism among global warming advocates.  It proceeds along the lines of "I'm a clergyman who believes in global warming.  Therefore, all people of faith should believe in global warming," or "I'm a prominent business executive.  Therefore, all people engaged in the private sector should believe in global warming."  Now comes Mr. Douglas with his take on the no true Scotsman fallacy, "I'm a Republican, I believe in global warming.  Therefore, no true Republican should doubt global warming."  (Don't worry, Mr. Douglas covers the Christianity and the capitalism, too.)

Of course, Mr. Douglas never comes out and says those exact words.  But in case you missed his message, New York Times climate blogger Andrew Revkin reframes Mr. Douglas' essay as "a Republican meteorologist tries to remove the liberal label from climate concern."  Indeed, the sub-headline of Douglas' piece as it appears at Shawn Otto's blog is "acknowledging climate science doesn’t make you a liberal."  (Shawn Otto is the husband of DFL Minnesota State Auditor Rebecca Otto.)

If I were trying to deliver a message to "my Republican friends," I doubt that I would choose the venues of the Huffington Post, Shawn Otto's blog, or the New York Times.  Mr. Douglas' true audience is the global warming community, which is in the midst of a furious rebranding effort for an issue that many associate with the broader liberal agenda.

Hence, Mr. Douglas is taking pains to position himself thusly, "I'm a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment and sound science.  I am not a climate scientist."

The real issue, is the one pointed out by the Times' Revkin,

"The challenge here, of course, is that the fight over climate science, to my mind, is a spillover from the more heated, and deeper, debate over climate policy.  As a result, even if the public had unfiltered, “perfect” information on greenhouse-driven climate change, uncertainties and all, that would hardly settle the public debate."  (Emphasis in the original)

Exactly.  The real issue lies not in recent weather patterns, the extent of past warming, or the nature of scientific proof, the subjects covered by Mr. Douglas in his piece.  No the real issue lies in what, if anything, we should do about it. 

Foreign affairs professor Walter Russell Mead has argued that the "one world government" approach advocated by Scientific American is doomed to failure.  All the other "solutions" bandied about by climate change advocates--carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, top-down-regulation--violate every one of the principles that Mr. Douglas claims to hold:  fiscally conservative; small government, accountability, self-empowerment, etc.

There is a strong case to be made for environmental protection based on property rights and markets, one that honors (small r) republican and (small c) conservative values.  Paul Douglas has not made that case.  Instead, he throws every liberal argument that I have ever heard preached toward conservatives against the wall--green jobs, Christian stewardship, carbon limits, nuclear power, more green jobs, energy independence, national security--hoping something, anything, will catch on with a non-liberal audience.

If you are a Republican, and the fate of the environment is something that keeps you up at night, here is what I suggest.  Check out the work of The Breakthrough Institute.  Its founders are not conservatives or Republicans, but their ideas about making clean energy cheap (and climate adaptation) are much more likely to produce useful results than making conventional energy too expensive to use.