Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

And with that, the Globe’s love affair with Charlie Baker came to an end

By

Charlie Baker’s hilariously embarrassing efforts to avoid antagonizing the Jeff Jacoby wing of the climate change “debate” while still appearing to be a reasonable, electable-in-MA Republican have bitten him on the tuchus.  Here’s today’s Globe editorial page:

Charlie Baker’s willful ignorance

Ooooh – harsh!

Changes in climate caused by greenhouse gases are the premier environmental issue of our day, so it is surprising to see Republican candidate for governor Charlie Baker evading questions on the issue with feeble claims about not being smart enough.

Feeble indeed — particularly from the guy whom the Globe itself dubbed “the smartest man in state government” a few years back.  Buyer’s remorse is a bitch.

Asked for more clarification yesterday, he again declined to state a conclusion but promised to read the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Hilarious.  I can’t wait to hear what he says after he reads it.  Will the Smartest Man In State Government decide that he’s smarter than the UN panel?  

But, really, does this matter at the state level?

Baker’s views actually matter a great deal. Along with California, Massachusetts is a leader in technologies, from high-tech batteries to cellulosic ethanol, that promise to make the world less dependent on fuels that emit the most common greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. A governor who has not informed himself on the science that links carbon dioxide to global warming is going to be an unconvincing proponent of those technologies.

Baker would do well to listen to fellow Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. “I say the debate is over,” the California governor said in 2005. “We know the science, we see the threat and we know the time for action is now.” Terminator, we have a student for you.

It will be fascinating to see whether Baker abandons the high-wire act he’s attempting right now, or whether he sticks with the Jacoby line.  Either way, he’s clearly spooked the Globe.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. the science was faked in the same way the run up for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was faked plus a global Bernie Madoff carbon trading bank makes less sense everyday.

    • Suggesting that simply because one scientist working on the climate lied about his results means that the entire field and the hundreds of scientist working in that field are all frauds is no different than suggesting that because Hannity lied at least once on Faux News means that every single thing “reported” on Faux News is a lie. Oh wait. Perhaps that is a poor example?

          • You made the comment “…one scientist working on the climate lied…”.  I’m not asking about Hannity’s lies – that’s like asking if water is wet.  What scientist allegedly lied and who made the allegation?

            • You said “Who lied?” and I said Hannity lied. Hannity lies all the time. My inability to read you mind and answer the question you meant to ask, rather than the question you actually asked demonstrates that I cannot read minds, but I never claimed to be able to read minds, so get over it.

              <

              p>In case you missed it, from November 2009:

              <

              p>http://scienceblogs.com/island…

              <

              p>Lasthorseman is claiming that the entire scientific field is faked, and provides no citation whatsoever. Since I assumed he is talking about the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia as his “proof”, my point is that it doesn’t matter whether the Mann, Bradley and Hughes paper is 1% wrong, 25% wrong, 50% wrong or 100% wrong, the claims of one scientist or one scientific paper does not discredit the entire field. The scientific method is self correcting, which is why it is superior to dogma.

              • Who’s side do you think I’m on.  You never answered the question.  I know about the emails.  I know that there are many people out there claiming lies by scientists.  I also know that this claim is complete BS.  So when I see your sentence flat out stating “…one scientist working on the climate lied…”, I want to know the specific claim so I can compare it to my notes. To my knowledge, nobody lied, so I’d like backup to the claim.

                <

                p>’Get over it’ indeed.

                <

                p>(sigh)

                <

                p>I’d advise that people don’t, in general, throw around the word ‘lie’ without being able to point to specifics, which is all I was asking for.  Not everyone who asks for backup is attacking you.

  2. At a recent meeting on Cape, he came out foursquare against Cape Wind.  He only spoke to the isssue in response to a pointed question from a Cape resident, and said his opposition was grounded in the hike in electric rates the project would bring.  Some of this may be an effort to buttress his anti-wind credentials calling the project unnecessary as well as overexpensive.

    <

    p>(And yes, I support Mihos who opposed the project for 8 years; we have butted heads of this often over the years.  Now, with the issuance of the comprehensive permit, he is pretty ‘que serea, sera’ saying it’s now a Federal matter).

    <

    p>Baker may claim enlightenment on the project after he has suceeded in securing delegates from the Cape, and support the project the way the vast majority of MA residents do.  But for now, the Cape has the largest and most numerous delegations in the state, so he may just be trimming his sails acordingly, saying ‘Where the Figawi’?

    • I’m wondering what the cost per kwh is going to run from Cape Wind. I’ve heard opponents say .24 which is way too high. But is there any real data ? and how do you build a plant without any estimates ?

    • ut for now, the Cape has the largest and most numerous delegations in the state

      <

      p>Are you claiming that there are more GOP delegates on C&I than anywhere else in the state?  How does that work?

      • Barnstable alone has 40 delegates – New Bedford 19, Cambridge 22(and that’s ALL the ward committees added together).

        <

        p>Delegates are chosed by a factor of 1 delegate for every 300 votes cast for the GOP governor ticket.  And that doesn’t count voting ex-officio, who are elected Republican officials.

        <

        p>To paraphrase Willie Sutton, that where the votes are.

        • Boston 32,726 votes –> 110 delegates, about 20% of the total.
          Barnstable 9,377 –> 31 delegates.

          <

          p>Despite their low GOP percentages, I find it hard to believe that Middlesex (1.45M), Norfolk (.65M), or Suffolk (.69M) has lower totals than Barnstable+Nantucket+Dukes (.24M).

          <

          p>I guess it all depends on how you break up the districts.  I have no idea how the GOP does it — senate district?  County?  County subdivided?

          <

          p>In terms of “GOP population density” or total GOPs, I’d think Boston would still have the most by city/town.  By county, it’s got to be Middlesex.  By state senate district?  No idear.

          • … based around cities, but you wouldn’t know that by looking at our electoral system.  Looks like the nomination system follows a similar, if not worse, trend

          • And again – it isn’t votes overall, it’s votes cast for the REPUBLICAN gubernatorial condidate.  1 delegate for every 300 votes cast for the GOP ticket.

            <

            p>Population isn’t a factor, just votes.

          • in the Cambridge Chronicle, in their column “The Right View.”

            <

            p>It’s really pathetic that even in as scientifically-oriented a city as Cambridge, the Republican leadership insists on denying science.

            • The comments section is full of racist, homophobic trolls also. Even in Cambridge you can’t find the traditional New England Republican anymore. They go off on Glenn Beck-like creeds against socialism, and criticize Cantabridgians as elitists or welfare-collecting gang members. So why do they live here?

          • The formula is # of votes cast for the Republican Gov. ticket.  And that may not mean actual registered  Republicans – it also takes in the Democrats and independents that VOTE Republican.  But they still need 22 to serve as delegates.  :~)

  3. There’s a significant percentage of ordinary citizens, not just Senators & lobbyists of the Republican party, who deny the reality of human-caused global warming.

    <

    p>Obviously these grassroots people are not getting the big cash from ExxonMobil the way Romney and Scott Brown and Charlie Baker are (and will)–but they’ve taken it as gospel that science is right about everything from chemotherapy to steel-belted radials to astronomy except for climate data.

    <

    p>This is going to be a problem.

    • Jim Traficant got 15% of the vote AFTER being expelled from Congress.  An equal number of people still believe in Trickle Down Economics.  Slightly fewer believe in UFOs, …

    • …that most of these grassroots would believe these things without prompting from the politicians and the lobbyists.

  4. The Charles Baker way: without being able to read his or anyone’s mind what are the chances that he is actually telling the truth about what he thinks?

    <

    p>Or is this just what happen when “I absolutely am not smart enough”?

Archives