With the exception of the scientifically sound comments of businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, the first 2024 Republican presidential primary debate made it painfully clear how most mainstream GOP politicians are failing the nation on climate change. Rather than simply telling the truth — there is no climate crisis, and efforts to solve this non-existent problem are seriously damaging the U.S. economy — they bobbed and weaved in a manner that would make Joe Frazer proud. They changed the subject. They attacked each other. They confuse climate with pollution and make meaningless statements such as “climate change is real” in an attempt to appease the debate moderators. They were useful idiots for the climate movement.

Let’s dissect what Ramaswamy said with respect to climate change and energy, so we have a gauge against which to judge the rest of the candidates.

He started with the sensible statement, “Yeah, this isn’t that complicated, guys. Unlock American energy, drill, frack, burn coal, embrace nuclear.”

Exactly. It really isn’t that complicated. America must develop its most dependable energy sources, and that certainly is not flimsy wind and solar power.

Following the moderators’ politically correct but misleading preamble (see text box at right), moderator Martha Maccallum concluded by asking: “Do you believe in human behavior is causing climate change? Raise your hand if you do.”

That is a meaningless question. Of course, human behavior causes climate change. Witness the urban heat island effect in large metropolitan areas as forests are replaced with parking lots and buildings. The question she should have asked is, “Do you believe humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions (which is ~80% of America’s greenhouse gas emissions) are causing a climate crisis?”

Ramaswamy began his response by echoing former President Donald Trump, saying, “…Climate change agenda is a hoax.… The climate change agenda is a hoax. The climate change agenda is a hoax.”

Yes, he said it three times in quick succession, and despite the horror of left-wing media and a mixed reaction from the audience, the ceiling did not collapse. In fact, according to a series of polls taken by the Washington Post/FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos, 26% of potential primary voters who watched the debate scored Ramaswamy the winner, behind only DeSantis. There was also an increase in the fraction of voters who said they would consider supporting Ramaswamy, 40% pre-debate rising to 46% following the debate, although those who said they would not consider voting for him increased by 5%. Not surprisingly, given his promise to pardon Trump if elected, Ramaswamy earned an affirmation on social media from the former president that he was the winner of the debate.

 

 

Ramaswamy continued in his response to Maccallum’s question:

“And the reality is the anti-carbon agenda is the wet blanket on our economy. And so the reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.”

Isn’t that refreshing? Yes, the climate change agenda is certainly a hoax, and the “anti-carbon agenda” is having serious detrimental effects on the economy. And, yes as well to the real cause of people dying. As Texas demonstrated during the February 2021 cold snap that left up to 700 people dead when wind and solar power failed, people do die due to bad climate policies.

In his concluding remarks, Ramaswamy hit the nail on the head by channeling philosopher and energy expert Alex Epstein (see here for my America Out Loud interview with Alex):

“Fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity.”

President Joe Biden then tweeted an inane jab at Ramaswamy: “Climate change is real, by the way.”

Well, Joe, so is gravity and sunrise. That doesn’t mean we cause them or that they are a problem.

Grade for Vivek Ramaswamy on climate change: Excellent, A+

(Biden on climate change: Fail, F)

No one else on stage even came close to Ramaswamy on this topic.

Aside from saying that he did not raise his hand in response to moderator Maccallum’s silly question, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis generally flopped on the issue. In his introductory remarks, he had said previously:

“And finally, we need to lower your gas prices. We’re going to open up all energy production. We will be energy-dominant again in this country. I showed it could be done in the state of Florida.”

That was good. But then DeSantis went completely off the rails in response to Maccallum’s query, lecturing the moderators about the inappropriateness of the question (“Look, we’re not school children…”) and as The UK’s The Guardian reported:

“Ron DeSantis immediately derailed efforts to elicit a clear yes or no response from candidates on whether they believe in human-caused climate change. He said, “Let’s have the debate,” before proceeding not to have the debate.”

DeSantis then shifted to mild useful idiot mode when he launched into an attack on President Joe Biden for his weak response to the fires in Mauli, thus implying that they were caused by man-made climate change, which of course, they were not.

Grade for Governor Ron DeSantis on climate change: Weak, C

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie used his time for responding to the question to simply attack Ramaswamy and said nothing about climate or energy. It was as if Christie sat for an exam and answered none of the test questions, therefore achieving a score of zero.

Grade for former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on climate change: F

Former US ambassador to the United Nations and Former South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley said a lot in response to the question, but little of it made sense. After the sexist remark, “I think this is exactly why Margaret Thatcher said if you want something said, “Ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman,” Haley promoted the mistaken notion that climate policy is about reducing pollution:

“First of all, we do care about clean air and clean water; we want to see that taken care of. But there’s a right way to do it. And the right way to do it is, first of all, yes, is climate change real? Yes, it is. But if you want to go and really change the environment, then we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions. That’s where our problem is.”

So, Haley jumbled up pollution abatement with climate change and then implied that reducing emissions (she did not define which emissions) was worthwhile and that China and India must do so.

Haley continued, “And these green subsidies that Biden has put in, all he’s done is help China because he doesn’t understand all these electric vehicles that he’s done; half of the batteries for electric vehicles are made in China. And so that’s not helping the environment. You’re putting money in China’s pocket, and Biden did that. So, first of all, I think we need to acknowledge the truth, which is these subsidies are not working. We also need to take on the international world and say, okay, India and China, you’ve got to stop polluting. And that’s when we’ll start to deal with climate.”

Good grief. She is essentially calling carbon dioxide pollution and implying that electric vehicles contribute to slowing climate change, a common tactic of climate activists and RINO politicians.

Bing AI defines “word salad” as: “a jumble of extremely incoherent speech or writing that has no apparent connection or meaning. It is sometimes observed as a symptom of a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia.”

Haley obviously does not suffer from a mental disorder, but her comments certainly fulfill the definition of the word salad gobbledygook. I expected better from America’s former ambassador to the UN, although perhaps that is where she learned to speak like this.

Grade for former US ambassador to the UN and former South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley on climate change: Fail, F

South Carolina Senator Tim Scott’s reply was interesting. It started well:

“…If we want the environment to be better, and we all do, the best thing to do is to bring our jobs home from China. If we create 10 million new jobs in my made-in-America plan, we will have a better economy and a better environment.”

Right on, Senator Scott. He should have stopped right there before he shot himself in the foot, which he then did as he shifted into useful idiot mode, boosting the idea that cutting our “carbon footprint” is a solution to climate change:

“Let me tell you why I say that, Brett. America has cut its carbon footprint in half in the last 25 years. The places where they are continuing to increase are Africa, 950 million people, India, over a billion; and China, over a billion. Why would we put ourselves at a disadvantage, devastating our own economy? Let’s bring our jobs home.”

Grade for Senator Tim Scott on climate change: mediocre, C+

North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum did not get an opportunity to respond to the climate change question. However, at other times in the debate, he made superb comments about the energy that I have highlighted in the text box to the right. If Burgum were so straightforward on climate change, then he could certainly challenge Ramaswamy’s grade on the topic.

Neither Former Vice President Mike Pence nor Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson had the opportunity to respond to the climate change question, although Hutchison was the only candidate who raised his hand in response to Maccallum’s silly question.

So, my grades for the candidates who responded to the climate change question are:

• Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy: A+
• Senator Tim Scott: C+
• Governor Ron DeSantis: C
• Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: F
• Former South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley: F

I expect that Trump would have tied Ramaswamy for first place on this topic.

We have too many useful idiots in the GOP attempting the impossible task of appeasing climate extremists by, either directly or indirectly, supporting the climate scare. It has done nothing but strengthen our enemies’ hands, weaken America, and reduce her security, while throwing hundreds of thousands of coal, oil, and natural gas workers out of work, leading to run-away energy prices and inflation. A Trump/Ramaswamy ticket would obviously be a climate realist’s dream. Let’s hope it happens!