Graham Readfearn: White House debate on Paris was never about climate change

The wrangling between Trump’s advisors was always about how best to burn more fossil fuels

Supposedly at war over climate change, key advisors Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon watch on as Trump signs orders to green-light the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines (Photo: Office of the President of the United States)

by Graham Readfearn, Climate Change News, June 2, 2017

As United States President Donald Trump was deliberating his country’s future in the Paris climate deal, there were two internal camps marshalling their arguments.

But the wrangling in the White House was not a debate about climate change. It was over how best to burn more fossil fuels.

In one corner were the fossil fuel apologists, the climate science denialists and the network of conservative think tanks that have used conflicted cash to keep their arguments flowing.

For them, leaving the United Nations pact would help the US regain a competitive advantage and put their economic prosperity first. The costs of climate change impacts were never factored, because for them, they do not exist.

In the other corner, there were groups who, on the face of it, seemed unlikely bedfellows.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner – both presidential advisors – recruited of the likes of Hollywood star-turned-climate campaigner Leonardo diCaprio and former Vice-President Al Gore to sit down with the president.

In the uncertain months leading up to this decision, much was made of her influence on her father. But, on this issue at least, that appears to have been overblown.



Rex Tillerson told his senate confirmation hearing that the US should stay in the agreement to protect its own interests (Photo: greatagain.com)

Ivanka was joined by Trump’s secretary of state Rex Tillerson, who oversaw a long-running programme designed to confound climate action as the CEO of Exxon. He was also pushing for the Trump administration to keep a seat at the UN table.

At least two coal companies, Peabody Energy and Cloud Peak, had tried to convince Trump to remain in the Paris deal. Oil and gas giants Exxon and Conoco also voiced support for the Paris deal.

This internal fight represented two different approaches from a fossil fuel industry trying to sustain itself. One approach is to bulldoze and cherry-pick your way through the science of climate change and attack the UN process — all to undermine your opponents’ core arguments.

Another approach is to accept the science but work the system to convince governments that “clean coal” and efficiency gains are the way forward.

The latter was exactly the rationale reportedly deployed by coal firms like Peabody Energy and Cloud Peak.

According to White House officials quoted by Reuters, these firms wanted Trump to stay in the Paris deal because this gave them a better chance of getting support for “low-emission” coal plants.  They might also get some financial help to support the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

When the World Coal Association talks about its role at United Nations climate talks, it too is hopeful that being inside the United Nations tent will give them a chance to justify the future of its industry through less-dirty coal generators and CCS.

During his senate confirmation, Tillerson was asked if the US should maintain leadership on climate issues. He demurred, saying that the US should “maintain its seat at the table”. Earlier he had said he held this view so that the US could understand “what the impacts may be on the American people and American competitiveness.”

It was hardly an endorsement of the aims of the process. Its certainly didn’t convince Trump, of course, as we now know who won.

Celebrating today will be Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon, the former boss of the hyper-partisan news outlet Breitbart, and Scott Pruitt, the head of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (Bannon once called global warming a manufactured crisis, while Pruitt is unconvinced that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing climate change).

Trump had declared a year ago that, if elected, he would leave the Paris agreement and stop all payments to “UN global warming programs.” On that, he has simply fulfilled a campaign promise.

The “remain” camp was clearly facing an uphill battle.

There’s an awful lot of dust that needs to settle before the implications of Trump’s decision become clear.  Will his decision galvanize others, such as Europe and China, to take a great leadership role?

Will it encourage some eastern European countries already unhappy at the greenhouse gas cuts pledged in Paris, to slow the process further?

For the meantime, we can begin to assess why the climate denial machine that won the day over those trying to subvert the climate process from within.

Social science academics that have studied the “climate change counter movement” say the organisations that proliferate this world view have captured key institutions that grant them outsize power.

Professor Riley Dunlap, a pioneer in the field of environmental sociology, concedes that Trump’s decision is  “a major victory for the denial machine.”

In particular Dunlap, of Oklahoma State University, points to “core elements like the Heritage Foundation” – a think tank that Trump has tapped for several positions in his administration.

“Withdrawal is the logical outcome of their success in getting Trump to appoint hardcore deniers like Scott Pruitt to key cabinet and administrative positions,” says Dunlap.

“This administration is institutionalising climate change denial2 more fully and brazenly than did the George W. Bush administration, which was effective in stalling both national and international policy-making.”

“While efforts to reduce carbon emissions can still be taken at state and local levels, the federal government’s role is critical, especially in international efforts to deal with climate change.”

The only way to change that is through the ballot box, he says.

“We are not going to reduce the influence of the denial interests in the federal government until we see major changes in its composition – a new administration and Republicans losing their grip on Congress.”

Professor Robert Brulle, of Drexel University, has studied the network of think tanks that have been pushing back against climate action – often with debunked arguments about the influence of fossil fuel brining on the climate.

“It is very clear to me that the organisations long-associated with providing climate misinformation played a major role in the announcement by president Trump,” Brulle told Climate Home.

“What is needed is the public exposure of the tactics and strategies of these organisations engaged in misinformation efforts, and how they work with their sponsors to create and promulgate their misinformation campaigns.”

Professor Aaron McCright, of Michigan State University, also researches the political and social dimensions of climate policy.

He says there is a slowly strengthening bloc within the Republican Party that rejects the kind of climate science denial that has become a key element of their party’s identity.

“These science-accepting Republicans must continue to grow in number; they must find public platforms to consistently communicate their messages; and they must do the hard work of convincing their GOP brothers and sisters to accept the science and go about looking for conservative solutions to climate change,” he says.

“This will not be easy.  But, I think this is the only real way to crowd out motivated climate change denial from their party.  The change must come from within.”

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/02/white-house-debate-paris-never-climate-change/

Kerry Emanuel: "AGU makes a mockery of its bylaw" as AGU continues to accept dirty money from ExxonMobil, even tho it is clear that Exxon promotes and disseminates misinformation of science

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 14, 2016

Contact: Ben Scandella, 206-276-2699, bscand@gmail.com

World’s largest Earth science organization to continue accepting ExxonMobil sponsorship despite calls from 250+ geoscientists

Cambridge, MA — Today, the President of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) — the world’s largest association of Earth scientists — announced the AGU Board’s decision to continue accepting sponsorship from ExxonMobil, despite calls for an end to this relationship from more than 250 geoscientists owing to ExxonMobil’s past and present climate science disinformation.

The AGU’s 2015 Organizational Support Policy states that “AGU will not accept funding from organizational partners that promote and/or disseminate misinformation of science, or that fund organizations that publicly promote misinformation of science,” and that Organizational Partners are bodies that “share a vested interest in and commitment to advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future.”

MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel sees the AGU’s decision as “a mockery of its own bylaw,” stating that, “If the AGU cannot turn down a mere $35K from a high-profile disinformer like Exxon, then it is hard to imagine it ever adhering to its bylaw. I am considering withdrawing from the AGU.”

Emanuel was one of the 108 geoscientists who sent an open letter to the AGU President on February 22, 2016, urging the association to end its sponsorship deal with ExxonMobil. Since then, more than 170 geoscientists worldwide have signed on. The AGU President initially responded that “The AGU Board of Directors will take up the questions raised in this letter at their upcoming meeting in April.” At this meeting, the AGU Board passed a motion approving the continuation of its “current engagement between ExxonMobil and AGU including acceptance of funding from ExxonMobil.”

In light of the AGU’s decision and reasoning, Former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Harvard Professor James J. McCarthy, another letter signatory, commented, "My jaw dropped when I read that ‘Ultimately, we concluded that it was not possible to determine conclusively whether or not ExxonMobil is currently participating in misinformation about science, either directly or indirectly.’ A new report just this week show that ExxonMobil is still spending tens of millions obstructing climate legislation. How much more is on the ‘indirect’ ledger?"

Indeed, the AGU’s decision appears to ignore the consilience of evidence demonstrating ExxonMobil’s ongoing support of climate science misinformation. Originators of the open letter submitted a report documenting ExxonMobil’s present involvement in climate misinformation for the Board’s consideration (a copy of the report is available for download here). The report provides specific examples of how ExxonMobil is “in violation of AGU’s Policy because it remains a leading sponsor of think tanks, advocacy groups, and trade associations that promote climate science misinformation. Moreover, ExxonMobil financially supports more than 100 climate-denying members of Congress and continues to generate its own misinformative comments about climate science.” Such examples include: (1) during ExxonMobil’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson cast doubt about the reliability of climate models by remarking: “we don’t really know what the climate effects of 600 ppm versus 450 ppm [of atmospheric CO2] will be because the models simply are not that good”; (2) at the ExxonMobil-sponsored 2015 Annual Conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Stephen Moore, a member of ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Board, asserted that: “The biggest scam of the last 100 years is global warming...It’s no surprise that when you give these professors $10 billion, they’re going to find a problem.”

In addition to Emanuel and McCarthy, many other signatories of the open letter voiced their disappointment and concern over the AGU’s decision. Cornell Professor Charles Greene stated, “At what level does the behavior of a corporate sponsor become sufficiently reprehensible for AGU to refuse its support? I guess that a corporation like ExxonMobil, which has deceived the general public for decades while placing human society at great risk, has not achieved that level. The only conclusion to be drawn is that AGU will accept money from just about any corporate entity, no matter how unethical its behavior. I certainly will not attend an ExxonMobil-sponsored Fall Meeting, and I hope that every AGU member who feels the same way about this lapse in judgement will consider sending a similar message.”

“What was called for was an exercise of judgment. Instead, the AGU avoided taking a principled stand by claiming it is not possible for it to make a judgement. The leadership seems prepared to accept some loss of membership, but what it may not be prepared for is the redoubled commitment of members who won't relent in shining an even brighter light on the inconsistency of the AGU's mission of a sustainable planetary future with its endorsement of ExxonMobil's past and current activities,” said Nathan Phillips, Professor of Earth and Environment at Boston University.

ALEC and its climate change denial activities

The Interstate Research Commission Act on Climatic Change Act is an ALEC legislative bill, which incorrectly states that there is “a great deal of scientific uncertainty” around climate change and that it could result in “beneficial climatic changes.” Read more here.

The ALEC legislative bill on science education promotes a “teach both sides” approach, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus around climate change. Read more here.

This ALEC legislation repeals state standards requiring electric utility companies to get a portion of their electricity from renewable energy sources. Read more here. 

This is a non-binding ALEC resolution opposing the Clean Power Plan, instilling fear of EPA regulations by making arguments of economic impact. Read more here.

This ALEC legislative bill increases fees for home solar users who ALEC has described as “freeriders” taking advantage of utility companies. Read more here.

This is a non-binding ALEC resolution promoting Federal approval of the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline project. Read more here.

This ALEC legislative bill creates bureaucratic red tape and would delay the state submitting its compliance plan to the EPA under the Clean Power Plan. Read more here.

http://alecclimatechangedenial.org/anti-climate-change-agenda/

ALEC Hates the Climate

by Kert Davies, Climate Investigations, February 20, 2015

ALEC's Long War on Climate Science and Climate Policy

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has long attacked climate science and climate policy.  The most recent skirmish surrounds greenhouse gas rules being drafted by the EPA.  ALEC’s 2011 submission to the EPA docket on proposed greenhouse gas regulations from new sources contains the following gems:

“Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring, non-toxic and beneficial gas, and it poses no direct threat to public health. In order to justify regulation, the EPA is relying on an uncertain assumption that increased carbon dioxide emissions by humans are causing an unprecedented global temperature increase and an uncertain assumption that the temperature increase will result in worldwide catastrophe in 50 to 100 years.”

“The (ALEC) Resolution in Opposition to Regulation Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act states that regardless of one’s views on global climate change science, the efforts of one developed nation would not have a meaningful effect on global temperatures” 

ALEC Named in Leaked 1998 American Petroleum Institute Climate Science Denial Plan

In 1998, ALEC is named in a leaked campaign planning document, American Petroleum Institute's Global Climate Science Communications Plan.  This document was leaked to climate advocates at National Environmental Trust who distributed it to media.

ALEC is named as a "Potential fund allocator" along with CFACT, CEI, Frontiers of Freedom and the Marshall Institute. (interestingly Exxon suddenly dropped funding to all of these front groups when their climate denial scheme was exposed in the mid 1990s, but continiued funding ALEC.)

The basic goal of the API Plan was to reframe climate science as "uncertain" just after the Kyoto Protocol was born in 1997 and climate policy had a boost in momentum.  

The plan was devised by representatives from a spate of corporations (Exxon, Southern Company and Chevron) and a number of right leaning or "free market" think tank staff.  

There were clear goals: "Victory Will Be Achieved When" Average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom".

Even though ALEC was identified as part of the plan, but we don't know exactly how much money flowed to ALEC for the effort, which we assume continued, despite being revealed on the front page of the New York Times.  

Exxon Funding ALEC on Climate

Exxon funding to ALEC increased to over ensuing years, reaching a peak of over $368,000 in 2003.  There are multiple grants from Exxon to ALEC specifically for work on climate change, including some that were mislabeled on the 2005 public corporate giving report but labeled climate change on the ExxonMobil Foundation 990 submitted to the IRS.

In total, ExxonMobil Foundation wrote checks to ALEC for over $375K in climate change specific funding between 2003 and 2005.  There may well have been other grants earmarked for climate change related work that were not labeled as such:

2003 - $140,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for "Global Climate Change"
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2004 - $62,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for "Energy and Climate Change"
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004 - $75,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for "Climate Change"
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2005 - $151,500 ExxonMobil Foundation (discrepancy in reporting). The 2005 ExxonMobil Worldwide Giving Report lists $151,000 broken down for "Energy Sustainability Project" ($80,000) and "General Operating Support" ($71,500).

But in the 2005 ExxonMobil Foundation IRS 990 the grants are listed as "Energy Sustainability Project (Climate Change)"($80,000); "Climate Change Environmental Outreach" ($21,500) 

In total Exxon has paid ALEC well over $1.6 Million dollars since 1998.  Year by year Exxon Funding to ALEC from ExxonSecrets database and Exxon documents available on DocumentCloud

ALEC's Climate Attacks Started Long Ago

ALEC began to attack climate policy in earnest in the late 1990s, just after the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the first attempt at a compulsory global climate agreement.  In the late years of the Clinton administration and early Bush regime, ALEC and other right wing groups attacked anything that even faintly smelled like climate policy at the state level.

By 1999, ALEC and allies at the state level managed to pass resolutions against climate regulations in 16 states  - Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, according to University of Michigan researcher, Barry Rabe’s 2002 report, Greenhouse & Statehouse:

“During 1998 and 1999, 16 states passed legislation or resolutions that were highly critical of the Protocol and opposed ratification by the U.S. Senate. Many of these were purely advisory and employed similar language from state to state. Some states, however, chose to go further and block any unilateral steps to reduce greenhouse gases. Michigan, for example, amended its Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act in 1999 to prevent state agencies from proposing or promulgating any rule to reduce greenhouse gases unless it had been requested by the legislature. No such requests have been forthcoming and the state has also shied away from pursuing federal grants for preliminary study of the issue. In West Virginia, legislation passed in 1998, prevented state agencies from entering into any agreements with any federal agencies intended to reduce the state’s GHG emissions.”

ALEC vs. the Sons of Kyoto

Sandy Liddy Bourne, former Director of the ALEC Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Task Force, authored a 2004 report called Sons of Kyoto. She drew a map of the country and targeted for destruction every state level greenhouse gas initiative, including carbon sequestration (wait, don't polluters like this), emissions reductions efforts and inventories.  

The report claimed, almost like Chicken Little, that the states were implementing a radical treaty that had not been ratified by Congress and warned that "greenhouse gas regulation has proliferated in the states at an alarming rate. In the 2001-2002 general sessions, 66 bills were introduced in 24 states. During the 2003 general session, over 90 bills were introduced in 27 states."

At the time, ALEC, the Heartland Institute, and other right wing free market think tanks were upset because states were taking action on their own, leaving Bush, Cheney, and Washington behind.  ALEC believed, as they do today, that killing state momentum on things like renewable energy policy and greenhouse gas standards would have a dampening effect on momentum on federal policy.  

Indeed states were taking the lead during the doldrums of the Bush Administration, and ALEC doesn't like State policy besting Federal policy, unless its on their ideological game plan. 

Why is this history relevant? 

Because they are at it again, with new dedication, because the hour is close at hand. The EPA is taking action, and ALEC and its corporate puppeteers are going into high gear.  As Natural Resources Defense Council points out, ALEC, along with allies at the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and others are now engaged in a "guerrilla warfare" strategy against the EPA as called for by a Peabody Coal lawyer during the December 2013 ALEC meeting. ALEC designed anti-EPA resolutions are popping up like weeds across the country, aimed at interfering with state level implementation of the greenhouse gas rules for coal fired power plants that the EPA is moving forward.

NRDC's Aliya Haq writes: "Most state legislatures are only a few weeks into their 2014 sessions, yet ALEC legislators have already introduced a dozen anti-EPA bills and resolutions across the country, including in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri,Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia."

In recent years, ALEC has attacked climate science and policy in a variety of ways:

• ALEC hosted a session by prominent climate denier, Craig Idso, at its 2011 annual meeting for legislators teaching the"Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment"

From Center for Media and Democracy:

"Idso is founder and former chair of the ExxonMobil-funded Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change, and informed legislators that “CO2 is definitely not a pollutant.” He spoke glowingly of the “CO2-enriched world of the future” and provided a series of graphs and data that, when viewed in isolation, might appear legitimate." 

• ALEC distributed model bills in 2010 designed to kill regional climate pacts like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in New England and mid Atlantic.

From Greenpeace PolluterWatch:

"This strategy was confirmed in September 2010 by conservative activist Clint Woods of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who said RGGI and other regional cap-and-trade regimes have become the “new battlefield” since federal climate legislation was derailed. ALEC, which has created template legislation for state lawmakers to use as a way to back out of regional climate accords." 

• ALEC has pushed bills that would require teaching 'both sides' of climate science in schools since 2008.

From DeSmogBlog:

"January hasn't even ended, yet ALEC has already planted its "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act" - which mandates a "balanced" teaching of climate science in K-12 classrooms - in the state legislatures of Oklahoma, Colorado, and Arizona so far this year."

• ALEC attacks state renewable energy standards 

From the Guardian: 

"Over the coming year, the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) will promote legislation with goals ranging from penalising individual homeowners and weakening state clean energy regulations, to blocking the Environmental Protection Agency, which is Barack Obama's main channel for climate action. Details of Alec's strategy to block clean energy development at every stage – from the individual rooftop to the White House – are revealed as the group gathers for its policy summit in Washington this week."

• ALEC attacks net-metering (paying back people who produce solar electricity and put it into the grid)

From The Energy & Policy Institute:

"The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) recently released a model resolution calling for the weakening of solar net metering policies that threaten the traditional utility industry business model. ALEC is one front group that the utility industry is using to push for changes to net metering policies—a valuable ally for the utilities to lobby state legislators from across the country. Duke Energy is a member of ALEC."

• ALEC continues to attack EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases from powerplants

From Natural Resources Defense Council:

"InsideEPA gained access to parts of the meeting, including the special ALEC workshop on EPA power-plant standards. Peter Glaser, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing electric utilities, coal producers and other large, corporate energy clients, encouraged state lawmakers and industry members to engage in "guerrilla warfare" against EPA to weaken carbon-pollution standards on power plants."

Again we ask, has ExxonMobil, Peabody, or the other corporate members of ALEC endorsed these actions?

More to come as we monitor ALEC's anti-environmental actions.  Send us tips if you see anything we should see.

http://www.climateinvestigations.org/alec_hates_the_climate

ALEC is Evil personified

by Emily Atkin, Think Progress, October 2, 2014

CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK

The person who runs the American Legislative Exchange Council, a free-market lobbying group that opposes policies to fight climate change, is not sure whether humans actually cause climate change, according to an interview with the National Journal published Wednesday.

When asked specifically whether or not she thinks human carbon emissions are causing climate change, ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson told National Journal’s Dustin Volz, “I don’t know the science on that.” ALEC has recently come under fire for its positions on global warming, following a statement from Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that ALEC has been “literally lying” about climate change and by extension “making the world a much worse place.”

Since then, ALEC has issued statements maintaining that the group does not deny the science of human-caused climate change. However, model legislation put forth by the group has cast doubt on whether global warming is harmful, a direct refutation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s statements that climate change increases the risk of “severe,” “pervasive,” and “dangerous” events. And in a presentation billed to be about climate science in July, ALEC members heard claims that there is “no need” to reduce carbon emissions; there is “no scientific consensus” on climate change; and that carbon dioxide increases have not caused sea level rise or polar ice melt.

ALEC also works to kill statewide programs that promote the use of renewable energy, and is pushing a bill that would require public schools to teach climate denial.

The fact that ALEC’s chief executive claims not to know the science of climate change while pushing these policies is drawing outrage from environmental groups who say Nelson should know better, given the breadth of scientific information available about climate change. Michael Brune, executive director of Sierra Club, said in a statement to ThinkProgress that Nelson’s statements were “disingenuous,” an excuse to continue pushing policies scientists know to be harmful.

“ALEC is claiming they don’t know the science on climate change while pushing legislation to teach climate denial in schools,” Brune said. “That’s like saying they don’t know whether smoking causes cancer while peddling cigarettes to kids.”

Aliya Haq, the special projects director at the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate program, said Nelson’s assertion that she doesn’t know the science not only represents “willful ignorance,” but shows that ALEC knows it can not directly deny climate science and remain a credible organization. This, she said, is well-represented by the recent exodus of multiple large tech companies from ALEC, many citing a desire not to be affiliated with an anti-climate group.

“Nelson is panicking. She’s realizing that ALEC’s long-known climate denial is now a liability,” Haq said. “It’s a duplicitous organization that must operate in the shadows, and when Schmidt from Google shined a light on their climate change stance, ALEC panicked, and now this is all they can do.”

An ALEC spokesperson did not respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment asking to confirm to accuracy of Nelson’s statements on her knowledge of climate science, or to respond to environmental groups’ criticisms of the claim.

Haq said a clear example of ALEC panicking is the group’s recent attempt to align its stance on net metering, a policy that essentially allows people with solar panels to potentially pay less for generating their own electricity. When responding to Google’s accusation that ALEC is anti-environment, the group issued a position statement claiming it has a similar position on net metering to NRDC.

“That is frankly offensive to NRDC,” Haq said. “NRDC is working day and night to protect the climate; ALEC is doing the opposite.”

Nelson’s assertion that she does not know the science on climate change is a familiar one. Over the last few months, it’s become increasingly popular for conservatives to use the excuse of either not “knowing the science” or not “being a scientist” to claim ignorance on the issue, while also declaring that Americans shouldn’t do anything about it. It’s a line mostfamously used by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, but has also been used by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY), and mostly recently, the Iowa’s Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Joni Ernst.

Climate scientists do not like the tactic, as evidenced by their interviews with ThinkProgress about the phenomenon in May. “Personally, I don’t think it proper for any American to use that argument,” Donald. J Wuebbles, a distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences and coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s 2013 assessment report said at the time, noting the numerous reports he’s written specifically so that people can understand climate change.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/02/3574986/alec-nelson-climate-change/