MA Senate Candidate Scott Brown Pushes Anti-Science Nonsense (AlterNet)

MA Senate Candidate Scott Brown Pushes Anti-Science Nonsense

Posted by Dr. Joseph Romm, Climate Progress at 6:30 PM on January 17, 2010.


And he flip-flops on clean energy action.


Fivethirtyeight.com claims, “Scott Brown is a Liberal Republican.” Maybe the same way Mitt Romney is or is that “was”?

Back in mid-December, The Boston Globe had a piece on the “Environmental differences” between the two candidates to fill the seat that Ted Kennedy held. It contained this anti-science gem from the “liberal” Brown:


Just last week, Brown visited the home of a voter in Harvard, Jack Farren, who asked him, “Do you think that whole global warming thing is a big fraud?’’

Brown’s answer was illustrative, in that he did not reject the fraud theory.

“It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling,’’ he said. “It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information.’’

Brown continued, saying: “I just want to make sure if in fact . . . the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and it’s unbiased by scientists with no agenda. Once that’s done, then I think we can really move forward with a good plan.’’

Coakley, in an interview yesterday in Boston after addressing a breakfast meeting of commercial real estate developers, said she believes that the climate is changing, that human activity is to blame for much of the change, and that the time for action is now.


Yeah, that fickle globe — it just can’t make up its mind what it wants to do. It’s always heating and cooling. It’s nature’s way. How “interesting.”

Memo to Brown: The warming is unequivocal, and humans are the main cause. And nature isn’t close to being as fickle as human beings like, say, you. Why exactly did you support New England’s regional cap-and-trade initiative, only to attack it now along with the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill?

The Globe offers Brown’s standard explanation, but then fails to point out how illogical it is:


Brown defended himself by saying the plan he voted for nearly two years ago did not work so he had changed his mind.


Uhh, why would you support a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if you don’t even now if the world is warming, let alone that the warming is due to greenhouse gases?

Actually Brown’s flip-flopping is even lamer than that, as a recent Globe story, “Brown showcases his conservative leanings,” makes clear:

-snip-