The editorial board for The Salt Lake Tribune has been mercilessly criticizing Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) for ignoring the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change, even though he has been appointed chairman of the House subcommittee on the Environment. Stewart is unapologetic, and the Tribune published an op-ed by him last week, in which he tried to justify his uninformed opinion. I responded with my own op-ed, which the Tribune published today. Enjoy.
Posted by: Barry Bickmore | April 20, 2013
My Response to Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah)
Posted in Uncertainty, Utah Republican Politics
Responses
Leave a Reply
Categories
- Al Gore
- Bob Bennett
- Bob Inglis
- Chris Herrod
- Chris Stewart
- Christopher Monckton
- Climate Change
- Climategate
- Competitive Enterprise Institute
- Conspiracy Theories
- Daily Herald
- Extremism
- Heartland Institute
- HJR 12
- James Taylor
- John Christy
- Jon Huntsman
- Kerry Gibson
- Lord Monckton
- Mark Steyn
- Michael Mann
- Mike Noel
- Mitt Romney
- Mormonism
- National Review
- Orrin Hatch
- Rand Simberg
- Roy Spencer
- Science and Public Policy Institute
- Uncategorized
- Uncertainty
- Utah Legislature
- Utah Republican Politics
Climate Asylum 
Well done, Barry! Not that it will matter much to Stewart. He’s a politician, after all. He won’t change his opinion until he finds his re-election is in trouble because of his position on this issue.
By: Marco on April 21, 2013
at 1:12 am
I read your article this morning and was pleased with yet another rebuttal by a reputable and articulate opponent. As “Marco” in the post above states, I too doubt that his position on the issue will change until the political landscape requires that he make a U-turn. The sad truth is that his position on the issue is a perfect reflection of the position of a majority of his constituents populating the second district. They also are skeptical of the science. We all remember what former Governor Huntsman said in his campaign for President last year, “I believe in Climate Change, call me crazy.” The truth is that the Republican Party has dug its heals in on the topic and sadly it will take a barrage of expensive climate disasters (disasters which affect them personally) before they will be motivated to change their opinions.
By: Kirt Williamson on April 21, 2013
at 8:05 pm
It’s “heels”, Kirt!
And the problem here is investment. They’ve defined themselves in their argument, they are no longer arguing the point, they are fighting against admitting failure. It’s no longer about climate, but about them personally.
“Investment” is why, in a brainstorming exercise, you don’t make any judgement on a statement until done: if you start arguing for the statement, then you start investing yourself in it being right. And then it’s a bit more difficult to look at the idea objectively.
It was one of the reasons why science papers were in passive voice: “X was done” not “I did X”.
By: wow on April 22, 2013
at 7:38 am