The GOP Line on Science and Global Warming

This article by Nicole Gaudiano of the Daily Times, from which I provide an excerpt from the opening paragraphs says it well:

WASHINGTON -- House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming -- but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.

"I said, 'John, I can't do that,' " Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. "He said, Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.' "

Gilchrest didn't make the committee. Neither did other Republican moderates or cience-minded members, whose guidance centrist GOP members usually seek on the issue. Republican moderates, called the Tuesday Group, invited Boehner to this week's meeting to push for different representation.

The select committee's purpose is to investigate and recommend ways to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce "emissions and other activities that ontribute to climate change," according to legislation that passed March 8 creating the committee. Some Republicans worry that restricting greenhouse gas emissions would have a negative effect on businesses.

Boehner's spokesman Brian Kennedy said he doesn't comment on the private conversations Boehner has with members of his conference, but "the only criteria set for potential members of the panel was that they must undertake a thorough review of the facts, the empirical data and the science to determine how Congress can craft the best possible legislation going forward."

Gilchrest, who co-chairs the House Climate Change Caucus, has long been an environmental-protection advocate and has co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to 70 percent below 1990 levels.

He expressed his interest in the committee several times to Boehner and Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, telling them the best thing they could do for Republican credibility was to appoint members familiar with the scientific data.

I guess it's like the US Attorneys -- you got to play ball or you're out! Scientific credibility apparently isn't of great importance to the party leaders, which shuts out those party members that want to help.

Thanks to the Daily Dish for the original link. Andrew Sullivan writes there: "One more reason to be depressed about what has happened to honest, empirical, inquisitive conservatism."

Ah, what happened indeed!